bben46 Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 Looks like my earlier prediction in this topic is partly right - in that the Ukrane might be broken up into smaller countries - and mostly wrong in that Russia does want it broken up so they can grab off and annex the part they want. Now that one part has been broken off, It will be easier for others to declare their independence from the Ukrane central government and form their own mostly ethnic country - similar to what happened to Yugoslavia. I think Russia jumped the gun in immediately annexing the Crimea. If they had laid back and waited, the Crimea would have likely declared independence - then asked for military help from Russia. (That is sorta kinda what they want you to believe happened - but without the independence part first) Then with a little persuasion (and maybe some bribery and coercion ) from Russia - Asked to be annexed. That is how both Texas and California became a part of the US. Texas was an independent country for ten years, but California was annexed by the US in much the same way as the Crimea has been annexed by Russia. - Just like the Crimea, the US army went into California to 'help' stabilize the place during a revolt by pro US groups. California was only a separate country ( The California Republic) for less than a month before being 'voluntarily annexed' by the US as that was the plan of the leaders of the California Republic from the beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harbringe Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 (edited) Looks like my earlier prediction in this topic is partly right - in that the Ukrane might be broken up into smaller countries - and mostly wrong in that Russia does want it broken up so they can grab off and annex the part they want. Now that one part has been broken off, It will be easier for others to declare their independence from the Ukrane central government and form their own mostly ethnic country - similar to what happened to Yugoslavia. I think Russia jumped the gun in immediately annexing the Crimea. If they had laid back and waited, the Crimea would have likely declared independence - then asked for military help from Russia. (That is sorta kinda what they want you to believe happened - but without the independence part first) Then with a little persuasion (and maybe some bribery and coercion ) from Russia - Asked to be annexed. That is how both Texas and California became a part of the US. Texas was an independent country for ten years, but California was annexed by the US in much the same way as the Crimea has been annexed by Russia. - Just like the Crimea, the US army went into California to 'help' stabilize the place during a revolt by pro US groups. California was only a separate country ( The California Republic) for less than a month before being 'voluntarily annexed' by the US as that was the plan of the leaders of the California Republic from the beginning. Hmmm , don't know about the waiting thing on Crimea . Lets say they did wait and the new Ukraine government which even as it is has clearly shown an anti Russian bias , do you think they would willingly accede to Crimean wishes to rejoin Russia or would they send paramilitary types to suppress such a thing . Think the answer is clear cause that's what their doing in Eastern Ukraine . So what your likely to end up with is a situation where the Russians would be drawn into a state of ongoing conflict . The way it is now they acted before any such situation could arise , while at the same time protecting what they hold as their vital strategic assets. If you have to choose between the two at a time when your not even certain which may come to bear , the latter is the much safer chose. Now Eastern Ukraine gets murkier for them , unlike Crimea where ethnic Russians are a clear majority , in Eastern Ukraine ethnic Russians are a slight minority but the Russian language is clearly in the majority and that makes for a very messy situation politically and that doesn't even take into account the economic mess they would become responsible for cleaning up. Strategically though , if there is a war in that region coming then moving forward and grabbing all territory east of the Dnieper river is the sound military thing to do. Edited March 22, 2014 by Harbringe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 I think there was something in their constitution about seccession, that make it pretty much impossible under normal circumstances.... and that is contributing to the west having issues with it. Personally, I think Putin did exactly what he thought he had to, to protect not only the people in that area, but also, their naval base..... Given that (apparently) 90% of the residents there voted to join russia. I don't see a problem with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harbringe Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 I think there was something in their constitution about seccession, that make it pretty much impossible under normal circumstances.... and that is contributing to the west having issues with it. Personally, I think Putin did exactly what he thought he had to, to protect not only the people in that area, but also, their naval base..... Given that (apparently) 90% of the residents there voted to join russia. I don't see a problem with that. The % that voted in favor is not really accurate , the vast majority of Tartars and Ukrainians boycotted (not all mind you) . Based on demographics if you were to count all boycotted as a no vote it would be more realistic to say somewhere between 70 - 75% were in favor of this , at least by the % that did vote , but that's a guesstimate. One thing I do find disturbing is the allowing of these Crimean self defense forces in the taking over of Ukrainian bases . This should be done by Officers of the Russian army and all due military protocols should be observed . The Ukrainian personnel haven't been defeated nor surrendered , this is nothing more than a political change of ownership. Otherwise you end up with the situation like at the Topography Center where emotions run high and people get killed . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 Still, a majority voted to join russia. I am not all that familiar with the situation on the ground. I would just like to avoid a war here, no matter who is involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboUK Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Those who don't vote shouldn't expect their opinion to be taken into account, it's the same with any referendum/election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unoctium Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 This is the international equivalent to the mafioso breaking your legs. Ukraine won't break apart. In fact, the opposition who initially had the impetus will likely wither and Ukraine will drift back into the Russian camp. Despite part of their territory being confiscated from them. This doesn't go back to the 19th century, or even the 50s, this goes back to when the country of Ukraine was created, independent of the greater Russian whole, in 1991 which was always an affront to Russian self-perception. To those confused about the whole thing, on an international level, this is just punishment. Nothing more. To go deeper into it, would require deeper insight into the Russia and Ukraine of today, rather than looking at it from any historical context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Those who don't vote shouldn't expect their opinion to be taken into account, it's the same with any referendum/election. Referendum yes, election no. It basically works the oposite in an election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboUK Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Those who don't vote shouldn't expect their opinion to be taken into account, it's the same with any referendum/election. Referendum yes, election no. It basically works the oposite in an election. No, it's exactly the same in an election, if you don't vote then they're not going to bother with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 (edited) Those who don't vote shouldn't expect their opinion to be taken into account, it's the same with any referendum/election. Referendum yes, election no. It basically works the oposite in an election. No, it's exactly the same in an election, if you don't vote then they're not going to bother with you. Voting for someone else to make descisions for you does not resemble a referendum. In one case you speak for yourself, the other you have given away your voice and opinion, thus making your opinion moot after the fact. Edited March 27, 2014 by Ghogiel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now