I don't know how you can talk about Russian occupation of Crimea (one third of Ukraine!) without mentioning that by this Russia broke Budapest Memorandum that it signed in 1994. This Memorandum guaranteed to Ukraine "respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.” in exchange of Ukraine giving up it's third-largest nuclear arcenal. "On 27 February, unidentified troops..." Really? Unidentified? I believe you are the only one who don't know who those troops belonged to. And those "pro-Russian insurgents" are Russian Special Forces, disguised as "volunteers from Russia" and armed with Russian tanks moved across Ukrainian border. Russia don't even bother to hide the fact, that "commander-in-chief" of "pro-Russian insurgents" is KGB Colonel Girkin (Strelkov), from Moscow, who never been to Ukraine before. And what about 40.000 Russian troops on Ukrainian border, that you forgot to mention? I don't have time to go over other distortions in your post.
The relevance is of the Budapest Memorandum is more disputed that you suggest. What you say is quite true from the perspective argued by the US, although I haven't seen it argued by Ukraine which is a little odd. However, according to the Russian perspective what is happening in Crimea is an internal desire to secede; one which would be evident even from the same year that the Budapest Memorandum was signed with the extremely pro-Russian Yuriy Meshkov elected as President of Crimea with over 70%. Ukraine's response was to abolish the presidency.
Another issue on the matter of self-determination is that Ukraine's constitution requires that referenda be conducted country-wide. In otherwise, voters in Kiev, Lviv, and all the other oblasts would determine whether or not an oblast could decide where it should go. I'm sure you can see the problems with that constitutional perspective. I think really that this is a key issue that needs to be addressed; do oblasts have the right to self-determination? If not, why not?
I will also take the opportunity to point out that "unidentified" is the correct term; "unknown" and "unidentified" are not exactly the same thing, especially in this context. Finally, I'm not sure why one should particularly mention that there are Russian troops on Russia's borders (of the 40,000 you mention, over half are in Crimea according to the pro-Ukrainian "Information Resistance"), especially in a situation like this. Surely it would be obvious?
"The relevance is of the Budapest Memorandum is more disputed that you suggest." I would like to see such dispute coming from any place, exempt Russia. " What you say is quite true from the perspective argued by the US, although I haven't seen it argued byUkraine which is a little odd." Here we are: http://112.ua/politika/ukraina-budet-nastaivat-na-otvetstvennosti-rf-za-narushenie-budapeshtskogo-memoranduma-i-soglasheniya-po-chf-36527.html "according to the Russian perspective what is happening in Crimea is an internal desire to secede;" And this internal desire to secede coincidently happened right after occupation of Crimea by Russian military. "Another issue on the matter of self-determination..." Yes, so? Do you know that according to Russian Constitution one will go to jail for 5 years just for suggestion to secede any part of Russia? Do you like that? And if not, do you think it would be faire to send troops to Russia in order to change Russian Constitution the way you like it? "I will also take the opportunity to point out that "unidentified" is the correct term; "unknown" and "unidentified" are not exactly the same thing, especially in this context" I have no idea why are you saying this, but you know that it was Russian army, right? "Finally, I'm not sure why one should particularly mention that there are Russian troops on Russia's borders..." First of all, it wasn't just "Russian borders" as you call it. It was Russian-Ukrainian border. 40.000 troops were transferred there and threatened invasion of Ukraine that is why, I think, it should mentioned.
OK, thanks for that. I imagine that we both recognise that the Memorandum is, however, quite toothless with no means of resolving disputes let alone enforecement.
And this internal desire to secede coincidently happened right after occupation of Crimea by Russian military.
That's not true, and you know it's not true. The internal desire has been around for since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, as even a cursory review of Crimea's recent history would illuminate. Even more recent opinion polls and surveys indicate this strong desire
Do you know that according to Russian Constitution one will go to jail for 5 years just for suggestion to secede any part of Russia? Do you like that?
Of course not, strawman. This is not about what is right or wrong about the Russian constitution, of which there is plenty and can be discussed at another time. It is whether you think oblasts have the right to self-determination or not, a question which you didn't answer.
"On 27 February, unidentified troops..." Really? Unidentified? I believe you are the only one who don't know who those troops belonged to.
And those "pro-Russian insurgents" are Russian Special Forces, disguised as "volunteers from Russia" and armed with Russian tanks moved across Ukrainian border. Russia don't even bother to hide the fact, that "commander-in-chief" of "pro-Russian insurgents" is KGB Colonel Girkin (Strelkov), from Moscow, who never been to Ukraine before.
And what about 40.000 Russian troops on Ukrainian border, that you forgot to mention?
I don't have time to go over other distortions in your post.
Reply
Another issue on the matter of self-determination is that Ukraine's constitution requires that referenda be conducted country-wide. In otherwise, voters in Kiev, Lviv, and all the other oblasts would determine whether or not an oblast could decide where it should go. I'm sure you can see the problems with that constitutional perspective. I think really that this is a key issue that needs to be addressed; do oblasts have the right to self-determination? If not, why not?
I will also take the opportunity to point out that "unidentified" is the correct term; "unknown" and "unidentified" are not exactly the same thing, especially in this context. Finally, I'm not sure why one should particularly mention that there are Russian troops on Russia's borders (of the 40,000 you mention, over half are in Crimea according to the pro-Ukrainian "Information Resistance"), especially in a situation like this. Surely it would be obvious?
Reply
I would like to see such dispute coming from any place, exempt Russia.
" What you say is quite true from the perspective argued by the US, although I haven't seen it argued byUkraine which is a little odd."
Here we are: http://112.ua/politika/ukraina-budet-nastaivat-na-otvetstvennosti-rf-za-narushenie-budapeshtskogo-memoranduma-i-soglasheniya-po-chf-36527.html
"according to the Russian perspective what is happening in Crimea is an internal desire to secede;"
And this internal desire to secede coincidently happened right after occupation of Crimea by Russian military.
"Another issue on the matter of self-determination..."
Yes, so? Do you know that according to Russian Constitution one will go to jail for 5 years just for suggestion to secede any part of Russia? Do you like that? And if not, do you think it would be faire to send troops to Russia in order to change Russian Constitution the way you like it?
"I will also take the opportunity to point out that "unidentified" is the correct term; "unknown" and "unidentified" are not exactly the same thing, especially in this context"
I have no idea why are you saying this, but you know that it was Russian army, right?
"Finally, I'm not sure why one should particularly mention that there are Russian troops on Russia's borders..."
First of all, it wasn't just "Russian borders" as you call it. It was Russian-Ukrainian border. 40.000 troops were transferred there and threatened invasion of Ukraine that is why, I think, it should mentioned.
Reply
OK, thanks for that. I imagine that we both recognise that the Memorandum is, however, quite toothless with no means of resolving disputes let alone enforecement.
And this internal desire to secede coincidently happened right after occupation of Crimea by Russian military.
That's not true, and you know it's not true. The internal desire has been around for since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, as even a cursory review of Crimea's recent history would illuminate. Even more recent opinion polls and surveys indicate this strong desire
Do you know that according to Russian Constitution one will go to jail for 5 years just for suggestion to secede any part of Russia? Do you like that?
Of course not, strawman. This is not about what is right or wrong about the Russian constitution, of which there is plenty and can be discussed at another time. It is whether you think oblasts have the right to self-determination or not, a question which you didn't answer.
It was Russian-Ukrainian border.
Obvious point is obvious.
Reply
Leave a comment