4 ms·

"Occupied Crimea" is a bit debatable isn't it? (seeing as the citizens voted for and celebrated joining with Russia)

by ollysb 12y ago

eCa 12y ago
Apart from the problems of holding referendums while occupied, the referendum itself was not legal under neither Ukrainian nor Crimean law [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014#Legal_aspects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014...
- ollysb 12y ago
  Legal or not they do seem to represent the will of the people, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/03/crimea-celebrates-as-region-joins-russia-20143224139630640.html http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/03/crimea-celebrat...
  - Tuna-Fish 12y ago
    You do realize that when a region is under strict military occupation, those who oppose the occupation cannot exactly openly voice their protests, while those who like it, can. There is a portion of the population who support the annexation of Crimea, but you cannot make any real judgement of it's size by the data we have. (IMHO It's probably >50%).
    - ancap 12y ago
      What evidence is there that during the vote there was "strict military occupation"?
      - Tuna-Fish 12y ago
        Among other things, the statements of Crimean Ukrainians and Tatars who have since then fled the place? If you were not part of the Russian majority you very much have to keep your head down.
    - ollysb 12y ago
      I'm not going to claim that I know one way or the other (I think it's pretty difficult at this point) but here's another data point, http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/05/12/pew-poll-crimeans-happy-with-annexation-by-russia-believe-referendum-was-free-and-fair/ http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/05/12/pew-poll-cri...
- maelito 12y ago
  which probably makes the title on the map debatable
- _delirium 12y ago
  I don't think the referendum was a particularly convincing one, but illegality under the law of the state being seceded from isn't a very convincing argument either. I mean, Ukraine's secession from the USSR was not legal under Soviet law. And Kosovo's wasn't legal under Serbian law. Consensual secession referenda, like the upcoming Scottish one, do happen on occasion, but are fairly unusual.
ollysb 12y ago
Downvoters care to add anything to the debate? (perhaps which country you're from)
philwelch 12y ago
Sending troops into disputed territory and then holding a plebiscite after the fact to legitimize it is the oldest trick in the book.
emeidi 12y ago
Once I read "Occupied Crimea" I knew the map makers are biased, so don't waste your time on this site.
- emeidi 12y ago
  Ukrainian Downvoters?
- goblin89 12y ago
  Those not personally involved in the conflict would lack the motivation to develop a service like this, and for those who are involved it must be difficult to remain neutral given the circumstances (though I personally would appreciate if they try). An unbiased source with objective independent coverage of these events is tricky to come across, I suppose.
astrodust 12y ago
Regardless of any referendums, legal or otherwise, is this internationally recognized as an annexation? Right now it's just occupied. That's technically correct.
- mkaziz 12y ago
  What does international recognition matter if a people want something? I'm not commenting on the legality of the annexation, but I don't think international recognition (biased as it tends to be) matters.
  - astrodust 12y ago
    International recognition matters a lot when you're talking about maps and labels on them. This is isn't like South Sudan where part of the country separated through referendum and was immediately recognized as a new entity. It's still controversial, hence the label on the map.
lgieron 12y ago
Yeah, in some places, over 120% of the population voted for joining Russia...
- nokiaman 12y ago
  That was debunked, it was a media reporting error, a '7' used instead of '5'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_referendum,_2014 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_referendum,_2014 In the evening of 16 March 2014, Mikhail Malyshev, the Crimean election Spokesman, reported that as of 20:00, 1,250,427 people or 81.36% voted in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and 274,136 or 89.50% voted in Sevastopol for a total of 1,524,563 or 82.71% of the electorate.[129] ITAR-TASS initially reported this as 1,724,563 voters in total,[130] but corrected it later.[131] The discrepancy led to some reports of a 123% turnout in Sevastopol.
goblin89 12y ago
There obviously is some bias. Meanwhile, independent coverage (or a convincing attempt at one) could have more pronounced media impact, I think. Recounting facts without any apparent prejudice can ‘win’ the thinking reader who is wary of being manipulated into supporting either side. Can't blame the guys, though—it may be challenging to remain neutral in this situation.

"Occupied Crimea" is a bit debatable isn't it? (seeing as the citizens voted for and celebrated joining with Russia)

by ollysb 12y ago

"Occupied Crimea" is a bit debatable isn't it? (seeing as the citizens voted for and celebrated joining with Russia)

eCa 12y ago

Apart from the problems of holding referendums while occupied, the referendum itself was not legal under neither Ukrainian nor Crimean law [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014#Legal_aspects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014...

ollysb 12y ago
Legal or not they do seem to represent the will of the people, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/03/crimea-celebrates-as-region-joins-russia-20143224139630640.html http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/03/crimea-celebrat...
- Tuna-Fish 12y ago
  You do realize that when a region is under strict military occupation, those who oppose the occupation cannot exactly openly voice their protests, while those who like it, can. There is a portion of the population who support the annexation of Crimea, but you cannot make any real judgement of it's size by the data we have. (IMHO It's probably >50%).
  - ancap 12y ago
    What evidence is there that during the vote there was "strict military occupation"?
    - Tuna-Fish 12y ago
      Among other things, the statements of Crimean Ukrainians and Tatars who have since then fled the place? If you were not part of the Russian majority you very much have to keep your head down.
  - ollysb 12y ago
    I'm not going to claim that I know one way or the other (I think it's pretty difficult at this point) but here's another data point, http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/05/12/pew-poll-crimeans-happy-with-annexation-by-russia-believe-referendum-was-free-and-fair/ http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/05/12/pew-poll-cri...
maelito 12y ago
which probably makes the title on the map debatable
_delirium 12y ago
I don't think the referendum was a particularly convincing one, but illegality under the law of the state being seceded from isn't a very convincing argument either. I mean, Ukraine's secession from the USSR was not legal under Soviet law. And Kosovo's wasn't legal under Serbian law. Consensual secession referenda, like the upcoming Scottish one, do happen on occasion, but are fairly unusual.

ollysb 12y ago

Downvoters care to add anything to the debate? (perhaps which country you're from)

philwelch 12y ago

Sending troops into disputed territory and then holding a plebiscite after the fact to legitimize it is the oldest trick in the book.

emeidi 12y ago

Once I read "Occupied Crimea" I knew the map makers are biased, so don't waste your time on this site.

emeidi 12y ago
Ukrainian Downvoters?
goblin89 12y ago
Those not personally involved in the conflict would lack the motivation to develop a service like this, and for those who are involved it must be difficult to remain neutral given the circumstances (though I personally would appreciate if they try). An unbiased source with objective independent coverage of these events is tricky to come across, I suppose.

astrodust 12y ago

Regardless of any referendums, legal or otherwise, is this internationally recognized as an annexation? Right now it's just occupied. That's technically correct.

mkaziz 12y ago
What does international recognition matter if a people want something? I'm not commenting on the legality of the annexation, but I don't think international recognition (biased as it tends to be) matters.
- astrodust 12y ago
  International recognition matters a lot when you're talking about maps and labels on them. This is isn't like South Sudan where part of the country separated through referendum and was immediately recognized as a new entity. It's still controversial, hence the label on the map.

lgieron 12y ago

Yeah, in some places, over 120% of the population voted for joining Russia...

nokiaman 12y ago
That was debunked, it was a media reporting error, a '7' used instead of '5'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_referendum,_2014 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_referendum,_2014 In the evening of 16 March 2014, Mikhail Malyshev, the Crimean election Spokesman, reported that as of 20:00, 1,250,427 people or 81.36% voted in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and 274,136 or 89.50% voted in Sevastopol for a total of 1,524,563 or 82.71% of the electorate.[129] ITAR-TASS initially reported this as 1,724,563 voters in total,[130] but corrected it later.[131] The discrepancy led to some reports of a 123% turnout in Sevastopol.

goblin89 12y ago

There obviously is some bias. Meanwhile, independent coverage (or a convincing attempt at one) could have more pronounced media impact, I think. Recounting facts without any apparent prejudice can ‘win’ the thinking reader who is wary of being manipulated into supporting either side. Can't blame the guys, though—it may be challenging to remain neutral in this situation.