Crimea

[tovaris]

the autonome republic of Crimea demandes to be anexed to Russia.
Putin (Satan) decides to send the army to the area on the request of the locaal goverment.
And jet stil the Obama (the Devil) frettens russia not to do something their morals olige them to.

[britishboy]

If they want to be Russian let them be Russian.

[Stronk Serb]

If they want to be Russian let them be Russian.

Crimea is a part of Ukraine. The US, the UK and Germany have signed a treaty to protect Ukraine's sovereignty.

[tovaris]

Crimea is a part of Ukraine. The US, the UK and Germany have signed a treaty to protect Ukraine's sovereignty.

But the local democratic goverment has invited the russian forces in.

[britishboy]

Crimea is a part of Ukraine. The US, the UK and Germany have signed a treaty to protect Ukraine's sovereignty.

Scotland is part of the UK but they can do as they want. Crimea if they want to break away they can.

[radsniper]

i find no problem with this they can make their own choices

[phuckphace]

america needs to fuck off and stay out of this. we don't need cuban missile crisis 2.0

[Harry Smith]

Scotland is part of the UK but they can do as they want.

That's wrong, apart from controlling their own education boards and building roads Scotland can't do what they want-they don't have their own foreign policy, their own army or their own head of state

Crimea if they want to break away they can.

Then we should fight Russia, we have agreed to protect them, we must protect them

You've changed your tune-3 hours earlier you said we should protect them

[Kurgg]

In my opinion, if people really want to be annexed by other country, I don't see any problem.

[Stronk Serb]

But the local democratic goverment has invited the russian forces in.

Which are tresspassing on Ukrainian soil. The government has a degree of autonomy, but it's not independent.

Scotland is part of the UK but they can do as they want. Crimea if they want to break away they can.
You see, Crimea wants to get annexed by Russia. That is a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty that Germany, the US, the UK must uphold.

[tovaris]

Which are tresspassing on Ukrainian soil. The gove

They argue they are independant from now on.

[Stronk Serb]

They argue they are independant from now on.

It's the same situation like Kosovo.

[Vlerchan]

I'm for allowing the people of Crimea decide their own faith - as I've repeatedly made clear since the whole crisis began.

It's the same situation like Kosovo.

I'm similarly for allowing the people of Kosovo to decide their own faith.

If they want to be Russian let them be Russian.

You're not touting Cameron's line. This is certainly odd.

There can be no excuse for outside military intervention in Ukraine - a point I made to President (Vladimir) Putin when we spoke yesterday.

[...] tresspassing on Ukrainian soil.

Mhmm ...

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02838/Ukraine-MAP_2838884c.jpg

[tovaris]

It's the same situation like Kosovo.

Not realy, the russians in Крим are native while the albanians in Косово are not. This is the crutial diference. Thy are a minorety yes but have an autonomy and the right... but should they?

[Sph2015]

I look at the situation, from my very uninformed position, like this. If North Dakota became dead set on joining Canada, and Canada was all, "Sure, come on over", you can argue that, hey its there call, but it also... isn't. They're part of the United States. You don't get to just change your mind. The North Dakotans are free to move to Canada, but they can't take North Dakota with them.

Its like when a little kid tries to run away from home. They start packing things, and then their parent informs them, "Hey, I bought that for you. I own it, you can't take it", and they realize that they really can't leave.

If the people of the Crimea region wish to be Russian, they should move to Russia. The land isn't theirs to take, its the Ukraine's to give, and they've made it very clear they don't plan to.

While I certainly don't support US military action, I do think the Russian army and Crimean government have both crossed a line. It will be interesting to see how it works out.

[Vlerchan]

If the people of the Crimea region wish to be Russian, they should move to Russia. The land isn't theirs to take, its the Ukraine's to give, and they've made it very clear they don't plan to.

The land is owned by a number of private individuals who as of right now hold Ukrainian citizenship. It is not Ukraine's land. Ukraine is merely a social-construct; a social-construct claims only exist as long as we - or contextualized: the Crimean people - agree they exist. Once we stop agreeing then the claims cease to exist.

tl;dr: Ukraine does not own land. People who currently hold Ukrainian citizenship hold land.

[Sph2015]

The land is owned by a number of private individuals who as of right now hold Ukrainian citizenship. It is not Ukraine's land. Ukraine is merely a social-construct; a social-construct claims only exist as long as we - or contextualized: the Crimean people - agree they exist. Once we stop agreeing then the claims cease to exist.

tl;dr: Ukraine does not own land. People who currently hold Ukrainian citizenship hold land.

The idea of owning land is itself a social construct. Certainly a good one, but still a social construct. It's really not possible to own land, so if you wanna get technical I could claim that the Crimea region is mine, and everyone is being silly.

So who is to decide what social constructs we are to disregard and which we are to recognize? It's a dangerous game.

[Vlerchan]

The idea of owning land is a social construct. Certainly a good one, but still a social construct. It's really not possible to own land, so if you wanna get technical I could claim that the Crimea region is mine, and everyone is being silly.

This is actually a good point.

I'd think though that the legally-binding contracts as possessed by the land-owners of Ukraine would elevate their claim above social-construction. Society doesn't recognize their claims because they want to recognize them. Society recognizes their claims because it is the law. Admittedly law is also a social construct ... so yeah: I've got nothing there. There is the idea that Ukraine's claim to land-ownership involves one social-construct more - social-construction of a state and social-construction of private-property ownership - than the private-individuals claim to land-ownership though that wouldn't be something I'd be looking to debate - seems messy.

I guess the next thing we can do - besides debate social-construction - would be to analysis who has the greater or more legitimate claim to the land. Ukraine's claim is on the basis of violent-force whilst the private-individuals one is by-and-large one that stems from peaceful and voluntary transaction between him/her and another private-individual. In the case of Ukraine versus the peaceful land-owning people of Crimea as to who has the greater claim of ownership over the (individual plots of) Crimean land I'd be more inclined to lean in favor of the land-owning people of Crimea - there was no violent-force initiated against others in order to gain control of their land unlike that of Ukraine.

[tovaris]

I look at the situation, from my very uninformed position, like this. If North Dakota became dead set on joining Canada, and Canada was all, "Sure, come on over", you can argue that, hey its there call, but it also... isn't. They're part of the United States. You don't get to just change your mind. The North Dakotans are free to move to Canada, but they can't take North Dakota with them.

Its like when a little kid tries to run away from home. They start packing things, and then their parent informs them, "Hey, I bought that for you. I own it, you can't take it", and they realize that they really can't leave.

If the people of the Crimea region wish to be Russian, they should move to Russia. The land isn't theirs to take, its the Ukraine's to give, and they've made it very clear they don't plan to.

While I certainly don't support US military action, I do think the Russian army and Crimean government have both crossed a line. It will be interesting to see how it works out.

Thats where you are wrong
The land IS theirs to take... they own it... they have autonomy... they are who gowern the land... at this moment they have no use of kiev... and they are armed
The idea of owning land is itself a social construct. Certainly a good one, but still a social construct. It's really not possible to own land, so if you wanna get technical I could claim that the Crimea region is mine, and everyone is being silly.

So who is to decide what social constructs we are to disregard and which we are to recognize? It's a dangerous game.

They have been living thee for centuries, that is why they have a right to the land

[sqishy]

That's wrong, apart from controlling their own education boards and building roads Scotland can't do what they want-they don't have their own foreign policy, their own army or their own head of state


That could change by the end of this year with their independence referendum. As you well know, but just reminding.

[britishboy]

We should protect Ukraine but if a part wants to break away they should be able to break away, look at Scotland.

[Harry Smith]

We should protect Ukraine but if a part wants to break away they should be able to break away, look at Scotland.

Okay-surely if a part breaks apart then we're falling to protect it? It's like saying I'll protect you but if someone rips of your arm I'll let them.

If's completely different to Scotland-I'm sure you can understand that.
1) Scotland has been at union with England for 300 years-Crimea has for about 50 years.
2) Scotland is having a democratic process-Crimea is not.
3) Russian gunmen have stormed the parliament, airports and other key areas of Crimea. Has that happened in Scotland?
4) A large part of ETHNIC scots want to remain in the union-compared to Crimea where the vast majority of ethnic Russians want to leave

Just because there's a small link between the two geo-political arguments doesn't make it correct.

What Russia currently doing is an act of war-they've surrounded a Ukrainian military base and are trying to get them to surrender, this is happening all across Crimea. Russia aren't protecting the crimean citizens-they're trying to get payback for a pro-Russian puppet being removed from power

[tovaris]

We should protect Ukraine but if a part wants to break away they should be able to break away, look at Scotland.

Protect ukrain? From whoom? How?

[Sir Suomi]

We're (The U.S and U.K) obligated to defend the Ukraine from any military invasion that threatens their sovereignty. If Ukraine calls for support, we are required to help. That's sort of why Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal back in 1994, am I not correct? Besides, Russia has already made their first move. They've sent a Intelligence ship to Cuba, less than 500 miles from our shores! It's time for action. Russia must acknowledge that it cannot take what it wants from people and get away with it.

[britishboy]

We're (The U.S and U.K) obligated to defend the Ukraine from any military invasion that threatens their sovereignty. If Ukraine calls for support, we are required to help. That's sort of why Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal back in 1994, am I not correct? Besides, Russia has already made their first move. They've sent a Intelligence ship to Cuba, less than 500 miles from our shores! It's time for action. Russia must acknowledge that it cannot take what it wants from people and get away with it.

Very true but let it play out for longer. We should only get involved if the Russians don't leave or bullets are shot.

[Harry Smith]

Very true but let it play out for longer. We should only get involved if the Russians don't leave or bullets are shot.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26432253

uhhmmm

[Stronk Serb]

So, WWIII? Should I buy an AK-47, ammo, a helmet because knowing our politicians and stuff, we will get involved in some way. There are Serbian nutjobs who go to Ukraine to help the Russians.

[Zenos]

the autonome republic of Crimea demandes to be anexed to Russia.
Putin (Satan) decides to send the army to the area on the request of the locaal goverment.
And jet stil the Obama (the Devil) frettens russia not to do something their morals olige them to.


Putin is using an amendment in the Russian Federation's constitution that grants him with permission of the Russian parliament the right to send russian troops there to protect Russian Citizens,and option he ha snot chosen to do,and yeh Obamma should keep the US out of it.

from what I last heard teveryones talk about sending observers there to keep an eye on things.

[tovaris]

Putin is using an amendment in the Russian Federation's constitution that grants him with permission of the Russian parliament the right to send russian troops there to protect Russian Citizens,and option he ha snot chosen to do,and yeh Obamma should keep the US out of it.

from what I last heard teveryones talk about sending observers there to keep an eye on things.

This conflict has nothing to do wit the unjted states! Its non of their buisnes and they should keep their nose out of it!

[Harry Smith]

So, WWIII? Should I buy an AK-47, ammo, a helmet because knowing our politicians and stuff, we will get involved in some way. There are Serbian nutjobs who go to Ukraine to help the Russians.

It's funny that 100 years after the start of the first world war we're going to restart it-just without horses

[Stronk Serb]

It's funny that 100 years after the start of the first world war we're going to restart it-just without horses

Yeah, we now have deluded tyrants with nukes. If we keep going like this, we will wipe civilization off the face of the world. 14,000,000 60,000,000. How many people will die now?

[Zenos]

This conflict has nothing to do wit the unjted states! Its non of their buisnes and they should keep their nose out of it!

Well if he does send troops in and the Ukraine askes us for help then we are obligated to a treaty signed back in the 90's to send help,so as much as i'd like to say we should stay out of it a treaty is a treaty and must be upheld.

[britishboy]

Well if he does send troops in and the Ukraine askes us for help then we are obligated to a treaty signed back in the 90's to send help,so as much as i'd like to say we should stay out of it a treaty is a treaty and must be upheld.

That is true, one must always respect treaties because when one does not, no other treaty will be respected, including Article 5 in NATO.

[Zenos]

That is true, one must always respect treaties because when one does not, no other treaty will be respected, including Article 5 in NATO.

True.

ah the old one for all and all for one article =)

[Sir Suomi]

This conflict has nothing to do wit the unjted states! Its non of their buisnes and they should keep their nose out of it!

And Russia has no business in the Ukraine. However, if they refuse to cease their hostile actions, we are obligated to support the Ukrainians. It will be interesting to watch Su-35's drop from the skies, T-90's blown to bits, and to see the Russians retreat in utter chaos. America has been ready to flex it's muscles again. If Russia has any common sense, they should fall back and try to salvage their situation while they can.

[Zenos]

And Russia has no business in the Ukraine. However, if they refuse to cease their hostile actions, we are obligated to support the Ukrainians. It will be interesting to watch Su-35's drop from the skies, T-90's blown to bits, and to see the Russians retreat in utter chaos. America has been ready to flex it's muscles again. If Russia has any common sense, they should fall back and try to salvage their situation while they can.

You do realize that neither side will win don't you?

And just because we have been bowling over smaller nations with less sophisticated armies for the last decade,does not mean we could route the Russians.

You do realize they have mnore then just left over cold war weaponry,that they have been modernizing.

Also while I think in the long run both sides would lose in a shooting war,there's a good possibility that if we went to war with them providing Nukes where not used that we'd ( including the rest of NATO armed forces)soon end up with our backs to the atlantic having to be rescued by nato navy (including our own) and shipped back to the USA.

Inshort in the 21st century if we go to war with Russia we could be facing just What all of NATO new back during the cold war days if a shooting war starts all we can do is fight a holding action to get as many troops,civilians and equipment out of Europe to America as we can.

That was the war scenario for back in the Cold war and it might become a reality in the 21st century

[Vlerchan]

And Russia has no business in the Ukraine.
... other than ensuring that the ethnic-Russian majority resident in Crimea have their rights respected.

However, if they refuse to cease their hostile actions, we are obligated to support the Ukrainians. It will be interesting to watch Su-35's drop from the skies, T-90's blown to bits, and to see the Russians retreat in utter chaos. America has been ready to flex it's muscles again.
This isn't going to happen.

At best (or worst - all depends on who you support) the US will impose some half-assed economic sanctions on Russia which the EU will refuse to comply with because it relies on Russian natural-gas.

[Sir Suomi]

You do realize that neither side will win don't you?

And just because we have been bowling over smaller nations with less sophisticated armies for the last decade,does not mean we could route the Russians.

You do realize they have mnore then just left over cold war weaponry,that they have been modernizing.

Also while I think in the long run both sides would lose in a shooting war,there's a good possibility that if we went to war with them providing Nukes where not used that we'd ( including the rest of NATO armed forces)soon end up with our backs to the atlantic having to be rescued by nato navy (including our own) and shipped back to the USA.

Inshort in the 21st century if we go to war with Russia we could be facing just What all of NATO new back during the cold war days if a shooting war starts all we can do is fight a holding action to get as many troops,civilians and equipment out of Europe to America as we can.

That was the war scenario for back in the Cold war and it might become a reality in the 21st century

Not to the extent as the US military. Seeing as we're the only country to have fully operational 5th-Generation fighters in service, we'd completely dominate the air, which means we can do another massive shock-and-awe campaign against the Russians, similar to what we did in Iraq. Our Abrams would destroy the Russian T-90's before they even had a chance to fire back. Although Russia has some new advanced technology underneath their belt, we're still light years ahead of them. And you should be smart enough to know that nuclear war would be completely avoided, since both sides are well aware of each other's response to a nuclear launch. :rolleyes:

... other than ensuring that the ethnic-Russian majority resident in Crimea have their rights respected.


This isn't going to happen.

At best (or worst - all depends on who you support) the US will impose some half-assed economic sanctions on Russia which the EU will refuse to comply with because it relies on Russian natural-gas.

The Ukraine has not consenting to this. I believe you would be quite upset if a country, such as China, annexed Hawaii, under the same cause you gave. Russia has no reason to annex Crimea, and they should stop immediately.

And we are required to give Ukraine military support if they call for it. It's sort of why they gave up being the world's 3rd largest nuclear power back in '94. So we are obligated to assist them if requested.

[Vlerchan]

The Ukraine has not consenting to this[1]. I believe you would be quite upset if a country, such as China, annexed Hawaii, under the same cause you gave[2]. Russia has no reason to annex Crimea, and they should stop immediately[3,].
[1]: This is the problem: the Ukrainian 'government' are actively suppressing the Crimean's right to self-determination. Russia have intervened to safeguard such a right.

[2]: No. I wouldn't. I'm entirely supportive of nations rights to self-determination regardless of circumstances.

[3]: Russia are not annexing Crimea. Putin made this abundantly clear in his news conference on Tuesday: Russia has intervened to safeguard the formation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. If Crimea then (democratically) decide that they would prefer to be diplo-annexed by Russia then that's an entirely different issue seperate and independent of the ongoing events in the Ukraine now.

And we are required to give Ukraine military support if they call for it. It's sort of why they gave up being the world's 3rd largest nuclear power back in '94. So we are obligated to assist them if requested.
This won't happen.

You'll find that the US has no qualms dropping its obligations when it suits them: ask South Vietnam.

[Sir Suomi]

[1]: This is the problem: the Ukrainian 'government' are actively suppressing the Crimean's right to self-determination. Russia have intervened to safeguard such a right.

[2]: No. I wouldn't. I'm entirely supportive of nations rights to self-determination regardless of circumstances.

[3]: Russia are not annexing Crimea. Putin made this abundantly clear in his news conference on Tuesday: Russia has intervened to safeguard the formation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. If Crimea then (democratically) decide that they would prefer to be diplo-annexed by Russia then that's an entirely different issue seperate and independent of the ongoing events in the Ukraine now.


This won't happen.

You'll find that the US has no qualms dropping its obligations when it suits them: ask South Vietnam.

1:This is a matter that should be dealt internally, by the authority of the citizens. Not by another country, like Russia is attempting to do.

2:And risk further destabilization? No thank you.

3:Yes, because Russia has a great history of helping out it's former Soviet States. Let's ask Georgia, why don't we?

[Zenos]

[QUOTE=George S. Patton;2721569]Not to the extent as the US military. Seeing as we're the only country to have fully operational 5th-Generation fighters in service, we'd completely dominate the air, which means we can do another massive shock-and-awe campaign against the Russians, similar to what we did in Iraq. Our Abrams would destroy the Russian T-90's before they even had a chance to fire back. Although Russia has some new advanced technology underneath their belt, we're still light years ahead of them. And you should be smart enough to know that nuclear war would be completely avoided, since both sides are well aware of each other's response to a nuclear launch. :rolleyes:



QUOTE]

And you do know that Russia has a new missle the RSM-56 Bulava.

Ah yes the Abrams. The M1 Abrams is an American third-generation main battle tank,where as the The T-90 is a Russian third-generation main battle tank .

I do think you are taking American techo-superiority as a all-around fact.Think of this it comes down to is the citizens of each nation that commited to the fight is their Military and civilians moral high.

face it we have a highly seasoned military for urban combat ,but at the same time our military is pushed to it's limits because of the reductions by Bill Clinton in the 90's,and this war has drug on since 2003 with no clear end in sight.Thats 11 years of war,and training our toops for this kind of war.

A war with Russia would mean readjusting our troops yet once again to the kind of wars Our troops trained for pre- 9/11 while at the same time trying to keeps troops fighting the kind of war they are in in the middle east now.
So at some point in time either we are going to have to pull all our troops out of this farce of a War on Terror and commit them to war with Russia,or watch our forces collapse and us loose and loose big time,because remember this the Russians have man power both the U.S. and nato as a whole could only wish they had,not to meantion a vastly superior amount of natural resources too boot.


and if we do go to war with Russia and want to win a ground war we better do it before they deploy the "Armata" Universal Combat Platform" aka T-99 in 2020.

So I have to disagree in the long run war with Russia will be what breaks us and nato as a whole.

[Capto]

Free Crimean Peoples' Republic gogogo

[Vlerchan]

1:This is a matter that should be dealt internally, by the authority of the citizens. Not by another country, like Russia is attempting to do.
The democratically-elected Crimean Parliament (elected 2010) - i.e., the legally-elected representatives of the Crimean people - elected to cede from Ukraine. Russia are ensuring that their wishes are respected.

3:Yes, because Russia has a great history of helping out it's former Soviet States. Let's ask Georgia, why don't we?
Russia entered Georgia in order to ensure that the rights of the South Ossetians were respected. The last time I checked: the South Ossetians were still a free-people independent of both Russia and Georgia - politically, speaking: they do rely on Russia military- and financial-aid to a rather significant extent.

[tovaris]

And Russia has no business in the Ukraine. However, if they refuse to cease their hostile actions, we are obligated to support the Ukrainians. It will be interesting to watch Su-35's drop from the skies, T-90's blown to bits, and to see the Russians retreat in utter chaos. America has been ready to flex it's muscles again. If Russia has any common sense, they should fall back and try to salvage their situation while they can.

Actuly they will argue they are not hostile, they have even been invited in...

[DarkOmega]

Budapest Memorandum look this up

__________________________________________________________________
What exactly is the "Budapest Memorandum"?

The "Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances" is a diplomatic memorandum that was signed in December 1994 by Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom.

It is not a formal treaty, but rather, a diplomatic document under which signatories made promises to each other as part of the denuclearization of former Soviet republics after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Under the memorandum, Ukraine promised to remove all Soviet-era nuclear weapons from its territory, send them to disarmament facilities in Russia, and sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Ukraine kept these promises.

In return, Russia and the Western signatory countries essentially consecrated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine as an independent state. They did so by applying the principles of territorial integrity and nonintervention in 1975 Helsinki Final Act -- a Cold War-era treaty signed by 35 states including the Soviet Union -- to an independent post-Soviet Ukraine.

Which principles in the Helsinki Final Act, reiterated in the "Budapest Memorandum," are relevant to the current situation in the Crimea?

In the "Budapest Memorandum," Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States promised that none of them would ever threaten or use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine. They also pledged that none of them would ever use economic coercion to subordinate Ukraine to their own interest.

They specifically pledged they would refrain from making each other's territory the object of military occupation or engage in other uses of force in violation of international law.

All sides agreed that no such occupation or acquisition will be recognized as legal and that the signatories would "consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments."

Is there anything legally binding about the "Budapest Memorandum" regarding Russia's obligations to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity?

"That's actually a much more complex question than it may sound. It is binding in international law, but that doesn't mean it has any means of enforcement," says Barry Kellman, a professor of law and director of the International Weapons Control Center at DePaul University's College of Law.

"The 'Budapest Memorandum' follows the Helsinki Final Act and essentially reiterates its provisions. There are confidence building measures and then a host of other broader obligations – primarily negative obligations. Don't interfere."

[TheBigUnit]

You all do realize russias only doing all this because they want their influence stay on the former soviet states, ie Ukraine and the euro,
putins not going in just because of a heavy russian speaking population in Crimea

[sqishy]

This planned union of Crimea with Russia will, if passed, will be frowned upon by most countries in the west and will have a bad effect on the future of Ukraine and Russia.

[Zenos]

This planned union of Crimea with Russia will, if passed, will be frowned upon by most countries in the west and will have a bad effect on the future of Ukraine and Russia.

It'll start a Civil war and just like the Spanish Civil war of 17 July 1936 to 1 April 1939 ,other nations will be drawn into it.

Hmm I think it was Harry Smith that said this was leaning to a repeat of WW1 of the last century.
I disagree I think this is leading to a repeat of the Spanish Civil War only a Ukrainian version of it,and it'll probably be a precursor to a 3rd World War like the Spanish civil war was a precursor to WW2.

[sqishy]

It'll start a Civil war and just like the Spanish Civil war of 17 July 1936 to 1 April 1939 ,other nations will be drawn into it.

Hmm I think it was Harry Smith that said this was leaning to a repeat of WW1 of the last century.
I disagree I think this is leading to a repeat of the Spanish Civil War only a Ukrainian version of it,and it'll probably be a precursor to a 3rd World War like the Spanish civil war was a precursor to WW2.

Well it is already on the verge of civil war, and Russia with Putin have certainly done a lot to make most other countries dislike him at the very least. A third world war certainly can happen, there is a hell lot of instability around politically...

[Zenos]

Well it is already on the verge of civil war, and Russia with Putin have certainly done a lot to make most other countries dislike him at the very least. A third world war certainly can happen, there is a hell lot of instability around politically...

Yup very true.

It's a can of mixed nuts on one hand we have Putin who seems to being trying to revive the Soviet Union,on the other hand we have Obammy try to be stand offish and be assertive at the same time ,then we have the crazy situation there in the Ukraine.

I think it might come down to a third world war and I have a feeling both the USA and Russia will go the way of the old time Great Powers France, Germany, Britian, Japan did after the second one,which is no while still powerful longer a major power

[sqishy]

Yup very true.

It's a can of mixed nuts on one hand we have Putin who seems to being trying to revive the Soviet Union,on the other hand we have Obammy try to be stand offish and be assertive at the same time ,then we have the crazy situation there in the Ukraine.

I think it might come down to a third world war and I have a feeling both the USA and Russia will go the way of the old time Great Powers France, Germany, Britian, Japan did after the second one,which is no while still powerful longer a major power

Time will tell, change is the only constant as usual.

[Zenos]

Time will tell, change is the only constant as usual.

true,and hopefully it will be for the better.

[tovaris]

This planned union of Crimea with Russia will, if passed, will be frowned upon by most countries in the west and will have a bad effect on the future of Ukraine and Russia.

But they will argue theyr decision was democratic...

[sqishy]

But they will argue theyr decision was democratic...

Of course Putin will. His excuses have no end, now that he's practically taken Crimea with landmines.

[tovaris]

Of course Putin will. His excuses have no end, now that he's practically taken Crimea with landmines.

he was invited into the crimea by the goverment, and they are having a referendum whether or not to join russia..

[Harry Smith]

It'll start a Civil war and just like the Spanish Civil war of 17 July 1936 to 1 April 1939 ,other nations will be drawn into it.

Hmm I think it was Harry Smith that said this was leaning to a repeat of WW1 of the last century.
I disagree I think this is leading to a repeat of the Spanish Civil War only a Ukrainian version of it,and it'll probably be a precursor to a 3rd World War like the Spanish civil war was a precursor to WW2.

The Spanish civil war didn't cause WW2....

[sqishy]

he was invited into the crimea by the goverment, and they are having a referendum whether or not to join russia..

Invited by the pro-Russian Crimean government members. No wonder he was invited.

[Vlerchan]

Invited by the pro-Russian Crimean government members

... that were legally and democratically elected by the Crimean people and hold a majority in the Crimean parliament.

I'm not seeing the problem here.

[sqishy]

... that were legally and democratically elected by the Crimean people and hold a majority in the Crimean parliament.

I'm not seeing the problem here.

Not seeing the problem? The population is almost split half and half, one side for russia and the other for the ukraine. Crimea is not unified in either scenario of it staying or going with russia. There's internal conflict, as we well know, it won't go away easy.

[Harry Smith]

... that were legally and democratically elected by the Crimean people and hold a majority in the Crimean parliament.

I'm not seeing the problem here.

The actual crimean parliament was declared illegal by the new government in Ukraine

[Vlerchan]

The actual crimean parliament was declared illegal by the new government in Ukraine
I'm not seeing how this counters the point I made.

The Crimean government was elected as a direct result of free, fair and entirely legal elections. It being outlawed by the unelected government in Kiev as a result of disagreeing with the instructions as given by this unelected government it Kiev says more about the unelected government in Kiev than about the legally and democratically elected government in Crimea.

[Harry Smith]

I'm not seeing how this counters the point I made.

The Crimean government was elected as a direct result of free, fair and entirely legal elections. It being outlawed by the unelected government in Kiev as a result of disagreeing with the instructions as given by this unelected government it Kiev says more about the unelected government in Kiev than about the legally and democratically elected government in Crimea.

The government in Kiev wasn't unelected-it simply choose to impeach the elected president for corruption. I'm not an expert on Ukranian parliamentary laws but I assume the national parliament have sovereignty over the one in Crimea

[Vlerchan]

The government in Kiev wasn't unelected-it simply choose to impeach the elected president for corruption.
Impeaching implies a legal procedure of some form was followed. This was not the case in Ukraine. In Ukraine the president was overthrown as a direct result of an illegal and unconstitutional coup.

I realise that a formal mechanism designed to facilitate impeachment was designed and applied after the president was overthrown though the existence of this formal mechanism - as in accordance with Ukrainian law - is illegitimate until the legally-elected president of the Ukraine agrees to its existence. Naturally, the current legally-elected president (Yankovych) has not agreed to its existence - because until elections take place in Ukraine at the end of the month the Ukrainian constitution still recognizes Yankovych as president.

I'm not an expert on Ukranian parliamentary laws but I assume the national parliament have sovereignty over the one in Crimea
I'm not an expert either though I'm sure the legally-elected president has powers to overrule the parliament here - or it needs the presidents backing, or something. Regardless, the Crimean parliament doesn't recognize the Kiev parliament - for reasons I outlined above - so this is a dead-end.

[Zenos]

The actual crimean parliament was declared illegal by the new government in Ukraine

That sux

[tovaris]

Invited by the pro-Russian Crimean government members. No wonder he was invited.

By a DEMOCRATIC goverment, democratecly elected

[sqishy]

By a DEMOCRATIC goverment, democratecly elected

Yes democratic, because more than half of the Cirmeans are pro-russian properly. I don't need capitals to see that.
Just because it's more than half, doesn't mean that the 'rest' of the people are a minority, far from that.

[tovaris]

Yes democratic, because more than half of the Cirmeans are pro-russian properly. I don't need capitals to see that.
Just because it's more than half, doesn't mean that the 'rest' of the people are a minority, far from that.

vhel that is their argument, they will even hold an electiin whether or not to join russian federation, yust more thaan half eint enouth in that case...

[Vlerchan]

I can't help but think this is suspiciously high. I would have thought it would have ended up being closer to 70% - 80% in agreement.

I guess I'll have to wait for the turnout figures to be released before I denounce it.

Crimea has voted to embrace Kremlin rule, escalating an already grave international crisis to an incendiary level.

Amid scathing attacks that voting had been illegal, rigged and delivered under the shadow of threats from Russian troops, exit polls –according to news agencies in Moscow – were tonight showing that 93 per cent had voted for joining Russia, higher even than the 82 per cent claimed a few hours earlier by Crimea’s Deputy Prime Minister Rustam Temirgaliev and 80 per cent a few days ago by the Prime Minister Sergei Aksyonov.

There were fireworks, fiery speeches and songs as several thousand supporters of joining Russia celebrated in Simferpol”s Lenin Square on Sunday night.

The announcement of the result was met by prolonged and deafening cheers and chants of “ Russia, Russia” from the growing crowd. Two leaders of the separatist government, prime minister Sergei Aksyonov and speaker Vladimir Konstantinov roused them to an even higher pitch by announcing that a delegation will be travelling to Moscow on Monday to accept Crimea into the Russian Federation.

Crimea Referendum

Three veterans of the Soviet Union’s Afghan War was taken through the crowd to loud applause; one of them, in a wheelchair, held up his row of medals: “ I am now back in my own country, I didn’t fight and lose my legs for those Nazis in Kiev.” An elderly couple were in tears as the national anthem was sung; Mr Aksyonov, however, was not moving his lips, offering the suspicion that the great patriot did not know the words.

The Ukrainian government in Kiev called what had taken place a “circus” and vowed to hunt down separatist “ringleaders” and “bring them to justice”. Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk announced plans to arm and train 20,000 members of a newly created National Guard to defend the nation and warned Crimean politicians who had called the vote that “the ground will burn under their feet”.

The US and European Union stated they would not recognise the process or the outcome and threatened Russia with further economic sanctions, which are due to be discussed at a meeting of foreign ministers today. The Russian President Vladimir Putin, they warned, must not to use the results to annex the state.

READ MORE: CRIMEA’S RUSSIAN UNION: WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
COMMENT: IS THE WEST TRYING TO UPSET THE RUSSIANS?
EDITORIAL: PUTIN’S LAND-GRAB DOES NOT MEAN A RETURN OF THE SOVIET EMPIRE

In Simferopol on Sunday night, pro-Russians were holding a rally and concert at Lenin Square; there were processions of cars and motorbikes with horns blowing and fireworks exploding. Among those celebrating was Leonid Baskarov, a former soldier: “This is the greatest day of my life; it is the greatest day of the life of Crimea,” he shouted with roars of approval from other revelers.

But in the neighbourhoods of Crimea’s Tatar and Ukrainian minorities, the streets were empty – the atmosphere one of deep trepidation.

The last day of united Ukraine had been a strangely muted one; the already semi-autonomous region of Crimea was slipping away without any signs of outrage on the streets. The opponents of secession appeared to have accepted a fait accompli, preparing themselves for the tempestuous times that lay ahead.

There were potential flashpoints, including the revelation by the governing council of the largely anti-Russian Tatar community, the Mejlis, that an activist who had been missing for almost two weeks had been found dead, his body bearing marks of torture. There were also claims of irregular time-keeping at polling stations in pro-Russian areas, and that those locations had been used by people ineligible to vote.

Most of those opposed to secession had boycotted the referendum, including: the overwhelming majority of the Tatar community, who, according to the last census taken 13 years ago, account for 13 per cent of the state’s population; the Ukrainians, who make up 23 per cent; and a significant minority of Russians, who form 53 per cent.

In Washington, the White House spokesman Jay Carney said the vote was as “dangerous and destabilising… As the United States and our allies have made clear, military intervention and violation of international law will bring increasing costs for Russia – not only due to measures imposed by the United States and our allies but also as a direct result of Russia’s own destabilising actions.”

The British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, arriving for the EU foreign ministers’ meeting in Brussels, said: “I condemn the fact that this referendum has taken place, in breach of the Ukrainian constitution and in defiance of calls by the international community for restraint... The UK does not recognise the referendum or its outcome... we believe measures must be adopted that send a strong signal to Russia that this challenge to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine will bring economic and political consequences.”

Despite the threats against separatists from Kiev on Sunday, the presence of the Kremlin’s force of 21,000 will make exacting retribution a difficult proposition. Mr Yatsenyuk has just returned from America where he has received plenty of expressions of moral support but no offer of weapons for the fledgling National Guard.

The Ukrainian Defence Minister, Ihor Tenyukh, complained about Moscow far exceeding the bilateral agreed limit for 12,500 personnel to be deployed in Crimea with the Black Sea Fleet. But he also announced that a truce had been arranged with Moscow until 21 March.

Details of this were not clear. Ukrainian officials stated that this meant siege of their forces inside Crimea would be lifted until that date. But their Crimean counterparts held this was to ensure there were no outbreaks of hostilities as they begin their process of withdrawal, which Mr Aksyonov had declared should start today. The two countries’ are also in a stand-off further north, where Kiev has accused the Russians of occupying the border village of Striklove.

Meanwhile, separatist protests which had led to deaths in recent days continued in the eastern and south-eastern parts of the country. In Donetsk, the office of the chief prosecutor was stormed by a crowd chanting “Donetsk is a Russian city”; the group then attacked the headquarters of the security services.

The Russian government had reserved the right to intervene elsewhere in the Ukraine when sending troops into Crimea; Mr Putin was reported to have expressed his disquiet over what was happening in Donetsk to the German Chancellor Angela Merkel in a telephone conversation blaming right-wing groups acting with the consent of the Kiev government.

The German foreign ministry stated that Ms Merkel had taken the opportunity to propose expanding the number of international observers from the OSCE (Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe) to eastern Ukraine and this had met with Mr Putin’s approval. This will not, however, happen in Crimea, where attempts by an OSCE military team to gain entry had failed at the border with, on one occasion, members of pro-Russian self-defence forces firing over their heads.

At Bakhchisarai, the ancient capital of the Tatar kingdom which once ruled this region, Ilmi Umarov, the head of the regional administration, was holding urgent talks with the visiting Lithuanian ambassador. “We feel that our people are now in great danger and we are making this aware to the international community. There has been a lot of intimidation and we have to ensure that our people do not react to provocation.”

At one of the town’s polling stations, Tamara Garbus, pointed out it was the violence at the Maidan [the centre of pro-EU protests in Kiev] which Russia blamed on fascists and neo-Nazis, which had persuaded her to vote for joining Russia. “I am 62 years old, I did not want to leave Ukraine for another country”, she said. “But we were very frightened that these fascists would come to Crimea and do the same kind of things. It is Ukraine which has driven us away.” Some others felt that the West had taken a highly patronising attitude towards Crimean aspirations.

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/crimea-crisis-foreign-leaders-condemn-russias-destabilising-actions-as-93-vote-in-referendum-for-secession-9195939.html