5 ms·

> I am for keeping Ukraine as a neutral buffer separating Russia and the US. What if the people of Ukraine do not want this?

pydry 5y ago
What if most Ukrainians are polarized and want to become part of the EU/NATO or part of Russia and very little in between? Neutral sounds better than civil war.
- tjansen 5y ago
  There was a referendum in 1991, and a huge majority (92%) voted for independence from Russia. This is a map showing the no-votes per region: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum#/media/File:Ukr_Referendum_1991_No.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_re... The Crimea region was the only part of Ukraine that had a noticeable opposition (42% voted against independence). Even in the Eastern parts of Ukraine there was no region with more than 13% of votes against independence.
  - pydry 5y ago
    A lot can change in 30 years. Donbas/Luhansk also ran referendums in 2014, along with Crimea, with ~90% support for independence. These polls were denounced as unconstitutional and illegal by Kiev. And, while it was denounced as not a free and fair vote, realistically Kiev would not ever have allowed these votes to happen in any shape or form.
    - lalaland1125 5y ago
      It's funny that you bring up the Crimea referendum, which didn't even offer a choice for the status quo prior to the Russian invasion. Not to mention the idea of holding a referendum with Russian troops occupying the area and no real outside observers is fundamentally off.
      - pydry 5y ago
        The second option was to be part of Ukraine. It was supported by 2-3% of voters with 80% turnout. I dont see a meaningful distinction between this and the previous status quo. Even Kiev doesnt believe a vote without the troops would have had a markedly different result, which is why it rejects the idea of holding a vote at all on constitutional grounds. Many in the USSR rejected the idea of Ukrainian independence based upon a similar principle of the inviolability of Soviet borders.
        lalaland1125 5y ago
        The second option was to be a "part" of Ukraine under a different agreement than the one they had before invasion.
        pydry 5y ago
        Do you genuinely believe that if that second option said "status quo" that the vote share would have jumped from 2% to > 50%?
        lalaland1125 5y ago
        I think if the second option was status quo and Russian military weren't occupying the area, and the "stay with Ukraine" side had been allowed to campaign, I think the vote share for stay would have been much higher. Even ignoring the potential of voter fraud due to Russia not allowing real third party observers. I don't know exactly what it would be or if it would be over 50%, but we should reject the obvious sham that Russia carried out.
        pydry 5y ago
        Pew Research found that 88% of crimeans wanted Kyiv to recognize the vote and 91% thought it was free and fair. Do you think that they are wrong? Do you subscribe to Kyiv's view that holding a vote is a criminal offence?

pydry 5y ago

What if most Ukrainians are polarized and want to become part of the EU/NATO or part of Russia and very little in between? Neutral sounds better than civil war.

tjansen 5y ago
There was a referendum in 1991, and a huge majority (92%) voted for independence from Russia. This is a map showing the no-votes per region: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum#/media/File:Ukr_Referendum_1991_No.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_re... The Crimea region was the only part of Ukraine that had a noticeable opposition (42% voted against independence). Even in the Eastern parts of Ukraine there was no region with more than 13% of votes against independence.
- pydry 5y ago
  A lot can change in 30 years. Donbas/Luhansk also ran referendums in 2014, along with Crimea, with ~90% support for independence. These polls were denounced as unconstitutional and illegal by Kiev. And, while it was denounced as not a free and fair vote, realistically Kiev would not ever have allowed these votes to happen in any shape or form.
  - lalaland1125 5y ago
    It's funny that you bring up the Crimea referendum, which didn't even offer a choice for the status quo prior to the Russian invasion. Not to mention the idea of holding a referendum with Russian troops occupying the area and no real outside observers is fundamentally off.
    - pydry 5y ago
      The second option was to be part of Ukraine. It was supported by 2-3% of voters with 80% turnout. I dont see a meaningful distinction between this and the previous status quo. Even Kiev doesnt believe a vote without the troops would have had a markedly different result, which is why it rejects the idea of holding a vote at all on constitutional grounds. Many in the USSR rejected the idea of Ukrainian independence based upon a similar principle of the inviolability of Soviet borders.
      - lalaland1125 5y ago
        The second option was to be a "part" of Ukraine under a different agreement than the one they had before invasion.
        pydry 5y ago
        Do you genuinely believe that if that second option said "status quo" that the vote share would have jumped from 2% to > 50%?
        lalaland1125 5y ago
        I think if the second option was status quo and Russian military weren't occupying the area, and the "stay with Ukraine" side had been allowed to campaign, I think the vote share for stay would have been much higher. Even ignoring the potential of voter fraud due to Russia not allowing real third party observers. I don't know exactly what it would be or if it would be over 50%, but we should reject the obvious sham that Russia carried out.
        pydry 5y ago
        Pew Research found that 88% of crimeans wanted Kyiv to recognize the vote and 91% thought it was free and fair. Do you think that they are wrong? Do you subscribe to Kyiv's view that holding a vote is a criminal offence?