Kosovo and Crimea

[Farm Boy]

Isn't that generally how it goes when nations move with military? Either acquiesce or respond with bullets? Isn't that the basic reason of why you would move with a military in the first place? "I'm doing this. Want to stop me? Kill me."

 

[red_elk]

So what's wrong with the sentiment that "Crimea is much more Russian than Ukrainian"? I dare say majority of Crimean inhabitants might share it. Are they crazy nationalists and must be dealt with bullets?

 

[kramerfan86]

I dont think anything is wrong with it, what is wrong is aggressively acting on it as a foreign power.

 

[Evie]

Surely you are not. You are merely suggesting to use bullets or other forceful methods against people whose notions you dislike.

How else are you going to stop an invasion or a genocide?

I'm suggesting bullets and forceful methods to STOP their ACTIONS. Not because I don't like their notions; they're free to express any idiotic notion they want. But if they put those notions into action, then any method necessary is fair to stop them. Because you don't stand by while someone slaughter people and steal their homes for asinine reasons.

But once they start invading countries and shooting at people over their completely moronic notions...yeah, you can bet I'm going to argue for doing whatever we can to stop them.

So what's wrong with the sentiment that "Crimea is much more Russian than Ukrainian"? I dare say majority of Crimean inhabitants might share it. Are they crazy nationalists and must be dealt with bullets?

No.

The people who live in Crimea, decide Crimea's fate. That's what I said from the start and I still say it. Ukraine's right to Crimea exists only so long as the Crimeans accept it. Moscow has a right to Crimea if the Crimeans so desire it. And neither have a right to Crimea, if the Crimean would rather be independent. In all cases, there is nothing mad or insane, nothing deserving of being shot, about Crimeans chosing the fate of the land they live in.

As a general rule of thumb, the people with a right to any piece of land are the people who live there, or, in some rare cases, the people who were recently kicked out by force, threat of force, or other dishonest manners.

How you find out what the people want is a FREE (as in: not under military ocupation, Russia) and fair referendum. Until you have the results of such a referendum, you assume what the people want is the statu quo.

 

[Borachio]

Why was the Crimea part of Ukraine in the first place? It only became so in 1954 (?).

And isn't the Crimea absolutely crucial for the Russian Black Sea fleet? So Russia is simply acting to protect its own best geopolitical interests.

A bit like the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. But with more reason.

edit:

On 19 February 1954, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union issued a decree transferring the Crimean Oblast from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR.[25] The transfer of the Crimean Oblast to Ukraine has been described as a "symbolic gesture," marking the 300th anniversary of Ukraine becoming a part of the Russian Empire.[26][27] The General Secretary of the Communist Party in Soviet Union was at the time the Ukranian Nikita Khrushchev.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea#Crimea_in_the_20th_and_21st_centuries

 

[Evie]

Russia doesn't have a "right" to a black sea fleet. If Russia loses the bases for its black sea fleet, then Russia can stop wasting their money on a fleet they don't need anymore.

I mean, I agree that from a realpolitik standpoint it makes perfect sense for Russia to do what Russia is doing. It's beneficial to them, and who cares who gets hurt. And it's quite likely many states would act the same way in the same place, starting with the USA.

That wouldn't make it any better. It's disgusting whether it's America in Iraq or Russia in Ukraine, and it's the work of people who only deserve to be called human beings because absolutely nobody ever deserves to be denied their humanity.

 

[Borachio]

It's not an insignificant naval force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_Fleet#List_of_Black_Sea_Fleet_ships

And I'm not sure how far morality ever enters into realpolitik.

 

[Evie]

Indeed. That's why I said their perspective made sense from a realpolitik standpoint.

Doesn,t mean we have to respect or approve of those who engage in it. I mean, it makes sense for gang lords to murder rivals lording in on their turf, from a "gang politics" standpoint. Doesn't mean we, as intelligent, reasonable, human beings have to accept that their logic has a place in the world.

I'm aware the black sea fleet is considerable. That still doesn't justify its existence in and of itself. Russia gets to keep a Black Sea Fleet so long as it has access to the Black Sea. Not the other way around.

 

[Borachio]

I agree, it doesn't justify its existence by itself.

Just that it's likely to be a factor in Russian thinking.

And Russia keeping its access to the Black Sea, whence it can sally forth with its Black Sea fleet, makes a lot of sense on the world stage.

With it, Russia can keep up a more or less credible front of posturing now and again. Without it, its ability to do so, in the Eastern Mediterranean, is severely curtailed.

 

[Evie]

Oh, again, like I said: from a realpolitik standpoint, I'd have to do the same in Russia's position.

Just like if I were a gang lord and some gang tried to lord in on my territory, from my standpoint as a gang lord of course killing them would be the Thing To Do.

Again, that doesn't mean the rest of us have to approve of their actions.

 

[Yeekim]

And isn't the Crimea absolutely crucial for the Russian Black Sea fleet? So Russia is simply acting to protect its own best geopolitical interests.

You are speaking as if they were in some sort of danger of losing the lease that is supposed to last till 2042 and getting forcefully booted out...

 

[Borachio]

Yes. I think they've been genuinely worried that they might lose the lease. I can't see any other reason for their actions.

Unless it's merely the chance to seize some extra territory. Which seems unlikely to me.

(Maybe they've done a risk assessment and decided it wasn't worth the (small) risk of losing access to the Black Sea?)

 

[Evie]

I suspect there's a broader "Make sure all our neighbors know they won't be allowed to side with any other power bloc" approach.

 

[Borachio]

Which neighbours are you thinking of?

 

[Evie]

All former SSRs, for a start.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

No it doesn't.

Unless you mean current Kosovo, whose PM is accused of War Crimes ( ) and refuses to allow the northern part of it which has nearly 100% Serbs, to leave that drug state.

I thought there were some measures to let the Serbs take the northern part and that Serbia rejected it?

Anyhow, the ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Kosovo is pretty under-reported. The Western media seem to really like the narrative of poor innocent Kosovan victims.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

//EDIT - This post would have been better placed in the general Ukraine thread. Oh well.//

It seems to me that splitting Ukraine at all would be bad for Putin, with a total split between east and west being even worse. Putin's ideal state is a puppet Ukraine, with a neutral buffer being an acceptable compromise.

If Ukraine splits, what happens is that the west will eventually join NATO and the EU, giving Russia a border with "the enemy". And for what? The crimea? The only value in the crimea is the naval base which Russia already has. And the rest of eastern Ukraine is worth less than nothing. Its a basket case that will cost Russia dearly to prop up.

I suppose in terms of domestic politics it could go well for Putin- he has expanded Russia's borders and gets the nationalist vote. But again, he already has that.

In my opinion, the best thing for the west/Ukraine to do is simply to passively wait while Putin makes his moves. Anything he does will only further cement the victory Europe won earlier through the revolution in Kiev.

Unfortunately, the Ukrainian government may have a more narrow vision of the situation than myself and place undue value on maintaining its current borders. Hopefully they will act with restraint.

 

[gay_Aleks]

All former SSRs, for a start.

Save for the fact that all former SSRs are already integrated into EU, save for Ukraine and Belarus, which are kind of impossible to come to EU's side, at least for this moment. Unless you believe that for all intents and reasons Kazakhstan and the Caucasus countries would suddenly feel European and decide to hey, join the EU?

Besides, by your logic, when the Baltic states and Finland were integrated, Russia would have gone nuclear. Since it didn't, we can safely deduce that Putin is just another bloody imperialist, hailing from Russia, nonetheless.

 

[Rashiminos]

The only value in the crimea is the naval base which Russia already has.

*Risked losing through inaction.

You are speaking as if they were in some sort of danger of losing the lease that is supposed to last till 2042 and getting forcefully booted out...

He'd be correct.

 

[red_elk]

In all cases, there is nothing mad or insane, nothing deserving of being shot, about Crimeans chosing the fate of the land they live in.

Well, I don't know. First time when I said about the sentiment that Crimea is more Russian, you started talking about "empty words", "moronic notions", "insane madmen" and "using force against them". In other words, using the same level of rhetoric which use those mouth-foaming people who justify genocide, rather than condemn it. Now you don't see a problem if Crimean people have, and act upon this sentiment. May be you even don't consider these words "empty" anymore, if they can decide the fate of the land?