Whitcoff is wrong to legitimize Russia's fraudulent referendums in Crimea & other Russia-held regions. (1 Viewer)

[j brown's body]

...in 1954, Communist Party leader Nikita Khrushchev convinced the Supreme Soviet — which had the formal authority to ratify a transfer of territory — to make Crimea part of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. ...Crimea voted to join Ukraine after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, though it was approved by a narrow majority (54 percent) compared with other areas of Ukraine

...On March 16 (20014) a referendum was held on whether Crimea should become part of Russia. But it’s ludicrous to say the results were valid. The referendum took place only nine days after it was announced, with television broadcasts by Ukrainian channels blocked. Moreover, there was no option to vote “no” and return to the preinvasion status quo. Instead, the two options were to join Russia — what the ballot called “reunification” — or become a quasi-independent state beholden to Russia. A McClatchy news report at the time reported serious irregularities. Tatars and the local Ukrainian community announced a boycott of the vote, but witnesses described a convoy of Russian minibuses and cars crossing the border and heading to polling stations in Tatar areas to cast ballots. Putin claimed 82 percent turnout — for a 96 percent “yes” vote — but McClatchy said data sent by local officials to the Russian FSB intelligence agency showed that only 34.2 percent of the Crimean population took part.

The referendum also did not comply with existing laws. The Ukrainian constitution, in Article 73, said that “alterations to the territory of Ukraine shall be resolved exclusively by the All-Ukrainian referendum,” described in Article 72 as a national referendum called either by the parliament or the president, or as a popular initiative with 3 million signatures from at least two-thirds of administrative districts known as oblasts. The Crimea referendum, set up by local authorities, met none of those conditions. Under the Ukrainian constitution, Crimea, as an autonomous republic, had specially designated powers. But Article 134 states: “The Autonomous Republic of Crimea shall be an integral constituent part of Ukraine and shall resolve issues relegated to its authority within the frame of its reference, determined by the Constitution of Ukraine.”"

"Gifted" Link

This helps explain why Ukraine is unwilling to hold elections while Russia is occupying Ukrainian land.

 

[Tigerace117]

...in 1954, Communist Party leader Nikita Khrushchev convinced the Supreme Soviet — which had the formal authority to ratify a transfer of territory — to make Crimea part of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. ...Crimea voted to join Ukraine after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, though it was approved by a narrow majority (54 percent) compared with other areas of Ukraine

...On March 16 (20014) a referendum was held on whether Crimea should become part of Russia. But it’s ludicrous to say the results were valid. The referendum took place only nine days after it was announced, with television broadcasts by Ukrainian channels blocked. Moreover, there was no option to vote “no” and return to the preinvasion status quo. Instead, the two options were to join Russia — what the ballot called “reunification” — or become a quasi-independent state beholden to Russia. A McClatchy news report at the time reported serious irregularities. Tatars and the local Ukrainian community announced a boycott of the vote, but witnesses described a convoy of Russian minibuses and cars crossing the border and heading to polling stations in Tatar areas to cast ballots. Putin claimed 82 percent turnout — for a 96 percent “yes” vote — but McClatchy said data sent by local officials to the Russian FSB intelligence agency showed that only 34.2 percent of the Crimean population took part.

The referendum also did not comply with existing laws. The Ukrainian constitution, in Article 73, said that “alterations to the territory of Ukraine shall be resolved exclusively by the All-Ukrainian referendum,” described in Article 72 as a national referendum called either by the parliament or the president, or as a popular initiative with 3 million signatures from at least two-thirds of administrative districts known as oblasts. The Crimea referendum, set up by local authorities, met none of those conditions. Under the Ukrainian constitution, Crimea, as an autonomous republic, had specially designated powers. But Article 134 states: “The Autonomous Republic of Crimea shall be an integral constituent part of Ukraine and shall resolve issues relegated to its authority within the frame of its reference, determined by the Constitution of Ukraine.”"

Link

This helps explain why Ukraine is unwilling to hold elections while Russia is occupying Ukrainian land.

Fascinating how such votes held under American occupation are always considered valid, yet not when a country we don’t like does them

Crimea has had strong secessionist sentiment practically since Ukraine has been independent. As your own source states, only about half the people there even wanted to be Ukrainian in the first place.

And it was only ever part of Ukraine to begin with because the Ukrainian leader of the Soviet Union wanted to reward his home SSR, never dreaming that it would ever be a internationally disputed territory.

Blindly denying reality because it’s inconvenient doesn’t actually change the facts most people there don’t seem to be remotely interested in being a part of Ukraine....and whining that the elections were “set up by local authorities” is rather telling.

 

[j brown's body]

Fascinating how such votes held under American occupation are always considered valid, yet not when a country we don’t like does them

Crimea has had strong secessionist sentiment practically since Ukraine has been independent. As your own source states, only about half the people there even wanted to be Ukrainian in the first place.

And it was only ever part of Ukraine to begin with because the Ukrainian leader of the Soviet Union wanted to reward his home SSR, never dreaming that it would ever be a internationally disputed territory.

Blindly denying reality because it’s inconvenient doesn’t actually change the facts most people there don’t seem to be remotely interested in being a part of Ukraine....and whining that the elections were “set up by local authorities” is rather telling.

The article gives examples of why the elections are invalid.

 

[Tigerace117]

The article gives examples of why the elections are invalid.

The articles’ “reasons” are literally just “the Ukrainians don’t want to give up Crimea, so who cares what most of the people there think?”

 

[iguanaman]

The articles’ “reasons” are literally just “the Ukrainians don’t want to give up Crimea, so who cares what most of the people there think?”

No the reasons are literally that the "votes" were shams held at gunpoint and were not indicative of the free will of the people. BTW the voting in Iraq and Afghanistan was monitored by outside fair voting groups unlike Russia sham elections that the U.N has declared invalid.

Fictitious Annexation Follows 'Voting' at Gunpoint​

Sham Vote in Occupied Regions of Ukraine Provides No Legal Basis for Russian Annexation

Russian propaganda, predictably, claims people overwhelmingly “voted” to join Russia. Even if there were some genuine supporters, this does not give the process any legal value. Moreover, Ukrainians I spoke to paint a very different picture. Alexey Koshel, the head of Ukraine’s Committee of Voters, described to me how poll workers carried ballots door-to-door accompanied by armed soldiers: “Imagine … [f]our armed men walk into your flat. You have to vote to join Russia, at gunpoint. If you refuse or vote ‘no’, you’ll be doing it right in front of them, they can see what you put on the ballot.”

Several people told me about their experiences over the phone. “Today’s the second day of the pseudo-referendum. It’s morally exhausting … We’re in hiding and intend to hide for the next three days,” a woman from Kherson said. A panic-stricken man in Zaporizhzhia region said: “We’re afraid ... My uncle said that I have to open the door when they come, or the neighbors might report [me]. I will have to tick a box for Russia, or they might tear down my house.”

These sham votes have no legal value but have grave consequences for civilians. The United Nations and numerous governments have rightly condemned Russia’s actions, and it is vital they continue to make all efforts to secure civilians' protection and ensure those responsible for war crimes are held to account.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/09/30/fictitious-annexation-follows-voting-gunpoint

Iraq: U.S. Asks Pan-European OSCE To Monitor Iraqi Elections​

https://www.rferl.org/a/1056311.html

 

[Tigerace117]

No the reasons are literally that the "votes" were shams held at gunpoint and were not indicative of the free will of the people. BTW the voting in Iraq and Afghanistan was monitored by outside fair voting groups unlike Russia sham elections that the U.N has declared invalid.

Fictitious Annexation Follows 'Voting' at Gunpoint​

Sham Vote in Occupied Regions of Ukraine Provides No Legal Basis for Russian Annexation

Russian propaganda, predictably, claims people overwhelmingly “voted” to join Russia. Even if there were some genuine supporters, this does not give the process any legal value. Moreover, Ukrainians I spoke to paint a very different picture. Alexey Koshel, the head of Ukraine’s Committee of Voters, described to me how poll workers carried ballots door-to-door accompanied by armed soldiers: “Imagine … [f]our armed men walk into your flat. You have to vote to join Russia, at gunpoint. If you refuse or vote ‘no’, you’ll be doing it right in front of them, they can see what you put on the ballot.”

Several people told me about their experiences over the phone. “Today’s the second day of the pseudo-referendum. It’s morally exhausting … We’re in hiding and intend to hide for the next three days,” a woman from Kherson said. A panic-stricken man in Zaporizhzhia region said: “We’re afraid ... My uncle said that I have to open the door when they come, or the neighbors might report [me]. I will have to tick a box for Russia, or they might tear down my house.”

These sham votes have no legal value but have grave consequences for civilians. The United Nations and numerous governments have rightly condemned Russia’s actions, and it is vital they continue to make all efforts to secure civilians' protection and ensure those responsible for war crimes are held to account.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/09/30/fictitious-annexation-follows-voting-gunpoint

Iraq: U.S. Asks Pan-European OSCE To Monitor Iraqi Elections​

https://www.rferl.org/a/1056311.html

Btw, the US asking its satrapies to rubber stamp the elections run under its jackboot doesn’t actually change the point

Gee, ensure those responsible for war crimes are held to account? The US sure doesn’t want that to happen either.

The “free will of the people” in Iraq has been demanding the US leave for years, yet the US continues to occupy chunks of the country. Hmm....it doesn’t sound like America gives a shit about “the free will of the people”.

 

[j brown's body]

Btw, the US asking its satrapies to rubber stamp the elections run under its jackboot doesn’t actually change the point

Gee, ensure those responsible for war crimes are held to account? The US sure doesn’t want that to happen either.

The “free will of the people” in Iraq has been demanding the US leave for years, yet the US continues to occupy chunks of the country. Hmm....it doesn’t sound like America gives a shit about “the free will of the people”.

So you admit the Russian elections are fraudulent.

 

[Tigerace117]

So you admit the Russian elections are fraudulent.

Only in the minds of those who think it’s a shame the Nazis lost.

 

[iguanaman]

Btw, the US asking its satrapies to rubber stamp the elections run under its jackboot doesn’t actually change the point

Gee, ensure those responsible for war crimes are held to account? The US sure doesn’t want that to happen either.

The “free will of the people” in Iraq has been demanding the US leave for years, yet the US continues to occupy chunks of the country. Hmm....it doesn’t sound like America gives a shit about “the free will of the people”.

Have a few small military bases in Iraq is not "occupying" anything.

 

[j brown's body]

So you admit the Russian elections are fraudulent.

By comparing them to US elections you consider fraudulent, you appear to saying that you think the Russia elections are as well.

 

[Tigerace117]

Have a few small military bases in Iraq is not "occupying" anything.

The Iraqis have repeatedly demanded the U.S. leave.

The U.S. refuses to leave.

Pretty clear occupation dude.

 

[Tigerace117]

By comparing them to US elections you consider fraudulent, you appear to saying that you think the Russia elections are as well.

Gee dude, I’m pointing out the fact that the exact same sorts of elections are only considered “illegitimate” when the West’s preferred outcome fails.

 

[j brown's body]

Gee dude, I’m pointing out the fact that the exact same sorts of elections are only considered “illegitimate” when the West’s preferred outcome fails.

"The same sorts of elections" Russia is doing. Are you saying one is fraudulent while the other (despite the massive evidence provide here) isn't?

 

[Juin]

This helps explain why Ukraine is unwilling to hold elections while Russia is occupying Ukrainian land.

The problem with the thread title is that the US does not legitimise or deligitimise elections, except those conducted under its jurisdiction or competency. The Washingtonpost guy must be nuts. The US can, like anyother party or country disagree whether an election was free and fair or not; but to say elections in the world derive their legitimacy from the US is quite a stretch

 

[j brown's body]

The problem with the thread title is that the US does not legitimise or deligitimise elections, except those conducted under its jurisdiction or competency. The Washingtonpost guy must be nuts. The US can, like anyother party or country disagree whether an election was free and fair or not; but to say elections in the world derive their legitimacy from the US is quite a stretch

“...There have been referendums where the overwhelming majority of the people have indicated that they want to be under Russian rule.”

— Steve Witkoff, real estate developer and Trump special envoy, in an interview with Tucker Carlson, March 21

 

[Juin]

“...There have been referendums where the overwhelming majority of the people have indicated that they want to be under Russian rule.”

— Steve Witkoff, real estate developer and Trump special envoy, in an interview with Tucker Carlson, March 21

I am not challenging what Witkoff said, or did not say; nor am I necessarily challenging your disagreement with Witkoff. I only had a problem with "legitimize". Witkoff cannot legitimise or deligitimise

 

[j brown's body]

I am not challenging what Witkoff said, or did not say; nor am I necessarily challenging your disagreement with Witkoff. I only had a problem with "legitimize". Witkoff cannot legitimise or deligitimise

He's making it acceptable.

Cambridge Dictionary
https://dictionary.cambridge.org › dictionary › legitimize

to make something legal or acceptable:

 

[Tigerace117]

"The same sorts of elections" Russia is doing. Are you saying one is fraudulent while the other (despite the massive evidence provide here) isn't?

The “massive evidence” is literally just the author going “Ukraine doesn’t want to lose Crimea, therefore the wishes of the bulk of the people there shouldn’t count.”

 

[j brown's body]

The “massive evidence” is literally just the author going “Ukraine doesn’t want to lose Crimea, therefore the wishes of the bulk of the people there shouldn’t count.”

There's more there than that.

 

[iguanaman]

The Iraqis have repeatedly demanded the U.S. leave.

The U.S. refuses to leave.

Pretty clear occupation dude.

No the Iraqi Govt. has not asked us to leave all our bases in Iraq. We are in talks to reduce the coalition forces there to fight ISIS but some will remain. The Iraqi Govt. is under pressure from Iran to reduce US forces there. I am sure you support Asaib Ahl al-haq the Iran backed Shia militia since they are attacking Americans in Iraq. Is there any jihadist movement that murders Americans that you don't support, "dude".?

U.S. troops will leave some bases in Iraq under deal to end mission fighting Islamic State​

The Iraqi officials said some American troops may stay at Hareer base after 2026 because the Kurdistan regional government would like them to stay.

“We have taken an important step in resolving the issue of the international coalition to fight ISIS,” Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed al-Sudani said in a speech this month. He noted “the government’s belief in the capabilities of our security forces that defeated the remnants of ISIS.”

The continued presence of U.S. troops has been a political vulnerability for Sudani, whose government is under increased influence from Iran. Iraq has long struggled to balance its ties with the U.S. and Iran, both allies of the Iraqi government but regional archenemies.

“We thank the government for its position to expel the international coalition forces,” Qais Khazali, founder of Asaib Ahl al-Haq — an Iran-backed Iraqi Shia militia that has conducted attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq — said last week.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/...er-deal-to-end-mission-fighting-islamic-state

 

[Tigerace117]

There's more there than that.

Not really, no.

 

[Tigerace117]

No the Iraqi Govt. has not asked us to leave all our bases in Iraq. We are in talks to reduce the coalition forces there to fight ISIS but some will remain. The Iraqi Govt. is under pressure from Iran to reduce US forces there. I am sure you support Asaib Ahl al-haq the Iran backed Shia militia since they are attacking Americans in Iraq. Is there any jihadist movement that murders Americans that you don't support, "dude".?

U.S. troops will leave some bases in Iraq under deal to end mission fighting Islamic State​

The Iraqi officials said some American troops may stay at Hareer base after 2026 because the Kurdistan regional government would like them to stay.

“We have taken an important step in resolving the issue of the international coalition to fight ISIS,” Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed al-Sudani said in a speech this month. He noted “the government’s belief in the capabilities of our security forces that defeated the remnants of ISIS.”

The continued presence of U.S. troops has been a political vulnerability for Sudani, whose government is under increased influence from Iran. Iraq has long struggled to balance its ties with the U.S. and Iran, both allies of the Iraqi government but regional archenemies.

“We thank the government for its position to expel the international coalition forces,” Qais Khazali, founder of Asaib Ahl al-Haq — an Iran-backed Iraqi Shia militia that has conducted attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq — said last week.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/...er-deal-to-end-mission-fighting-islamic-state

The Iraqis demanded the US leave— again— after the US attack on that Iranian diplomatic party, which was a blatant example of state terrorism. The US continues to refuse.

In other words, the Iraqis keep asking the US to go, and the US refuses, because something something Iran.

Gee, the US could just leave Iraq, in accordance with their people’s wishes, and no American troops would be there to be “murdered”. It’s that easy, dude

 

[Juin]

...in 1954, Communist Party leader Nikita Khrushchev convinced the Supreme Soviet — which had the formal authority to ratify a transfer of territory — to make Crimea part of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. ...Crimea voted to join Ukraine after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, though it was approved by a narrow majority (54 percent) compared with other areas of Ukraine

And Crimeans changed their mind in 2014. Is the Washingtonpost author saying Crimeans dont have the right to leave Ukraine? If so how does the Washingtonpost author explain the Nato/Eu backed secession of Kosovo from Serbia?

...On March 16 (20014) a referendum was held on whether Crimea should become part of Russia. But it’s ludicrous to say the results were valid. The referendum took place only nine days after it was announced, with television broadcasts by Ukrainian channels blocked. Moreover, there was no option to vote “no” and return to the preinvasion status quo. Instead, the two options were to join Russia — what the ballot called “reunification” — or become a quasi-independent state beholden to Russia. A McClatchy news report at the time reported serious irregularities. Tatars and the local Ukrainian community announced a boycott of the vote, but witnesses described a convoy of Russian minibuses and cars crossing the border and heading to polling stations in Tatar areas to cast ballots. Putin claimed 82 percent turnout — for a 96 percent “yes” vote — but McClatchy said data sent by local officials to the Russian FSB intelligence agency showed that only 34.2 percent of the Crimean population took part.

Oh puhleeze. Washingtonpost author appears to be under the impression the Russian Federation cannot impose on Crimea exactly the same decision Nato/Eu imposed in Kosovo.

The referendum also did not comply with existing laws. The Ukrainian constitution, in Article 73, said that “alterations to the territory of Ukraine shall be resolved exclusively by the All-Ukrainian referendum,” described in Article 72 as a national referendum called either by the parliament or the president, or as a popular initiative with 3 million signatures from at least two-thirds of administrative districts known as oblasts. The Crimea referendum, set up by local authorities, met none of those conditions. Under the Ukrainian constitution, Crimea, as an autonomous republic, had specially designated powers. But Article 134 states: “The Autonomous Republic of Crimea shall be an integral constituent part of Ukraine and shall resolve issues relegated to its authority within the frame of its reference, determined by the Constitution of Ukraine.”"

Crazy. The Washingtonpost author expects a secessionist Crimea to comply with the Constitution of the Ukraine it is seceding from! Did Nato/Eu ask Kosovo to comply with Serbia's constitution?

 

[Juin]

No the reasons are literally that the "votes" were shams held at gunpoint and were not indicative of the free will of the people. BTW the voting in Iraq and Afghanistan was monitored by outside fair voting groups unlike Russia sham elections that the U.N has declared invalid.

The elections held in Iraq and Afghanistan were also at gunpoint

 

[Juin]

He's making it acceptable.

Cambridge Dictionary
https://dictionary.cambridge.org › dictionary › legitimize

to make something legal or acceptable:

The elections are already accepted by the Russian Duma. The only legal body that counts. Witkoff cannot make them acceptable or unacceptable