What do you mean by "right?" As in, who is giving/enforcing said "right?"
By right, I mean should regions (specifically Crimea) be allowed to secede from countries or merge with other countries? I am going for whether it should be allowed, not whether it would be possible.
By right, I mean should regions (specifically Crimea) be allowed to secede from countries or merge with other countries? I am going for whether it should be allowed, not whether it would be possible.
I'm sorry to be dense, but the context is still very unclear to me. Who are you asking should or shouldn't allow them?
By right, I mean should regions (specifically Crimea) be allowed to secede from countries or merge with other countries? I am going for whether it should be allowed, not whether it would be possible.
I'm sorry to be dense, but the context is still very unclear to me. Who are you asking should or shouldn't allow them?
So, you're asking if the international community should:
1) Directly help Crimea be independent.
2) Directly help Russia control Crimea.
3) Remain neutral (but probably help in indirect ways anyway).
Alright, if those are the choices, I guess I'd go with "3."
This sort of begs the question, "what are the requirements before the international community recognize that a part of the country should be granted independence?"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
In that case the U.S. really needs to return land to all the Native Americans that we've forcibly removed from.
I know there must be a couple tribes that we didn't cheat land from. There must be a couple that we just told to "get the **** off the land".
Well, should the US give the lands back? Not "will," since--obviously--they won't. But, are they morally obligated to? As in, SHOULD they?
And if they should, what justification is there not to?
In that case the U.S. really needs to return land to all the Native Americans that we've forcibly removed from.
I know there must be a couple tribes that we didn't cheat land from. There must be a couple that we just told to "get the **** off the land".
Well, should the US give the lands back? Not "will," since--obviously--they won't. But, are they morally obligated to? As in, SHOULD they?
And if they should, what justification is there not to?
If and only if you can firmly establish that the tribe that was removed from the land was the very first group to have ownership over that land. We wouldn't want to make the mistake of lumping all Native Americans together, right? They can have cheated or warred over the land to take it from each other.
...the exercise of trying to apply such rules even decades later, never mind centuries later, is effectively impossible. There is no fair solution to be had.
That does not mean, however, that when something like that is happening right now, there's no right or wrong. It just means that if, say, Russia annexes Crimea, in 30 years it'll be impossible to sort out right or wrong at that time. Russia should not be deploying troops to Crimea.
As for whether the US should be involved... this clearly does matter to us, we clearly do have an interest and we should be involved, but this is not something to go to war over. Economic repercussions are appropriate, troop deployments not so much.
I think you first need to ask do the people of Crimea want to join the Russian Federation? I'm asking this because it is unclear to me if the Ukraine who live there even want to break away. I could be wrong but from what I have seen Russia's interference has more to do with the naval base they have in the area than with any sort of self determination of the Ukrainians living in the area.
Because we don't want another world power running around annexing territory from its neighbors through the use of military force. Because we have treaties with the sovereign state of Ukraine to honor.
It's not our job to police the world, but official condemnation of warmongering is a reasonable response for the US to take, I'd say. And I'd be open to stationing troops in nervous Russian neighbors - or in areas of Ukraine outside of Crimea - preemptively as a deterrent.
Because we don't want another world power running around annexing territory from its neighbors through the use of military force. Because we have treaties with the sovereign state of Ukraine to honor.
It's not our job to police the world, but official condemnation of warmongering is a reasonable response for the US to take, I'd say. And I'd be open to stationing troops in nervous Russian neighbors - or in areas of Ukraine outside of Crimea - preemptively as a deterrent.
Part of me wants the E.U. to take the lead of this because their interest is closer and more immediate. But part of me wants the U.S. (or some other non-E.U. Western power) to take the lead because the condemnation would mean more coming from a nation that doesn't have an immediate interest.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Crimea had been de facto Russian territory since the late 18th century, and is filled with a lot of ethnic Russians.
Plus, the entire region is considered a cultural part of Russia from since the time of the Kievan Rus.
As black and white as this may appear, this is basically as if the Confederates managed to secede from the U.S. back in 1861. Then, a decade or so later, unrest in Virginia and conflict between pro-U.S. and pro-Confederacy people (let us assume that Virginia seceded in its entirety) causes the U.S. to send troops into pro-U.S. territory in Virginia to "protect" them.
Because we don't want another world power running around annexing territory from its neighbors through the use of military force.
why not? How does what happens in Crimea impact the US national stragetic interest? Russia is no more of a threat with or with out Crimea not to mention there is no real threat of armed conflict with russia...
Because we have treaties with the sovereign state of Ukraine to honor.
Can you link this treaty you speak of? From what I understand the US responsibilities to Ukraine are ambigious, at best. Besides, we will not go to war with another nuclear nation over Crimea.
How does what happens in Crimea impact the US national stragetic interest?
If Putin and others get the idea that they can get away with this sort of behavior, it will have a large-scale destabilizing effect. After World War II the planet has enjoyed an unprecedented era of peace, due in no small part to the global community's newfound consensus that national borders were sacrosanct and ambitious leaders trying to redraw the maps in their favor were no longer to be tolerated. Look at how we came down on Saddam Hussein when he tried to annex Kuwait by force. Sure, Kuwaiti oil played a role in our interests, but it was the threat of slipping back into the bad old days where conquest was a live option that really galvanized the coalition.
World peace comes from the understanding that international laws have teeth.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The overwhelming majority of the Crimean population, consider themselves Russian and gladly agreed to receive Russian citizenship. But there are some factors that hinder conditionally.Ukraine's new government (conditionally radicals) will keep your teeth for the sovereignty of the nation, otherwise they will fall into the minus rating.But at the same time, Russia will never reduce the number of troops in the Crimea, is an extremely important strategic outlet to the Black Sea (Mediterranean Sea so too).But there is one more detail. In Crimea does not have its fresh water. It comes with all the basic territory of Ukraine, and any serious division lead to overlap the channel. So, the autonomy of Crimea - is not only the desire of the population
The overwhelming majority of the Crimean population, consider themselves Russian and gladly agreed to receive Russian citizenship.
While it is difficult to get a reliable read on their wishes, since both sides are spinning the story six ways to Sunday, it is certainly true that most Crimeans are ethnically Russian. This doesn't mean they automatically want Russian citizenship, but it certainly makes it more likely that most do than if Russia just tried to annex, say, part of Finland. However, if they do desire to leave the Ukraine and join Russia, there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it. Having a pro-Russian faction seize control of the local government by force and invite in the Russian Army is the wrong way.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Because we have treaties with the sovereign state of Ukraine to honor.
Can you link this treaty you speak of? From what I understand the US responsibilities to Ukraine are ambigious, at best. Besides, we will not go to war with another nuclear nation over Crimea.
While I agree that we won't go to war with another nuclear power, we did sign a treaty with Ukraine that promised protection by the US in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nukes (though really, Ukraine should have kept its nukes. If it had, it wouldn't be having this problem right now).
I personally think that Crimea should be allowed to have its vote on staying part of Ukraine, becoming an independent country, or joining Russia on the 30th. Let the people do what they want to do.
Incidentally, one of the historical facts. In 1992, when the Constitution once again, was the next poll.
They were asked to answer two questions: "Do you support the restoration of the constitution of May 6, 1992, governing the management of relations between the Republic of Crimea and Ukraine on the basis of contracts and agreements? (yes / no) "and" do you support the right of citizens of the Republic of Crimea on dual citizenship? (yes / no). "The first question is answered in the affirmative, 78.4 percent of respondents were in favor for the dual citizenship 82.8 percent.
And I regularly communicate with your friends from the Crimea, went there a couple of times over the past few years, they are there consider themselves Russian, abandoned "older brother".
Let's see what will happen next, but judging by what is happening in the last few days, given Putin's speech. Some drastic action in the Crimea is not expected ... I sincerely hope so.
Because we have treaties with the sovereign state of Ukraine to honor.
Can you link this treaty you speak of? From what I understand the US responsibilities to Ukraine are ambigious, at best. Besides, we will not go to war with another nuclear nation over Crimea.
While I agree that we won't go to war with another nuclear power, we did sign a treaty with Ukraine that promised protection by the US in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nukes (though really, Ukraine should have kept its nukes. If it had, it wouldn't be having this problem right now).
I personally think that Crimea should be allowed to have its vote on staying part of Ukraine, becoming an independent country, or joining Russia on the 30th. Let the people do what they want to do.
This ^
Though, if Ukraine had kept its nukes, then this whole situation would seem much more dangerous. Even if Russia wasn't crossing the border, we'd have a destabilized nuclear power to deal with. Ugly.
To be totally clear, I am not suggesting fighting it out with Russia.
I am suggesting that if Russia is free to throw its weight around militarily and annex land from its neighbors, that we will be facing situations like this - including some ugly shooting wars - all over the globe. Russia must face consequences. I view the right solution as being economic and diplomatic consequences; they will be meaningful to Russia, they will be a reasonable deterrent to all but the most hostile dictators elsewhere, they'll be reassuring to other neighbors. Ukraine will likely be pissed, but they really don't have anywhere to go.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
By right, I mean should regions (specifically Crimea) be allowed to secede from countries or merge with other countries? I am going for whether it should be allowed, not whether it would be possible.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
In much the same way it was up to the North and the South during the U.S. civil war.
I'm sorry to be dense, but the context is still very unclear to me. Who are you asking should or shouldn't allow them?
The international community.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
1) Directly help Crimea be independent.
2) Directly help Russia control Crimea.
3) Remain neutral (but probably help in indirect ways anyway).
Alright, if those are the choices, I guess I'd go with "3."
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
...
Ummmm... I mean, when there are ironclad historical reasons for the region's and people's independence?
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
In that case the U.S. really needs to return land to all the Native Americans that we've forcibly removed from.
I know there must be a couple tribes that we didn't cheat land from. There must be a couple that we just told to "get the **** off the land".
Well, should the US give the lands back? Not "will," since--obviously--they won't. But, are they morally obligated to? As in, SHOULD they?
And if they should, what justification is there not to?
If and only if you can firmly establish that the tribe that was removed from the land was the very first group to have ownership over that land. We wouldn't want to make the mistake of lumping all Native Americans together, right? They can have cheated or warred over the land to take it from each other.
...the exercise of trying to apply such rules even decades later, never mind centuries later, is effectively impossible. There is no fair solution to be had.
That does not mean, however, that when something like that is happening right now, there's no right or wrong. It just means that if, say, Russia annexes Crimea, in 30 years it'll be impossible to sort out right or wrong at that time. Russia should not be deploying troops to Crimea.
As for whether the US should be involved... this clearly does matter to us, we clearly do have an interest and we should be involved, but this is not something to go to war over. Economic repercussions are appropriate, troop deployments not so much.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Because we don't want another world power running around annexing territory from its neighbors through the use of military force. Because we have treaties with the sovereign state of Ukraine to honor.
It's not our job to police the world, but official condemnation of warmongering is a reasonable response for the US to take, I'd say. And I'd be open to stationing troops in nervous Russian neighbors - or in areas of Ukraine outside of Crimea - preemptively as a deterrent.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Plus, the entire region is considered a cultural part of Russia from since the time of the Kievan Rus.
As black and white as this may appear, this is basically as if the Confederates managed to secede from the U.S. back in 1861. Then, a decade or so later, unrest in Virginia and conflict between pro-U.S. and pro-Confederacy people (let us assume that Virginia seceded in its entirety) causes the U.S. to send troops into pro-U.S. territory in Virginia to "protect" them.
why not? How does what happens in Crimea impact the US national stragetic interest? Russia is no more of a threat with or with out Crimea not to mention there is no real threat of armed conflict with russia...
Can you link this treaty you speak of? From what I understand the US responsibilities to Ukraine are ambigious, at best. Besides, we will not go to war with another nuclear nation over Crimea.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
World peace comes from the understanding that international laws have teeth.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
While it is difficult to get a reliable read on their wishes, since both sides are spinning the story six ways to Sunday, it is certainly true that most Crimeans are ethnically Russian. This doesn't mean they automatically want Russian citizenship, but it certainly makes it more likely that most do than if Russia just tried to annex, say, part of Finland. However, if they do desire to leave the Ukraine and join Russia, there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it. Having a pro-Russian faction seize control of the local government by force and invite in the Russian Army is the wrong way.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
While I agree that we won't go to war with another nuclear power, we did sign a treaty with Ukraine that promised protection by the US in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nukes (though really, Ukraine should have kept its nukes. If it had, it wouldn't be having this problem right now).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
I personally think that Crimea should be allowed to have its vote on staying part of Ukraine, becoming an independent country, or joining Russia on the 30th. Let the people do what they want to do.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
They were asked to answer two questions: "Do you support the restoration of the constitution of May 6, 1992, governing the management of relations between the Republic of Crimea and Ukraine on the basis of contracts and agreements? (yes / no) "and" do you support the right of citizens of the Republic of Crimea on dual citizenship? (yes / no). "The first question is answered in the affirmative, 78.4 percent of respondents were in favor for the dual citizenship 82.8 percent.
And I regularly communicate with your friends from the Crimea, went there a couple of times over the past few years, they are there consider themselves Russian, abandoned "older brother".
Let's see what will happen next, but judging by what is happening in the last few days, given Putin's speech. Some drastic action in the Crimea is not expected ... I sincerely hope so.
This ^
Though, if Ukraine had kept its nukes, then this whole situation would seem much more dangerous. Even if Russia wasn't crossing the border, we'd have a destabilized nuclear power to deal with. Ugly.
To be totally clear, I am not suggesting fighting it out with Russia.
I am suggesting that if Russia is free to throw its weight around militarily and annex land from its neighbors, that we will be facing situations like this - including some ugly shooting wars - all over the globe. Russia must face consequences. I view the right solution as being economic and diplomatic consequences; they will be meaningful to Russia, they will be a reasonable deterrent to all but the most hostile dictators elsewhere, they'll be reassuring to other neighbors. Ukraine will likely be pissed, but they really don't have anywhere to go.