Ukraine (and Russia)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Now just a cotton-picking minute.

[Primula Baggins]

[Passdagas the Brown]

They did like their cotton (and still do, only most of it's now grown in Uzbekistan!)

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

The Crimean Parliament has voted to join the Russian Federation. It will hold a referendum on March 16th.

I think this is a good resolution. The Russians don't want to lose the Crimea, the Crimeans feel closer to Russia than the rest of Ukraine. But lines on a map have a weird reverence.

Predictably Obama is not happy with this. There are too many people in the US government who do not like that the Cold War ended.

Obama warns on Crimea, orders sanctions over Russian moves in Ukraine

He's basically warning that he'll veto their quitting Ukraine.

[Passdagas the Brown]

If you think everyone in Crimea wants to be part of Russia, you betray your ignorance. This referendum is not only illegal - it was conducted while the peninsula is under a Russian military occupation. Watch VICE's excellent coverage, for example.

Lastly, if you think the non pro-Russian population of Crimea is safe...Loyalists, Tatars and others are in for a very difficult road.

It's not Obama that wants the Cold War back. It's Putin that wants to regain what the Soviet Union lost, and that's a firm regional hegemony.

If Russia was a decently-governed place, that would only be mildly threatening. But it's an authoritarian oligarchy, and that's not good for any of the former Soviet states.

Hold what opinion you like, Cen. But I'm sure glad you're not President!

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

Everyone? Of course not. I'm not expecting 100% agreement, and it would be foolish to do so. And to accuse me of expecting it.

And of course secession is illegal, no government wants portions of its territory breaking off and so secession is illegal. It isn't about whether it is right or wrong for a dissimilar segment of a country to break away, it is about what the law says, and in almost every case the law says that defiance of the central government is wrong and that lines on a map are absolute. It is like passing a law that makes it illegal to break the law.

Of course those lines didn't always have Crimea part of Ukraine, at times it has been part of Russia. But the lines are where they are and they are absolute. If you go back farther the lines get even more interesting.

Obama ... I'm not sure if he wants the cold war back, but plenty of his handlers do. Plenty of the people who tell him where he stands on the issues want the cold war back.

As for the nature of the Russian government ... people have pointed out how hypocritical it is for the US, after having intervened in 22 countries in the last 20 years, to tell Russia that they're not allowed to intervene in one. I'd say that criticisms of the authoritarian oligarchy fall into the same category.

[Frelga]

[eborr]

why was the referendum illegal, I thought it had been voted for through the regional assembly before any of this blew up. Yes I understand that they are bringing it forward. It seems to me people are making judgements on the basis of legality depending on which ever side it suits.

Putin is a creation of the west, we encouraged Russia to rebel, then supported Yeltsin and his criminal mates whilst they ran the country, allowed ordinary people to starve, people who after a lifetime of work saw then pensions become worthless, Russian medical facilities were not funded, public sector workers not paid, and the consequence, the Russian people voted for the man who most closely represented the old soviet union.

This and the feckless monetarist capitalism so evangelised by Margaret Thatcher and Ronnie Regan, and willingly adopted by so much of the European Union mean that now the New Soviet Union has effectively won the cold war.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

I'd say that while Putin is definitely more authoritarian, he's more nationalist than soviet. Yes, he came up through the KGB, but his actions seem less like trying to restore the old economic system and more like trying to implement a local order instead of an order dictated by outsiders.

Which makes things rather ironic because one of the anti-Russian factions in Ukraine is unabashedly fascist.

[River]

As I understand it, Crimea is part of Ukraine and subject to the Ukrainian constitution. The Ukrainian constitution does not allow bits and pieces of Ukraine to hold referenda about remaining part of Ukraine, nor does it allow the Ukrainian government to honor the results.

Moreover, so far as I can tell, there was no separatist movement in Crimea until a week or so ago, when Putin started making moves. Nor is there any evidence that the Russian population in eastern Ukraine or Crimea are under threat. This is all shenanigans.

[Frelga]

Two choices in Crimean referendum: yes and yes

The ballot asks two questions and leaves no option for a “no” vote. Voters are simply asked to check one of two boxes:

Do you support joining Crimea with the Russian Federation as a subject of Russian Federation?

And:

Do you support restoration of 1992 Crimean Constitution and Crimea's status as a part of Ukraine?

That Constitution declares that Crimea is an independent state.

The questions are written in Russian, Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar, the three most widely spoken languages on the peninsula, and the paper carries a warning in all three languages that marking both options will invalidate the ballot.

Volodymyr Yavorkiy, a member of the Kharkiv Human Rights Group, says that not only is the referendum completely illegal, the ballot for it doesn't stand up to any criticism.

“There is no option for ‘no,’ they are not counting the number of votes, but rather which one of the options gets more votes,” says Yavorskiy. “Moreover, the first question is about Crimea joining Russia, the second – about it declaring independence and joining Russia. In other words, there is no difference.

eborr, please don't take this personally - I realize that your level of knowledge about the recent Russian history is no worse than that of many people in the West, and no worse than my own knowledge about many other parts of the world. It is, however, so entirely off base that I don't know where even to begin explaining why it is off base.

[eborr]

Sorry Frelga but that is such a weak argument. Thats just the sort of approach that is completely antithetical to reasoned argument. "I am not going to bother refuting what you say because it is wrong."

I was always taught that when you disagree with someone you do so on the basis of reasoned argument no matter how much your view of the world differs from the other party. Clearly you don't subscribe to that proposition, maybe that sort of viewpoint informs the position you take on this debate

[Frelga]

eborr, I really did not mean to attack you personally. As I said, I wouldn't have done any better if quizzed on history of Latin America or Africa. It really is that I don't know where to start. I can't write a monograph on the late 20th century history, and that's what it would take.

I am not sure if you are aware that I grew up in Ukraine and left just before it separated from the remnants of Soviet Union. Living through bits of history makes it much more complicated to explain it to people for whom it was a matter of passing interest in the morning newspapers. No to say that this was you - I don't know what your investment of time was in the subject - but that does seem to be how even the relatively informed folks here learn about other countries.

But let me see if I can collect my thoughts and give you a bit more of an in depth response.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Frelga, I would be very much interested in whatever perspective you are able to offer.

[Primula Baggins]

I think a lot of us would be interested. I've been chagrined to realize just how ignorant I am about the background of the situation, or even that part of the world. Florence Nightingale worked in the Crimean War, and Mussorgsky's "Great Gates of Kiev" was about some gates that were never built. I think. That would be the sum of my knowledge of the area until a few weeks ago, and it's not much more now. And I'm neither stupid nor uneducated. Gahhh!

ETA: I don't mean by this that I think Frelga should give a lecture series. I just mean, I would be interested in anything she did choose to say.

[River]

Two choices in Crimean referendum: yes and yes

The ballot asks two questions and leaves no option for a “no” vote. Voters are simply asked to check one of two boxes:

Do you support joining Crimea with the Russian Federation as a subject of Russian Federation?

And:

Do you support restoration of 1992 Crimean Constitution and Crimea's status as a part of Ukraine?

That Constitution declares that Crimea is an independent state.

The questions are written in Russian, Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar, the three most widely spoken languages on the peninsula, and the paper carries a warning in all three languages that marking both options will invalidate the ballot.

Volodymyr Yavorkiy, a member of the Kharkiv Human Rights Group, says that not only is the referendum completely illegal, the ballot for it doesn't stand up to any criticism.

“There is no option for ‘no,’ they are not counting the number of votes, but rather which one of the options gets more votes,” says Yavorskiy. “Moreover, the first question is about Crimea joining Russia, the second – about it declaring independence and joining Russia. In other words, there is no difference.

For some reason, "Anschluss" keeps coming to mind. Zeroth order approximation maybe, but I can't shake it.

[Túrin Turambar]

The thing that I always find interesting about the Anschluss is that, at various other times, it would have made perfect sense and possibly even advantageous for everyone. Prior to the end of the Second World War the idea of an ‘Austrian’ cultural identity was much weaker than it became. And throughout the nineteenth century the idea of a Greater Germany including all German-speaking peoples was quite common throughout the German states, just as the idea of a unified Italy was in the Italian peninsula. The question came to a head in 1866, when Prussia defeated Austria at Sadowa during the German Wars of Unification. It is likely that Prussia could have conquered Austria and the German-speaking parts of the Austrian Empire, like Bohemia, annexed them to the German confederation and made Greater Germany a reality. But it didn’t. The reason is that, in a German confederation without Austria, Prussia was undoubtedly the most powerful state and the Protestant, northern Junker class would be the unchallenged rulers. However, if Austria was annexed, then along with Catholic Bavaria the southern, Catholic nobles of Austria would have been just as powerful. The Junker didn’t want to share power, so they kept Austria out.

If they had, then Hungary and the eastern, Slavic parts of the Austrian Empire would have gone off on their own, and probably ended up aligned with Russia. This the Germans preferred to avoid. But as it stood, Russia saw herself as the protector of all Slavic people, particularly as her power grew in the early 20th century. Germany thus found herself roped into protecting the Germans of Austria-Hungary from a potential pan-Slavic alliance, which was the proximate cause of the First World War. Had Austria joined Germany in 1866 then Greater Germany might have felt secure enough to leave the Slavs alone, preventing the whole thing.

What this says about the Ukraine I don’t know. I am of the opinion that if a clear majority of Crimeans want Crimea to part of Russia then they shouldn’t be stopped from having Crimea join Russia. But determining if that is what a clear majority of Crimeans want given that Crimea is occupied by the Russian army and pro-Russian authorities are conducting the referendum is the problem for me. That said, if Crimea does go it may be better for the pro-western and pro-EU forces in Kiev in the long run. All Russia may achieve is early Ukrainian NATO membership.

[axordil]

Frelga, whatever you can share, I'm interested in reading as well. It will be interesting comparing your insights with those of my friend from Odessa.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

As I understand it, Crimea is part of Ukraine and subject to the Ukrainian constitution. The Ukrainian constitution does not allow bits and pieces of Ukraine to hold referenda about remaining part of Ukraine, nor does it allow the Ukrainian government to honor the results.

Moreover, so far as I can tell, there was no separatist movement in Crimea until a week or so ago, when Putin started making moves. Nor is there any evidence that the Russian population in eastern Ukraine or Crimea are under threat. This is all shenanigans.

Crimea became part of Ukraine in the 1950s, the line was moved by Khrushchev. Before that it was part of Russia.

The superstitious reverence for lines on a map that people have seems rather odd when considered the history of those lines, when those lines have moved, where those lines moved from. If we really want to get technical, one of the longest holders of Crimea were the Ottomans so if lines on a map are sacred then we should hand the whole peninsula over to Turkey.

References to "Anschluss" are interesting when you consider that there are actual unabashed open fascists on the "Pro-Western" side of the conflict in Ukraine.

[Primula Baggins]

Current, legally and internationally established and accepted borders should be respected. They are more than "lines on a map," and in the modern world they shouldn't be changed lightly. We all know they do change, peacefully and otherwise; most of us remember the 1990s when the map of Europe was regularly being revised. But there's nothing "superstitious" about expecting borders to be respected, or being concerned when they are not.