Imagine you're a negotiator between the Ukraine and Russia... how would you solve this problem?

It's not all doom and gloom. For example, if Ukraine does end up losing irreversibly, @r16 's country will be "persuaded" to help ^^

Imo it might be of use to have a thread (don't really feel like starting it) about what a new world war would mean. Sadly, if it happens, it will be hard even for countries not taking part, and we can say goodbye (for a few years) to everything we up to now regarded as standard quality of life (let alone threat of famine in parts of Europe and elsewhere).

You seem to be the only one here that believes this can turn into a "world war", there are only two parties actively at war, and they're right next to eachother ?

That's a regional conflict, not a world war.

Nor does the conflict have any impact on our standard of living, let alone our ability to feed ourselves - does it ?
 
You seem to be the only one here that believes this can turn into a "world war", there are only two parties actively at war, and they're right next to eachother ?

That's a regional conflict, not a world war.

Nor does the conflict have any impact on our standard of living, let alone our ability to feed ourselves - does it ?
A regional conflict. Really.
:)
Not sure if I am "the only one here" who considers it possible it can turn to ww. And if I was, it wouldn't mean anything about the chances of that either.
 
(From 2014)

MOSCOW, March 10 (Reuters) - Ukraine’s Crimea region has invited the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to send a mission to observe Sunday’s referendum on joining Russia, Russia’s RIA news agency said on Monday.

It said the invitation had been issued to the Vienna-based security and human rights organisation by the region’s pro-Russian parliament.

But later in the day, a OSCE spokeswoman said Crimea could not invite observers as the region was not a full-fledged state and therefore not a member of the 57-member organisation.

Russia had all reasons to let international observers participate, in order to legitimize the referendum, as there were no doubts in the voting results.
Oopsie :)
 
Fwiw I do remember Russia stating that international observers are welcome. Can't say if in practice they deterred them, but I am inclined to not believe they did (for the simple fact that the population in Crimea, at least by that time, was very clearly going to vote to join Russia).
That no (or no meaningful) international observers arrived, is a known fact. I suppose it happened so as to not legitimize the inevitable result.
 
but I am inclined to not believe they did
That no (or no meaningful) international observers arrived
I just linked them getting shot at.

If the US says something that is blatantly contradicted by their following actions, we call them on it. The same goes for France, the UK, wherever. Why is it different here? Why suggest a solution we know won't work, because it was tried, and Russia got in the way (using whatever amount of plausible deniability you wish)?
 
I just linked them getting shot at.

If the US says something that is blatantly contradicted by their following actions, we call them on it. The same goes for France, the UK, wherever. Why is it different here? Why suggest a solution we know won't work, because it was tried, and Russia got in the way (using whatever amount of plausible deniability you wish)?
I read your post. But it doesn't change the memory that "the west" stated it would not participate by sending observers.
Having some small group of indie observers try to enter, and being not allowed to, surely doesn't mean much?
 
Hmmmm. Yes. On balanced reflection, I do see that this nation to which poison and windows are essential tools of statecraft could have sincere interest in political self determination in Crimea.
 
I read your post. But it doesn't change the memory that "the west" stated it would not participate by sending observers.
Having some small group of indie observers try to enter, and being not allowed to, surely doesn't mean much?
The "small group of indie observers" is the same group red_elk replied to you, r.e. them saying Crimea's invitation wasn't valid. Why were they an acceptable anecdote then, but not two posts later when I linked them getting shot at (two days from the date of red_elk's source, to boot)?

How can this discussion work when the basic premise boils down to "what will Russia allow", when Russia has the established historical record of not allowing things. If we can't accept that, this is just like all the other threads, round and round. In order for any proposed solution to be debatable, we have to work with the historical record up to a particular point of divergence.
 
The "small group of indie observers" is the same group red_elk replied to you, about, r.e. saying the invitation wasn't valid. Why were they an acceptable anecdote then, but not two posts later when I linked them getting shot at (two days from the date of red_elk's source, to boot)?

How can this discussion work when the basic premise boils down to "what will Russia allow", when Russia has the established historical record of not allowing things. If we can't accept that, this is just like all the other threads, round and round.
I am not trying to defend Russia. I definitely remember that "the west" announced it will NOT send observers as means to secure a fair process in the referendum. In other words, there was no interest in trying to secure there would be no fraud => the result would not be regarded as the will of the crimeans who voted, regardless of the process being rigged or not.
Is this not so?
 
I read your post. But it doesn't change the memory that "the west" stated it would not participate by sending observers.
Having some small group of indie observers try to enter, and being not allowed to, surely doesn't mean much?
OSCE has different kinds of missions, not only referendum observation.
Since they refused to send observers to referendum, those who were denied entry, had another mission.

Apparently they were military observers earlier invited by Ukraine, to "monitor the situation"

“An OSCE mission has arrived in Kiev which will go to the Crimean peninsula to monitor the situation,” Ukraine’s national security chief, Andriy Paruby, told a news conference in Kiev.
It was not immediately clear whether Russia would allow monitors to enter the region, where it controls the airspace and access points. The diplomats said Russia’s agreement was not legally necessary.


 
Last edited:
I am not trying to defend Russia. I definitely remember that "the west" announced it will NOT send observers as means to secure a fair process in the referendum. In other words, there was no interest in trying to secure there would be no fraud => the result would not be regarded as the will of the crimeans who voted, regardless of the process being rigged or not.
Is this not so?
I didn't say you were trying to defend Russia. I asked why it was different here, when Russia's actions clearly contradict whatever PR fluff they may have put out at the time?

Despite what red_elk claims above, the Reuters source cites them as being an observer team. Maybe remembering needs a bit of checking? We are going back nearly a decade here.

But that's all a sideshow anyway. My point was "how do we get Russia to agree to independent observers, when an independent observer team was refused entry"? Surely this is a question that needs answering? Or doesn't it?
 
I am not trying to defend Russia
You could have fooled me. You bend over backward to deflect responsability to the West when Russia is blatantly lying and contradicting itself.
Or maybe you're not aiming at defending Russia, but just want to make it absolutely all the fault of the West, and Russia just happens to be the other side so it benefits from it.
Either way you just move the goalposts and apply double standards.

That being said, even with adequate observers, the referendum would have been completely illegal and void. You don't conquer a territory and then declare a referendum. A valid one would require legal recognition by the country that possess the land.
 
That being said, even with adequate observers, the referendum would have been completely illegal and void. You don't conquer a territory and then declare a referendum. A valid one would require legal recognition by the country that possess the land.
Also known as the elephant in the room.
 
I didn't say you were trying to defend Russia. I asked why it was different here, when Russia's actions clearly contradict whatever PR fluff they may have put out at the time?

Despite what red_elk claims above, the Reuters source cites them as being an observer team. Maybe remembering needs a bit of checking? We are going back nearly a decade here.

But that's all a sideshow anyway. My point was "how do we get Russia to agree to independent observers, when an independent observer team was refused entry"? Surely this is a question that needs answering? Or doesn't it?
From the BBC, back in the day:

1685973543753.png


Can we consider this settled? The BBC (not some pro-russian organization) explicitly states that:

1)The OSCE declined to send election observers
2)The OSCE observers pushed back were military observers.

@Akka, whatever, read the article and notice how wrong you are (you won't, but it's ok :p ). I was only defending my memory, which rarely (thankfully) is wrong.
 
Last edited:
From the BBC, back in the day:

View attachment 664047

Can we consider this settled? The BBC (not some pro-russian organization) explicitly states that:

1)The OSCE declined to send election observers
2)The OSCE observers pushed back were military observers.

@Akka, whatever, read the article and notice how wrong you are (you won't, but it's ok :p ). I was only defending my memory, which rarely (thankfully) is wrong.

Yeah, IDK what you think the observers would have done or their presence would have proven.
 
Can we consider this settled? The BBC (not some pro-russian organization) explicitly states that:

1)The OSCE declined to send election observers
2)The OSCE observers pushed back were military observers.
I think trying to split hairs between election observers and military observers is unhelpful. The (as yet unanswered) question was "how do we get Russia to say yet to a neutral independent observer". The answer isn't "by shooting at them because they're military observers".

Why were they military observers?

Because Crimea had at this point been illegally occupied.

Which means for your proposed solution to work, we either have to go further back in time (before Crimea was forcefully and illegally annexed), or we have to have a magic button that stops Russia from shooting at whatever form of independent observer they feel biases said referendum (despite their armed forces apparently . . . not, in any way, shape or form).

So how do we make your proposed solution work, given the above?
 
Yeah, IDK what you think the observers would have done or their presence would have proven.
We were only discussing if the "west" refused to send observers of the referendum vote. It now is settled that it did refuse.
@Gorbles , my intention was to settle this side-point in the discussion (according to which, supposedly the "West" wanted to send election observers but was denied by Russia). And obviously "military observers" don't serve any similar role to "election observers".

It would set an unwelcome precedent for the OSCE to send election observers to a referendum of at best dubious legality.
I agree, but that's not what was being discussed. I'd wager no "enemy" side would wish to send election observers when anticipating the referendum result would be pro-russian anyway, regardless if said observers might have diminished any rigging (even worse, since that would disable arguments about massive rigging).
 
Last edited:
Yeah, it's the OSCE that's at fault. Just because their observers were shot at when trying to enter Crimea, why would the OSCE think there's any illegality us going on? Once again Russia is innocent, a victim of Western capitalists' manipulation to stoke a war and make money off the killing...

JFC
 
Top Bottom