7 ms·

If you dont think the future of crimea should be determined by what crimeans think then you cannot pretend to have any respect for democracy.

by pydry 5y ago

macintux 5y ago
It’s possible to respect democracy without believing that the majority of any given population should automatically get whatever they want.
- pydry 5y ago
  If the majority want to exterminate a minority, sure. Democracy doesnt mean that they should be allowed. If "whatever they want" means independence and self determination then yes, either you believe they should have it or you give democracy the middle finger. Theres no middle ground there. Some people think ukraine should be run from Moscow and fuck what anybody in ukraine thinks. Some people think crimea should be run from Kyiv and fuck what anybody in Crimea thinks. They both hate democracy.
  - macintux 5y ago
    It’s entirely possible that, as Ukraine’s democracy matured, Crimea could have changed hands peacefully. It’s also possible that, as Ukraine’s democracy matured, Crimea would have no longer wanted to leave. Russia short-circuited that by force.
    - pydry 4y ago
      It's not in the slightest bit possible. Ukraine has not offered a vote, it would not conduct a vote and Ukraines constitution prohibits such a vote. You cannot respect democracy and want crimea returned to Ukraine. The two positions are fundamentally incompatible.
kX4A8o4mVmX8aW 5y ago
There is a tension between the concepts of self-determination and territorial integrity that makes the question not so obvious. However the concept of territorial integrity has advantages for weaker nations. If self-determination were absolute then for example the U.S. could get any territory it wanted by using its immense wealth to buy off local residents. I'm sure there are some villages along the Russian border who would be happy to see their land turned into a U.S. military base in exchange for U.S. passports and big piles of money.
- pydry 5y ago
  >If self-determination were absolute then for example the U.S. could get any territory it wanted by using its immense wealth to buy off local residents. I mean, yeah. Thats how panama was born for example. Colombia was kinda mad about it at the time but of all the things the US gets shit for its not even in the top 10. The US also tried to do something similar (and failed) to Kaliningrad. Only Russia objected. Theres a pretty long history of the US doing this and nobody really minding. >I'm sure there are some villages along the Russian border who would be happy to see their land turned into a U.S. military base in exchange for U.S. passports and big piles of money. I wouldnt be so sure. Argentina tried the same thing with the falklanders and it didnt work. Likewise Trump with Greenland. Villages also wouldnt survive if they were severed economically. Crimea wasnt bought, anyway. It's just 90% ethnically Russian and objected vociferously to the maidan.
  - kX4A8o4mVmX8aW 5y ago
    The U.S.'s historical strategy has been to find or create some credible faction wherever it wanted to meddle and then support it using any means necessary, ethical or otherwise, and coerce other countries to go along with it. In purely internal matters such as against the Native American populations it sometimes bothered with some fig leaf legal cover but other times it would just take what it wanted in the most brutal ways possible. I don't think it's ever actually fairly bought off a population though, so that's not really the same thing. You framed your earlier comment as being about democracy without qualifications. I'm wondering how far you'd go with that. Is every border territory only a 50.1% vote away from changing countries? How often can these votes be held? Do they require international observation?

If you dont think the future of crimea should be determined by what crimeans think then you cannot pretend to have any respect for democracy.

by pydry 5y ago

If you dont think the future of crimea should be determined by what crimeans think then you cannot pretend to have any respect for democracy.

macintux 5y ago

It’s possible to respect democracy without believing that the majority of any given population should automatically get whatever they want.

pydry 5y ago
If the majority want to exterminate a minority, sure. Democracy doesnt mean that they should be allowed. If "whatever they want" means independence and self determination then yes, either you believe they should have it or you give democracy the middle finger. Theres no middle ground there. Some people think ukraine should be run from Moscow and fuck what anybody in ukraine thinks. Some people think crimea should be run from Kyiv and fuck what anybody in Crimea thinks. They both hate democracy.
- macintux 5y ago
  It’s entirely possible that, as Ukraine’s democracy matured, Crimea could have changed hands peacefully. It’s also possible that, as Ukraine’s democracy matured, Crimea would have no longer wanted to leave. Russia short-circuited that by force.
  - pydry 4y ago
    It's not in the slightest bit possible. Ukraine has not offered a vote, it would not conduct a vote and Ukraines constitution prohibits such a vote. You cannot respect democracy and want crimea returned to Ukraine. The two positions are fundamentally incompatible.

kX4A8o4mVmX8aW 5y ago

There is a tension between the concepts of self-determination and territorial integrity that makes the question not so obvious. However the concept of territorial integrity has advantages for weaker nations. If self-determination were absolute then for example the U.S. could get any territory it wanted by using its immense wealth to buy off local residents. I'm sure there are some villages along the Russian border who would be happy to see their land turned into a U.S. military base in exchange for U.S. passports and big piles of money.

pydry 5y ago
>If self-determination were absolute then for example the U.S. could get any territory it wanted by using its immense wealth to buy off local residents. I mean, yeah. Thats how panama was born for example. Colombia was kinda mad about it at the time but of all the things the US gets shit for its not even in the top 10. The US also tried to do something similar (and failed) to Kaliningrad. Only Russia objected. Theres a pretty long history of the US doing this and nobody really minding. >I'm sure there are some villages along the Russian border who would be happy to see their land turned into a U.S. military base in exchange for U.S. passports and big piles of money. I wouldnt be so sure. Argentina tried the same thing with the falklanders and it didnt work. Likewise Trump with Greenland. Villages also wouldnt survive if they were severed economically. Crimea wasnt bought, anyway. It's just 90% ethnically Russian and objected vociferously to the maidan.
- kX4A8o4mVmX8aW 5y ago
  The U.S.'s historical strategy has been to find or create some credible faction wherever it wanted to meddle and then support it using any means necessary, ethical or otherwise, and coerce other countries to go along with it. In purely internal matters such as against the Native American populations it sometimes bothered with some fig leaf legal cover but other times it would just take what it wanted in the most brutal ways possible. I don't think it's ever actually fairly bought off a population though, so that's not really the same thing. You framed your earlier comment as being about democracy without qualifications. I'm wondering how far you'd go with that. Is every border territory only a 50.1% vote away from changing countries? How often can these votes be held? Do they require international observation?