4 ms·

So it affects even those who aren't Russian citizens (let's say Ukranian citizens) who live in Crimea?

by shmerl 7y ago

colechristensen 7y ago
According to Crimea and Russia and the basic facts on the ground, people living in Crimea are Russian citizens and have been for 5 years, Russia has poured billions into the region's infrastructure. While it was definitely engineered by Russia doing things to violate the sovereignty of Ukraine 1) The US and all the powerful nations around the world do this kind of crap all the time and have a long history of it 2) It appears as though the people living in Crimea generally prefer being Russian to being Ukrainian, at least there doesn't seem to be any major opposition to the change. 3) Crimea was only part of Ukraine from 1992 to 2014, before that it was it's own entity under the umbrella of Russian empire or the USSR for hundreds of years I'm not pro-Russia but I am pro-reality, and this sanctions game seems to be about highschool-level-bullshit between world leaders and nothing else. It certainly has made politicians on both sides much more popular with their bases as a result. Having "enemies" does that rallying well. If you want to sanction Russia, do it over corruption, election meddling, or human rights abuses (although maybe put a higher priority on your own country's faults along those lines first so you have a platform to stand on) I'm here feeling like Fangorn "I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side"
- shmerl 7y ago
  > people living in Crimea are Russian citizens and have been for 5 years Russia pressured people, but they could refuse accepting citizenship (though those doing so get a lot of practical troubles there, up to persecution). They can't really force citizenship on unwilling people, despite trying.
  - shitgoose 7y ago
    are there any examples of people in Crimea having been persecuted because they refused to accept Russian citizenship and kept Ukrainian passports? Crimea fell off the tree without single shot fired. that tells something. also, do not forget famous saying by Ukrainian nationalists - "Crimea will be Ukrainian territory or uninhabited": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXtBe-uZcPM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXtBe-uZcPM where the danger for people of Crimea was really coming from?
    - shmerl 7y ago
      Lot's. They are discriminated (like when looking for work or social benefits), intimidated and so on. Those who actively stand up against such intimidation are simply persecuted. Examples: https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/11/14/crimea-persecution-crimean-tatars-intensifies https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/11/14/crimea-persecution-crime...
- piranha 7y ago
  Your point 3 is complete bullshit. Crimea was part of Russian empire since 1783. During that time Ukraine was also a part of Russian empire - mind you, not autonomic one. After empire collapse in USSR Crimea administratively belonged to Russian SFSR up to 1954, since when it was a part of Ukrainian SSR. So it’s a part of Ukraine for the last 60 years.
  - pessimizer 7y ago
    It would only be complete bullshit if the Ukrainian SSR wasn't a part of the USSR. Since it was, point 3 is completely true.
    - shmerl 7y ago
      It was part of Ukraine, and republics of USSR formally could leave it (not that anyone would allow that though, due to the legal trickery). So that point 3 is not true.
    - rimliu 7y ago
      So if something is in Ukraine while it is in USSR it is not in Ukraine? I fail to follow the logic here.
- compuguy 7y ago
  The US doesn't have a recent history of annexing countries. The US did do this in the 19th and early to mid 20th centuries. The current Russian government does have a recent history of invading/annexing countries though (Crimea and portions of Georgia, the country not the US state).
  - colechristensen 7y ago
    Annexation? No. Overthrowing governments with subterfuge or force? Absolutely The only target for annexation would be Quebec (there's a small minority party there that has talked about this for a long time) but that's extremely unlikely. Anything else would be colonization which isn't fashionable. Russian annexation is targeting places with large ethnically Russian people who speak Russian and identify more with Moscow than their local government. If you believe the line, there is a significant population in these places that want to be annexed. Anyone who is saying that is probably exaggerating the support but it's hard to deny that support exists. I believe in self determination more than border immutability. Free and fair elections would be preferable, of course. I don't know what the Crimeans want but it's plausible that they prefer their current situation. It would be nice to hear actual Crimean voices instead of Moscow or Washington. Anything the latter two say seems only in self interest.
    - shmerl 7y ago
      Russian annexations and conflict fueling have nothing to do with ethnical Russians or identification with Moscow (whatever that means). It's related to regions of former USSR which oppose Putin's imperialist craze (may be you call that "Moscow"), and want to actually have real democratic government and independence. As soon as that happens, Putin's mafia tries to create or fuel existing local conflicts, by sending mercenaries that back local separatists or by outright openly occupying some regions. Putin doesn't care in the least about Russian people in those territories. He only cares about destabilizing countries that don't want to be his vassals. This happened in Moldavia (where Russian army is present in Pridnestrovian region), Georgia (South Ossetia and Abkhazia) and Ukraine (Donbass, Crimea). Armenia came close to it when they removed previous government controlled by Putin, but since they didn't demand that Russian army should leave (they have military bases there), so far it didn't erupt in armed conflict. See also how Armenia still backs Putin's policies in UN and the like. If they won't, Putin will come knocking.

So it affects even those who aren't Russian citizens (let's say Ukranian citizens) who live in Crimea?

by shmerl 7y ago

So it affects even those who aren't Russian citizens (let's say Ukranian citizens) who live in Crimea?

According to Crimea and Russia and the basic facts on the ground, people living in Crimea are Russian citizens and have been for 5 years, Russia has poured billions into the region's infrastructure. While it was definitely engineered by Russia doing things to violate the sovereignty of Ukraine 1) The US and all the powerful nations around the world do this kind of crap all the time and have a long history of it 2) It appears as though the people living in Crimea generally prefer being Russian to being Ukrainian, at least there doesn't seem to be any major opposition to the change. 3) Crimea was only part of Ukraine from 1992 to 2014, before that it was it's own entity under the umbrella of Russian empire or the USSR for hundreds of years I'm not pro-Russia but I am pro-reality, and this sanctions game seems to be about highschool-level-bullshit between world leaders and nothing else. It certainly has made politicians on both sides much more popular with their bases as a result. Having "enemies" does that rallying well. If you want to sanction Russia, do it over corruption, election meddling, or human rights abuses (although maybe put a higher priority on your own country's faults along those lines first so you have a platform to stand on) I'm here feeling like Fangorn "I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side"

shmerl 7y ago
> people living in Crimea are Russian citizens and have been for 5 years Russia pressured people, but they could refuse accepting citizenship (though those doing so get a lot of practical troubles there, up to persecution). They can't really force citizenship on unwilling people, despite trying.
- shitgoose 7y ago
  are there any examples of people in Crimea having been persecuted because they refused to accept Russian citizenship and kept Ukrainian passports? Crimea fell off the tree without single shot fired. that tells something. also, do not forget famous saying by Ukrainian nationalists - "Crimea will be Ukrainian territory or uninhabited": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXtBe-uZcPM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXtBe-uZcPM where the danger for people of Crimea was really coming from?
  - shmerl 7y ago
    Lot's. They are discriminated (like when looking for work or social benefits), intimidated and so on. Those who actively stand up against such intimidation are simply persecuted. Examples: https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/11/14/crimea-persecution-crimean-tatars-intensifies https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/11/14/crimea-persecution-crime...
piranha 7y ago
Your point 3 is complete bullshit. Crimea was part of Russian empire since 1783. During that time Ukraine was also a part of Russian empire - mind you, not autonomic one. After empire collapse in USSR Crimea administratively belonged to Russian SFSR up to 1954, since when it was a part of Ukrainian SSR. So it’s a part of Ukraine for the last 60 years.
- pessimizer 7y ago
  It would only be complete bullshit if the Ukrainian SSR wasn't a part of the USSR. Since it was, point 3 is completely true.
  - shmerl 7y ago
    It was part of Ukraine, and republics of USSR formally could leave it (not that anyone would allow that though, due to the legal trickery). So that point 3 is not true.
  - rimliu 7y ago
    So if something is in Ukraine while it is in USSR it is not in Ukraine? I fail to follow the logic here.
compuguy 7y ago
The US doesn't have a recent history of annexing countries. The US did do this in the 19th and early to mid 20th centuries. The current Russian government does have a recent history of invading/annexing countries though (Crimea and portions of Georgia, the country not the US state).
- colechristensen 7y ago
  Annexation? No. Overthrowing governments with subterfuge or force? Absolutely The only target for annexation would be Quebec (there's a small minority party there that has talked about this for a long time) but that's extremely unlikely. Anything else would be colonization which isn't fashionable. Russian annexation is targeting places with large ethnically Russian people who speak Russian and identify more with Moscow than their local government. If you believe the line, there is a significant population in these places that want to be annexed. Anyone who is saying that is probably exaggerating the support but it's hard to deny that support exists. I believe in self determination more than border immutability. Free and fair elections would be preferable, of course. I don't know what the Crimeans want but it's plausible that they prefer their current situation. It would be nice to hear actual Crimean voices instead of Moscow or Washington. Anything the latter two say seems only in self interest.
  - shmerl 7y ago
    Russian annexations and conflict fueling have nothing to do with ethnical Russians or identification with Moscow (whatever that means). It's related to regions of former USSR which oppose Putin's imperialist craze (may be you call that "Moscow"), and want to actually have real democratic government and independence. As soon as that happens, Putin's mafia tries to create or fuel existing local conflicts, by sending mercenaries that back local separatists or by outright openly occupying some regions. Putin doesn't care in the least about Russian people in those territories. He only cares about destabilizing countries that don't want to be his vassals. This happened in Moldavia (where Russian army is present in Pridnestrovian region), Georgia (South Ossetia and Abkhazia) and Ukraine (Donbass, Crimea). Armenia came close to it when they removed previous government controlled by Putin, but since they didn't demand that Russian army should leave (they have military bases there), so far it didn't erupt in armed conflict. See also how Armenia still backs Putin's policies in UN and the like. If they won't, Putin will come knocking.