Good thing we agree on the bolded. :thumbsup: Unfortunately, the US and the West does not. They did not demand an impartial referendum. They demanded no referendum in Crimea because Ukraine didn't agree to it.
Good day to you sir.
And new Ukrainian prime minister is appointed by 371/450 votes in Congress controlled by opposing party. Sounds legit!
-snip-
Refusal to participate in a rigged system does not validate the actions of the rigged system.Good thing we agree on the bolded. :thumbsup: Unfortunately, the US and the West does not. They did not demand an impartial referendum. They demanded no referendum in Crimea because Ukraine didn't agree to it.
Good day to you sir.
Russia fought two bloody wars to keep Chechnya. Ukraine didn't lift a finger to defend its claim over the Crimea, because they knew the local population was against them. Isn't national defense the number one job of a central government? If they let Crimea go to what they call "foreign occupation" without putting up a fight, what claim do they have to it? Ukraine didn't fight over Crimea, but not only that, there isn't even a significant underground resistance that you would expect if Russians weren't welcome there. Quite the opposite, half the Ukraine's military based in Crimea simply joined Russian military.
They said they won't recognize it because Ukraine didn't agree to the referendum, not because Russian troops were there. Read it again.
I think it's looking more-and-more like Putin wants, and is going to take, (Eastern) Ukraine.
While senseamp's arguments regarding the economics are logical I cannot agree with them. The whole economic argue seems to me to fail if only because Putin was quite happy to subsidize Ukraine back when it had a Russian puppet in charge.
I think the minimum Putin will accept is a federalized Ukraine, otherwise I think he really prefers to have it led (again) by a Russian puppet. After all, that is how the old USSR was set up and he wants to reconstitute that.
Fern
first off what you answered has nothing to do with what i said
you are also a fucking chickenshit hypocrite
and also 40% of the population of the crimean peninsula is not russian
taht is barely a majority of russians
that also does not take into account how many russians would vote to join a theocratic dictatorship
I guess I am not as obsessed with ethnicity as you are.
It's much more of a historical and cultural split than an ethnic one.
BTW, I am all for a new referendum with independent observers and Russian troops back in the barracks, as long as all sides agree to live with the results. Ukraine is against it though.
I guess I am not as obsessed with ethnicity as you are. It's much more of a historical and cultural split than an ethnic one. BTW, I am all for a new referendum with independent observers and Russian troops back in the barracks, as long as all sides agree to live with the results. Ukraine is against it though.
One interesting phenomenon I've noticed is how the far-right likes to side with Russia. They admire Russia and Putin for being very conservative in their values.
given that the crimean tataras are more or less 100% opposed to russian annexation i disagree
yes!Hell, for that matter do you support Cliven Bundy holding a referendum on having his house secede from the US?
yes!
borders are not a cultural limit, like it was a loooong time ago!
and most of the wars happen because of it
reflexive question.....if Texas manages to became independent, it would really change ANYTHING in your life?
reflexive question.....if Texas manages to became independent, it would really change ANYTHING in your life?
Yes. Texas gave up its independence because it knew it couldn't survive alone economically. To give it another go they'd probably substantially raise prices of the gasoline coming out of their refineries, just as a "for instance." They could tariff cargo transporting from Central America to the U.S.
Yes, that's the exception to the rule. You can tell a Tatar from a Russian or a Ukrainian, but you can't really tell a Ukrainian from a Russian from just ethnic differences, because there aren't any. So if both are raised in same culture and speaking same language, you can't assume they will see things differently because of their ethnicity. Crimean Tatars are culturally and religiously separate, so there is much more correlation between ethnicity and politics there.
Isn't that how prime Ministers are typically appointed/chosen? (I mean appointed/chosen by the members of parliament.)
Fern
do you really think that most ukrainians in the crimean peninsula want the russians to annex the crimean peninsula
From polls I've seen, including those from pro-Western Ukrainian channels that I posted, the support is around 75-80%, which is far in excess of the 60% self identified ethnic Russian population from the census, and much closer to the the 77% who are Russian speakers. Which leads me to believe that the split is along cultural and linguistic, not ethnic lines.
From polls I've seen, including those from pro-Western Ukrainian channels that I posted, the support is around 75-80%, which is far in excess of the 60% self identified ethnic Russian population from the census, and much closer to the the 77% who are Russian speakers. Which leads me to believe that the split is along cultural and linguistic, not ethnic lines.
and what about my earlier question about the cacausus conflicts and your opinion
The disintegration, or parcelling of the polity of Kievan Rus' in the 11th century resulted in considerable population shifts and a political, social, and economic regrouping. The resultant effect of these forces coalescing was the marked emergence of new peoples.[29] While these processes began long before the fall of Kiev, its fall expedited these gradual developments into a significant linguistic and ethnic differentiation among the Rus' people into Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Russians.[29][30] All of this was emphasized by the subsequent polities these groups migrated into: southwestern and western Rus', where the Ruthenian and later Ukrainian and Belarusian identities developed, was subject to Lithuanian and later Polish influence;[25] whereas the (Great) Russian ethnic identity that developed in the Muscovite northeast and the Novgorodian north remained distant, was defined by a more primitive style of life in a wilderness shared by Finnic-speaking tribes,[nb 1] and ultimately isolated from its Ruthene relatives.[29] 'The two states (Galicia-Volhynia and Vladimir-Suzdal) differed in their relationship with other powers, entered into alliances with different partners, belonged to different civilizational and commercial communities, and were in more intimate contact with their neighbouring states and societies than with each other.'[33]
Muscovite princes considered themselves to be rightful heirs of the "Kievan inheritance," and associated their survival with fulfilling the historical destiny of reunifying the lands of Rus'.[34] This ideology was ostensibly seen in their given titles (grand princes and tsars) which defined themselves as rulers of "all Rus'."[25] In 1328 Ivan I of Moscow persuaded Theognost, the Metropolitanate of Kiev, to settle in Moscow; from which point forward the title changed to "of Kiev and [all Rus']" a title which was retained until the mid-fifteenth century.[35] Later, in 1341 Simeon of Moscow was appointed Grand Prince "of all Russia" by the Khan of the Mongol Golden Horde.[35] Ivan III, grand prince of Moscow, considered himself heir to all former Kievan lands and in 1493 he assumed the title of gosudar, or "Sovereign of All Russia."[36] This trend continued to evolve and by mid 17th century transformed into "Tsar of All Great, Little, and White Rus," and with Peter I's creation of a Russian Empire, "Little Russian" came be a demonym for all inhabitants of Ukraine under imperial rule.[25]
While the political reintegration of the Rus' can be seen in the politics of Russia's tsardom, the Kievan Synopsis, written in the 16th century by the Prussian-born archimandrite of the Kiev Caves monastery Innocent Gizel, contains description of the ancient unity between the "Russian peoples". This is seen[by whom?] as the earliest historical record of a common Rus' ethnic identity.[37][source needs translation] Meanwhile, in the late 16th century, use of the word 'Ukraine' was used extensively to describe Poland's "borderland" region, local Ruthenian (Rus') inhabitants adopted the identity of Ukrainian to "distinguish their nationality from the Polish"[4]