The whole Crimean crisis has its roots in the ouster of former Ukrainian President Yanukovych. The Ukrainian parliament, with the support of Yanukovych's old Party of Regions, voted to impeach Yanukovych. They had a majority, but not the strict percentage (75%) required by the Ukrainian constitution to impeach their president. Nevertheless, they made motions to replace Yanukovych, motions which were accelerated by his fleeing the country into Russia.
Was this removal of an elected official an illegitimate coup, or was it a revolution that was acceptable given the circumstances?
Why should that principle be any different in Ukraine?
I've spent quite a bit of time in Crimea. The suggestion of a threat to or the oppression of the majority ethnic Russian population in Crimea is an utter fabrication.Because there was a real threat to the ethnic Russians of the Crimea.
Simpleχity;1063062901 said:I've spent quite a bit of time in Crimea. The suggestion of a threat to or the oppression of the majority ethnic Russian population in Crimea is an utter fabrication.
Because there was a real threat to the ethnic Russians of the Crimea. I believe that separationist movements where those involved are under a real, perceivable threat have the right to break away. I don't see how the U.S., EU, or any body can deny this right. I for one value culture and surely you do too. The right of a culture to preserve its language, traditions, and people cannot be understated. If Quebec feels that its culture, ethno-linguistic tradition is at risk, then there's an argument to be made. I'm not too versed in the issue to support that movement though.
Denmark is ethnically homogeneous so it is incomparable, and has no such ethnic separationist movements. The only such movement would be in the region Bornholm, but that's more historical than anything else.
Ukraine is torn between ethnic Russians and Ukrainians. So no, I don't think "the republic" should determine the outcome when it's clearly partisan and deeply divided. Almost the entire East region supported Yanukovych and the West supported nationalists and/or Europe-focused parties. The tyranny of the majority could jeopardize the survival of a people, and I don't think that's morally justifiable.
Define "the real threat to ethnic Russians" in Crimea since that is your claim.
Because there was a real threat to the ethnic Russians of the Crimea. I believe that separationist movements where those involved are under a real, perceivable threat have the right to break away. I don't see how the U.S., EU, or any body can deny this right. I for one value culture and surely you do too. The right of a culture to preserve its language, traditions, and people cannot be understated. If Quebec feels that its culture, ethno-linguistic tradition is at risk, then there's an argument to be made. I'm not too versed in the issue to support that movement though.
Denmark is ethnically homogeneous so it is incomparable, and has no such ethnic separationist movements. The only such movement would be in the region Bornholm, but that's more historical than anything else.
Ukraine is torn between ethnic Russians and Ukrainians. So no, I don't think "the republic" should determine the outcome when it's clearly partisan and deeply divided. Almost the entire East region supported Yanukovych and the West supported nationalists and/or Europe-focused parties. The tyranny of the majority could jeopardize the survival of a people, and I don't think that's morally justifiable.
The whole Crimean crisis has its roots in the ouster of former Ukrainian President Yanukovych. The Ukrainian parliament, with the support of Yanukovych's old Party of Regions, voted to impeach Yanukovych. They had a majority, but not the strict percentage (75%) required by the Ukrainian constitution to impeach their president. Nevertheless, they made motions to replace Yanukovych, motions which were accelerated by his fleeing the country into Russia.
Was this removal of an elected official an illegitimate coup, or was it a revolution that was acceptable given the circumstances?
Why then are the bullyboys having kittens, and ranting?
The nationalist government of Kiev poses a great threat to ethnic Russians. Obviously, such a government will neglect the needs of ethnic Russians. You do realize the new government has neo-Nazi elements and has members who are vocally and militantly nationalist?
Well, no it doesn't.
But good to see the Russian propaganda machine has at least convinced somebody. Of course, those it convinces are those who long for the good old days of Soviet Imperialism.
Once again, do you have anything to show a threat other than a speculation and slogan? Anything done to anyone in Crimea? Anything vowed to be done?The nationalist government of Kiev poses a great threat to ethnic Russians. Obviously, such a government will neglect the needs of ethnic Russians. You do realize the new government has neo-Nazi elements and has members who are vocally and militantly nationalist?
Have you not heard of Svoboda?
And yet I'm bitterly anti-Soviet, anti-communist. Although propaganda is rampant on both sides, I believe that it can be viewed objectively that ethnic Russians are at danger under the new Kiev regime. The U.S. has no right whatsoever to interfere: not only is its interference violating its policy of not interacting and supporting coup governments, but it is completely contradicting its supposed "bastion of freedom and democracy" foreign policy.
Thank you.
Declaring that Ukraine is establishing a national language is not oppression meriting another country seizing the territory. It is an absurd claim.
You obviously favor discrimination and "relocation" of Tartar Crimeans so ethnic Russians can again take their land - just as Stalin did.
Have you not heard of Svoboda?
And yet I'm bitterly anti-Soviet, anti-communist. Although propaganda is rampant on both sides, I believe that it can be viewed objectively that ethnic Russians are at danger under the new Kiev regime. The U.S. has no right whatsoever to interfere: not only is its interference violating its policy of not interacting and supporting coup governments, but it is completely contradicting its supposed "bastion of freedom and democracy" foreign policy.
What's more is that the Ukrainian interim president vetoed laws that would have diminished Russian as a regional language status.
Yeah, they're really just like the Nazis, huh? :roll:
Odd that the U.S. has no right - according to you - to even express an opinion in support of Ukraine, yet you have no problem with Russian troops invading the country and taking Ukrainians prisoner.
This is just step one in re-asserting the new 'Greater Russia'. Once the Ukraine is taken care of, we can expect Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia to suddenly be guilty of 'oppressing the Russian minority', which will call for Russian intervention to protect them.
The whole Crimean crisis has its roots in the ouster of former Ukrainian President Yanukovych. The Ukrainian parliament, with the support of Yanukovych's old Party of Regions, voted to impeach Yanukovych. They had a majority, but not the strict percentage (75%) required by the Ukrainian constitution to impeach their president. Nevertheless, they made motions to replace Yanukovych, motions which were accelerated by his fleeing the country into Russia.
Was this removal of an elected official an illegitimate coup, or was it a revolution that was acceptable given the circumstances?
You should brush up on your Ukrainian politics quite a bit.Ukraine was in the process of moving towards Russia; they elected a pro-Kremlin president, afterall. You should brush up your European geopolitics a bit, I say.
The whole Crimean crisis has its roots in the ouster of former Ukrainian President Yanukovych. The Ukrainian parliament, with the support of Yanukovych's old Party of Regions, voted to impeach Yanukovych. They had a majority, but not the strict percentage (75%) required by the Ukrainian constitution to impeach their president. Nevertheless, they made motions to replace Yanukovych, motions which were accelerated by his fleeing the country into Russia.
Was this removal of an elected official an illegitimate coup, or was it a revolution that was acceptable given the circumstances?
We can agree to disagree on who did what, when and how, but I hope we can agree that in a sovereign nation, where constitutional rules are in place governing such things as secession, it would be up to the central government, not a province, to sanction and authorize as legal such a vote and not the province itself. The very fact that Russia recognized the vote as legal and moved to legalize Crimea becoming part of the Russian federation would or should indicate that Russia did plenty wrong.
Here in Canada, we're used to discussions by separatists in the province of Quebec - we have very specific legislation as well as Supreme Court rulings on what constitutes a legal vote to secede. I presume Ukraine has the same. Perhaps your home country of Denmark, likewise. How would you feel if the island on which Copenhagen rests decided to secede and join Sweden without any approval or sanction of such a move by the rest of Denmark? Likewise, in the US, if Texas as an example voted to secede, the federal government would not allow them to do so on their own initiative - the republic would determine the outcome. Why should that principle be any different in Ukraine?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?