• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UN Assembly declares Crimea referendum invalid

Major powers have 'spheres of influence', and we all remember how delightedly the US greeted the liberation of Cuba from its sphere. If the pro-EU groups in the west of the Ukraine want to destroy the elected government and bully the eastern provinces into submission, we can only observe that they are being a bit hopeful if they expect us to go to nuclear war to help them strut.
 
So was Yugoslavia. I see nothing about the someone drawing a line around a given territory that supersedes the right of those within it to self-determine. Not that I believe Putin's motives are particularly noble here. The whole issue could have been avoided in a referendum where both Ukraine (and by extension the west) and Russia had as little to do with the procedures as possible.

This has nothing to do with Yugoslavia but everything to do with your comment about the Ukraine's "perceived sovereignty". They are a sovereign nation and should be respected as such.
 
This has nothing to do with Yugoslavia but everything to do with your comment about the Ukraine's "perceived sovereignty". They are a sovereign nation and should be respected as such.

Yes of course, everything exists in isolation bears no relation to anything and cannot be held to the same standards of anything else, except when the Russians do it.

And why? Because you say so? Crimea has been independent or semi-independent for the overwhelming majority of its history, there is no more logic to its being a part of Ukraine then to its being a part of Russia, least of all if its inhabitants are against it. What sovereignty does Ukraine have over a people that don't consent to its rule? certainly no more than we had over the U.S, Ireland or India.
 
send in the blue helmets... Im sure Putin will tremble..
 
Simpleχity;1063082116 said:
United Nations News Centre - Backing Ukraine’s territorial integrity, UN Assembly declares Crimea referendum invalid

Putin's invasion and annexation of Crimea was illegal, illegitimate, and a flagrant violation of the UN Charter concerning territorial integrity and sovereignty.

As the UN votes were being tallied today, tens of thousands of Russian soldiers were poised on the border waiting for Putin's order to invade and occupy other regions of Ukraine.

Okay, but why specifically does the UN not recognize it?

Because unless they can prove that the referendum was rigged - I see no problem with a territory leaving a country after a successful referendum.
 
Okay, but why specifically does the UN not recognize it?

Because unless they can prove that the referendum was rigged - I see no problem with a territory leaving a country after a successful referendum.

The Crimea was occupied when the referendum was held. You see nothing strange in that?
 
The Crimea was occupied when the referendum was held. You see nothing strange in that?

Occupied?

There were Russian troops based there as per a prior agreement with Ukraine.

Besides, every poll I saw before the referendum showed that most Crimeans wanted to join Russia.


So, by your logic, then every single election in Afghanistan (and before in Iraq) is/was illegal because there are foreign troops occupying the country?

So, when Allied troops occupied Germany after WW2, that means every election was illegal to you because foreign troops were occupying the country?


And I wanted the specific reasons - as stated by the UN, not by some guy on a chat forum.

Do you have a link that gives the UN's official reasons for their decision?
 
Last edited:
Occupied?

There were Russian troops based there as per a prior agreement with Ukraine.

Besides, every poll I saw before the referendum showed that most Crimeans wanted to join Russia.


So, by your logic, then every single election in Afghanistan (and before in Iraq) is/was illegal because there are foreign troops occupying the country?

So, when Allied troops occupied Germany after WW2, that means every election was illegal to you because foreign troops were occupying the country?


And I wanted the specific reasons - as stated by the UN, not by some guy on a chat forum.

Do you have a link that gives the UN's official reasons for their decision?

They were invaded, had a referendum organized, and were annexed in the space of several weeks. The comparisons fall flat.
 
Did this assembly do an in-depth investigation? It seems premature to reach this conclusion. It's certainly not unreasonable to think that these people might actually want to be part of Russia. Ukraine hasn't always been kind to it's ethnically Russian population.
 
Did this assembly do an in-depth investigation? It seems premature to reach this conclusion. It's certainly not unreasonable to think that these people might actually want to be part of Russia. Ukraine hasn't always been kind to it's ethnically Russian population.

Does it need to do one? Its seems like an analogous situation would be if the United States invaded Quebec, organized a referendum, held it two weeks later while keeping 40,000 troops in the province, and then declared it either independent or annexed it. Assuming that it actually was the popular result it would still be an incredibly invalid referendum and political act.
 
They were invaded, had a referendum organized, and were annexed in the space of several weeks. The comparisons fall flat.

Should I waste my time debating the ignorant (on world affairs), self-serving rambling's of a neocon on this?

Pass.

You are mostly wrong on this, I am mostly right on this.

You disagree...I don't much care...we are done.


Good day.
 
Should I waste my time debating the ignorant (on world affairs), self-serving rambling's of a neocon on this?

Pass.

You are mostly wrong on this, I am mostly right on this.

You disagree...I don't much care...we are done.


Good day.

That was a weak rebuttal. Though foreign troops were stationed in Afghanistan, post-WW2 Germany, etc., they did not vote to annex the country to those foreign nations. There is a clear distinction when you are sending troops into a sovereign nation, and within weeks there is a vote of questionable legitimacy giving that country to you. The resemblance is slight at best.
 
That was a weak rebuttal. Though foreign troops were stationed in Afghanistan, post-WW2 Germany, etc., they did not vote to annex the country to those foreign nations. There is a clear distinction when you are sending troops into a sovereign nation, and within weeks there is a vote of questionable legitimacy giving that country to you. The resemblance is slight at best.
it wasn't a rebuttal...I don't have enough respect for that guy on this subject to waste my time with a proper 'rebuttal'. It was a 'whatever'.


Also, so where is your link to factual, unbiased proof that those troops had zero influence on those votes in those other countries?

If you are saying that Iraqi's or Afghani's were not in any meaningful way influenced by their countries crawling with foreign troops (with their leader's own agenda's) then you are very naive, IMO.

Also, those Russian troops were not all over the Crimea. They were in and around their Black Sea naval base. Sure, there were other troops in key locations that people assume were masked Russian troops...but there is no proof of that. Evidence, yes...proof, no.

Besides, the polls long before the whole mess began were - to my knowledge - for rejoining Russia.

Which would you rather be a part of...a country that is broke that is falling into apparent chaos that just erased Russian language as an officially recognized language (Ukraine) or a politically stable (though quite corrupt), financially much more secure nation that many of your descendants came from (Russia)?

The answer is obvious.


Anyway, this is all moot...I don't really care what people 'feel' about this. I have an opinion and so do they...why waste time debating it? I doubt I will change their minds and the same goes for me...so why bother? I am really just interested in facts.

All I want to know - and I still have not got an answer - is what was the official UN reason for their decision?

Not theories or guesses..the OFFICIAL reason.
 
Last edited:
it wasn't a rebuttal...I don't have enough respect for that guy on this subject to waste my time with a proper 'rebuttal'. It was a 'whatever'.


Also, so where is your link to factual, unbiased proof that those troops had zero influence on those votes in those other countries?

If you are saying that Iraqi's or Afghani's were not in any meaningful way influenced by their countries crawling with foreign troops (with their leader's own agenda's) then you are very naive, IMO.

Also, those Russian troops were not all over the Crimea. They were in and around their Black Sea naval base. Sure, there were other troops in key locations that people assume were masked Russian troops...but there is no proof of that. Evidence, yes...proof, no.

Besides, the polls long before the whole mess began were - to my knowledge - for rejoining Russia.

Which would you rather be a part of...a country that is broke that is falling into apparent chaos that just erased Russian language as an officially recognized language (Ukraine) or a politically stable (though quite corrupt), financially much more secure nation that many of your descendants came from (Russia)?

The answer is obvious.


Anyway, this is all moot...I don't really care what people 'feel' about this. I have an opinion and so do they...why waste time debating it? I doubt I will change their minds and the same goes for me...so why bother? I am really just interested in facts.

All I want to know - and I still have not got an answer - is what was the official UN reason for their decision?

Not theories or guesses..the OFFICIAL reason.

If having American troops in Afghanistan coerced the Afghanis into voting against their will then that is a shame. Though, having elected a president (Karzai) who openly attacks America on frequent occasion, such a claim seems to me dubious at best.

But there is, of course, a huge distinction between political coercion leading to inept governance, and annexation of the entire country, which is what Russia just did. To treat the two as the same, is misguided I believe.

FWIW, I am not a neo-con and still disagree with the invasion of Afghanistan.
 
If having American troops in Afghanistan coerced the Afghanis into voting against their will then that is a shame. Though, having elected a president (Karzai) who openly attacks America on frequent occasion, such a claim seems to me dubious at best.

But there is, of course, a huge distinction between political coercion leading to inept governance, and annexation of the entire country, which is what Russia just did. To treat the two as the same, is misguided I believe.

FWIW, I am not a neo-con and still disagree with the invasion of Afghanistan.

With respect, you do realize that Karsai was, in essence, an American puppet...he owed his power and his life to America? Of course he is now attacking the UN/America. He has to. They are leaving, his source of power and security is going and he needs to be seen as more then just a U.S. puppet. At least that is what I think.

Gwynne Dyer: Mission not accomplished in Afghanistan | Georgia Straight, Vancouver's News & Entertainment Weekly


Btw, I am not pro-Russia...and I think Putin is a pig. A smart pig, but a pig.

But, although the Crimea referendum was far from ideal...I feel that (under the circumstances) it was more-or-less as fair as it was going to be. And I find it hypocritical of the West that they freely recognize an illegal coup in Kiev but choose to ignore a semi-legal referendum in the Crimea. The reason should be obvious, the coup in Ukraine was pro West...the referendum in the Crimea was not.
I think if the reverse was true, they would be condemning the 'violent, illegal overthrow of a legally elected government' in Kiev and supporting 'the will of the people' in the Crimea.

I think that another concern of the West is that these leaders don't like the idea of regions/states/provinces suddenly holding referendum's and leaving. I think it scares them as it sets a bad precedence...if it can happen in Ukraine, why not else where?
 
Last edited:
But, although the Crimea referendum was far from ideal...I feel that (under the circumstances) it was more-or-less as fair as it was going to be. And I find it hypocritical of the West that they freely recognize an illegal coup in Kiev but choose to ignore a semi-legal referendum in the Crimea. The reason should be obvious, the coup in Ukraine was pro West...the referendum in the Crimea was not.
I think if the reverse was true, they would be condemning the 'violent, illegal overthrow of a legally elected government' in Kiev and supporting 'the will of the people' in the Crimea.

The major difference here is that it is the Ukrainian who rose up against the corrupt president and it is no one's business but their own. Having the Russian military supervise a referendum on foreign territory is hardly similar whatsoever. Interesting to note that the old Commie, Gwynne Dyer, is still around.
 
Back
Top Bottom