Ukraine Megathread: Crimea River Build a Bridge, Get Over It

[Dragomerian Islands]

Just about anyone proficient in photoshop can make a fake screenshot.

Also, do you rally think that a government would publish one result and then make another different result available for such people to post online?

I think the point is that the bad-looking result was published by mistake and hurriedly withdrawn, though not before someone at Forbes found it. Forbes is a fairly prestigious organization, why would they bother faking such a thing, considering the damage it could do to their reputation if it were discovered?

My problem with it is that there would be some form of digital fingerprint of the original article, besides a single screenshot. Screenshots are easy to fake if you are proficient on Photoshop. It should have been cached or archived by another site or entity during the time that it was up. Also, considering the controversy involving Russia, and a publisher's desire for a good story, I really would not put it pass someone to fake an article.

[Lyttenburg]

Hey, lingustics-expert - can you differentiate a Kharkiv native from the Belgorod region native when they speak Russian? I've trouble - and I was in Kharkiv, and served together with guys from Belgorod.

So your argument is that you can't differentiate between "polite green men" and "self defense forces"?

You, and a bunch of westernner experts, obviously can't, that's why you accuse Russia of everything.

I, OTOH, can differentiate "Polite Green Men" from the local Crimean self defense-units, while West and the Westerns either can't, or just don't care prefering to lump them together.

[Laerod]

Would you actually listen if I told you? Would you genuinely change your mind if I pointed out to you what exactly was wrong with the referendum?

I'm willing to educate people on this but so far I'm underwhelmed by the willingness to learn. So don't see this as a dodge. See this as me genuinely asking if you're intellectually honest enough to handle a criticism of the referendum because for the past couple hours I have been debating someone that clearly is not.

There's that stupid historical tu quoque fallacy again.

There are obviously things wrong with the referendum, but that doesn't automatically mean it was undemocratic; given the stated turnout, boycotts, and public opinion, the result given is quite likely.

Okay, so you're not interested. Don't blame me for trying.

How is it tu quoque? I'm saying that just because a state is sovereign doesn't mean it has the right to not allow populations to leave by referendum. If most of the people in a part of a country want independence or to become part of another country, let them.

"Illegal things happening before makes them legal" is the fallacy. Past unjustified events don't typically justify future events, especially not if the rules have changed as they did in the 1940s.

[Laerod]

Kiev agreeing to it. Kiev did not approve of a referendum. Have the Ukrainian government agree to a referendum, have a proper debate/time period for campaigning, allow neutral outside watchdogs to ensure both sides keep shenanigans to a minimum. After that, the results will be the results.

You do not need government approval for a referendum.

What definition of referendum are you going by? I'm asking because the typical definition of a referendum is a question by the government to the electorate. As such it by definition requires government initiation, not just approval.

[Laerod]

So your argument is that you can't differentiate between "polite green men" and "self defense forces"?

You, and a bunch of westernner experts, obviously can't, that's why you accuse Russia of everything.

I, OTOH, can differentiate "Polite Green Men" from the local Crimean self defense-units, while West and the Westerns either can't, or just don't care prefering to lump them together.

But you have trouble differentiating their accents.

[Lyttenburg]

You, and a bunch of westernner experts, obviously can't, that's why you accuse Russia of everything.

I, OTOH, can differentiate "Polite Green Men" from the local Crimean self defense-units, while West and the Westerns either can't, or just don't care prefering to lump them together.

But you have trouble differentiating their accents.

How many reginal accents the USA has? And the Great Britaian? France? Italy? Germany?

the same is true with Russia and the Ukraine. Belgorodians and citizens of the Eastern Ukraine are nearly indestinguishable (and this is the only thing I admit) when they speak Russia. Are you tellig me now, that all Russians speak like Belgorodians, and all Ukrainians speak like Crimeans?

Westerners, as I've said previously, "either can't, or just don't care prefering to lump them together".

[Laerod]

But you have trouble differentiating their accents.

How many reginal accents the USA has? And the Great Britaian? France? Italy? Germany?

the same is true with Russia and the Ukraine. Belgorodians and citizens of the Eastern Ukraine are nearly indestinguishable (and this is the only thing I admit) when they speak Russia. Are you tellig me now, that all Russians speak like Belgorodians, and all Ukrainians speak like Crimeans?

Westerners, as I've said previously, "either can't, or just don't care prefering to lump them together".

The way you've twisted and turned this argument is amazing. Now that you've always been at war with Eurasia Russian troops have always been illegally occupying Crimea with their insignia removed, you pretend they're different from "Self Defense Forces". Back when they were pretending the masked men in unmarked uniforms weren't Russian soldiers, Putin et. al. claimed that they were only "Self Defense Forces", playing on the fact that you couldn't really tell them apart. Not being able to tell them apart was the whole point of masking them and removing their insignia.

[Dr Freud]

I also find it funny how the most pro-West countries of Ukraine and Georgia are in the few SSRs that couldn't beat their Soviet productivity.

Ukraine:

(Image)

Moldova:

(Image)

Belarus:

(Image)

Russia:

(Image)

Speaking of the Caucasian States:

Georgia:

(Image)

Armenia:

(Image)

Azerbaijan:

(Image)

3/3 countries have governments that are hailed by the West, and they all fail economically.

4/4 countries have governments that are not hailed by the West, and they all beat out their Soviet performance.

Must be a coincidence with an 100% correlation rate

It only correlates if we accept your distinction of ‘hailed by the West’ which I most assuredly do not. You are comparing economic performance over a period of 20+ years during which not one of the seven countries you list can be consistently described as being ‘hailed by the west’. During that period of time every single country with the possible exception of Belarus has been alternately criticised and praised by Western governments, NGOs and business interests. What possible criteria are you using to make this distinction?

Ukraine – the Kuchma government running the country from the mid-90s was criticised from the West for corruption, human rights abuses and undemocratic tendencies. The EU acknowledged Ukraine’s aspirations for EU membership at the time but regarded it as nowhere near ready for an association agreement. Various Western governments supported the Orange revolution and its resistance to the electoral fraud that was occurring at the time but there was no particular closeness from the West during Yuschenko’s presidency and he was criticised by the EU for making Stepan Bandera a Hero of Ukraine. The elections in 2010 were praised and the EU was willing to agree and association agreement last year but was critical of the violence employed by Yanukovych against the Euromaidan protestors. The West’s response to Crimea and the Donbass is driven not by any particular fondness for Ukraine or its present government given it receives little praise and is frequently criticised by NGOs for various actions committed.

Moldova – successive governments have generally been criticised as undemocratic and abusive by the West. The EU has reached agreements on customs and law enforcement as well as providing some financial aid although this all seems to be driven by a desire to improve border security and stability on the EU’s frontier, the West has hardly been notable in any praise for Moldova.

Georgia – not exactly hailed by the West throughout the 1990s and understandably the electoral fraud in 2004 was criticised. Saakashvili was supported by many in the West for a short period of time (just as Putin was at one stage) for his apparent commitment to democracy and improving stability but lost favour as this was replaced by authoritarianism. The West’s support during the war with Russia was mixed at best for a country they are supposed to hail.

So of the three countries you designate as being “hailed by the West”, the only examples of this I can think of were the short periods in Ukraine and Georgia where attempts to fight electoral fraud were rightly supported by the West before both leaders were generally dismissed by the West as incompetent and authoritarian respectively, and the attempt to forge an association agreement with Ukraine last year – brief periods of their history as independent countries. I can’t think of any reason why Moldova is in this category. And the countries that aren’t hailed by the West?

Armenia – has good relations with both the US and EU, the latter of which was happy to negotiate an association agreement which was broken off last year by Armenia rather than the EU. It took part in KFOR and the war in Afghanistan. Elections since the mid-90s have been criticised as undemocratic but the 2008 presidential election was commended as a marked improvement by the OSCE and EU observers, but then the EU criticised the state of emergency implemented following the protests that occurred in the election aftermath.

Azerbaijan – Rightfully criticised for massive corruption and authoritarianism but also maintains a good relationship with Western energy companies and puts a lot of effort into schmoozing EU officials in not exactly above board ways which perhaps unfortunately also seems to work. Extremely close to Turkey which could be considered the West depending on definitions. Has worked with NATO in Afghanistan and Iraq and is a potential NATO candidate.

So despite maintaining relations with the West that are certainly comparable to Ukraine and Georgia and perhaps even better than Moldova, these two countries are not hailed by the West but the other three are? I think the simple fact here is that none of these countries are actually particularly close to the West and certainly none have maintained good relations for any significant period over which you have compared their economic performance. To suggest that Ukraine or Georgia’s few years of improved relations with the West is in any way linked with poor economic performance (ignoring all the years of worse foreign relations) and that Armenia and Azerbaijan’s relative strong economic performance is connected with the fact that they haven’t been praised by the West (ignoring the fact that they have enjoyed similar brief periods of closeness that Ukraine and Georgia do) or that Moldova has in any way been well regarded by the West is all a bit of a stretch – as clear a case of trying to fit the facts to support the theory (and ignoring any facts that don’t fit it) as I have ever seen, rather than building a theory to fit all the facts.

[Tahar Joblis]

If by correcting my history, you mean inserting your historical revisionism... or trying to run faux comparisons that were never designed to work, something that you excel at doing in this post, where you do the equivalent of comparing Mongolia to Germany...

The case of Mongolia as a former Soviet satellite is unique for several reasons, not the least of which include its function as a buffer state between the USSR and China and the date of its assimilation into the Soviet bloc (similar to the SSRs without being directly part of the USSR).

(Mongolia is a state that has embraced Western ties more than Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan, and has done better in the post-Soviet era... of course.)

Former Central Asian SSRs: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzberkistan. This group should be blatantly obvious, especially since all of those were initially known as SSRs, and later became Stans, upon independence.

And among that group, the three that have cleaved to Russia most strongly over the west have done worst. The one that has taken steps to engage with both NATO and Russia (Kazakhstan) has done the best, and the remaining one has loudly declared neutrality in all things.

I was doing what's known as comparative analysis

You were doing what's known as being highly selective.

which is actually why I listed the former Caucasian SSRs separately from the former European SSRs, since a country's development also depends on its region.

Of the three Caucasian SSRs, there's one with CSTO membership and two with an IPAP with NATO. The one with CSTO membership (Armenia) has the lowest HDI of the three; and many of the difficulties faced by Georgia have to do with the way that Russia keeps stirring up problems in the Caucasus on both sides of Georgia's border with Russia.

For instance, it takes a lot more troops per square mile to protect the US-Mexico border, than it does to protect the US-Canada border. This is because different regions are actually different. It's why we don't compare Belgium's economic development to Djibouti; we compare it to the Netherlands. Anyways:

Former Caucasians SSRs: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia.
Former Eastern European SSRs: Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova.
The Baltics: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania.

I already explained why I didn't compare the Baltics to Ukraine in my response to Ainin.

Very badly.

Latvia and Lithuania are in many ways more closely tied to Poland and Belarus than to Estonia. The Baltic and Slavic languages are much closer akin to one another than to Estonian. A significant portion of Estonia never belonged to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Belarus, Poland, Ukraine, Latvia, and Lithuania were, before becoming part of the Russian Empire, all part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Belarus and Lithuania were, for a certain period of the Russian Civil War, both part of the same SSR. The division between the Baltic SSRs and the Eastern European SSRs is along a fairly arbitrary line... except to the degree that all three Baltic SSRs were more strongly minded to firmly cut ties with Russia than the three Eastern European SSRs.

For that matter, Poland, as a Slavic state, has a great deal in common with Belarus and Ukraine. Moldova is very closely related to both Romania and Ukraine culturally - both of which have gotten a lot better acceptance out of the West and seen more progress.

Yes, you see, Boris the Drunkard Yeltsin was actually a super-secret quadruple agent, who deliberately sabotaged Moldova.

You can mock, or you can admit that known Russian agents were neck-deep in the Transnistrian independence movement, and that following the Rose Revolution, Russia started doing everything it could to prop up separatist movements within Georgia.

And they also have the highest population declines.

Did you know that lower birth rates are tied to higher levels of development?

I did.

Also: I already explained why I didn't compare the Baltics to Ukraine in my response to Ainin.

Mostly because they're highly inconvenient for your thesis. (Along with the former Eastern European satellites.)

When you're comparing Belarus to Ukraine and Moldova and ignoring all the other former SSRs and satellite states you could and should be paying attention to - Lithuania, Poland, Romania, etc - along the way, you're making an exceptionally weak argument.

You do realize that you just attempted to compare Central Asian countries, some of which border Afghanistan to European countries.

I didn't attempt to compare Central Asian countries. I did compare Central Asian countries... both within and across the category.

Do you know what Kazakhstan is? It's a central Asian country. It also has an IPAP with NATO (unlike the other Central Asian former SSRs), is a full signatory to the OSCE's agreements (unlike Tajikistan and Turkmenistan), and in general has closer ties to the west than the other Central Asian former SSRs.

The simple fact of the matter is that closer Russian ties are at best significantly insignificant in relation to economic health... and at worst noticeably negative... meaning that you were very wrong.

[Imperial Nilfgaard]

There is a ceasefire now in Donbass.
Ukraine has given up trying to take back Novorossiya. This is good news as now they can focus on statebuilding and fortifying so that Kiev will never try and attack again.

A few weeks in August it seemed the light of rebellion might be snuffed out, but then Putin's cavalry came to the rescue. The ride is over, and an acceptable status quo has been set up.

They didn't manage to liberate Mariupol, unfortunately.

[Lyttenburg]

The way you've twisted and turned this argument is amazing. Now that you've always been at war with Eurasia Russian troops have always been illegally occupying Crimea with their insignia removed, you pretend they're different from "Self Defense Forces". Back when they were pretending the masked men in unmarked uniforms weren't Russian soldiers, Putin et. al. claimed that they were only "Self Defense Forces", playing on the fact that you couldn't really tell them apart. Not being able to tell them apart was the whole point of masking them and removing their insignia.

You know, the fact that Westerners are incapable of differentiating "Polite Men in Green" from the genuine Crimean Self-Defense both confirms my previous stance of the West not knowing/not caring to differentiate between the two.

Also, about Russian troops presence in Crimea - ever heard about the military base in Sevastopol? So, claiming that all Russian troops present in Crimea were doing so illegaly is just a lie.

[Laerod]

The way you've twisted and turned this argument is amazing. Now that you've always been at war with Eurasia Russian troops have always been illegally occupying Crimea with their insignia removed, you pretend they're different from "Self Defense Forces". Back when they were pretending the masked men in unmarked uniforms weren't Russian soldiers, Putin et. al. claimed that they were only "Self Defense Forces", playing on the fact that you couldn't really tell them apart. Not being able to tell them apart was the whole point of masking them and removing their insignia.

You know, the fact that Westerners are incapable of differentiating "Polite Men in Green" from the genuine Crimean Self-Defense both confirms my previous stance of the West not knowing/not caring to differentiate between the two.

I'm not even going to bother with this bullshit anymore

Also, about Russian troops presence in Crimea - ever heard about the military base in Sevastopol? So, claiming that all Russian troops present in Crimea were doing so illegaly is just a lie.

"Occupying". Easy to miss, but really important word there.

[Imperial Nilfgaard]

You know, the fact that Westerners are incapable of differentiating "Polite Men in Green" from the genuine Crimean Self-Defense both confirms my previous stance of the West not knowing/not caring to differentiate between the two.

I'm not even going to bother with this bullshit anymore

Also, about Russian troops presence in Crimea - ever heard about the military base in Sevastopol? So, claiming that all Russian troops present in Crimea were doing so illegaly is just a lie.

"Occupying". Easy to miss, but really important word there.

"Occupy" implies maintaining military control against the will of the population. Crimea wanted Russia, Russia wanted Crimea. The protestations of Banderovists and Nulandists are irrelevant to the equation.

[Laerod]

I'm not even going to bother with this bullshit anymore

"Occupying". Easy to miss, but really important word there.

"Occupy" implies maintaining military control against the will of the population. Crimea wanted Russia, Russia wanted Crimea. The protestations of Banderovists and Nulandists are irrelevant to the equation.

Where'd you get that nonsensical definition from?

[Kelinfort]

If only Putin weren't as conservative. I kinda like the guy. Sort of.

[Imperial Nilfgaard]

"Occupy" implies maintaining military control against the will of the population. Crimea wanted Russia, Russia wanted Crimea. The protestations of Banderovists and Nulandists are irrelevant to the equation.

Where'd you get that nonsensical definition from?

Common Sense. It's not an occupying force if the locals want it there.

[Laerod]

Where'd you get that nonsensical definition from?

Common Sense. It's not an occupying force if the locals want it there.

Try a dictionary?

[Lexicor]

Common Sense. It's not an occupying force if the locals want it there.

Try a dictionary?

Russia had a legal basis for having a maximum of 25,000 troops on the Crimean Peninsula due to its lease agreement of Sevastopol. At no point in the "occupation" did Russian/Green Men forces exceed the maximum capacity of that agreement. Additionally the occupation had the support of the majority of the population with the exception of Banderovists, Nulandists [Payed by State Dept. of US] and Crimean Tatars. Accounting for their boycotts of the vote you still end up with a majority.

Crimean Tatars- 15% of Population
Banderovists - ~2-3% of Population
Nulandists- [Unknown].

If it is an occupation then it should not have the support of the majority of the population.

[Laerod]

Try a dictionary?

Russia had a legal basis for having a maximum of 25,000 troops on the Crimean Peninsula due to its lease agreement of Sevastopol. At no point in the "occupation" did Russian/Green Men forces exceed the maximum capacity of that agreement. Additionally the occupation had the support of the majority of the population with the exception of Banderovists, Nulandists [Payed by State Dept. of US] and Crimean Tatars. Accounting for their boycotts of the vote you still end up with a majority.

Crimean Tatars- 15% of Population
Banderovists - ~2-3% of Population
Nulandists- [Unknown].

If it is an occupation then it should not have the support of the majority of the population.

occupation
noun
...
6. the seizure and control of an area by military forces, especially foreign territory.
...

Acceptance by the the population has been neither proven nor would it be relevant. Even had the Russians invaded with the amount of troops they're limited to by the agreement, the agreement still prohibits them from invading.

[United Marxist Nations]

There are obviously things wrong with the referendum, but that doesn't automatically mean it was undemocratic; given the stated turnout, boycotts, and public opinion, the result given is quite likely.

Okay, so you're not interested. Don't blame me for trying.

How is it tu quoque? I'm saying that just because a state is sovereign doesn't mean it has the right to not allow populations to leave by referendum. If most of the people in a part of a country want independence or to become part of another country, let them.

"Illegal things happening before makes them legal" is the fallacy. Past unjustified events don't typically justify future events, especially not if the rules have changed as they did in the 1940s.

So the central government can just tell democracy to fuck off, got it.

Legality is not an end all.

[Laerod]

Okay, so you're not interested. Don't blame me for trying.

"Illegal things happening before makes them legal" is the fallacy. Past unjustified events don't typically justify future events, especially not if the rules have changed as they did in the 1940s.

So the central government can just tell democracy to fuck off, got it.

Well, at least you're willing to admit that about Putin.

Legality is not an end all.

Quite right. It's a basic necessity.

[United Marxist Nations]

Russia had a legal basis for having a maximum of 25,000 troops on the Crimean Peninsula due to its lease agreement of Sevastopol. At no point in the "occupation" did Russian/Green Men forces exceed the maximum capacity of that agreement. Additionally the occupation had the support of the majority of the population with the exception of Banderovists, Nulandists [Payed by State Dept. of US] and Crimean Tatars. Accounting for their boycotts of the vote you still end up with a majority.

Crimean Tatars- 15% of Population
Banderovists - ~2-3% of Population
Nulandists- [Unknown].

If it is an occupation then it should not have the support of the majority of the population.

occupation
noun
...
6. the seizure and control of an area by military forces, especially foreign territory.
...

Acceptance by the the population has been neither proven nor would it be relevant. Even had the Russians invaded with the amount of troops they're limited to by the agreement, the agreement still prohibits them from invading.

Pew Research, a US firm, reports that 88% in Crimea want Kiev to accept the referendum's results.

[United Marxist Nations]

So the central government can just tell democracy to fuck off, got it.

Well, at least you're willing to admit that about Putin.

Legality is not an end all.

Quite right. It's a basic necessity.

No, it isn't, the desires of the majority are what matter; popular sovereignty or none at all.

[Laerod]

Pew Research, a US firm, reports that 88% in Crimea want Kiev to accept the referendum's results.

I will not buy this record, it is scratched.

[Laerod]

Well, at least you're willing to admit that about Putin.

Quite right. It's a basic necessity.

No, it isn't, the desires of the majority are what matter; popular sovereignty or none at all.

You've chosen none at all, though.