Allegro.cc - Online Community

Allegro.cc Forums » Off-Topic Ordeals » Annexing Uktaine. Objections?

Credits go to Aikei_c, Chris Katko, Derezo, gnolam, jhuuskon, Matthew Leverton, Max Savenkov, OICW, Thomas Fjellstrom, and torhu for helping out!
This thread is locked; no one can reply to it. rss feed Print
Annexing Uktaine. Objections?
type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
avatar

The point is that Russian people won't, until VERY upset, or well manipulated. Russia would be blamed as one arranging the revolt anyways. Furthermore, we actually can't be literally sure it's really Russian Soldiers there in Crimea.

Mercenaries make some sense, although I'd bet the Govt is behind it anyways.

Oh, and Russian claim about readiness for a millitary intervension in to Ukraine is actually a declaration Russia won't be sitting back and looking at a bloodshed should it arise. Oh well, condemned anyways. Just in case.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

type568 said:

Furthermore, we actually can't be literally sure it's really Russian Soldiers there in Crimea.

I thought Russia admitted to it? It doesn't really matter if they are hired guns from Blackwater or actual Russian Army, so long as it was Russia that sent em, its the same thing.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

Aikei_c
Member #14,871
January 2013
avatar

Everyone is entirely sure that these are Russian soldiers. They openly admitted that they are Russians numerous times. They drive cars with Russian military number plates, they have armored vehicles and vehicles with Russian "guards" sign. That's hilarious to think that if Putin and Russian officials say they are "spotaneous self-defence units", we are not yet sure that they are Russian soldiers. Trust me, there's plenty of evidence, both photo and video.

type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
avatar

{"name":"608373","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/0\/80469ee24b4862d5bbea6c5c63dbeb1e.jpg","w":590,"h":379,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/0\/80469ee24b4862d5bbea6c5c63dbeb1e"}608373

"Awaiting Sanctions"

OICW
Member #4,069
November 2003
avatar

type568 said:

What's going on(or ever went) in Crimea has no question. They didn't want to join UA when they were annexed to it, they'd love to have a referendum before.

Yep, they were gifted to Ukraine by Khrushchev, whether they did or didn't want back then is now beside the point. During the dissolution of USSR Ukraine was granted territorial integrity in its then/current borders provided they give up their nuclear arsenal and return it to Russia. Now, Crimean people had more than 20 years to bring up the question of secession.

type568 said:

referendum could be held either way. Not it couldn't, and it wouldn't. Kiev & the west said so. Russia said otherwise, but also supported its statement.

The real question is why all of a sudden the question about secession is brought up to the table. Coincidentally at a time of political turmoil in Ukraine backed up by Russian soldiers. The referendum could have been held but presently it is a mockery. First, it is moved to a much closer date (presumably not to allow time for people to orient themselves and think about it and to exploit the current situation), second, apparently there's no way of voting no, third, there's just Russian source of information in Crimea.

NiteHackr said:

and we all know what would happen if the tables were turned and it was the USA that wanted to protect their interests and protect their military base, don't we? How ironic that the USA tells Russia not to invade another country. Am I the only one that sees the irony here?

Not just you, probably lot of people do. In that case Russia would be off their seats crying out loud. The only slight difference is that in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lybia the goal was not to annex the countries/their territories. And as far as Afghanistan is concerned Russia and USA don't need to blame each other. Both countries were involved at different times.

[My website][CppReference][Pixelate][Allegators worldwide][Who's online]
"Final Fantasy XIV, I feel that anything I could say will be repeating myself, so I'm just gonna express my feelings with a strangled noise from the back of my throat. Graaarghhhh..." - Yahtzee
"Uhm... this is a.cc. Did you honestly think this thread WOULDN'T be derailed and ruined?" - BAF
"You can discuss it, you can dislike it, you can disagree with it, but that's all what you can do with it"

type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
avatar

It doesn't work the way you say about having a referendum in Ukraine. The country is too young, and is ex-communist. The power spine isn't that well established with people for them to be really represented in the national parliament. They just would not get out without external help.

And it isn't coincidence. Not everyone likes the new power, especially when it passess a law to cancel the official status of Russian language, and propose various other repressions. Yes, there's just Russia there and everything is decided. However, western approach was no more democratic. Neither actually wanted or proposed an open-fair-whatever referendum. It was just a "no" by the west, and a "yes" by Russia.

You say the goal wasn't to annex territories of the conquered countries? It was to occupy their bussiness in general, and oil bussiness especially. Oh, and the bloodshed years after the interventions.. Who cares? It's democratic bloodshed now!
There's barely a day when there are no breaking news from Iraq or Lybia about explosions or other kinds of "terrorist attacks". But well, it's democratic now. Russia's Lukoil no longer has a contract in Libya(fact), though I bet Exxon or Total have gotten it. I didn't check, it's clearly some big western giant with the stuff now. Well, they lobby the shit. And "bloody dictator" Gadaffi is an excuse.

Well, prove me wrong. In reality, neither of us is exactly right.

Why no interference here? Nobody cares.. Bad investment grounds. Almsot no oil. No port nearby to export it..

NiteHackr
Member #2,229
April 2002

Honestly, when it comes right down to it, it's none of my business. I don't need my country getting involved in yet another country's disputes. So long as our country is not threatened, let them sort it out themselves.

Aikei_c
Member #14,871
January 2013
avatar

NiteHackr said:

Honestly, when it comes right down to it, it's none of my business. I don't need my country getting involved in yet another country's disputes. So long as our country is not threatened, let them sort it out themselves.

That's what people said in the US while Hitler was conquering Europe.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

Aikei_c said:

That's what people said in the US while Hitler was conquering Europe.

Yes, and then they dropped two nuclear bombs... I'm sure it was all worth it.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

Aikei_c
Member #14,871
January 2013
avatar

Yes, and then they dropped two nuclear bombs... I'm sure it was all worth it.

Well, it's hard to blame you for killing somebody who tried to kill you in the first place. Even if he meant to kill you with a knife and you used a gun instead.
I'm sure if the leadership of the Japanese Empire had been more in touch with reality they would've surrendered much earlier and this wouldn't have happened.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

Yes, lets all be in favour of over reactions.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

Vanneto
Member #8,643
May 2007

It was a different time. Besides, when you have a choice between your citizens dying fighting a war the enemy started and ending it really, really soon. What would you pick? Everybody is a general when the war is over. ;D

Aikei_c said:

That's what people said in the US while Hitler was conquering Europe.

I was wondering today: these situations evolve around us. We can never know what will lead to what. Maybe we are on a verge of the next big thing. Hopefully not, though it is (kinda) exciting.

In capitalist America bank robs you.

Yodhe23
Member #8,726
June 2007

It's a shame that Putin has made Russia look in an anthropomorphic sense, a complete and utter "knob-end", but probably no worse than Bush did to the USA, with Iraq. And each will probably come to rue their decisions, just as the USA did in Vietnam, and the USSR in Afghanistan.
When people stop imposing their ideas of reality onto others through the use of arms/force then I really think that we as the human race will make great strides to stopping the hurt we perpetuate upon one another.

www.justanotherturn.com

type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
avatar

Aikei_c said:

I'm sure if the leadership of the Japanese Empire had been more in touch with reality they would've surrendered much earlier and this wouldn't have happened.

I'm sure if U.S. politicians wouldn't be all after their victory, and waited just two three more days for Japan to realize it has lost a million army, territory of the size of Western Europe, and got another neibhour raging & capable it would've surrendered without the bombs. Well it is arugable, but not even waiting.. Oh. Heh. It's not like shooting a knife armed thief, it's more like shooting him when ur buddy holds him to the ground.

Yodhe23 said:

It's a shame that Putin has made Russia look in an anthropomorphic sense, a complete and utter "knob-end", but probably no worse than Bush did to the USA, with Iraq. And each will probably come to rue their decisions, just as the USA did in Vietnam, and the USSR in Afghanistan.

Meh. Western propoganda. It's yet to be clarified, and to be polled. But I literally am out of doubts they'd vote for it. And well, Russia says 95.5% did. 80% voted.

Vanneto
Member #8,643
May 2007

Quote:

We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight

Surrendered... Right. ::)

In capitalist America bank robs you.

type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
avatar

Well, points of view change.

wiki said:

As the Japanese forces' casualties were ten times those of the Soviet forces', the Soviet invasion and the defeat of Japan's military forces stationed in the region were regarded as Japan's worst land defeat in its military history.[14]

That's clearly one of the things make points of view change. I'm not saying the bomb wouldn't be needed(though again, two of'em?)

But waiting a bit, having more than 2 days delays between the bombs.. There was no plan to save lives. Hard actually to blame the politicians for lack of willing to kill less Japanese, I'm sure in these days some 85%+ of Americans(more than this, Russians too, and most of allies as well) would've supported it. And politicians don't want to suicide, they want popularity. Democarcy. :)

Append:
Back to OP:
{"name":"608376","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/e\/f\/ef97bfcf41a596f2fede99a57665a8df.jpg","w":624,"h":351,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/e\/f\/ef97bfcf41a596f2fede99a57665a8df"}608376
Democracy.

{"name":"608377","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/6\/360d307526d5b77f976765963f27a824.jpg","w":690,"h":388,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/6\/360d307526d5b77f976765963f27a824"}608377
Occupation.

It's just about the flag you know.. The first ones decide the constitution, and the second ones must obey it.

Vanneto
Member #8,643
May 2007

The atomic bomb showed them they can be destroyed without them inflicting extra casualties to the U.S. If they could prolong the war (even if it meant their destruction) and cause the U.S. more suffering and destruction, I'm sure they would.

Lets try another scenario: the U.S. doesn't drop the bombs. The Japanese continue to fight to defend their homeland with even greater zeal than before. Each island taken is paid with the blood of American soldiers.

When it comes down to it it's either them or you. It's easy to be humane today when they're not crashing planes into your ships...

In capitalist America bank robs you.

type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
avatar

Vanneto said:

Lets try another scenario: the U.S. doesn't drop the bombs.

Let's get in to mind of those made the decisions. USSR conquers 1000000 army on huge territory almost without casulties. They can occupy Japan, and it'll become communist. Rather bomb them.

Also the point of people actually supporting the bombinbg. And what I called for here, wasn't not bombing. It was just delaying the bombings, and spanning the two over longer time than what it was.

Aikei_c
Member #14,871
January 2013
avatar

I'm not saying that the bomb was absolutely necessary. I'm just saying: come on this was a war and they knew they were losing it already and they actually expected and knew a lot of civilian casualties are to come in the future. If they wanted to avoid unnecessary casualties they should've surrendered much earlier.
Emperor Hirohito, I remember, was saying something like he was ready to fight until the last japanese dies.
Moreover, these cities were actually major industrial objects, they produced a lot of weapons, planes etc. every day. So they were legitimate military targets and not just means to just kill a lot of japanese.
And there are no rules at war.
Really, I find this amusing that such views are actually widespread not only among Russians, as I previously thought.

BTW, I'm sure if Germans occupied now Kaliningrad Region, and then held a referendum offering salaries and pensions increase, keeping Russian language as official language, etc, while stopping access for all Russian journalists into the Region, saying that stalinists came to power in Russia and already killed more than 90% of Russian population, turned off all RUssian channels, they would probably get even 100% on a referendum to join Germany.

There isn't any international law which lets one country (partly) occupy another and then annex this part just because people there supported it on a referedum held by occupation authorities. Even if they really say and think they support it.

By the way, do you actually know what happens in Russia to those who tries to hold a referendum like this inside Russia? According to a new law, which was adopted in 2013, unclearly defined "separatism propaganda" not even a referendum, already punished by up to 3 years in jail.

How many referendums has Russia actully held? Has it a moral right to say that people have a right to self-determination? I'll tell you how many: 0. Last people who wanted to separate from Russia, Chechens, got two bloody wars from Russia instead of a referendum.

So, Crimea can actually join Russia. But can it separate from Russia after that? Definitely no. Not without a bloody war at least.

These words of Russian authorities are meaningless, they are just meant to cover their imperial ambitions, and that's it. Will of the people has nothing to do with this.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

Aikei_c said:

Will of the people has nothing to do with this.

Especially since almost all of the people against the annexation didn't vote.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

Yodhe23
Member #8,726
June 2007

"Let's get in to mind of those made the decisions. USSR conquers 1000000 army on huge territory almost without casulties. They can occupy Japan, and it'll become communist. Rather bomb them."

On the other hand Russia/USSR is the only country (thus far) to commit a WORSE HOLOCAUST than Hitler. So everything would be fine if we had let the red empire across Asia?

www.justanotherturn.com

Michael Faerber
Member #4,800
July 2004
avatar

Aikei_c said:

BTW, I'm sure if Germans occupied now Kaliningrad Region, and then held a referendum offering salaries and pensions increase, keeping Russian language as official language, etc, while stopping access for all Russian journalists into the Region, saying that stalinists came to power in Russia and already killed more than 90% of Russian population, turned off all RUssian channels, they would probably get even 100% on a referendum to join Germany.

There isn't any international law which lets one country (partly) occupy another and then annex this part just because people there supported it on a referedum held by occupation authorities. Even if they really say and think they support it.

Your thought experiment is interesting. I agree.
One has to admit a certain enthusiasm on the pictures from Crimea, but again, that was to be expected, with a predominantly Russian population. The question really is why Russia did not let everything sort out itself, but intervened militarily? Put differently, if the people of Crimea really would have liked to join Russia, why did they not organise themselves and have their own referendum, instead of one organised by Russia?

--
"The basic of informatics is Microsoft Office." - An informatics teacher in our school
"Do you know Linux?" "Linux? Isn't that something for visually impaired people?"

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

Put differently, if the people of Crimea really would have liked to join Russia, why did they not organise themselves and have their own referendum, instead of one organised by Russia?

They really couldn't give a rats ass about the people. Russia has already actually invaded Ukraine outside of Crimea. They took over a gas valve station 10km over the Crimea-Ukraine border. This was never, and has never been about the people.

Land and Resources grab. When is it anything else but that?

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
avatar

Aikei_c said:

Really, I find this amusing that such views are actually widespread not only among Russians, as I previously thought.

Don't be too quick to change your mind, check my name in addition to location ;)
<Edit>Oh, actually it no longer says the name. Well, it is Russian ;)</>

Quote:

BTW, I'm sure if Germans occupied now Kaliningrad Region, and then held a referendum offering salaries and pensions increase, keeping Russian language as official language, etc, while stopping access for all Russian journalists into the Region, saying that stalinists came to power in Russia and already killed more than 90% of Russian population, turned off all RUssian channels, they would probably get even 100% on a referendum to join Germany.

& you think Germans would support the initiative?
Or would the Russians disarm the missiles themselves?
Oh, and should Russia repeat a collapse of USSR(aka split to even smaller fragments) Kaliningrad could very well end up becoming German.

Quote:

So, Crimea can actually join Russia. But can it separate from Russia after that? Definitely no. Not without a bloody war at least.

They really want to get in, why would they want to part?
You say really not? How did Ukraine spin off in the first place?

Quote:

These words of Russian authorities are meaningless, they are just meant to cover their imperial ambitions, and that's it. Will of the people has nothing to do with this.

Of course they are. Everyone just plays his cards. There's no right or wrong, big forces just play their games. But from some forces, the "simple people" can actually benefit, get what they want. As it is in case of Crimea.

Especially since almost all of the people against the annexation didn't vote.

I'm clueless of the scale of rigging, or if it took place at all. But over 95% said yes, and over 80% attended.

One has to admit a certain enthusiasm on the pictures from Crimea, but again, that was to be expected, with a predominantly Russian population. The question really is why Russia did not let everything sort out itself, but intervened militarily?

Well, because it could intervene & do it fast & clean. Nobody cares about the west anyways, the sanctions can be damn good to combat corruption and capital flight of stolen capital. EU ain't gonna stop buying gas, duh.

However.. Now Donetsk authorities raised appeal for a referendum, after a precedent has been set. Let's see how democratically will Kiev react to this. Somehow I doubt it will. However, it has no ability to affect Crimea, so Crimea got what its people want.

Aikei_c
Member #14,871
January 2013
avatar

type568 said:

& you think Germans would support the initiative?
Or would the Russians disarm the missiles themselves?
Oh, and should Russia repeat a collapse of USSR(aka split to even smaller fragments) Kaliningrad could very well end up becoming German.

What does all of it actually has to do with what I said? The purpose of my example was not to compare military capabilities of Russia and Germany, but to show that any public opinion can be easily formed if there is occupation, no freedom of speech, and particularly if large portion of population already already supported you.

Quote:

They really want to get in

But the most important and supreme principle of international law is that the borders may not change, at least without open agreement between two accepted governments, or the government and separatists. The principle is, countries accept each other in their current borders and agree not to support any change of such borders, at least not agreed with the central authorities.

Quote:

You say really not? How did Ukraine spin off in the first place?

That's really interesting. I'm talking about today's Russia and not about Russi of almost 25 years ago. They NOW talk that people have a right to self-determination, but jail people for separatist propaganda inside their own country. How about that?
But if you want to remember the past, then yes, there were several years when Russia really was more liberal than today and even accepted dissolution of the USSR without any blood spilled.
However, do remember that there were two bloody civil wars on Ukrainian soil before that: after the First World War and during the Second World War, millions of Ukrainians died in the XX century for their independence.



Go to: