Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    03 Feb '07
    Moves
    146981
    08 Dec '16 23:52
    Nearly half of them Republican.

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/27-senators-12-republicans-statement-trump-ukraine-russia
  2. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    09 Dec '16 02:29
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    Nearly half of them Republican.

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/27-senators-12-republicans-statement-trump-ukraine-russia
    I don't like this. They want to continue enforcing sanctions, as if that has a hope of working.

    The U.S. needs to completely change it's tactics. Bullying a superpower is bound to fail. Trump's ability to prompt Putin to reach out to the U.S. and claim he's ready to "repair" relations with the U.S. is a remarkable, once-in-lifetime opportunity that America should jump on. Even though it's obvious Putin just wants to use Trump, a door has been opened to diplomacy that was once a far-fetched notion.

    The U.S. needs to wake up and realize that flexing muscles is a barbaric and antiquated when it comes to foreign affairs.
  3. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y3ngvdp2
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    09 Dec '16 02:41
    Trump is best buddies with Russia he won't do anything
  4. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    09 Dec '16 03:26
    Originally posted by vivify to Kunsoo
    I don't like this. They want to continue enforcing sanctions, as if that has a hope of working.

    The U.S. needs to completely change it's tactics. Bullying a superpower is bound to fail. Trump's ability to prompt Putin to reach out to the U.S. and claim he's ready to "repair" relations with the U.S. is a remarkable, once-in-lifetime opportuni ...[text shortened]... and realize that flexing muscles is a barbaric and antiquated when it comes to foreign affairs.
    Putin wants the USA to concede that Ukraine (and other nations once in the USSR)
    belongs in Russia's sphere of influence and that the USA should not interfere there.

    Is the USA ready to accept that Ukraine should be 'Finlandized' (as in the Cold War)?
  5. Joined
    03 Feb '07
    Moves
    146981
    24 Dec '16 00:17
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Putin wants the USA to concede that Ukraine (and other nations once in the USSR)
    belongs in Russia's sphere of influence and that the USA should not interfere there.

    Is the USA ready to accept that Ukraine should be 'Finlandized' (as in the Cold War)?
    I'm amazed at how many Republicans have come to embrace appeasement since the election.
  6. Joined
    15 Dec '03
    Moves
    282405
    24 Dec '16 00:52
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    Nearly half of them Republican.

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/27-senators-12-republicans-statement-trump-ukraine-russia
    Well. After the USA/CIA initiated coup wadda ya think Biden and son thoughts are?http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bidens-son-joins-board-of-gas-company-in-ukraine/
  7. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    24 Dec '16 01:111 edit
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    I'm amazed at how many Republicans have come to embrace appeasement since the election.
    Don't you think the unconstitutional ouster of Viktor Yanukovych presumably for favoring greater ties with Russia was an incredibly provocative act by the Ukrainians? Do you believe that western nations had nothing to do with it?

    EDIT: I wrote this back in March, 2014:

    Yanukovich insists did not resign and his ouster did not comply with the applicable provisions of the Ukrainian Constitution given below:

    Article 108. The President of Ukraine shall exercise his powers until the assumption of office by the newly elected President of Ukraine.

    The authority of the President of Ukraine shall be subject to an early termination in cases of:

    1) resignation;

    2) inability to exercise presidential authority for health reasons;

    3) removal from office by the procedure of impeachment;

    4) his/her death.

    Article 109. The resignation of the President of Ukraine shall enter into force from the moment when he personally announces the statement of resignation at a meeting of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.[never happened -no1]

    Article 110. Incapability of the President of Ukraine to exercise his authority for health reasons shall be determined at a meeting of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and confirmed by a decision adopted by the majority of its constitutional membership on the basis of a written petition of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, upon a recourse of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and a medical opinion.[none of the above ever happened - no1]

    Article 111. The President of Ukraine may be removed from the office by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in compliance with a procedure of impeachment if he commits treason or other crime.

    The issue of the removal of the President of Ukraine from the office in compliance with a procedure of impeachment shall be initiated by the majority of the constitutional membership of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

    The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine shall establish a special ad hoc investigating commission, composed of special prosecutor and special investigators to conduct an investigation.

    The conclusions and proposals of the ad hoc investigating commission shall be considered at the meeting of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

    On the ground of evidence, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine shall, by at least two-thirds of its constitutional membership, adopt a decision to bring charges against the President of Ukraine.

    The decision on the removal of the President of Ukraine from the office in compliance with the procedure of impeachment shall be adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine by at least three-quarters of its constitutional membership upon a review of the case by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, and receipt of its opinion on the observance of the constitutional procedure of investigation and consideration of the case of impeachment, and upon a receipt of the opinion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine to the effect that the acts, of which the President of Ukraine is accused, contain elements of treason or other crime.[not a single one of these requirements ever occurred - no1]

    Article 112. In the event of an early termination of the authority of the President of Ukraine in accordance with Articles 108, 109, 110 and 111 of this Constitution, the discharge of the duties of the President of Ukraine, for the period pending the elections and the assumption of the office by the next President of Ukraine, shall be vested on the Prime Minister of Ukraine.

    http://president.gov.ua/en/content/chapter05.html


    The ouster failed to follow any of the requirements given in the Ukraine Constitution and is thus completely illegal under Ukrainian law. While secession is also not allowed under the Ukrainian Constitution, Crimean authorities could argue that the ouster of an elected government by unconstitutional means effectively revokes the Constitution and frees them of adherence to its provisions under standard "compact" theory.

    http://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/ukraine-crisis.158024/page-13
  8. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80175
    24 Dec '16 17:25
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Don't you think the unconstitutional ouster of Viktor Yanukovych presumably for favoring greater ties with Russia was an incredibly provocative act by the Ukrainians? Do you believe that western nations had nothing to do with it?

    EDIT: I wrote this back in March, 2014:

    Yanukovich insists did not resign and his ouster did not comply with the applica ...[text shortened]... ndard "compact" theory.

    http://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/ukraine-crisis.158024/page-13
    Yes, although it's not clear to me how this justifies Russia's annexing of Crimea.
  9. Joined
    03 Feb '07
    Moves
    146981
    25 Dec '16 10:31
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Don't you think the unconstitutional ouster of Viktor Yanukovych presumably for favoring greater ties with Russia was an incredibly provocative act by the Ukrainians? Do you believe that western nations had nothing to do with it?

    EDIT: I wrote this back in March, 2014:

    Yanukovich insists did not resign and his ouster did not comply with the applica ...[text shortened]... ndard "compact" theory.

    http://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/ukraine-crisis.158024/page-13
    I'm no fan of the Ukrainian government, though I wasn't a fan of the one which was replaced. But I've seen nothing which justifies a Russian invasion.
  10. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    25 Dec '16 13:34
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Yes, although it's not clear to me how this justifies Russia's annexing of Crimea.
    As I wrote:

    While secession is also not allowed under the Ukrainian Constitution, Crimean authorities could argue that the ouster of an elected government by unconstitutional means effectively revokes the Constitution and frees them of adherence to its provisions under standard "compact" theory.


    That is assuming secession was the desire of the majority of the People in the Crimea (which seems highly likely).
  11. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    25 Dec '16 15:17
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Yes, although it's not clear to me how this justifies Russia's annexing of Crimea.
    From Putin's speech of March 18, 2014 (quoted at length by Soothfast in the "Ukraine Crisis" thread):

    Next. As it declared independence and decided to hold a referendum, the Supreme Council of Crimea referred to the United Nations Charter, which speaks of the right of nations to self-determination. Incidentally, I would like to remind you that when Ukraine seceded from the USSR it did exactly the same thing, almost word for word. Ukraine used this right, yet the residents of Crimea are denied it. Why is that?

    Moreover, the Crimean authorities referred to the well-known Kosovo precedent – a precedent our western colleagues created with their own hands in a very similar situation, when they agreed that the unilateral separation of Kosovo from Serbia, exactly what Crimea is doing now, was legitimate and did not require any permission from the country’s central authorities. Pursuant to Article 2, Chapter 1 of the United Nations Charter, the UN International Court agreed with this approach and made the following comment in its ruling of July 22, 2010, and I quote: “No general prohibition may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council with regard to declarations of independence,” and “General international law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence.” Crystal clear, as they say.

    I do not like to resort to quotes, but in this case, I cannot help it. Here is a quote from another official document: the Written Statement of the United States America of April 17, 2009, submitted to the same UN International Court in connection with the hearings on Kosovo. Again, I quote: “Declarations of independence may, and often do, violate domestic legislation. However, this does not make them violations of international law.” End of quote. They wrote this, disseminated it all over the world, had everyone agree and now they are outraged. Over what? The actions of Crimean people completely fit in with these instructions, as it were. For some reason, things that Kosovo Albanians (and we have full respect for them) were permitted to do, Russians, Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars in Crimea are not allowed. Again, one wonders why.
  12. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80175
    25 Dec '16 18:49
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    As I wrote:

    While secession is also not allowed under the Ukrainian Constitution, Crimean authorities could argue that the ouster of an elected government by unconstitutional means effectively revokes the Constitution and frees them of adherence to its provisions under standard "compact" theory.


    That is assuming secession was the desire of the majority of the People in the Crimea (which seems highly likely).
    Well Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. It is not at all clear that there was a majority for annexation, see [1][2]. There almost certainly was a majority against the coup in Kiev. It's not clear that there was a majority for annexation. The referendum did not give the option of either maintaining the status quo or independence from both countries. Russia's strategic interest is clear, the Black Sea Fleet are based in Sevastopol, but having a strategic interest is not the same as being justified.

    [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/06/russian-government-agency-reveals-fraudulent-nature-of-the-crimean-referendum-results/
    [2] http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/05/05/putins-human-rights-council-accidentally-posts-real-crimean-election-results-only-15-voted-for-annexation/#3a17800910ff
  13. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    25 Dec '16 20:061 edit
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Well Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. It is not at all clear that there was a majority for annexation, see [1][2]. There almost certainly was a majority against the coup in Kiev. It's not clear that there was a majority for annexation. The referendum did not give the option of either maintaining the status quo or independ ...[text shortened]... ncil-accidentally-posts-real-crimean-election-results-only-15-voted-for-annexation/#3a17800910ff
    The first link is a rather thin reed for the idea that the majority of people in the Crimea didn't support Russian annexation:

    It is possible that a fair vote might still have led to a narrow majority in favor of annexation. Still, the Council report provides further evidence that the official results cannot be trusted and that the real distribution of opinion in Crimea is at least much more evenly divided than Russia claims.

    Essentially the second link just repeats the same figures from the 1st. There is no claim that the majority of voters did not support annexation. That Russia may have overstated the actual vote counts or turnout isn't terribly relevant since all concede the majority voted for annexation.

    EDIT: Polls done before and after the 2014 referendum showed majority support for the Crimea joining Russia:

    A poll conducted by the Crimean Institute of Political and Social Research on 8–10 March 2014 found that 77% of respondents planned to vote for "reunification with Russia", and 97% assessed the current situation in Ukraine as negative.[33] A poll conducted by the GfK Group on 12–14 March 2014 with 600 respondents found that 70.6% of Crimeans intended to vote for joining Russia, 10.8% for restoring the 1992 constitution and 5.6% did not intend to take part in the referendum.[34][35] The poll also showed that if Crimeans had more choices, 53.8% of them would choose joining Russia, 5.2% restoration of 1992 constitution, 18.6% a fully independent Crimean state and 12.6% would choose to keep the previous status of Crimea.[34

    ______________________________________________________________________

    A post-referendum survey, commissioned by John O’Loughlin, College Professor of Distinction and Professor of Geography at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and Gerard Toal (Gearóid Ó Tuathail), Professor of Government and International Affairs at Virginia Tech’s National Capital Region campus, was conducted during December 2014 by the Levada-Center, and published in Open Democracy on March 3, 2015.[40] The survey showed "widespread support for Crimea’s decision to secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation one year ago."

    While the authors of that survey felt and opined that Crimea’s secession was “an illegal act under international law,” they also acknowledged “It is also an act that enjoys the widespread support of the peninsula’s inhabitants, with the important exception of its Crimean Tatar population.” Despite the survey's distinction of Crimean Tatar support for accession to Russia being lower than the support from the rest of Crimea's population, the survey still found that significantly more Crimean Tatars either felt that Crimea's secession from Ukraine and accession to Russia was either the "Absolutely right decision," or the "Generally right decision," than the number of Crimean Tatars who felt that the 2014 referendum outcome was the "Wrong decision." Overall, the survey found that 84% of Crimeans felt that the choice to secede fro Ukraine and accede to Russia was "Absolutely the right decision."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014
  14. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80175
    26 Dec '16 02:53
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    The first link is a rather thin reed for the idea that the majority of people in the Crimea didn't support Russian annexation:

    It is possible that a fair vote might still have led to a narrow majority in favor of annexation. Still, the Council report provides further evidence that the official results cannot be trusted and that the real distribution o ...[text shortened]... lutely the right decision."


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014[/b]
    The polls you are relying on were conducted after Russia deployed forces within Crimea. One might expect someone opposed to annexation phoned by a market research interviewer to think twice about saying that they did not support Russian annexation of Crimea. From the same Wikipedia page:
    Andrey Illarionov, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former Russian government adviser, cited results of previous polls over past three years showing the Crimean support for joining Russia between 23 and 41 percent to conclude that the actual support for the reunification of Crimea with Russia was about 34 percent and that at least two thirds of Crimea did not vote for it. He called the referendum a "grossly rigged falsification" and the outcome "cynically distorted".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014#Allegations_of_fraud
    The historic polls date from before the ousting of Yanukovych, so one might expect support for Crimean independence from Ukraine to increase and possibly also for annexation by Russia. So I'd regard the polls taken under Russian military occupation as suspect and the results of the earlier polls as no longer reliable. This leaves considerable scope for doubt that the referendum result reflects the views of the population of Crimea. Had there been a referendum without military occupation by Russia (or for that matter Ukraine) then I wouldn't argue the point but neither the referendum or the polls were conducted under circumstances conducive to the democratic process.
  15. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    26 Dec '16 16:541 edit
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    The polls you are relying on were conducted after Russia deployed forces within Crimea. One might expect someone opposed to annexation phoned by a market research interviewer to think twice about saying that they did not support Russian annexation of Crimea. From the same Wikipedia page:[quote]Andrey Illarionov, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute an ...[text shortened]... referendum or the polls were conducted under circumstances conducive to the democratic process.
    From the same article:

    Polling by the Razumkov Centre in 2008 found that 63.8% of Crimeans (76% of Russians, 55% of Ukrainians, and 14% of Crimean Tatars, respectively) would like Crimea to secede from Ukraine and join Russia and 53.8% would like to preserve its current status, but with expanded powers and rights. Razumkov characterized Crimeans' views as controversial and unsteady, and therefore vulnerable to internal and external influences.[31] A poll by the International Republican Institute in May 2013 found that 53% wanted "Autonomy in Ukraine (as today)", 12% were for "Crimean Tatar autonomy within Ukraine", 2% for "Common oblast of Ukraine" and 23% voted for "Crimea should be separated and given to Russia".[32]


    So a majority in 2008 wanted secession but this was greatly reduced by 2013. What happened in the meantime? An election of a candidate for President of Ukraine who garnered 78% of that region's votes in 2010.https://www.electoralgeography.com/new/en/countries/u/ukraine/ukraine-presidential-election-2010.html

    Sorry, but I don't find it so difficult to believe that the majority in the Crimea, probably a significant majority, would want to secede after that President was unconstitutionally overthrown. Using polls from the three years before as Mr. Illarionov did while ignoring polling before Yanukovich's election in 2010 seems to be deliberately misleading (which is often Cato's style).
Back to Top