Kosovo and Crimea

[red_elk]

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.

Yes, according to armchair internet analysts, Russia doesn't need Black Sea fleet. And armed forces at all.

 

[Kyriakos]

Indeed. To argue Russia does not need a black sea fleet (uh, Russia already has a massive part of the Black sea coast in its own country), is rather dumb as a view.

Russia has to control its own area, and it would be pretty idiotic to think they could do that by sending the northern fleet to the med if they need to.

 

[Evie]

Yes, according to armchair internet analysts, Russia doesn't need Black Sea fleet. And armed forces at all.

Congratulation on your creative interpretations.

I said IF Russia has no bases for a black sea fleet. *IF*.

(And not just that one base. Any base, either current or potential. Because, yeah, while building anew base may cost a fortune, it still doesn't justify an invasion as an alternative)

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?

I consider the words empty when they come from people who DON'T live in that territory.

In this case: any and all Russian (or Ukrainian) not living in Crimea.

In Kosovo's case: any Serbs not living in Kosovo.

These are the people I was talking about. If you interpreted my words to mean something else, it's your own problem.

 

[Kyriakos]

I consider the words empty when they come from people who DON'T live in that territory.

In this case: any and all Russian (or Ukrainian) not living in Crimea.

In Kosovo's case: any Serbs not living in Kosovo.

These are the people I was talking about. If you interpreted my words to mean something else, it's your own problem.

I am sure there are loads of Serbs living in Kosovo we can get news from. They all have internet access.

 

[Evie]

And internet access is relevant how, exactly?

You don't need internet access to vote in a referendum, as a general rule of thumb.

You may need people who make sure that you aren't prevented from voting by violence, intimidation, vote manipulation, etc, but I'm pretty sure that still doesn't have the slightest thing to do with having internet access.

 

[Kyriakos]

And internet access is relevant how, exactly?

Uh...

Some theorise that internet access can allow one to get in contact without any mediator filtering their words. It is a theory, i know. Maybe the KLA newspaper there will afford equal freedom though.

 

[Evie]

And I care about what those medias say because...?

It's obvious that there are people in Kosovo who want to be part of Serbia. (It's also pretty obvious that they're facing severe repression). Every subdivision of every country hsa at least one person who want to become independent, and every country everywhere has at least one person who want to merge with the neighbors.

That's why for determining that Kosovo should or should not be part of Serbia, that Crimea should or should not be part of Ukraine you need a democratic majority of the peopel living in Kosovo, or in Crimea. Not just SOME people who feel that way, but a majority of them.

So medias reporting that there are Serb people in Kosovo who want to be part of Serbia and who are victims of severe violence would

1)Not actually give us any new information.
and
2)Not actually change anything to what Kosovo should be part of.

So again: no, lack of internet doesn't change anything.

 

[red_elk]

These are the people I was talking about. If you interpreted my words to mean something else, it's your own problem.

I interpreted your words exactly as you wrote them, I can't read you mind. You wrote that these words are empty without clarification what people are you talking about.

 

[Evie]

Apparently, you used very selective interpretation of the words I wrote, given that my FIRST post in the thread explicitly said that the Crimean people had the right to decide what happened to Crimea.

That's the core of everything I'm saying here, the most important part. Everything else is additions and details that build on THAT post.

EDIT: here, for your benefit, it's post 11 in this thread:

If an internationally (as in: not Russian-run) supervised referendum showed that Crimea et al want to break away from Ukraine, then as far as I'm concerned they have a right to do so. And if a later referendum and agreement between this separate region of ex-Ukraine and Russia involve Crimea joining Russia, then power to Crimea.

The land, ultimately, belong to the people who live on it. Not to some geopolitical contraption that has no right in and of itself save that which it derives from its people.

In the meantime, until such a time as a referendum can be organised, any policing to avoid conflicts and protect any stray threatened minority should go to an actual third party, preferably a country that has little national stake in the conflict (Read: not you, Russia).

That's the bottom line and single most important part. Everything else is details and adressing specific issues. The important part, is what I just re-posted for your benefit

 

[Rashiminos]

When all that is said and done, I don't imagine a longtime Russian-populace is just going to snub history in favor of the Ukrainian national government of the month.

 

[Borachio]

I'm still mystified why the Crimea became part of Ukraine in 1954 (given its overwhelmingly Russian population).

Perhaps it was done to make the map look neat and tidy.

 

[red_elk]

It was just considered unneeded exclave of RSFSR, nobody could imagine Ukraine splitting off.

 

[Evie]

When all that is said and done, I don't imagine a longtime Russian-populace is just going to snub history in favor of the Ukrainian national government of the month.

I tend to agree that it's likely Crimea would chose Russia, and to a degree it does mitigate Russia's actions a little. But barring a pressing humanitarian crisis, the way you do this is FIRST vote on whether you want to join. Absolutely, completely *not* First move in your army, then vote.

 

[Borachio]

It was just considered unneeded exclave of RSFSR, nobody could imagine Ukraine splitting off.

Oh right? Thanks.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

I'm still mystified why the Crimea became part of Ukraine in 1954 (given its overwhelmingly Russian population).

Perhaps it was done to make the map look neat and tidy.

They were planning just for this very situation

The Russians were a forward thinking people.

Now Putin has a casus belli against Ukraine.