4 ms·

Yes, and 97% of Crimea voted to be part of Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_stat

Yes, and 97% of Crimea voted to be part of Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum

dmix 7y ago
It's interesting that all of the prior polling by relatively politically neutral organizations (UNDP, Razumkov Centre), even dating back to 2009-2011 before the civil war, showed widespread support for at a minimum secession from Ukraine, including multiple polls showing a majority supporting joining Russia (consistently 65% to 70% in favour) yet the whole idea of Crimeans having a voice in their own statehood was rejected outright by the UN and others. > Razumkov characterized Crimeans' views as controversial and unsteady, and therefore vulnerable to internal and external influences. It's true the Russian run referendum is probably a very corruptible process and unreliable but there's no clear indication that the majority of Crimeans were actually against the idea. Which IMO should matter more than what the foreign UN diplomats and think-tanks believe is best for them. > Gallup poll found only 1.7% of ethnic Russians and 14.5% of ethnic Ukrainians living in Crimea thought that the referendum results didn't accurately reflect the views of the Crimean people. The other side of it is whether that even matters with in the context of Ukraine's sovereignty and other issues of statehood. Plus referendums should probably not be happening in moments of anarchy. But it's not a good look for the west when trying to win them over by blaming Russian interference while glossing over potentially legitimate local support.
- philwelch 7y ago
  There was "potentially legitimate local support" from Germans living in Danzig and the Czech Sudetenland, too. The overriding principle of international law is that you shouldn't use your army to invade neighboring countries.
  - dmix 7y ago
    Indeed, it would be far more defensible if they merely seceded themselves instead of joining the bigger guy next door, with the direct intervention of their army beforehand. I'm a big fan of smaller states and more localized governments which closer reflect the people (see: Canada, Scandinavia, Singapore, Taiwan, HK, South Korea, etc). Few people talk about the US's massive population, economic, size/scale of modern western governments growth vs the past when talking about today's political and class divides. So my general point is that the needs/wants of the Crimeans themselves shouldn't be merely tossed aside and ignored just because Russia played a role. Especially if we're trying to prevent this from happening again. Taking the UN's elitist evil Russian boogieman approach leaves the world more vulnerable to this sort of thing, not less. Just like with ISIS/Iraq/Syria, the locals needs matter a lot more than we give them credit.
    - bushin 7y ago
      Ukrainians didn't think that Russians are evil boogiemen and look what happened to them. Better safe than sorry.
      - dmix 7y ago
        Did you not follow the whole Ukraine civil war where the entire point was the gov was going non-NATO and pro-Russian? The vast majority of Ukraine stood up to Russia at significant costs to themselves. I agree with a lot of anti-Russian stuff (their overarching geopolitical approach not the hysteria that’s used as a political tool in the west), but that's a very strange counter-example to use...
        bushin 7y ago
        The earlier Ukrainians had started kicking out Russian agents the lesser loss of lives and territories they would've suffered. They hesitated because they didn't see Russia as an enemy.
  - pnako 7y ago
    Right. You should only invade far away countries in the middle east. International law used to be European law, now it's American law. And perhaps it will be Chinese law, in 50 years.
- int_19h 7y ago
  A big problem is that in Crimea, divisions go across ethnic lines. Crimean Tatars are a minority there, and so they get outvoted in any referendum, but for them the difference between Crimea being in Russia vs Ukraine is the difference between their autonomy and culture being respected or suppressed. One of the first things that Russia did after annexing Crimea was going after most Crimean Tatar activists and organizations under the guise of fighting extremism and separatism. So the choice is between majoritarianism and human rights, and there's no way to reconcile them. The other aspect of it is that separatism is illegal under Russian law, period. So, ironically, while it was legal - from the Russian perspective - for Crimea to join, it is not legal for it to leave, or to contemplate leaving. Even vaguely suggesting that there should be a referendum on independence is deemed "extremism", and there are laws making that illegal (and people have been prosecuted under those laws, specifically wrt Crimea).
jariel 7y ago
Funny that the 'referendum' was not held until they were under military occupation by the power that forced the 'referendum' and that the results were staunchly in support of said military occupier. The referendum was boycotted, not subject to external validation, in a land that was already corrupted. "Invading a country and then holding a referendum at gunpoint whilst avoiding all transparency" I think seriously lacks legitimacy particularly if there was no imperative for the invasion (i.e. Ukrainian leaders were not putting those from Crimea in concentration camps or whatever).
drran 7y ago
I suspect that this number is much higher. 127% maybe.

Yes, and 97% of Crimea voted to be part of Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum

dmix 7y ago

It's interesting that all of the prior polling by relatively politically neutral organizations (UNDP, Razumkov Centre), even dating back to 2009-2011 before the civil war, showed widespread support for at a minimum secession from Ukraine, including multiple polls showing a majority supporting joining Russia (consistently 65% to 70% in favour) yet the whole idea of Crimeans having a voice in their own statehood was rejected outright by the UN and others. > Razumkov characterized Crimeans' views as controversial and unsteady, and therefore vulnerable to internal and external influences. It's true the Russian run referendum is probably a very corruptible process and unreliable but there's no clear indication that the majority of Crimeans were actually against the idea. Which IMO should matter more than what the foreign UN diplomats and think-tanks believe is best for them. > Gallup poll found only 1.7% of ethnic Russians and 14.5% of ethnic Ukrainians living in Crimea thought that the referendum results didn't accurately reflect the views of the Crimean people. The other side of it is whether that even matters with in the context of Ukraine's sovereignty and other issues of statehood. Plus referendums should probably not be happening in moments of anarchy. But it's not a good look for the west when trying to win them over by blaming Russian interference while glossing over potentially legitimate local support.

philwelch 7y ago
There was "potentially legitimate local support" from Germans living in Danzig and the Czech Sudetenland, too. The overriding principle of international law is that you shouldn't use your army to invade neighboring countries.
- dmix 7y ago
  Indeed, it would be far more defensible if they merely seceded themselves instead of joining the bigger guy next door, with the direct intervention of their army beforehand. I'm a big fan of smaller states and more localized governments which closer reflect the people (see: Canada, Scandinavia, Singapore, Taiwan, HK, South Korea, etc). Few people talk about the US's massive population, economic, size/scale of modern western governments growth vs the past when talking about today's political and class divides. So my general point is that the needs/wants of the Crimeans themselves shouldn't be merely tossed aside and ignored just because Russia played a role. Especially if we're trying to prevent this from happening again. Taking the UN's elitist evil Russian boogieman approach leaves the world more vulnerable to this sort of thing, not less. Just like with ISIS/Iraq/Syria, the locals needs matter a lot more than we give them credit.
  - bushin 7y ago
    Ukrainians didn't think that Russians are evil boogiemen and look what happened to them. Better safe than sorry.
    - dmix 7y ago
      Did you not follow the whole Ukraine civil war where the entire point was the gov was going non-NATO and pro-Russian? The vast majority of Ukraine stood up to Russia at significant costs to themselves. I agree with a lot of anti-Russian stuff (their overarching geopolitical approach not the hysteria that’s used as a political tool in the west), but that's a very strange counter-example to use...
      - bushin 7y ago
        The earlier Ukrainians had started kicking out Russian agents the lesser loss of lives and territories they would've suffered. They hesitated because they didn't see Russia as an enemy.
- pnako 7y ago
  Right. You should only invade far away countries in the middle east. International law used to be European law, now it's American law. And perhaps it will be Chinese law, in 50 years.
int_19h 7y ago
A big problem is that in Crimea, divisions go across ethnic lines. Crimean Tatars are a minority there, and so they get outvoted in any referendum, but for them the difference between Crimea being in Russia vs Ukraine is the difference between their autonomy and culture being respected or suppressed. One of the first things that Russia did after annexing Crimea was going after most Crimean Tatar activists and organizations under the guise of fighting extremism and separatism. So the choice is between majoritarianism and human rights, and there's no way to reconcile them. The other aspect of it is that separatism is illegal under Russian law, period. So, ironically, while it was legal - from the Russian perspective - for Crimea to join, it is not legal for it to leave, or to contemplate leaving. Even vaguely suggesting that there should be a referendum on independence is deemed "extremism", and there are laws making that illegal (and people have been prosecuted under those laws, specifically wrt Crimea).

jariel 7y ago

Funny that the 'referendum' was not held until they were under military occupation by the power that forced the 'referendum' and that the results were staunchly in support of said military occupier. The referendum was boycotted, not subject to external validation, in a land that was already corrupted. "Invading a country and then holding a referendum at gunpoint whilst avoiding all transparency" I think seriously lacks legitimacy particularly if there was no imperative for the invasion (i.e. Ukrainian leaders were not putting those from Crimea in concentration camps or whatever).

drran 7y ago

I suspect that this number is much higher. 127% maybe.