Situation in Ukraine

[Rollo]

Because, as already previously discussed, this has been Russian land for two centuries, populated by Russians, and home to Russian Black Sea military base? Why fair now? When you divorce with someone, then it's a good time to start splitting up the property.

And if you don't get what you like, then it's okay 22 years later to break into their house and steal?

Ukraine just said to Russia, we don't want to have anything with you, so what did you expect Russians to do? Wait until Ukraine becomes NATO members and wait for decades until Crimea is transferred to Russia by "legal means", which of course then could never happen?

What did we expect Russia to do? Um... not invade a another country?

[zako85]

Airshifter, once again, please answer me what is the basis for your fear mongering claim of the upcoming ethnic cleansing in Crimea as you have not backed that claim in any of your posts. Yes, the people at the end of the shotgun barrel, as you say, are the Ukrainian military personnel, and the shotgun is there not because Russians want to cleanse the Crimea of Ukrainians but because Ukrainian military may oppose Russians. So there is a HUGE difference between this and a prelude for "ethnic cleansing". Ethnic cleansing is when a group of people goes out and kills or displaces ALL _locals_ that belong to a different group. Is this something I have to spell out for you? Do you also know that there are thousands of ethnic Ukrainians who are living in Crimea without shotguns pointing at them and also that among the ranks of Ukrainian military personnel there are many ethnic Russians, so Russian guns are pointing at them as well? The Ukrainians have also received offers to defect to the Russian military, which isn't consistent with your claims as normally in such cases you don't make the other side offers to become part of your army.

Firstly I'd suggest you look further into accepted definitions of ethnic cleansing, and at the same time adjust your attitude of superior intelligence. Per the UN basic definition, ethnic cleansing is ""rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group." It does not imply or require killing or removing all such people, it includes assimilating them into another cultural group.

Wow, nice dodge and redefinition. Suddenly assimilation becomes ethnic cleansing. Is that what you meant? Good one! I think I have made my point by now, as you completely utterly failed to back your absurd claims. Please stop making people laugh. Let's just equate assimilation with Holocaust, shall we? After all, according to your flawed logic, assimilation is just one step away from Holocaust or the ethnic massacres in the Balkans in the 1990s. What a ridiculous analogy you're trying to make here to make the current events in Crimea to fit under "ethnic cleansing". Such great information warfare trick. Senator McCain would have made you a staff member in his office. And if you think assimilation is the same as "ethnic cleansing" why not just use the former word? Oh wait, it doesn't sound as "dramatic", I get it.

And where did you get the ideas that Russians have the intention of assimilating the minorities in Crimea? Since when switching sides in the militarizes is about assimilation? One again NO ONE IS FORCING THE MINORITIES OF CRIMEA TO ASSIMILATE. They can stay and live normally as usual. However, the military of Ukraine, which in view of Crimea's government, is soon to be a military of a foreign country is not welcome in Crimea. The Ukrainian military personnel, many of whom do not have even permanent homes in Crimea, can go back to Ukraine. The ones to live in Crimea can stay and go to their homes, but not in the capacity of Ukrainian Army or Navi. Please do not equate that with ethnic cleansing. This is just stupid.

And, have you heard that Crimean parliament has just made a move to guarantee broader rights to the Crimean Tatar minority of Crimea? Such broader rights will include teaching Tatar language in schools and reserving a number of seats to Tatars in the Crimean parliament. Is this consistent with assimilation of minorities to you? I don't know about the situation with the rights of the Ukrainian minority of Crimea, but it is the Tatars who were the most opposed to the annexation of Crimea by Russia. They were immediately provided guarantees to having a degree a political empowerment and cultural preservation. This doesn't sound like an assimilation to me, or much less like "ethnic cleansing".

While it seems you are carrying an attitude that nobody else can possibly understand these things, you are in fact overlooking gross and obvious violations of human rights, international laws, and the freedoms of choice that should be given to the people in Crimea.

I am not overlooking those. Yes, those issues may exist. I posted my first reply to you about your claim of "ethnic cleansing", the claim you haven't backed.

I have above given a clear example of the ethnic cleansing already taking place, and by what means.

LOL. Just LOL.

[zako85]

Because, as already previously discussed, this has been Russian land for two centuries, populated by Russians, and home to Russian Black Sea military base? Why fair now? When you divorce with someone, then it's a good time to start splitting up the property. Ukraine just said to Russia, we don't want to have anything with you, so what did you expect Russians to do? Wait until Ukraine becomes NATO members and wait for decades until Crimea is transferred to Russia by "legal means", which of course then could never happen?

I completely agree with you zako, well put.

I for one have always thought that Hitler was long unfairly criticised for his moves to reintegrate the Sudetenland and Western Poland, areas with hundreds of years of German history, culture and heritage, back into Germany. Also I don't think there was any better time to ensure that the ethnic Germans living in Soviet territory would have their rights protected and be freed from Russian persecution than July 1941 when the USSR was weakest.

Armed invasion and annexation is indeed the only proper way to sort out injustices like this. International diplomacy and 'legal means' are indeed tools for the weak and to be looked down upon.

Sure, the Russian intervention in Crimea is controversial. But, I would like to wait and see before equating Putin with Hitler. After all, Hitler didn't stop with annexing the land populated by ethnic Germans in Czechoslovakia, but also proceeded to attack and annex the rest of Czechoslovakia, Poland, and USSR, and then he proceeded to gas the Jews and other "undesirables". So the analogy equating Putin with Hitler so far is quite false.

And yes, oftentimes I am on the side of the separatist governments who have gained independence, if not de facto, then at least de jure. For example:

South Ossetia
Karabakh
Abkhazia
East Timor
Eritrea
South Sudan

A lot of these had genuine ethnic grievances against the government in the capitals, and yet most of them probably would never have gained even cultural autonomy, much less independence, without armed struggle even though armed resistance could have been against the law, local or international.

[Starter]

The Ukrainian military personnel, many of whom do not have even permanent homes in Crimea, can go back to Ukraine. The ones to live in Crimea can stay and go to their homes, but not in the capacity of Ukrainian Army or Navi. Please do not equate that with ethnic cleansing. This is just stupid.

That has to be one of the most foolish arguments in this thread. How many members of the military of ANY COUNTRY have permanent homes in the places where they are stationed?

And, have you heard that Crimean parliament has just made a move to guarantee broader rights to the Crimean Tatar minority of Crimea? Such broader rights will include teaching Tatar language in schools and reserving a number of seats to Tatars in the Crimean parliament. Is this consistent with assimilation of minorities to you? I don't know about the situation with the rights of the Ukrainian minority of Crimea, but it is the Tatars who were the most opposed to the annexation of Crimea by Russia. They were immediately provided guarantees to having a degree a political empowerment and cultural preservation. This doesn't sound like an assimilation to me, or much less like "ethnic cleansing".

By your argument, even though Crimea has no land border with Russia, because a majority of the people there are ethnic Russian it was OK to invade. The Brighton Beach area of New York is loaded with ethnic Russians. Should we be expect Russia to invade soon? By the way, I fully expect Putin to fix the "no land border" issue shortly by invading eastern Ukraine.

This says it all: "the Tatars" ....."provided guarantees to having a degree a political empowerment and cultural preservation." So the Tartars, who have lived there for centuries will be second class (at best) citizens of the new Russian province.

[Starter]

And yes, oftentimes I am on the side of the separatist governments who have gained independence, if not de facto, then at least de jure. For example:

South Ossetia
Karabakh
Abkhazia
East Timor
Eritrea
South Sudan

A lot of these had genuine ethnic grievances against the government in the capitals, and yet most of them probably would never have gained even cultural autonomy, much less independence, without armed struggle even though armed resistance could have been against the law, local or international.

I can't help but notice that you have carefully avoided the instances of Georgia and Chechnya which I had brought up earlier in this thread. Could you please explain how those fit into the arguments you are espousing?

[BleAivano]

I also would like to know if those, who support the idea of Crimea suddenly deciding to break away from Ukraine,
also would support a sudden declaration from let's say Kaliningrad to change belonging from Russia to Poland?
A province that historically have no connections with Russia pre-ww2.

[Malbec]

And yes, oftentimes I am on the side of the separatist governments who have gained independence, if not de facto, then at least de jure. For example:

South Ossetia
Karabakh
Abkhazia
East Timor
Eritrea
South Sudan

A lot of these had genuine ethnic grievances against the government in the capitals, and yet most of them probably would never have gained even cultural autonomy, much less independence, without armed struggle even though armed resistance could have been against the law, local or international.

The bottom three of your examples became independent. The first three did not become independent in anything beyond name but merely Russian protectorates. They are merely tools for Russian expansion and to apply pressure on Russia's neighbours.

It is also interesting to note that at least in Crimea there was no sign of an armed insurrection fighting against rule from Kiev indicating that whatever secessionist movement there was it wasn't particularly significant in either its intentions or ambitions, almost certainly because their sense of grievance wasn't great.

You seem to find it extremely difficult to understand that the principle you are using is extremely dangerous if applied everywhere. Few land borders cleanly divide populations along ethnic lines. If everyone used Putin's principle, ie annexing ajoining territory simply because there was a significant ethnic minority or even a majority of the same ethnic grouping as your own there would be war everywhere. I can think of several countries in Europe that could be sliced up by its neighbours and made to disappear based on your thinking.

BTW that Hitler went on to commit mass genocide while Putin probably won't is irrelevant. The arguments Hitler used for the annexation of the Sudetenland, western Poland, Alsace and also Anschluss were exactly the same as Putin is using in Crimea. At least have the honesty to acknowledge that.

[airshifter]

Wow, nice dodge and redefinition. Suddenly assimilation becomes ethnic cleansing. Is that what you meant? Good one! I think I have made my point by now, as you completely utterly failed to back your absurd claims. Please stop making people laugh. Let's just equate assimilation with Holocaust, shall we? After all, according to your flawed logic, assimilation is just one step away from Holocaust or the ethnic massacres in the Balkans in the 1990s. What a ridiculous analogy you're trying to make here to make the current events in Crimea to fit under "ethnic cleansing". Such great information warfare trick. Senator McCain would have made you a staff member in his office. And if you think assimilation is the same as "ethnic cleansing" why not just use the former word? Oh wait, it doesn't sound as "dramatic", I get it.

And where did you get the ideas that Russians have the intention of assimilating the minorities in Crimea? Since when switching sides in the militarizes is about assimilation? One again NO ONE IS FORCING THE MINORITIES OF CRIMEA TO ASSIMILATE. They can stay and live normally as usual. However, the military of Ukraine, which in view of Crimea's government, is soon to be a military of a foreign country is not welcome in Crimea. The Ukrainian military personnel, many of whom do not have even permanent homes in Crimea, can go back to Ukraine. The ones to live in Crimea can stay and go to their homes, but not in the capacity of Ukrainian Army or Navi. Please do not equate that with ethnic cleansing. This is just stupid.

And, have you heard that Crimean parliament has just made a move to guarantee broader rights to the Crimean Tatar minority of Crimea? Such broader rights will include teaching Tatar language in schools and reserving a number of seats to Tatars in the Crimean parliament. Is this consistent with assimilation of minorities to you? I don't know about the situation with the rights of the Ukrainian minority of Crimea, but it is the Tatars who were the most opposed to the annexation of Crimea by Russia. They were immediately provided guarantees to having a degree a political empowerment and cultural preservation. This doesn't sound like an assimilation to me, or much less like "ethnic cleansing".

It's apparent that the definitions threaten your shielded view. Please continue with the ignorance or supporting actions that are entirely illegal and trying to prop them up by making an argument against things never stated.

But then you state those that don't have permanent homes can leave. One of the "freedoms" involved in not being Russian?

As for making people laugh, you might want to look at all the views opposing your own. I doubt any of them are laughing, as they probably see it in a way similar to me... violation of basic international laws and human rights. Hope you here some good jokes if you ever end up in the Gulag.

[Roamy]

I still don't get it. This is a Euro deal. You guys need to stop this if it is wrong. fcuk the furnace if it is wrong it is wrong.
But I will support what the Euro's do. There should be no involvement by us.

[Rudy Tamasz]

I completely agree with you zako, well put.

It took me a while to figure out that post of yours was ironic. When I did understand it, I laughed. Brilliant stuff!