Honestly - Western/Europe friendly government wins and it's democratic. No one from the opposition opposes and let's them win. If a Russian friendly government is elected, it's obviously a fraud and not democratic, and we should support a rebellion that takes authority away from that government.

It's not even a matter of democracy then, it's just a matter that Europe/West is going to make sure they get the government they want.

I honestly don't blame Russia for what they did. I would do the same. Thoughts?

Also what's with this all of Ukraine should vote for whether Crimea is to be independent or not. That would be like saying all of Canada ought to vote on whether Quebec should be independent or not. It doesn't work like that.

What kind of international law says otherwise?

Anyways my two cents.

Russia has no right to the Ukraine though.

Civil war does.

Sovereignty is subject to to foreign invasion, not domestic instability.

(March 9, 2014 at 2:40 pm)Mr. Moncrieff Wrote: Russia has no right to the Ukraine though.

As if rights mean anything?

(March 9, 2014 at 2:49 pm)Napoléon Wrote:

(March 9, 2014 at 2:40 pm)Mr. Moncrieff Wrote: Russia has no right to the Ukraine though.

As if rights mean anything?

True.

However, war is often fought under the jurisdiction of beauracracy these days.

You have to fill out a risk assessment to fire off a mortar shell.

As far as I can see (and I'm not pretending I know this issue inside out), crimea seems positively pro-russian and has a lot of russian people there. I do not personally blame the russians for sending in troops. I think if it were a situation with America and a large population of American citizens, the yanks would have no qualms about sending troops in. They've started wars for less.

(March 9, 2014 at 2:54 pm)Napoléon Wrote: As far as I can see (and I'm not pretending I know this issue inside out), crimea seems positively pro-russian and has a lot of russian people there. I do not personally blame the russians for sending in troops. I think if it were a situation with America and a large population of American citizens, the yanks would have no qualms about sending troops in. They've started wars for less.

To make it very VERY simplistic, it's very similar to the British Empire protecting interests in the North of Ireland hundreds of years back.

Look how that turned out.

I agree Mystic Knight.
I would have done the same too.

As a Russian I think I have to sound my opinion on the Crimea issue. It may be unclear from the distance due to the media bias and a formidable linguistic barrier (english-speakers aren't able to surf russian Internet to get some more relevant information to analyze and auto-translators don't work well with Slavic languages) but for people who live here (both in Crimea and in Russia) it's clear that it was absolutely necessary and inevitable for Crimea to join Russia and it was supported by the local population.

For full understanding of the issue I have to briefly address the history. I don't want to hurt someones feelings but to say it straight, Urkaine as it has been for the past 50-70 years is a very ununiform country. This is due to the fact that for hundreds of years it's current territories were effectively separate countries with some major cultural differences. To add to it, throughout the history these territories switched between major states: Polish kingdom, Russian Empire and the USSR, Hungary and Austro-Hungarian Empire. Eastern territories historically belonged to Russia which manifests itself in so-called southern Russian dialect spoken there, a mix of Russian and Ukranian languages. Western territories belonged to Austro-Hungary. Speaking of Crimea, it had been a Russian territory from 1783 to 1954 when Nikita Khruschev transferred this territory to Urkaine. Eastern territories were added to Ukraine by Joseph Stalin as a jest of friendship before the Great Patriotic War (Russian campaign of WW II) to compensate for an extremely tense period of 1917-30s. Western territories were attached to Ukraine by the efforts of the USSR between 1930s and in course of WW II. The attachment of these western territories (Galichina, Lvov and other) may have been a major mistake since they have always been very different from the Eastern and even Central Ukraine in a cultural aspect. Western Ukraine has long history of separatism and rebel warfare against both Russia and Western neighbours. During the World War II Western Ukranian rebels were known for their extreme cruelty which surprised even the SS. UPA and AUN rebels were known for some of the most horrible massacres against Jews and Poles. They also hunted down Russians which they called "moskals" or "katsaps", tatars and those ethnic Ukranians that failed to co-operate. These rebels remained well into 1950's.

It's also necessary to speak of Central Ukraine. As you may know Kiev was a place where ancient Rus' (Russia) started. I'm not going to go into detais here but after a long period of internecine conflicts, foreign invasions and general unstability Moscow emerged as Rus' capital. This fact and other minor yet unpleasant historical facts caused some tensions in Russian - Ukrainian relations on all levels. After the fall of Russian Empire in 1917 a Civil War broke out between the Communist, Monarchist and other forces that strived for control over Russia on a scale quite comparable to American Civil War. In this period Central Ukraine (which was Ukrainian Governorate before 1917) had secessed from the former Russian Empire but had also got affected by a civil war and by 1920's the Communists prevailed and Ukrainian Governorate joined the USSR as Ukrainian Soviet Socialistic Republic. Of course this also left some scars on the society.

As you can see, modern Ukraine consists of very culturaly-different territories. After the USSR had been dissolved a search for identity began. While most of the people were mainly indifferent to this process some wanted to establish their identity in more radical ways. One of the easiest ways to do so is to antogonize some enemy. Naturally, some of them chose to turn to WWII-era nationalism (UPA et al) and antogonize Russia and partially (though considerably less) Poland. These neo-nazis quickly developed imperial ambitions and even came up with their own alternative history in a way not too different from what German nazis had done before WWII. It's necessary to remember that after leaving the USSR Ukraine quickly ended up in extreme poverty. In the Soviet period Ukrainian economy was set so as to participate in Soviet plan system and all of it's products (exept for the grains) were consumed mainly within the USSR. After the secession it became clear that Ukraine's economy is largely unable of competition against Europe, China and other. In such conditions it wasn't hard for the nationalistic forces to find support. These forces became most active in the Western and Central regions. They've even managed to find support within the government. Of course the most radical of them have remained unofficial untill recent events. The general course of reformation was so as to unite Ukraine under a new and rigidly uniform identity largerly influenced by the Western regions. This is what had created this tension which resulted in current Civil War.

After the coup which removed Yanukovich from power the situation became more and more hostile. Nationalists strived to the power among other parties. In fact they have threatened and are continuing to threaten to make a second coup. This resulted in nationalistic violence and people in Eastern regions which as I've said are largerly culturaly different began to worry for their future and for their lives.

This is why Crimeans actually chose to secess and to join Russia. Speaking of joining Russia there are two main factors. First one is very significant cultural and historical heritage that connects Crimea and Russia. It may sound unconvincing for the foreigners but these things really matter. I know people from there who are very happy about joining Russia though they are well aware that our country has it's own problems. Even those who are sceptical are happy because the situation was clearly going towards a local civil war. Secondly, it was clear that without Russian support Crimea wouldn't have been able to defend themselves as Ukrainian government clearly stated that they weren't going to let this region go and nationalists tried to intimidate the population by force. And there's a third reason. Crimea has long-standing naval military traditions. For hundreds of years it has been a staging area of Russian Black Sea Fleet. Somewhat like Pearl Harbor for the USA but even more important. It had been so even during the Ukranian period. It was completely impossible to let this region fall into a stage civil war and be decimated. An there are many local people who whouldn't have let it be so because their ancestors' lives and their own lives are connected with the Fleet.

Of course you may dismiss my opinion as biased but I'm d like to say I'm not one of those people who get their facts out of TV news. Ukraine and Russia are heavily interconnected via family connections, personal and even hobby relations. And since there is Internet and that Russian is largerly known in Ukraine it generally isn't a problem to talk to people both in Crimea and Eastern Regions and in, say, Kiev to form an opinion.

holy shit, that a long post.

Smaug,
Thank you for a very interesting and educational explanation of the Ukrainian situation.
I have saved your post for reference and re-reading.
Your discussion about the various exchanges of lands and economic and political pressures in the Ukraine area which led to the current disunity was enlightening. I was somewhat informed about the importance of the Crimea to Russia's navy, but I had no real understanding of how the Ukraine came to look like it does: thrown together.
From any view; local or global, the situation looks like a mess. Best wishes for the least destructive resolution.