Hate to Say “Told You So” . . . .
. . . but yeah, according to Reuters it’s certainly beginning to look like I did. It was actually pretty easy to predict.
SIMFEROPOL, Ukraine (Reuters) – Crimea’s parliament voted to join Russia on Thursday and its Moscow-backed government set a referendum within 10 days on the decision in a dramatic escalation of the crisis over the Ukrainian Black Sea peninsula.
I have to say I’m rather torn here. On principle, I hate seeing aggression rewarded. However, IMO Russia frankly has a better historical claim to the Crimea than does the Ukraine. That’s also the only region of what is today the Ukraine where the majority of the population is ethnically Russian. And if the population of the Crimea wants to leave the Ukraine and rejoin Russia, well, there is that pesky little thing called “the principle of self-determination . . . . ”
From my perspective, whether we like the outcome or not – Putin’s played his cards well. And I don’t see much we can do one way or another.
I wonder what the folks in the State Department – and the rest of the current Administration – will do now?
Category: Foreign Policy
I know I will not convince you otherwise, however the Crimea in its own constitution acknowledged itself as a part of the Ukraine. Nevermind decades of other on paper acknowledgements of this.. or the Russians making themselves the “dominant” ethnic group in Crimea via forced relocations of Tartars and Greeks. They were not historically the dominant ethnic group until they forced the others out.
What has happened in Crimea now is nothing more than Russia reaserting its old Cold War Self… they could easily go into the Ukraine entirely now as there are a large number of ethnic Russians in that region as well.
Once again, same argument Hitler used for annexing the Sudetland.
As to what the “government of Crimea” has done… right. The Russians who insist they do not even have troops in Crimea have been rumored to have been bussing in folks from their side of the border to “protest” for alignment with Russia. I trust nothing Putin does or is associated with.
Well we are talking about a man (Putin) who was very likely involved in the clandestine bombing of four apartment complexes full of civilians in order to manufacture a ‘terrorist event’ he could look strong fighting against in order to bolster his public image.
Putin’s slick ‘man of the world’ image barely hides a leader as ruthless and bloodthirsty as any Russia has ever graced the planet with.
Um, rb325th . . . Russia has no land border with the Crimea. If anyone is being bussed “across the border”, they’re coming from the Ukraine.
And you’re correct, you haven’t convinced me.
You might want to read this article. While it’s from the WaPo – a source I generally don’t like – the author appears to be reasonably objective. He also seems to have done a good job laying out the ethnic makeup and political leanings of the various regions of the Ukraine. Note that the Crimea – which was given to the Ukraine by fiat in 1954 by the Supreme Soviet, and was prior to that part of Russia – is the only region of the Ukraine that is today majority Russian.
The situation in the Crimea IMO is quite similar to others that have led to later troubles because a regional ethnic majority was forcibly placed under the rule of others, or a people were otherwise forcibly divided. The Durand Line (which separated the Pashtun lands and led to over a century of difficulty between Afghanistan and Pakistan) and the division of the Kurds between hostile neighbors (Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Iran) are other examples. Others are Kosovo, the Trans-Dniestr region of present-day Moldova, and Rwanda/Burundi.
Allowing self-determination in such matters has much to recommend it if one wants long-term peace in the affected area.
How’d that work out for the Confederacy? Lol
The context here is ethnic self determination, Jacobite. The US Civil War was exactly that – a civil war between two political factions of the same basic nation/culture. That’s a very different situation.
Reintegration of the former Confederacy was possible after the US Civil War because the winners and losers shared the same culture and ethnicity. That’s not the case where a local majority of one nationality is ruled by a minority of a different nationality. And when that ruling minority is a traditional enemy of the local majority, things can often get really ugly. See Rwanda and Kosovo for examples.
Picking nits. Respecting self determination is respecting self determination, all other issues aside.
And I could also make a reasonable case that unless you examine it in the broadest terms possible, the North and South did not really represent an identical culture at all, just as our country’s political differences today illustrate a major division in the nation’s cultural identity. What you seem to see as ‘basic’, I see as a glaring difference.
Au contraire. Culture =/= politics.
The pre Civil War North and South shared essentially the same ethnic heritage (English, with some Irish and European), religion (overwhelmingly protestant), legal system, and language. At most there were minor regional dialects. The only real bone of contention between the two regions was slavery. Otherwise, they shared a common history and cultural background with minor regional variants.
Sundered nations (either by civil war, external conquest, or other imposed means) with a shared culture/ethnic makeup can be reintegrated – see Germany (post WW2), England (post-Cromwell), and France (post-Revolution) for examples. But when you have an ethnic majority that wants independence from an ruling minority, well, that’s a bit of a different situation. Historically, that’s eventually led to trouble.
Hondo, you do know that several northern states held slaves, right? The differences between the north and south had to do with agriculture, not slavery. The emancipation proclamation didn’t even free northern held slaves, but proclaimed freedom for southern slaves Lincoln had no authority over. The biggest issue between the sides of our civil war was the role of the federal government. The north wanted federal power to over ride individual states rights and laws. Proof of this is in the constitutional amendments that Lincoln strong armed through Congress that essentially nullified the 10th amendment.
As to reintegration post civil war, reconstruction was the greatest atrocity of the entire event. There was no reintegration, there was “we won now do it our way” and no room for argument. This is why Missouri Raiders were tried and hanged but Kansas Jayhawks were treated as heroes and even today are not looked at negatively. Reconstruction fueled racial tensions, created the KKK, and kept our country to on for decades after the war. Reintegration as you called it, was nothing more then the southerners being silenced and oppressed.
Smitty: not exactly.
Four states that remained in the Union – Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, and Maryland – were slave states. (West Virginia is sometimes included as a 5th Union “slave state”, but it did not exist at the beginning of the Civil War and had already instituted a phased outlawing of slavery in its state constitution when it was admitted to the Union in in 1863.) Of those 4 Union “slave” states, all but Delaware outlawed slavery prior to the end of the Civil War – and thus prior to the adoption of the 13th Amendment, which legally ended slavery in the US.
Further: by 1860, Delaware was a slave state essentially in name only. In the 1860 census, there were less than 1800 slaves in the state, and over 90% of its Black inhabitants were free citizens.
The remaining Union states had all outlawed slavery prior to the Civil War.
Your assertion that the division between north and south was largely based on rural/industrial is also largely false. Though most US industry was found in Union states, that’s not universally true; there were some manufacturing centers in the Confederacy. Additionally, most of the Union states were also predominantly rural in 1860 (the US was then a largely rural nation). The distinction between the two regions was largely based on the type of farming done (labor-intensive, plantation-style crops like tobacco and cotton were much more common in the south) than any “industrial/rural” distinction.
Finally: no Constitutional Amendments became law during Lincoln’s Presidency. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments all became effective after his assassination. Of these 3 amendments, only the 13th Amendment was even considered by either the House or Senate before Lincoln died – and all that amendment did was outlaw slavery. It was not ratified by the states until well after Lincoln’s death. The 14th and 15th Amendments were not even written during Lincoln’s lifetime.
Last time I checked, it’s kinda hard for a dead man to return to Earth and “strong arm” anything or anyone.
That was figuratively speaking… they do have the airports and the ferry landings all tied up though don’t they?
The russians have been busy pouring out propaganda in the past week painting the events in the Ukraine as right wing extremist taking over… and have also flat out demnied that it is their troops who have taken over every government building in the Crimea.
Again, I will stick by what I have said. Excuse for this are right up there with those given by Hitler on annexing neighboring countries. They were of German heritage after all.
Russia had no reason to invade, they did it despite signed agreements to respct the borders of Ukraine that included the Crimea. Crimea itself in 1991 acknowledged in their Constitution that they are a part of the Ukraine.
Write it off however you like by noting the “majority” ethnic population is Russian, but again it only became that because of previous Russian purges of other Ethnic groups. It became ethnically Russian by force, and now it will become Russian by force.
The “busing across the border” is exactly correct.
Russia’s been pushing its own folk into eastern Ukraine and the Crimea for over a generation now.
They’ve used migration in exactly the same way that the jihdiscum do.
Um, Grimmy . . . no. That is simply not the case. Population data says otherwise. If anything, ethnic Russians are being forced to leave the Crimea – and that appears to have been going on for decades.
The proportion of the Crimean population that is ethnically Russian has steadily declined since the Crimea was taken from Russia and given to the Ukraine in 1954. The Crimea’s population was 71% Russian in 1959. Today, it’s 58%. The 58% figure today is a post-World War II low.
Further, the Crimea has had a net loss of over 300,000 in population since the breakup of the Soviet Union. Most of that population loss appears to be due to the departure of ethnic Russians from the Crimea.
People who like the way they’re being treated and their government, and who think they have good prospects for the future, don’t generally pull up stakes and emigrate.
Two things, first on topic…this is not a US interest issue, anymore than Venezuela is a Soviet interest issue…we are not starting a war over Crimea nor are the Russkies coming to Venezuela….threatening to do shit that you can’t back up just makes you like a moron, never mind making you look weak…
Crimea’s parliament can choose to debate its’ constitution as often as it like and to act against it and allow it’s court system to deal with that. It’s not US business to interpret Crimean law regarding to whom they wish to attach themselves….
Off topic, how come my name and email keep disappearing when I view the home page and choose a new topic to read and reply to?
Off topic, I cleared the cookies from this site, reloaded the main page, made a comment on one comment thread, went to another comment thread, and my name and email persisted in the form. Before I cleared cookies, my name and email did not persist (since the DNS address change).
I still don’t give a shit what happens to Ukraine and, as far as I know, the legitimately elected head of that country was pushed out illegally. Now, it’s payback time, I guess. I’ll say this for the rebellious Ukrainians. They have some big balls but seem to be short on smarts. The months long protests–sometimes violent–weren’t going to be rewraded.
I wonder, assuming there were an overwhelming majority of them as citizens (I have no idea if there is, just for speculation and discussion), if all the Mexican-heritage people in Texas decided to secede from the United States and rejoin Mexico. Would we allow it ?
NavCWORet: none of the 6 southwestern US states (CA, NV, UT, NM, AZ, TX) has a population that is ethnically majority Hispanic/Latino. Three of them (AZ, NV, UT) have majority Anglo populations. Two (TX and CA) have between 35 and 40% each Anglo and Hispanic. Only NM has even close to a Hispanic/Latino majority – and they’re at about 45%.
In contrast, the population of the Crimea is 58+% ethnically Russian and is less than 25% ethnically Ukranian.
Yes, and based on current reproductive rates that’s going to change drastically in the next 20 years or so. I live here in Arizona, and I’m watching it happen.
NavCWORet’s comment is a timely one.
I understand that quite well, Jacobite. Until a few years ago, I lived in AZ. I lived there for 17+ years.
A Hispanic/Latino majority may well be the case in the US Southwest at some point in the future. It’s not the case now – though many have that misconception. That’s the point I was addressing.
Not the case now, no, though the constant redistricting fights are slowly attempting to give the Latinos the political power, and will likely succeed.
Despite it not being the case currently, and acknowleging that a Latino majority may in fact occur in the future, what then? Using the logic you’re using to quasi support Russia’s claims, and the Crimea’s desire (if it is in fact their desire) concerning the region, would you actually support giving up a large portion of the South West to Mexico?
No Bueno.
I’ve been in Arizona since 1971. Grew up in Chandler, and now live well North of the PHX Metro hell hole. 🙂
Jacobite: what, you’re not a fan of the Valley of Too Damn Much Sun? (smile)
To answer your question: in the event that a substantial portion of the US becomes so culturally different from the rest that it’s incompatible with the remainder AND also attempted to depart the US, the US would have the same options it had during the Civil War. That is, the area could be subdued militarily and placed under martial law, or it could be allowed to secede. During the US civil war, the Federal government chose the former. The latter was the option not selected.
No bueno? Agreed. But at that point, there is no good option remaining. Either option at that point would be a painful one.
With respect to the situation in the Crimea, however, that’s not the applicable comparison. A better comparison would be a situation where a foreign entity – the UN, say – had taken a part of the US and placed it under a different nation’s control against the wishes of the majority of its inhabitants and without regard to culture or ethnicity. An hypothetical example would be a UN resolution placing New England under a newly-independent Quebecois Republique formed from Quebec, the Canadian maritime provinces, and what is today the US region called New England using the justification of “longstanding cultural and economic ties”.
Under such circumstances, would you be willing to permanently abandon the former New England states to foreign rule by les Quebecois in perpetuity? Suppose the former New England states subsequently declared their independence from Le Quebequois Republique and asked to rejoin the US?
Don’t laugh. From the Russian perspective, the first is pretty much what happened to the Crimea in 1954, when the Supreme Soviet transferred that region from Russia to the Ukraine – and the latter is what’s happening today.
First off, unlike Ukraine, the affected US state has a voice, as well as the federal government. This hypo (c/o the best radio guy in the history of radio, Mark Levin) is off the mark (pun intended.) If it’s constitutional and the legal nicieties are observed, I say adios. But that’s not the situation in the Ukraine and I was disappointed that Levin raised the matter that way.
If you’re referring to my hypothetical example above, 2/17 Air Cav, you might want to re-read and reconsider it.
In my example, the hypothetical situation transferring that territory to a fictional Republique Quebecois would be forcibly imposed on both New England and the US by an external entity. Thus neither the population of the New England states, their governments, nor the Federal government would have a say in the matter. Their opinions would be ignored.
In the case of the Crimean transfer from RSFR to USFR in 1954, that was precisely what happened. An external entity (the Supreme Soviet of the USSR) forcibly directed the transfer the Crimea (then a part of the RSFR) to the USFR. Neither the people of the Crimea, the Crimean government, nor the governments of the RSFR or USFR were consulted. The transfer was mandated, and was done whether they liked it or not.
I still waiting on Heinz-Kerry to blame the whole thing on an anti Muslim video…
Well, now, this just says it all: http://news.msn.com/world/obama-west-wont-let-kremlin-carve-up-ukraine-1
What will bodaprez do to prevent this event from occurring?
1 – Slap Vlad’s wrist
2 – Shake his finger at Vlad and say ‘naughty, naughty, it’s the timeout chair for you’
3 – Draw a chalk line across a major highway in Crimea and double dog dare Vlad to step across it
4 – Send an airplane over Crimea to drop ‘let’s all get along’ pamphlets written in Slovakian, originally meant to go to the Czech Republic
5 – Make another call in the middle of the Russian night to Vlad, who is busy snoring, and when awakened, will say ‘Dobraota, tovarish’, and go back to sleep