Submitted by Available_Hamster_44 t3_10pu3dg in worldnews
frostygrin t1_j6mq2e6 wrote
Reply to comment by flamehead2k1 in Brazil's Lula cold-shoulders Germany's Scholz on Ukraine support by Available_Hamster_44
So what would have been the way to a lasting peace in Afghanistan - for Russia to arm the Taliban when the US was there? :)
More importantly, you can't act like the invasion is the only obstacle to a lasting peace in Ukraine. How about the majority ethnic Russian Crimea on one hand, and Ukraine aiming to be an ethnostate, suppressing other languages and cultures? What if many Crimeans don't want to be part of Ukraine?
Postcocious t1_j6nh2x7 wrote
>What if many Crimeans don't want to be part of Ukraine?
Like every province, Crimeans voted on that exact question in a fair and open election. A majority voted to be part of Ukraine.
Russia reneged on its sworn obligation to respect the borders that resulted from that election. Instead of honoring the borders chosen by the people of Crimea (Donbas, etc) they launched a war of aggression to steal the land for themselves.
When a schoolyard bully reoratedly beats up on a smaller, weaker kid and refuses to stop, standing by because "neutrality" is just moral cowardice.
frostygrin t1_j6nhq1a wrote
> Like every province, Crimeans voted on that exact question in a fair and open election. A majority voted to be part of Ukraine.
No, that didn't happen. The referendum was on the fate of the USSR. They weren't given a choice between being part of independent Ukraine and part of independent Russia. Since then there is a history of Crimea trying to get some form of independence or autonomy from Ukraine, and Ukraine suppressing it. Even before Putin became Russian president.
Postcocious t1_j6nld0c wrote
>The referendum was on the fate of the USSR.
That was the January 1991 referendum, which was never implemented because the USSR imploded before its reorganization (including Crimea) could be completed. That implosion mooted the results of the January 1991 Crimea referendum - you can't enforce something that no longer exists.
>They weren't given a choice between being part of independent Ukraine and part of independent Russia.
In December 1991, Ukraine held a referendum and Ukrainians voted for independence. This essentially marked the end of the Soviet Union. 54% of Crimean voters opted for Ukrainian independence, with the turnout in Crimea placed at 60%. Thus Ukraine became independent, and Crimea remained part of the newly independent Ukraine, retaining its autonomous status.
>Since then there is a history of Crimea trying to get some form of independence or autonomy from Ukraine, and Ukraine suppressing it. Even before Putin became Russian president.
True, but only half the story. Russia was working just as hard to suppress pro-Ukraine sentiment. You forgot that part.
The only free expression of Crimean desires that's still actionable was that December 1991 referendum. Russia and Ukraine both sought to leverage the results in their favor. Ukraine won that battle by political means (the pro-Ukraine parliament ousted the pro-Russian president).
Instead of continuing the battle by political means, Russia reverted to raw force - taking Crimea whether Crimeans wanted it or not. Nobody in Crimea ever voted for that.
frostygrin t1_j6nuroy wrote
> In December 1991, Ukraine held a referendum and Ukrainians voted for independence. This essentially marked the end of the Soviet Union.
I said as much - it was a choice between independent Ukraine and the Soviet Union, not a choice between independent Russia and independent Ukraine. Then Ukraine stripped the autonomous status.
> True, but only half the story. Russia was working just as hard to suppress pro-Ukraine sentiment. You forgot that part.
Haven't seen any sources. How could Russia do that, exactly, in a newly independent country?
> Ukraine won that battle by political means (the pro-Ukraine parliament ousted the pro-Russian president).
Coups aren't exactly political.
Postcocious t1_j6nvyku wrote
>How could Russia do that, exactly, in a newly independent country?
The same way they do in every other country: inserting agents, propaganda, misinformation, sabotaging (and sometimes murdering) people who disagree with them.
All that is especially easy in a newly independent country, where political structures and norms are not well established.
Doubly so when many people speak Russian and/or are sympathetic.
Crimea being newly independent made them more vulnerable to outside influences, not less.
>Coups aren't exactly political.
Parliamentary votes aren't coups.
frostygrin t1_j6nwy7o wrote
> All that is especially easy in a newly independent country, where political structures and norms are not well established.
I haven't seen any examples of that actually happening in Crimea. You even acknowledge that people might have been sympathetic - making it less nefarious.
> Parliamentary votes aren't coups.
What's leading to them surely can be.
Postcocious t1_j6nxdvl wrote
>You even acknowledge that people might have been sympathetic - making it less nefarious.
Nothing about an unprovoked military invasion that murders civilians is "less nefarious". It is fully nefarious.
frostygrin t1_j6o19rb wrote
Do you even follow the conversation? We were talking about Crimea in the 90s, "in a newly independent country", where, as you were claiming, Russia was playing mind games to suppress the pro-Ukrainian sentiment among the sympathetic pro-Russian population. Except I haven't seen any examples of that.
Postcocious t1_j6o498n wrote
> Except I haven't seen any examples of that.
How did Russian troops disguised as independent mercenaries manage to invade and conquer Crimea in 2014 with hardly any resistance from the local defence forces?
If they'd believed the invaders were independent, they'd have fought. No army surrenders their country to nameless bandits.
That they didn't fight is evidence they knew the invaders were backed by Moscow. Which is evidence that Moscow suborned them before the invasion began.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments