What's wrong with what Russia's doing?

[Joey McGee]

Getting back to the original question: What's wrong with what Russia's doing?

I would say that Putin's key miscalculation here was not anticipating the Ukrainian nationalist reaction to his interference with the trade deal that was scuttled on his orders.

Now, the typical Ukrainian 'man on the street' probably didn't have very strong feelings about the trade deal one way or the other. Some surveys (here and here) showed a plurality of support for the agreement, but a similar number also favored joining a Russian-led FTA including Belarus and Kazakhstan.

The problem occurred, I think, when Yanukovych admitted that he vetoed the agreement he had supported and negotiated with the EU due to pressure from Moscow. It then became clear to that typical Ukrainian 'man on the street' that the president of Ukraine was not acting on behalf of the voters who elected him, but taking orders from Vladimir Putin. This is what caused the uprising that Putin did not anticipate, and led to everything that has happened since. By being heavy-handed and authoritarian, he managed to alienate the Ukrainian people. His moves in Crimea are going to further turn them against him. Thankfully, no shots have been fired yet, so the it may be possible to de-escalate the situation if Russia doesn't make any more unreasonable demands on Ukraine. That remains to be seen though.

What interests me is what the people in Crimea really think, now that they are going to vote in a referendum while being occupied and there are thugs preventing observers from entering and things like this, is there any chance of a backfire happening with them as well? How free and fair can a vote like this really be? Any opposition certainly won't feel comfortable taking to the streets and showing their displeasure...

 

[SezMe]

What interests me is what the people in Crimea really think, now that they are going to vote in a referendum while being occupied and there are thugs preventing observers from entering and things like this, is there any chance of a backfire happening with them as well?

I'll go for the mil here: If an election takes place, there will be immediate accusations of electoral fraud. There will be demonstrations and more political instability.

 

[Puppycow]

I'll go for the mil here: If an election takes place, there will be immediate accusations of electoral fraud. There will be demonstrations and more political instability.

If a referendum takes place in 10 days time, without credible neutral observers being able to verify every aspect of it, then yes, there will be such accusations, and with good reason.

 

[angrysoba]

If a referendum takes place in 10 days time, without credible neutral observers being able to verify every aspect of it, then yes, there will be such accusations, and with good reason.

Yes, credible is the right word here. A referendum that's been rushed through under Russian occupation is simply not credible.

 

[ddt]

Crimea was handed to the Ukraine by Khrushchev (a Ukrainian) in 1954. I find it hard to get too worked up about Russia deciding to take it back.

Nitpick: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev:

Khrushchev was born April 15, 1894,[1] in Kalinovka,[2] a village in what is now Russia's Kursk Oblast, near the present Ukrainian border.[3] His parents, Sergei Khrushchev and Ksenia Khrushcheva, were poor peasants of Russian[3] origin

So, he was Russian. But most of his career was in the Ukraine, and he married an Ukrainian.

I don't care really who believes what, if lines drawn on maps matter then people should abide by them.

That is the official party line, IIRC, of the OSCE, the EU and NATO. However, there is a recent counterexample where they did not abide by the lines on the map, against the wishes of Moscow: Kosovo. And it has some striking similarities:
- a "misplaced" region which becomes apparent as a result of the disintegration of a larger country (Yugoslavia, USSR);
- an autonomous region within a constituent state
I fully expect Putin to play this card in diplomacy.

 

[Darth Rotor]

That is the official party line, IIRC, of the OSCE, the EU and NATO. However, there is a recent counterexample where they did not abide by the lines on the map, against the wishes of Moscow: Kosovo. And it has some striking similarities:
- a "misplaced" region which becomes apparent as a result of the disintegration of a larger country (Yugoslavia, USSR);
- an autonomous region within a constituent state
I fully expect Putin to play this card in diplomacy.

He surely will, but he won't bomb Belgrade over it, nor over Crimea.

 

[Puppycow]

Yes, credible is the right word here. A referendum that's been rushed through under Russian occupation is simply not credible.

And it just got even less credible:

Crimean Tatar Minority to Boycott Secession Vote

MOSCOW, March 6 (RIA Novosti) – The semi-formal government of the Crimean Tatars said Thursday that the ethnic minority will boycott the secession referendum set by the Ukrainian region’s pro-Russian authorities.

Crimea’s parliament set a popular vote for March 16 to decide whether the republic should join Russia or remain a part of Ukraine, possibly with increased autonomy.

But the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People, who constitute about 15 percent of the region’s population of 2 million, calls to boycott the vote, the organization’s head Refat Chubarov said.

“[Vote] results that will be made public will obviously be determined elsewhere regardless of the turnout on voting day,” Chubarov said, the Politnavigator.net news site reported.

 

[dudalb]

Yes, credible is the right word here. A referendum that's been rushed through under Russian occupation is simply not credible.

It will have all the creditbility that "elections" in old Soviet Union had, or the "plebiscites" that Hitler held did.


The amazing thing about this to me is the total crudity of it,no attempt at making it creditible.
Way Too Obvious, Vladamir.

 

[dudalb]

And it just got even less credible:

Crimean Tatar Minority to Boycott Secession Vote

Giving what happened under Uncle Joe,the Crimean Tatar have every reason to be scared of being part of Russia.

 

[McHrozni]

Yes, credible is the right word here. A referendum that's been rushed through under Russian occupation is simply not credible.

A referendum which asks two llegal questions we might add.
http://rt.com/news/crimea-referendum-status-ukraine-154/

McHrozni

 

[jimbob]

What you must have missed was the Duelfer report which explained how the intelligence agencies were fooled by Saddam into believing this, and perhaps the CIA report that explained the intelligence failure entitled "Misreading Intentions". Trumped up insinuates "Fraudulently devised" and means not just an intent to deceive, but totally invented out of nothing. Many people forget that the vast majority of Americans wanted war with Iraq, WMDs or not, for a wide variety of reasons that are forgotten under the cloud of all of the bad news and sad things that happened there.

I must admit, before the war I would not have thought that Saddam would have tried to convince the West that he had a weapons program that had not *yet* produced WMDs.

If he wasn't trying to convince people as to the presence of such a program, then he made some very odd decisions- like putting a castor oil plant in the industrial development where he used to make chemical weapons - Oh no, that was not aimed at pretending to be a dual-use ricin production facility, not at all.

 

[jimbob]

What interests me is what the people in Crimea really think, now that they are going to vote in a referendum while being occupied and there are thugs preventing observers from entering and things like this, is there any chance of a backfire happening with them as well? How free and fair can a vote like this really be? Any opposition certainly won't feel comfortable taking to the streets and showing their displeasure...

A referendum which asks two llegal questions we might add.
http://rt.com/news/crimea-referendum-status-ukraine-154/

McHrozni

Ninja'd

Might as well post the questions:

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/two-choices-in-crimean-referendum-yes-and-yes-338745.html

The ballot asks two questions and leaves no option for a “no” vote. Voters are simply asked to check one of two boxes:

Do you support joining Crimea with the Russian Federation as a subject of Russian Federation?

And:

Do you support restoration of 1992 Crimean Constitution and Crimea's status as a part of Ukraine?

That Constitution declares that Crimea is an independent state.

The questions are written in Russian, Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar, the three most widely spoken languages on the peninsula, and the paper carries a warning in all three languages that marking both options will invalidate the ballot.

 

[McHrozni]

Ninja'd

Yes, sorry, I should've linked to your post as well

McHrozni

 

[Darth Rotor]

I must admit, before the war I would not have thought that Saddam would have tried to convince the West that he had a weapons program that had not *yet* produced WMDs.

Jim bob, it wasn't the West he was trying to convince of the viability of his program. It was Iran, his most serious local problem.

Back to Putin and his program: it's alive and well.

 

[jimbob]

Jim bob, it wasn't the West he was trying to convince of the viability of his program. It was Iran, his most serious local problem.

Back to Putin and his program: it's alive and well.

It makes more sense than anything else, but I'd still have thought it would be a bad idea to try to convince a potential enemy that you don't yet have WMDs but you are working on getting them.

 

[theprestige]

I found the actual quote by Kerry. It's basically equivalent to my paraphrase:


(On Face the Nation)
and:

(On Meet the Press)

Not really. Your paraphrase implied that Kerry thinks it's illegal. What Kerry actually said implies he thinks it's gauche.

I guess the real question is if Kerry thinks it's true that there's a qualitative difference in the calculus of realpolitik, between this day and age and previous days or ages.

I mean, Kerry's a politician and a diplomat. If he's just mouthing the right platitudes to satisfy the right audiences, that's fine with me. My hope is that he doesn't actually believe that the Russian government is supposed to be on board with the latest Western opinions about how nations should behave. Those words may mean something to European progressives, but I hope Kerry doesn't expect them to mean anything to Vladimir Putin.

 

[Peephole]

Is Putin the Russian Hitler?

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines

 

[Hercules56]

As far as we know, the impeachment of Yanukovich was perfectly legal. That means Russia has no business getting involved.

Legally, Russia is in huge violations of international norms and laws.

Realistically, this was bound to happen. But it needs to end at Crimea.

 

[icebear]

Crimea is 60% ethnic Russian 40% non-Russian. That's hardly justification for moving in the troops.

Also, when the troops moved in there had been no threats or acts of violence in that area. And there's no basis for believing a threat was imminent.

The Crimea is traditionally Russian. Apparently it was 'given' to Ukraine by Khreushchev in 54, something about Khrushchev thinking that being the boss gave him some sort of a license to do Robinhood kinds of things with countries:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/...ft-to-ukraine-becomes-a-political-flash-point

Similar to what we pulled in 1999 with Kosovo. The real fun starts when Serbian and possibly also Russian tanks roll back into Kosovo. That will be at least a $200 ticket.

 

[McHrozni]

Similar to what we pulled in 1999 with Kosovo.

Except for the civil war and tens of thousands of actual refugees streaming across the border, you mean.

McHrozni