If you were Ukrainian, would you agree to drop Crimea?

Ok. So if you were Ukrainian, would you agree to surrender Crimea to Russia and under what conditions? Or what would you ask the govt of Ukraine do/ask from Russia in exchange for recognition and defusing the situation?

Secondly, would you agree to grant autonomy/accept the demands of the russian majority in the 3 Oblasts to the East -> Kharkiv, Luhanska and Donetsk, where massive pro-russian protests have been taking place for almost a month now.


So if I were Ukrainian, I would ask my govt to agree to recognize Crimea as part of Russia in exchange that Russia releases the over 50 Ukranian ships Russia took from the harbors in Crimea and agree to a repatriation program for all Ukranians who want to leave Crimea.
And I would also agree to offer the 3 Oblasts greater autonomy but no independence or the right to go to Russia. But let them have their own regional parliaments and what naught, just like Crimea had.

Edit: So I voted for 2 and 5, the give crimea with some conditions and give autonomy to the russian majority Oblasts. The poll is multiple choice. Cheers.

I would ask that if Russia accepted the vote of Crimea to leave Ukraine, that Russia also allow and recognize any future Crimean referendom on Crimea leaving the Russian Federation as well.

1750Texan said:

I would ask that if Russia accepted the vote of Crimea to leave Ukraine, that Russia also allow and recognize any future Crimean referendom on Crimea leaving the Russian Federation as well.

Click to expand...

LOL why on earth would the Crimea want to leave the Russian Federation? That is the whole point of the problem, they are Russia and not Ukrainian. Like it or not, if every person voted, and the vote was untainted, the result would be a wish to join the Russian Federation by a handsome margin.

PeteEU said:

LOL why on earth would the Crimea want to leave the Russian Federation? That is the whole point of the problem, they are Russia and not Ukrainian. Like it or not, if every person voted, and the vote was untainted, the result would be a wish to join the Russian Federation by a handsome margin.

Click to expand...

Too bad it wasn't, 95% is rather suspicious and they refused to allow observers. You also just can't hold a referendum at gunpoint.

Carjosse said:

Too bad it wasn't, 95% is rather suspicious and they refused to allow observers. You also just can't hold a referendum at gunpoint.

Click to expand...

First of all there was observers.. not many but they were there. Also 95% is not suspicious if 2 of the 3 ethnic groups boycott the vote. Also no one was forced to vote, and no one was point any guns. There were probably few guns involved than an average American election

I know we in the west have been spoon-fed propaganda from the US and UK on how terrible it is and all that, and that the Russians are the bad guys, but it totally ignores the fact that the region massively voted for the ousted President and hence had Russian leanings, and the fact that at least 56% of the population consider themselves Russia, and far more on top of that have Russia sympathies.

Like it or not, we in the west have promoted self determination as a principle for years, but when that is used by our "supposed enemies" then all of a sudden we support dictators and undemocratic principles? You cant have both sorry.

PeteEU said:

First of all there was observers.. not many but they were there. Also 95% is not suspicious if 2 of the 3 ethnic groups boycott the vote. Also no one was forced to vote, and no one was point any guns. There were probably few guns involved than an average American election

I know we in the west have been spoon-fed propaganda from the US and UK on how terrible it is and all that, and that the Russians are the bad guys, but it totally ignores the fact that the region massively voted for the ousted President and hence had Russian leanings, and the fact that at least 56% of the population consider themselves Russia, and far more on top of that have Russia sympathies.

Like it or not, we in the west have promoted self determination as a principle for years, but when that is used by our "supposed enemies" then all of a sudden we support dictators and undemocratic principles? You cant have both sorry.

Click to expand...

Good post.

PeteEU said:

First of all there was observers.. not many but they were there. Also 95% is not suspicious if 2 of the 3 ethnic groups boycott the vote. Also no one was forced to vote, and no one was point any guns. There were probably few guns involved than an average American election

I know we in the west have been spoon-fed propaganda from the US and UK on how terrible it is and all that, and that the Russians are the bad guys, but it totally ignores the fact that the region massively voted for the ousted President and hence had Russian leanings, and the fact that at least 56% of the population consider themselves Russia, and far more on top of that have Russia sympathies.

Like it or not, we in the west have promoted self determination as a principle for years, but when that is used by our "supposed enemies" then all of a sudden we support dictators and undemocratic principles? You cant have both sorry.

Click to expand...

I support the right to self determination with Quebec for example but the difference is this referendum was fraudulent. They did not have enough observers if any, there was no campaigning between a yes and no side like there was in Quebec. It was at gunpoint, the Russians were occupying Crimea. A majority of Crimeans also voted for independence with the rest of Ukraine in 1991.

Carjosse said:

I support the right to self determination with Quebec for example but the difference is this referendum was fraudulent. They did not have enough observers if any, there was no campaigning between a yes and no side like there was in Quebec. It was at gunpoint, the Russians were occupying Crimea. A majority of Crimeans also voted for independence with the rest of Ukraine in 1991.

Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying but does it really matter? The result would have been the same considering the crap that has been going on over the last 2 decades plus between Kiev and the Russian speaking parts of Ukraine.

As I look at it, the result was certain regardless, so why risk a civil war, deaths and violence just to get observers in and conduct a more western style referendum? I know I am having a moment of double standard here, but I am trying to be as realistic as possible and to save as many lives as possible. In no way, would the people of Crimea have voted to stay Ukrainian .. in no way.. it is a pipe dream, that just because the referendum was more western style that the people would some how rather want to be part of the Ukraine than Russia.. simply wont happen.

Add to that, the geo-political and military aspect of the whole situation, and sorry but I dont want war over a piss-ant military port in the Black Sea.

PeteEU said:

First of all there was observers.. not many but they were there. Also 95% is not suspicious if 2 of the 3 ethnic groups boycott the vote. Also no one was forced to vote, and no one was point any guns. There were probably few guns involved than an average American election

I know we in the west have been spoon-fed propaganda from the US and UK on how terrible it is and all that, and that the Russians are the bad guys, but it totally ignores the fact that the region massively voted for the ousted President and hence had Russian leanings, and the fact that at least 56% of the population consider themselves Russia, and far more on top of that have Russia sympathies.

Like it or not, we in the west have promoted self determination as a principle for years, but when that is used by our "supposed enemies" then all of a sudden we support dictators and undemocratic principles? You cant have both sorry.

Click to expand...

You can't invade and annex a part of another country just because there's people there with a similar ethnic background as the majority in your country. Lets not forget also the seizure of massive amounts of Ukrainian military hardware, ships, vehicles, weapons, etc, etc by Russian forces. And lets also not forget that this vote only took place because Russian gunmen stormed the Crimean Parliament building and declared that a vote to hold this referendum had taken place, despite no record of it ever having occurred.

PeteEU said:

I understand what you are saying but does it really matter? The result would have been the same considering the crap that has been going on over the last 2 decades plus between Kiev and the Russian speaking parts of Ukraine.

As I look at it, the result was certain regardless, so why risk a civil war, deaths and violence just to get observers in and conduct a more western style referendum? I know I am having a moment of double standard here, but I am trying to be as realistic as possible and to save as many lives as possible. In no way, would the people of Crimea have voted to stay Ukrainian .. in no way.. it is a pipe dream, that just because the referendum was more western style that the people would some how rather want to be part of the Ukraine than Russia.. simply wont happen.

Add to that, the geo-political and military aspect of the whole situation, and sorry but I dont want war over a piss-ant military port in the Black Sea.

Click to expand...

The referendum should have never happened anyways, this whole issue with the Crimea is not about the Crimea, it is about the fact the Russians invaded Ukraine, violating it's sovereignty. It sets a very dangerous precedent. The Russians forced out all the other residents of the Crimea, it was a corrupt vote no matter which way you slice it. I would accept it if Crimea held a referendum without any Russian troops in Crimea and it was called for by the parliament before the other ethnic groups were thrown out.

Wiseone said:

You can't invade and annex a part of another country just because there's people there with a similar ethnic background as the majority in your country.

Click to expand...

There was no invasion. That is another myth promoted by the west... gezz I sound like a freaking Russian.. but it is true. Russia had a deal to have troops in Crimea and a deal to move around as they wished in Crimea. On top of that, there were local militias, yes groups of locals... who yes were outfitted most likely by the Russians, but never the less were locals, not Russians.

Lets not forget also the seizure of massive amounts of Ukrainian military hardware, ships, vehicles, weapons, etc, etc by Russian forces.

Click to expand...

And lets not forget that Kiev has tried for decades to remove Russia rights. That Kiev tried to ban Russian in schools and public office. That Kiev tried to go back on their deal with the Russians and seize Sevastopol and lets not forget that a considerable minority of the Kiev government are far right nationalist neo Nazi's.

We can play this game all day long if you want. No one in this case are angels.

And lets also not forget that this vote only took place because Russian gunmen stormed the Crimean Parliament building and declared that a vote to hold this referendum had taken place, despite no record of it ever having occurred.

Click to expand...

Err no, the locally elected government held the referendum. The reason that the "Russian gunmen" stormed the Crimean Parliament was to defend it against Ukrainian forces who had been ordered by Kiev to arrest the locally elected politicians for treason. How can you force the Crimean Parliament and government to do anything when they are pro-Russian and asked for help?

And in the end what the hell does it matter? The people of Crimea given the choice in a free and fair referendum would have chosen Russia over Crimea. Why do you ignore this fact? Why is it okay for Kosovo to violently break away, but it is not okay for the Crimea to do it relatively peaceful?

Carjosse said:

The referendum should have never happened anyways, this whole issue with the Crimea is not about the Crimea, it is about the fact the Russians invaded Ukraine, violating it's sovereignty. It sets a very dangerous precedent. The Russians forced out all the other residents of the Crimea, it was a corrupt vote no matter which way you slice it. I would accept it if Crimea held a referendum without any Russian troops in Crimea and it was called for by the parliament before the other ethnic groups were thrown out.

Click to expand...

Again what invasion? How can you invade a country you already are in? Does that mean that when US forces go out on patrol and kill Taliban, then they are invading Afghanistan again?

Yes it sets a very dangerous precedent, but that precedent was actually set by the West in Kosovo long ago.

PeteEU said:

Again what invasion? How can you invade a country you already are in? Does that mean that when US forces go out on patrol and kill Taliban, then they are invading Afghanistan again?

Yes it sets a very dangerous precedent, but that precedent was actually set by the West in Kosovo long ago.

Click to expand...

The last time I checked NATO did not invade Kosovo violating the sovereignty of a peaceful country, forcing a fraudulent referendum then annexing it. The Russians overthrew the parliament of the Crimea and took over the region, I would call that an invasion.

PeteEU said:

LOL why on earth would the Crimea want to leave the Russian Federation? That is the whole point of the problem, they are Russia and not Ukrainian. Like it or not, if every person voted, and the vote was untainted, the result would be a wish to join the Russian Federation by a handsome margin.

Click to expand...

Crimea is not Russian. Some of the people of Crimea are Russian. The last referendom was only based on the option of leaving Ukraine now or leave Ukraine latter.

Why would Crimean people leave Russia?..they may not; but my option gives them the right and voice to choose if they do for whatever reason.

Are you against that choice?

PeteEU said:

There was no invasion. That is another myth promoted by the west... gezz I sound like a freaking Russian.. but it is true. Russia had a deal to have troops in Crimea and a deal to move around as they wished in Crimea. On top of that, there were local militias, yes groups of locals... who yes were outfitted most likely by the Russians, but never the less were locals, not Russians.



And lets not forget that Kiev has tried for decades to remove Russia rights. That Kiev tried to ban Russian in schools and public office. That Kiev tried to go back on their deal with the Russians and seize Sevastopol and lets not forget that a considerable minority of the Kiev government are far right nationalist neo Nazi's.

We can play this game all day long if you want. No one in this case are angels.



Err no, the locally elected government held the referendum. The reason that the "Russian gunmen" stormed the Crimean Parliament was to defend it against Ukrainian forces who had been ordered by Kiev to arrest the locally elected politicians for treason. How can you force the Crimean Parliament and government to do anything when they are pro-Russian and asked for help?

And in the end what the hell does it matter? The people of Crimea given the choice in a free and fair referendum would have chosen Russia over Crimea. Why do you ignore this fact? Why is it okay for Kosovo to violently break away, but it is not okay for the Crimea to do it relatively peaceful?

Click to expand...

Nazis? Come on now. You've gone off the wall.

I can't really discuss this topic, you've clearly fooled yourself. Do you really believe that thousands of men with military weapons, vehicles, radios, helicopters, etc just came out of nowhere? No its ****ing Russian Army. And you expect me to believe that a man who's party just 2 years ago won only 3 out of hundred seats in Parliament is suddenly and fairly elected as the new PM for Ukraine? And you expect me to believe that despite these "orders" to arrest locally elected politicians all of Ukraine's military just sat around on their bases?

It would be funny if you were defending a dictator invading and annexing another country, I can't really argue with you anymore it makes me absolutely ****ing sick to my stomach to see people side of dictators, autocrats, and other folks who view the people as simple laborers for their personal enrichment.

O and what's different about Kosovo? Three completely ****ing obvious things:

1) Genocide
2) International acceptance
3) No one annexed it

Wiseone said:

Nazis? Come on now. You've gone off the wall.

I can't really discuss this topic, you've clearly fooled yourself. Do you really believe that thousands of men with military weapons, vehicles, radios, helicopters, etc just came out of nowhere? No its ****ing Russian Army. And you expect me to believe that a man who's party just 2 years ago won only 3 out of hundred seats in Parliament is suddenly and fairly elected as the new PM for Ukraine? And you expect me to believe that despite these "orders" to arrest locally elected politicians all of Ukraine's military just sat around on their bases?

It would be funny if you were defending a dictator invading and annexing another country, I can't really argue with you anymore it makes me absolutely ****ing sick to my stomach to see people side of dictators, autocrats, and other folks who view the people as simple laborers for their personal enrichment.

O and what's different about Kosovo? Three completely ****ing obvious things:

1) Genocide
2) International acceptance
3) No one annexed it

Click to expand...

I meant new PM for Crimean, not Ukraine, I'd do an edit but some already liked.

Carjosse said:

The last time I checked NATO did not invade Kosovo violating the sovereignty of a peaceful country, forcing a fraudulent referendum then annexing it.

Click to expand...

No but they did encourage an armed rebellion against Serbia by terrorists and when Serbia started to hit down on these terrorists, then NATO attacked to force a secession from Serbia and a creation of a new nation under their control... and there was a referendum there too, just as, if not more "fraudulent" and under the gun than in Crimea, since the Serbian minority was being ethnically cleansed by the majority of Kosovo.

The Russians overthrew the parliament of the Crimea and took over the region, I would call that an invasion.

Click to expand...

No they did not. The Parliament of Crimea was pro-Russian... why overthrow it? That was one of the problems in the first place. A pro-Russian parliament in Crimea was a thorn in the side of the government in Kiev.

PeteEU said:

No but they did encourage an armed rebellion against Serbia by terrorists and when Serbia started to hit down on these terrorists, then NATO attacked to force a secession from Serbia and a creation of a new nation under their control... and there was a referendum there too, just as, if not more "fraudulent" and under the gun than in Crimea, since the Serbian minority was being ethnically cleansed by the majority of Kosovo.



No they did not. The Parliament of Crimea was pro-Russian... why overthrow it? That was one of the problems in the first place. A pro-Russian parliament in Crimea was a thorn in the side of the government in Kiev.

Click to expand...

I would call having armed men take over the parliament and forcing non-Russian members to leave, overthrowing it.

Rainman05 said:

Ok. So if you were Ukrainian, would you agree to surrender Crimea to Russia?

Click to expand...

No.


Cheers,
Fallen.

Wiseone said:

Nazis? Come on now. You've gone off the wall.

Click to expand...

And who were the paramilitary units defending the protesters against the police during the protests in Kiev?

I can't really discuss this topic, you've clearly fooled yourself. Do you really believe that thousands of men with military weapons, vehicles, radios, helicopters, etc just came out of nowhere? No its ****ing Russian Army.

Click to expand...

Who said they came out of no where?

And you expect me to believe that a man who's party just 2 years ago won only 3 out of hundred seats in Parliament is suddenly and fairly elected as the new PM for Ukraine?

Click to expand...

Eh? You talking about Tyahnybok? You do know he is part of the new regime right and hates Russians?

And you expect me to believe that despite these "orders" to arrest locally elected politicians all of Ukraine's military just sat around on their bases?

Click to expand...

Considering that many of the troops abandoned their posts when what´s his name fled, then anything is possible. There was a political and judicial vacuum in Crimea when Yanukaovich fled and his regime collapsed. The new government tried to re-establish itself, but had very little success in Crimea.. wonder why?

It would be funny if you were defending a dictator invading and annexing another country, I can't really argue with you anymore it makes me absolutely ****ing sick to my stomach to see people side of dictators, autocrats, and other folks who view the people as simple laborers for their personal enrichment.

Click to expand...

But then you cant side with the new government in Kiev, random country the US backs in the middle east and so on...So you dont back your own government now, even when Bush was in power?

O and what's different about Kosovo? Three completely ****ing obvious things:

Click to expand...

Lets see..

1) Genocide

Click to expand...

Oh the genocide card.. always nice to use for media purposes and brilliant to use for political reasons to use military forces. Funny how the "genocide" by the Kosovians on the Serbian population is rarely mentioned eh? Or the ethnic cleansing by the western backed Kosovo government over the last 10 years... But they are our "bad guys" right? Listen I in no way condone what the Serbs did to the local Kosovo population, but in no way does that justify what the Kosovo population did when they had NATO protecting them. So playing the genocide card to justify an invasion but not calling it genocide/ethnic cleansing when it happens to a minority in the same region is just pathetic double standard.

2) International acceptance

Click to expand...

LOL give me a break.. only 108 out of 193 UN members have recognized Kosovo, but more interestingly.. only 23 out of 28 EU states have recognized Kosovo and only 24 out of 28 NATO countries have recognized Kosvo.

So that international acceptance is far far far from universal.

3) No one annexed it

Click to expand...

And does that actually matter? Would you have reacted any differently if Crimea wanted to be independent from Kiev and not join Russia? What if Kosovo suddenly wants to be part of Albania, which has been floated many times? Will that piss you off and declare their independence illegitimate?

I don't see any Western Reserve Banking solutions working for Ukraine. My paranoid suspicions deduce that it will work well for bankers. The intense divisions between East and West Ukraine are too large. The Ukraine is on path to Greece, or worse. Double the price of energy, cut pensions, devalue the currency, cut gov't employees, and all prices to be paid by the poorest citizens of the Nation. I think 72% of Ukraine exports go to Russia, so they probably shouldn't piss off Putin for reasons of common sense. The $2 billion in arrears for gas payments is probably $3 billon by now. Why does Russia's name keep popping up in all logical Ukraine scenarios, except Western Reserve Banking scenarios? They freely elected everybody's favorite scumbag, Yanukovych, and Western Reserve Banker's biggest fear is that a true free election will do something similar again. Better to make sure the Ukrainians only get a choice like the USA, where Big Money, could that possibly be BANKERS, will choose who gets on the ballot. A two party system, like Sheldon Adelson's candidate and Charles and David Koch's candidate versus George Soro's candidate. The USA/CIA worked real hard to generate this insurrection in Ukraine and now gets to harvest their seeds. Looks like a GMO batch to me.

The act of Crimea voting to secede from Ukraine was in violation of the Ukraine constitution.

The U.S. was in violation of Britain's law when the states seceded from Britain.

You may not like the way it was played out but it's a done deal now.

Has anyone taken the time to read just a brief history of Crimea? It's unbelievable how many governments this area has been ruled by in just the past 200 years. Many by force, some by choice.

In the future, if NATO has a desire to push for another country into the EU, it best have all its members on board with the idea and the ruling classes willing to pony up the money BEFORE it starts shooting off their mouths. Until then, shut up and sit down especially Barrack Obama and the rest of his feckless foreign policy group. (Kerry, Nuland, Hagel, the Clapper). Let the people in Ukraine have their elections, see who the people choose. If they choose the same old guard full of corruption as before, then EU and NATO should rethink their position. No sense in trying to save a sinking ship if it isn't willing to make the effort to save itself.

As I understand it, Crimea has a population that includes 15% Tatars, some 300,000 strong Muslims, who are adamantly opposed to being put back under Russian control and are demanding autonomy on Crimea.

We'll soon see, as this plays out, just how much truth is in the Russian scam that this was all about independent people seeking free will determination of their futures. If Russia allows the Tatars authonomy and free control over the areas they occupy on Crimea, I'll believe them - but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

PeteEU said:

First of all there was observers.. not many but they were there. Also 95% is not suspicious if 2 of the 3 ethnic groups boycott the vote. Also no one was forced to vote, and no one was point any guns. There were probably few guns involved than an average American election

I know we in the west have been spoon-fed propaganda from the US and UK on how terrible it is and all that, and that the Russians are the bad guys, but it totally ignores the fact that the region massively voted for the ousted President and hence had Russian leanings, and the fact that at least 56% of the population consider themselves Russia, and far more on top of that have Russia sympathies.

Like it or not, we in the west have promoted self determination as a principle for years, but when that is used by our "supposed enemies" then all of a sudden we support dictators and undemocratic principles? You cant have both sorry.

Click to expand...

I don't say this often, but good post Pete.

Rainman05 said:

Ok. So if you were Ukrainian, would you agree to surrender Crimea to Russia and under what conditions? .

Click to expand...

If I were a Ukrainian nationalist who cares about nothing but Ukraine, the first thing I would do is to shove Crimea and the two 'Russian' provinces in the east down the Kremlin's throat. There, try not to choke. In one fell swoop, Ukraine becomes a united country with a clear direction of development.

But if I were a Ukrainian with some degree of sympathy toward actual Russians, Crimean Tatars, and everybody else who lives in the "bad neighborhood", I would go for "part of Ukraine, period". The territory controlled by the Putin's regime is rapidly becoming a truly dark place, reminiscent of everybody-knows-what. The state-controlled "Russian" media (which is also the prime source of information for the Russian-speaking population of the Ukrainian south-east) may have succeeded in generating a public euphoria regarding the Anschluss; after all, the last 23 years were pretty much years of misery; why not try something different?

But a few years will pass, and it will become clear that the new home is the same old home, only worse: the same corruption, the same heavy hand of the State, the same economy ready to fall apart any time now - but all that multiplied by the scary inability to serve the final divorce letter to the totalitarian Communist past, and by the delusions of imperial grandeur (for which the serfs will have to pay, as usual). It will be good to have options - to know that Ukraine had never given up on you.