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

[Allanea]

Sorry, thought I posted it:
http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/05/08/des ... ssia-0-05/

Ah, so that's where it's from. Not particularly relevant since a poll isn't a free or fair referendum.

Actually, it rather gives a suggestion as to whether the referendum portrayed the will of the people.

[Laerod]

Ah, so that's where it's from. Not particularly relevant since a poll isn't a free or fair referendum.

Actually, it rather gives a suggestion as to whether the referendum portrayed the will of the people.

So why did they have to mimic the Nazi referendum after the Anschluss?

[United Marxist Nations]

Sorry, thought I posted it:
http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/05/08/des ... ssia-0-05/

Ah, so that's where it's from. Not particularly relevant since a poll isn't a free or fair referendum.

It's relevant because it gives credibility to the referendum, which the vast majority of Crimeans thought was free and fair:
http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2014/05/ ... 8-2014.pdf
See page 10.

[United Marxist Nations]

Actually, it rather gives a suggestion as to whether the referendum portrayed the will of the people.

So why did they have to mimic the Nazi referendum after the Anschluss?

Because Kiev would have never agreed to hold a referendum.

[Laerod]

Ah, so that's where it's from. Not particularly relevant since a poll isn't a free or fair referendum.

It's relevant because it gives credibility to the referendum, which the vast majority of Crimeans thought was free and fair:
http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2014/05/ ... 8-2014.pdf
See page 10.

Really just a statement about Crimeans' inability to tell the difference.

So why did they have to mimic the Nazi referendum after the Anschluss?

Because Kiev would have never agreed to hold a referendum.

So that's why they did a sham referendum?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Ah, so that's where it's from. Not particularly relevant since a poll isn't a free or fair referendum.

It's relevant because it gives credibility to the referendum, which the vast majority of Crimeans thought was free and fair:
http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2014/05/ ... 8-2014.pdf
See page 10.

It doesn't give it credibility. In 1939 most German's would have said Hitler was a good guy, that doesn't mean he was a good guy. All page 10 of the pdf states is what some people thought of it.

[United Marxist Nations]

It's relevant because it gives credibility to the referendum, which the vast majority of Crimeans thought was free and fair:
http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2014/05/ ... 8-2014.pdf
See page 10.

Really just a statement about Crimeans' inability to tell the difference.

Because Kiev would have never agreed to hold a referendum.

So that's why they did a sham referendum?

We don't know if it was a sham; there is no way of knowing anything about the actual result.

[Tahar Joblis]

Well...
88% of Crimeans do not explicitly wish that contested regions must remain allied to Kiev.
Only 54% of Crimeans (still a majority) wish that secession be possible for contested regions. 34% said they "didn't know", or chose not to answer, I assume.

It's quite interesting and probably very important to note that "Western" Ukrainians reported 93% and 4% respectively for federalism versus the right to secede.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/05/08/des ... e-country/

But the same poll says that that 88% of Crimeans want the Crimean referendum recognized.

Which mostly goes to say that Crimeans polled (which may not even be a representative sample - polling has been very difficult in the wake of the Russian takeover) believe in democracy and for a lot of them, even if they personally don't want to join Russia, think that a majority of their neighbors do.

Which may or may not actually be the case, but Russian control of media and protesters has been pretty tight.

[Imperializt Russia]

Unless you made the same mistake as I did and only read the first page (of five), what was it, since I seem to have missed it also.

Seems so. Odd thing about that 88% coincidence.

It is coincidental, officially.

The 54+34% "secession should be possible or I don't know group" is derived from a question identified as "UKR10". The distinct 88% group "the results of the referendum should be recognised" derives from question "UKR9".
It's worth noting that UKR9 claims only 7% "don't know" and 4% against, while UKR10 claims, as already stated, a fairly whopping 34% "don't know".

It is a peculiar disconnect that 34% of respondents did not know if they felt regions should be allowed to secede or not yet only 12% did not know if the referendum should be recognised or disregarded outright.
In all fairness, not knowing if regions should be allowed to secede does not preclude believing that a referendum you believe to have been free and fair should be recognised.

[Laerod]

Really just a statement about Crimeans' inability to tell the difference.

So that's why they did a sham referendum?

We don't know if it was a sham; there is no way of knowing anything about the actual result.

We do know it's a sham, just like with the Nazi referendum. The methodology is virtually the same in both. Note that historians generally agree that the Nazi referendum's results aren't faked. The way the results were achieved is what makes it a sham.

[Tahar Joblis]

Really just a statement about Crimeans' inability to tell the difference.

So that's why they did a sham referendum?

We don't know if it was a sham; there is no way of knowing anything about the actual result.

If there is no way of knowing anything about the actual result, then it was a sham... see, with a legit election, you do have ways of knowing the actual results.

[United Marxist Nations]

We don't know if it was a sham; there is no way of knowing anything about the actual result.

If there is no way of knowing anything about the actual result, then it was a sham... see, with a legit election, you do have ways of knowing the actual results.

And what are those ways? How do we know that the actual result wasn't given? It is certainly quite possible.

[United Marxist Nations]

We don't know if it was a sham; there is no way of knowing anything about the actual result.

We do know it's a sham, just like with the Nazi referendum. The methodology is virtually the same in both. Note that historians generally agree that the Nazi referendum's results aren't faked. The way the results were achieved is what makes it a sham.

On the last part, we are in agreement.

[Laerod]

We do know it's a sham, just like with the Nazi referendum. The methodology is virtually the same in both. Note that historians generally agree that the Nazi referendum's results aren't faked. The way the results were achieved is what makes it a sham.

On the last part, we are in agreement.

If you wanna debate microevolution versus macroevolution, find a creationism thread.

[United Marxist Nations]

On the last part, we are in agreement.

If you wanna debate microevolution versus macroevolution, find a creationism thread.

What? I'm agreeing with you that the referendum was lacking in options, and therefore could be considered a sham.

[Gravlen]

Ah, so that's where it's from. Not particularly relevant since a poll isn't a free or fair referendum.

Actually, it rather gives a suggestion as to whether the referendum portrayed the will of the people.

It does, but that has to be viewed in the light of the deteriorating human rights situation in Crimea, including both the silencing of the free press in General and Ukrainian media in particular, as well as the torture and "disappearance" of - and murder of at least one - pro-ukrainian activists. We have seen that many Russians in Russia are afraid to state criticism of Putin and Russian authorities in opinion polls, and given the situation in Crimea I would expect the people being opposed to the Russian invasion to be less than eager to tell pollsters about things which could lead to harassment, arrests or worse.

You'll also have to keep in mind that expressing sparatist desires is unacceptable in Putin's Russia, and spreading separatist views is punishable by up to five years in jail.

[Laerod]

If you wanna debate microevolution versus macroevolution, find a creationism thread.

What? I'm agreeing with you that the referendum was lacking in options, and therefore could be considered a sham.

Yeah, it is kinda shitty that the Nazi referendum had more options.

[United Marxist Nations]

What? I'm agreeing with you that the referendum was lacking in options, and therefore could be considered a sham.

Yeah, it is kinda shitty that the Nazi referendum had more options.

Both had the same amount of options, 1936 referendum had "yes" and "no"; Crimean one had "Annexation into Russia" and "Restoration of the 1992 autonomy".

[Laerod]

Yeah, it is kinda shitty that the Nazi referendum had more options.

Both had the same amount of options, 1936 referendum had "yes" and "no"; Crimean one had "Annexation into Russia" and "Restoration of the 1992 autonomy".

That's two options for the Nazi referendum and one for the Crimean. The Crimean vote was essentially a "Heads I win, tails you lose", i.e. "Become part of Russia" and "cease to be part of Ukraine". No meaningful difference. There wasn't more than one option.

[United Marxist Nations]

Both had the same amount of options, 1936 referendum had "yes" and "no"; Crimean one had "Annexation into Russia" and "Restoration of the 1992 autonomy".

That's two options for the Nazi referendum and one for the Crimean. The Crimean vote was essentially a "Heads I win, tails you lose", i.e. "Become part of Russia" and "cease to be part of Ukraine". No meaningful difference. There wasn't more than one option.

In 1992 autonomy, it was still part of Ukraine, it just got to make its own decisions regarding a few things; that was done because the new government didn't want to renew Russia's lease on the Sevastopol Naval Base, which is unacceptable to Russia. Does that mean that Russia should have done it? No, but that's just how international relations work: countries act in accordance to their interests.

[Laerod]

That's two options for the Nazi referendum and one for the Crimean. The Crimean vote was essentially a "Heads I win, tails you lose", i.e. "Become part of Russia" and "cease to be part of Ukraine". No meaningful difference. There wasn't more than one option.

In 1992 autonomy, it was still part of Ukraine, it just got to make its own decisions regarding a few things; that was done because the new government didn't want to renew Russia's lease on the Sevastopol Naval Base, which is unacceptable to Russia. Does that mean that Russia should have done it? No, but that's just how international relations work: countries act in accordance to their interests.

The fuck?

[United Marxist Nations]

In 1992 autonomy, it was still part of Ukraine, it just got to make its own decisions regarding a few things; that was done because the new government didn't want to renew Russia's lease on the Sevastopol Naval Base, which is unacceptable to Russia. Does that mean that Russia should have done it? No, but that's just how international relations work: countries act in accordance to their interests.

The fuck?

Which part?

I'm assuming you mean the last part. Most of the provisional Ukrainian government (and most people in Western Ukraine) don't want the lease of the Sevastopol Naval Base to Russia to continue once the original agreement expires. Russia, finding control of the Black Sea to be vital to its national security, finds such an ultimatum to be unacceptable. Thus, Russia wanted to make sure that, whatever option was chosen in the referendum, they still get their basing rights, because autonomous Crimea (which would still be part of Ukraine) had the ability to make that decision under the 1992 Constitution. Countries do things like that all the time; yeah, they probably shouldn't, but it's fairly normal procedure.

[Laerod]

The fuck?

Which part?

I'm assuming you mean the last part. Most of the provisional Ukrainian government (and most people in Western Ukraine) don't want the lease of the Sevastopol Naval Base to Russia to continue once the original agreement expires. Russia, finding control of the Black Sea to be vital to its national security, finds such an ultimatum to be unacceptable. Thus, Russia wanted to make sure that, whatever option was chosen in the referendum, they still get their basing rights, because autonomous Crimea (which would still be part of Ukraine) had the ability to make that decision under the 1992 Constitution. Countries do things like that all the time; yeah, they probably shouldn't, but it's fairly normal procedure.

Normal? I repeat: The fuck?

[United Marxist Nations]

Which part?

I'm assuming you mean the last part. Most of the provisional Ukrainian government (and most people in Western Ukraine) don't want the lease of the Sevastopol Naval Base to Russia to continue once the original agreement expires. Russia, finding control of the Black Sea to be vital to its national security, finds such an ultimatum to be unacceptable. Thus, Russia wanted to make sure that, whatever option was chosen in the referendum, they still get their basing rights, because autonomous Crimea (which would still be part of Ukraine) had the ability to make that decision under the 1992 Constitution. Countries do things like that all the time; yeah, they probably shouldn't, but it's fairly normal procedure.

Normal? I repeat: The fuck?

Yeah, countries acting in violation of other countries' sovereignty in order to preserve the integrity of their own interests is fairly standard procedure in the international community.

[Laerod]

Normal? I repeat: The fuck?

Yeah, countries acting in violation of other countries' sovereignty in order to preserve the integrity of their own interests is fairly standard procedure in the international community.

Not really. And certainly not to the extent that Russia has. Not that getting laden with sanctions truly is in national interest.