|
Sinteres posted:I agree that Finland is a far better functioning state than Ukraine, but Finlandization worked because it prevented the Soviet Union from invading and installing a Warsaw Pact regime. There are basically two options weak countries have when they neighbor strong countries, and those are finding a stronger country to protect you (as Ukraine would like to do, but which doesn't seem to be a viable path in the immediate future), or bend your policies to be acceptable to your strong neighbor. If Russia blinks here and backs down, maybe Ukraine will be proven correct in choosing the former path, but if Russia launches a serious invasion, I don't see any way that Finlandization wouldn't have been better. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here but wasn't "Finlandization" originally a critique lodged at the Finns that they had essentially become all but Soviet proxies? They literally had a mutual defense pact if Finland was invaded and Soviet authorities managed to ban some books inside Finland. FishBulbia fucked around with this message at 14:55 on Feb 8, 2022 |
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 14:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 04:44 |
|
|
TipTow posted:That's an awful lot of words you're putting in Sinteres' mouth. The whole situation is awful, and there's no good response to it other than diplomacy. And that's only "good" insofar as the material and human costs are quite low, I don't think it's particularly "good" in that it probably won't be effective. I’m not trying to say anything for them. They rather firmly express their belief in that all the West is good for is punishing victims of Russia’s ambitions, and so I’m curious to explore their view on what constitutes an appropriate reaction to, e.g., Russia invading Ukraine and occupying Crimea - or it a reaction is appropriate at all. I do agree that the Western response has not meaningfully reoriented Russian foreign policy towards the Western preference - I just personally hold the view that sanctions have been simply tepid, as far as the topic is concerned. Diplomacy I disagree with as being the only avenue to explore, since Putin has laid his disinterest in traditional diplomacy rather barren. “Abandon your hopes and surrender, or else we’ll respond with military-technical means” is not a good faith attempt to pursue diplomacy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 15:01
|
|
|
FishBulbia posted:I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here but wasn't "Finlandization" originally a critique lodged at the Finns that they had essentially become all but Soviet proxies? They literally had a mutual defense pact if Finland was invaded and Soviet authorities managed to ban some books inside Finland. There's a big difference between mildly subordinating some policies in favor of a country vs actually being occupied by that country. I don't live in a country that has tough choices to make like that (we're the ones forcing neighbors and others to buckle under), but if I did, I'd like to think I could appreciate that sometimes small sacrifices must be made to avoid larger catastrophes. cinci zoo sniper posted:I’m not trying to say anything for them. They rather firmly express their belief in that all the West is good for is punishing victims of Russia’s ambitions, and so I’m curious to explore their view on what constitutes an appropriate reaction to, e.g., Russia invading Ukraine and occupying Crimea - or it a reaction is appropriate at all. I do agree that the Western response has not meaningfully reoriented Russian foreign policy towards the Western preference - I just personally hold the view that sanctions have been simply tepid, as far as the topic is concerned. The US has put significantly stronger sanctions on Cuba, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea over the years, and it's hard to see how any of those worked either. Maybe we'll have an opportunity to see if crippling sanctions on Russia work in the future though, since sticks are all the US has to offer anyone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 15:03
|
|
|
I feel like your turning sanctions into something they're not and a perfectionist fallacy. The goal isn't necessarily regime change but to not enable the regime. Even when the UN has supplied North Korea with food, medical supplies, etc. it's often ended up in the hands of their military at the expense of their starving population because they literally don't care.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 15:10
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:I feel like your turning sanctions into something they're not and a perfectionist fallacy. The goal isn't necessarily regime change but to not enable the regime. Even when the UN has supplied North Korea with food, medical supplies, etc. it's often ended up in the hands of their military at the expense of their starving population because they literally don't care. I'd suggest you're doing the same with the perfectionist fallacy, suggesting that if some food aid is misappropriated it would be better to let everyone starve.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 15:16
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I don't think there's much evidence to suggest punitive sanctions actually work, so in that sense maybe doing nothing actually is better than immiserating the people whose rights you're angry about violating. I'm fine with targeted sanctions and even dual use sanctions, but preventing the people of Crimea from engaging with banking services, for example, seems like more of a punishment for them than a punishment for Putin. I hear you, but I would also like to note that your example constitutes targeted sanctions against banks of Russian Federation, to make it costly for them to provide services in the occupied territory. They naturally bear consequences for the people of Crimea, but it’s in my opinion deceitful to frame people of Crimea as the target. As soon as Russian government forces vacate the peninsula, its people will return to enjoying uninhibited access to international banking. quote:Tbf, I think there probably genuinely is a desire to punish the people of Crimea for desiring to be part of Russia (partially as a cautionary tale to others), since the self determination of Crimea isn't important, while the self determination of joining military alliances is paramount. If I do read you correctly, as in that you claim Crimea legitimately joined Russia through a fair and democratic process, I’d like you to back this up with, well, anything really, short of your personal anecdotes or official missives from Kremlin (although there’s one rather peculiar report from Russian presidential committee, which analysed topics surrounding legitimacy of the “referendum”) or the occupation government of Crimea. I’m not sure if it needs to be said, but pensioners in Moscow saying that Crimea is Russian doesn’t count as people of Crimea desiring for the peninsula to become a part of Russia. quote:If Russia blinks here and backs down, maybe Ukraine will be proven correct in choosing the former path, but if Russia launches a serious invasion, I don't see any way that Finlandization wouldn't have been better. What does “better” stand for here?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 15:19
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:I hear you, but I would also like to note that your example constitutes targeted sanctions against banks of Russian Federation, to make it costly for them to provide services in the occupied territory. They naturally bear consequences for the people of Crimea, but it’s in my opinion deceitful to frame people of Crimea as the target. As soon as Russian government forces vacate the peninsula, its people will return to enjoying uninhibited access to international banking. I don't have the info on hand, and I'll admit that I could be wrong, but my understanding is that a polling firm that showed the 2014 war was very unpopular in Russia (so not just putting out Putin talking points) showed that annexation into Russia was very popular in Crimea around the same time. I don't think the election was free and fair, but I do think the people of Crimea mostly wanted to be part of Russia. I'm not really in favor of allowing regions to secede whenever they want to, but in the context of Russia having occupied the territory for years now, I think it should be a factor going forward if the people would like to remain part of Russia. To the extent that the sanctions regime may have changed people's minds, that's obviously coercive as well, and supports my point about them being the targets of the sanctions. Better stands for not being occupied by a foreign power.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 15:24
|
|
|
Surprise, Macron got played for a fool: https://twitter.com/apmassaro3/status/1491035522793279492?cxt=HHwWiMCouY-6nLEpAAAA
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 15:26
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Surprise, Macron got played for a fool: It seems at least as likely that Macron exaggerated/heard what he wanted to hear than that Putin did a 180 overnight. I will say that this is really disappointing since I think diplomacy with the US is impossible, and makes me think Russia's probably moving beyond a diplomatic stage at this point too. I don't think the sentiment expressed here is wrong per se, but it's not the thing to emphasize if you're looking to make any diplomatic progress. https://twitter.com/shaunwalker7/status/1491011280119169032 Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Feb 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 15:28
|
|
|
There will not be "Finlandization" because an actually neutral Ukraine is not what Russia/Putin wants. Imagine living in 2022 and still dreaming about how taking Putin by his word in magical good faith rounds of diplomacy will lead to anything other than Russia exerting indirect or even direct control and end up occupying the country in one way or another anyway. Except with even stronger propaganda support in the form of an (otherwise utterly worthless) agreement with the "West" whenever he needs to push back against (imagined or real) independence movements "influenced by the evil CIA". Taking over the country and calling your new puppet state "neutral" is not a better situation for the people living there just because you didn't need to actually fight your way there,  .
orcane fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Feb 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 15:38
|
|
|
It's semantics.quote:Peskov said troops would return to their bases in Russia after the drills, without giving a precise date, but pointed out that nobody had ever said the forces would stay in Belarus. It's 'we never promised not to escalate further because we were never escalating anything in the first place'. The main point is that there is a promise that the troops will return to Russia after the drill, which is what Macron was probably interested in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 15:38
|
|
|
orcane posted:There will not be "Finlandization" because an actually neutral Ukraine is not what Russia/Putin wants. Imagine living in 2022 and still dreaming about how taking Putin by his word in magical good faith rounds of diplomacy will lead to anything other than Russia exerting indirect or even direct control and end up occupying the country in one way or another anyway. Except with even stronger propaganda support in the form of an (otherwise utterly worthless) agreement with the "West" whenever he needs to push back against (imagined or real) independence movements "influenced by the evil CIA". Finland wasn't neutral either, they just leaned exactly as far toward the Soviets as they had to in order to maintain their independence in all other respects. I believe Ukraine could do the same while facing far fewer constraints than a large scale occupation, and yes not losing thousands of people in war is a key part of what makes it preferable. Of course if Ukraine can successfully navigate its way to EU and NATO membership without being further invaded, their all or nothing bet will pay off, but if they can't, I think they'll wish they'd had more of an accommodationist policy/not overthrown Yanukovych in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 15:44
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I don't have the info on hand, and I'll admit that I could be wrong, but my understanding is that a polling firm that showed the 2014 war was very unpopular in Russia (so not just putting out Putin talking points) showed that annexation into Russia was very popular in Crimea around the same time. I don't think the election was free and fair, but I do think the people of Crimea mostly wanted to be part of Russia. I'm not really in favor of allowing regions to secede whenever they want to, but in the context of Russia having occupied the territory for years now, I think it should be a factor going forward if the people would like to remain part of Russia. To the extent that the sanctions regime may have changed people's minds, that's obviously coercive as well, and supports my point about them being the targets of the sanctions. I would kindly suggest, for peaceful cohabitation with the majority of the thread participants, to further research the topic of polling Crimean attitudes before occupation, if the topic is up for discussion again. Observable ground truth can be quite different from “annexation into Russia was very popular”, and at the very least is fuzzily defined, unless we go back to polls conducted immediately after the Russia-Georgia war. I don’t mean to be snarky here, however, so I don’t mind gathering a polling dump later in the day if you’re genuinely curious about the topic. Sinteres posted:Better stands for not being occupied by a foreign power. How would you differentiate between not being able to choose your life because you’re occupied and not being able to do so because your government is fully subservient to whims of a foreign power? Edit: In other news, EU is moving to deduct unpaid Polish fines from its budget. https://www.politico.eu/article/commission-cut-poland-funds-unpaid-turow-coal-mine-fine/ cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Feb 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 16:16
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:I don’t mean to be snarky here, however, so I don’t mind gathering a polling dump later in the day if you’re genuinely curious about the topic. Before occupation they had a pro-Russian government in charge of Ukraine, and aside from the occupation, his overthrow by pro-Western factions probably changed attitudes in Crimea as well, so I don't think only viewing polling from before the occupation provides the unbiased and clear perspective on what a Crimea not facing coercion would choose that it might seem at first glance. Favoring autonomy under Yanukovych and favoring independence to join Russia under today's conditions would be a pretty reasonable position for Ukrainians who identify as Russian to take, though obviously Russia's also alienated a lot of Ukrainians who previously identified as Russian and (unfortunately for their interests) forged a stronger Ukrainian identity in even much of the unoccupied east of the country. cinci zoo sniper posted:How would you differentiate between not being able to choose your life because you’re occupied and not being able to do so because your government is fully subservient to whims of a foreign power? I don't think it's that black and white, and I think there's a level of accommodation that can be reached that falls short of the level of subservience found under occupation. Until he decided to triangulate with Europe for a better deal and had it blow up in his face, Russia was pretty happy with Yanukovych, for example.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 16:29
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:I would kindly suggest, for peaceful cohabitation with the majority of the thread participants, to further research the topic of polling Crimean attitudes before occupation, if the topic is up for discussion again. Observable ground truth can be quite different from “annexation into Russia was very popular”, and at the very least is fuzzily defined, unless we go back to polls conducted immediately after the Russia-Georgia war. I'm curious!
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 16:32
|
|
|
All this discussion of Crimean popular support for Russian annexation ignores the facts that Russia annexed the peninsula regardless of any popular support. Whether the native population opposed or supported annexation in 2014 was not a factor into Russia's decision to invade and annex the territory of one of its closest neighbors.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 16:33
|
|
|
Morrow posted:All this discussion of Crimean popular support for Russian annexation ignores the facts that Russia annexed the peninsula regardless of any popular support. Whether the native population opposed or supported annexation in 2014 was not a factor into Russia's decision to invade and annex the territory of one of its closest neighbors. No, but popular desire and Russia's imperial desire have a shared common ancestor in historical events.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 16:35
|
|
|
raminasi posted:I'm curious! Polling in general points to a majority being for annexation. No where near the 90%+ for that was present in the referendum though. https://web.archive.org/web/2014050...1%29%285%29.pdf
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 16:36
|
|
|
Morrow posted:All this discussion of Crimean popular support for Russian annexation ignores the facts that Russia annexed the peninsula regardless of any popular support. Whether the native population opposed or supported annexation in 2014 was not a factor into Russia's decision to invade and annex the territory of one of its closest neighbors. Yeah, Ukraine's reward for exercising restraint in that affair was Russia taking even more territory in the Donbas. If Putin rationally wanted to maximize his influence over the Ukranian government, he'd want to keep those territories in Ukraine so they'd be a consistent thorn in the side. Part of his vision of the Minsk agreement has him kinda want it both ways- he gets to keep Crimea, but Donbass retains veto power on all Ukranian government decisions. Of course his demands are rather ridiculous. It's not just about regaining some influence over the Kiev government- Russia could've had that with a magnanimous gesture. It's about irredentist ambitions and imperial desire.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 16:39
|
|
|
Morrow posted:All this discussion of Crimean popular support for Russian annexation ignores the facts that Russia annexed the peninsula regardless of any popular support. Whether the native population opposed or supported annexation in 2014 was not a factor into Russia's decision to invade and annex the territory of one of its closest neighbors. If Russia did allow a free and fair referendum today, should it be respected by the international community, including with the removal of sanctions, if they choose to remain with Russia, or should they be forcibly rejoined with Ukraine regardless of their desires due to Russian aggression? I'm guessing some people who'd say yes to the inviolability of Ukraine's borders didn't feel the same way about Azerbaijan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 16:39
|
|
|
Morrow posted:All this discussion of Crimean popular support for Russian annexation ignores the facts that Russia annexed the peninsula regardless of any popular support. Whether the native population opposed or supported annexation in 2014 was not a factor into Russia's decision to invade and annex the territory of one of its closest neighbors. It definitely was a huge factor, though. It was literally the only territory they could feasibly annex specifically because it has a Russian, not just Russian-speaking, Russian majority. The fact that there were also Russian naval bases there helped, too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 16:40
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Before occupation they had a pro-Russian government in charge of Ukraine, and aside from the occupation, his overthrow by pro-Western factions probably changed attitudes in Crimea as well, so I don't think only viewing polling from before the occupation provides the unbiased and clear perspective on what a Crimea not facing coercion would choose that it might seem at first glance. Favoring autonomy under Yanukovych and favoring independence to join Russia under today's conditions would be a pretty reasonable position for Ukrainians who identify as Russian to take, though obviously Russia's also alienated a lot of Ukrainians who previously identified as Russian and (unfortunately for their interests) forged a stronger Ukrainian identity in even much of the unoccupied east of the country. Surely you recognise that polling after occupation is prone to reflect a specific spectrum of opinions, and may not necessarily be informative? Sinteres posted:I don't think it's that black and white, and I think there's a level of accommodation that can be reached that falls short of the level of subservience found under occupation. Until he decided to triangulate with Europe for a better deal and had it blow up in his face, Russia was pretty happy with Yanukovych, for example. The deal didn’t blow up in his face. Russia was extremely displeased with Ukraine moving towards ties with the EU under his watch, and they forced him to double-cross the EU deal (that strong popular support in Ukraine). Yanukovych obliged, triggering the revolution. Back to the topic, Russia’s maximalist demands are in direct contradiction of the policy course popularly supported in Ukraine. I don’t see any reasons to believe that Putin will settle for anything less, in absence of external stimulus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 16:46
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Don't know what country you're from, but this is definitely the callous 'it's no problem for us if Ukraine gets invaded or not, we win either way' attitude where diplomacy isn't even worth trying that I talk about the US having. If Russia refuses to engage in good faith, why on earth do you think anyone else is in the wrong for refusing to engage? What positive end product can come of it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 16:52
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Surely you recognise that polling after occupation is prone to reflect a specific spectrum of opinions, and may not necessarily be informative? Yes, as does polling under sanctions pressure. I believe most Crimeans would, all things being equal, prefer to be Russian though, and since nobody's really even disputed that so much as said it's not clear or pointed to polling done before the issue became far more polarized, I don't think anyone particularly finds it hard to believe either. That's what I'm talking about though. Wouldn't Ukraine have been better off accepting that Russian pressure than dealing with everything that followed? Maybe not, if Ukraine gets into NATO and the EU, since the short term pain will have been worth it, but if they get invaded again, I think it'll make the cost of overthrowing Yanukovych pretty clearly higher than it was worth. Cugel the Clever posted:No, it's not. The amount of disingenuous gymnastics you do to label any action by the West other than capitulation as malevolent is incredible. If Russia backs unreasonable demands with the threat of force, the blame is on them and no one is under obligation to engage seriously with them. You can't pretend to be interested in Ukraine from a humanitarian perspective and then indifferent to the consequences of taking a hard line diplomatically by just saying it's all Russia's fault. Better an ounce of prevention than a pound of cure, right? Especially when the cure is only more sanctions on Ukrainians if they end up under Russian occupation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 16:58
|
|
|
Someone really ought to send a memo to the English and French informing them that they’re yesterdays news and are irrelevant lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 17:02
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:You can't pretend to be interested in Ukraine from a humanitarian perspective and then indifferent to the consequences of taking a hard line diplomatically by just saying it's all Russia's fault. The amount of words you write to obfuscate this foundational truth of the crisis incredible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 17:02
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:It is all Putin's fault. He is under no obligation to invade Ukraine. Putin is the prime actor who can obviously avoid any of this, yes. I'm not obfuscating that, but if you take Russia bad as a given, what responsibility does the West have not to throw Ukraine to the wolves over false promises they can't deliver?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 17:04
|
|
|
What false promises do you think have been made to Ukraine?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 17:11
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:What false promises do you think have been made to Ukraine? The idea that NATO membership is a realistic goal they can work toward and which is worth risking conflict with their scary neighbor over.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 17:12
|
|
|
But the prospect of NATO membership isn't what triggered Russian hostility towards Ukraine? Nor is anyone in Ukraine under any illusions as to what the conditions of NATO membership are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 17:15
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:If Russia did allow a free and fair referendum today, should it be respected by the international community, including with the removal of sanctions, if they choose to remain with Russia, or should they be forcibly rejoined with Ukraine regardless of their desires due to Russian aggression? I'm guessing some people who'd say yes to the inviolability of Ukraine's borders didn't feel the same way about Azerbaijan. Russia de-facto may not serve as a ground for fair and free referendum today, what is there to say about a referendum in a territory it is occupying by force. After 8 years of repressions against any dissent, people would have to be suicidal to go and vote against Russia, even if that's their belief. Crimea shouldn't be "forcibly rejoined" - Crimea is a part of Ukraine, and Russia should withdraw the occupation forces. The inscrutable sanctions will cease to apply on their own. Afterwards, Crimean region and the central government of Ukraine may have a dialogue on the potential status changes for Crimea, if any. And yes, I do think that Nagorno-Karabakh is a part of Azerbaijan - despite strongly disliking Aliyev.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 17:24
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:The idea that NATO membership is a realistic goal they can work toward and which is worth risking conflict with their scary neighbor over. is this the right way to view the issue? yanukovych got thrown out of office then, days later, russia invaded crimea. there was never a time to set a policy or reflect on what happened. any orientation toward NATO seems motivated by the big scary neighbor instigating a conflict, not the other way around.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 17:24
|
|
|
As we've been over before, there's also a huge spectrum of possible relationships with NATO less than membership, ranging between 'no contact at all' up to 'we have your membership paperwork all printed out and kept in a safe and we can sign it all today if we need to'. Even if membership isn't an option, countries can get value from choosing to place themselves on that spectrum.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 17:28
|
|
|
Of course it's not the right way to view the issue. Russia downright denies Ukraine the right to self determination and independence, Putin is even outspoken about this yet idiots like Sinteres keep saying uppity countries in Russia's sphere of influence should just E: The Russian dictatorship will relentlessly push for its goals unless stopped or slowed down, Russian propaganda will warp everything the West and Ukraine does until those goals are met. It's why ~~~FINLANDIZATION~~~ won't work and why there's no causation between Ukrainian policy of maybe, some day, actually getting into NATO and Russian wars of aggression. If it's not NATO, it's economic and diplomatic ties to NATO/EU countries. If it's not that, it's literally anything else they can spin as an attack on Russian interests. Because Russian interests are restoring the core of the Soviet Union. This has been going on for over a decade, and large parts are openly declared by the Russian regime. You have to be seriously deluded (actually: stupid) to still think gee we should let Putin have some of the things he wants, surely he will cool down and stop halfway to his goals. Stick it to the Western Imperialists!!! (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) orcane fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Feb 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 17:42
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:Someone really ought to send a memo to the English and French informing them that they’re yesterdays news and are irrelevant lol Macron's France is at the moment exerting a lot of influence in the EU since Germany is still finding its feet after the regime change in Berlin. The EU is, uh, a pretty big player in all of this, if you haven't noticed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 17:43
|
|
|
barbecue at the folks posted:Macron's France is at the moment exerting a lot of influence in the EU since Germany is still finding its feet after the regime change in Berlin. The EU is, uh, a pretty big player in all of this, if you haven't noticed. You know who's an even bigger player? JUPITER.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 17:50
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:You know who's an even bigger player? JUPITER. How many nuclear weapons does Jupiter have? What are its force projection capabilities? Like yeah the UK and France definitely think they're a lot more important than they are but let's not pretend they aren't still significant actors on the international stage in a multitude of ways.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 17:56
|
|
|
FishBulbia posted:Polling in general points to a majority being for annexation. No where near the 90%+ for that was present in the referendum though. I don't dispute that report, but please don't link 100-page PDFs with no further specifiers and expect people to talk to you about it. For context for everyone else, page 18. A 2011 poll, in Russian "Optimal status for Crimea?" 41% autonomous part of Russia "Hypothetical joining Russia referendum?" 65.6% Yes raminasi posted:I'm curious! 2008 poll in English (hot on heels of Russia-Georgia war) https://web.archive.org/web/20140317075919/http://www.razumkov.org.ua/eng/files/category_journal/NSD104_eng_2.pdf Opinions of Crimeans regarding the desired future for their region are rather controversial and unsteady, which makes them vulnerable to internal and external influences. For instance, the majority of Crimeans would like Crimea to secede from Ukraine and join Russia (63.8%), and at the same time – to preserve its current status, but with expanded powers and rights (53.8%). More than a third (35.1%) would like it to become a Russian national autonomy as a part of Ukraine; also more than a third (34.5%) – to secede from Ukraine and become an independent state 2011 poll in Ukrainian, page 27 https://razumkov.org.ua/upload/Prz_Krym_2011_Yakymenko.pdf Crimean polling for "join Russia" option is shown to drop fro 32.3% in 2009 to 24.4% in 2011. This poll is run by the same people as the one above with 63.8% in 2008. 2014 poll in English http://www.kiis.com.ua/?lang=eng&cat=reports&id=236&page=1 This one is noteworthy for polling in Crimea literally a few days before things escalated. Crimean polling for "join Russia" option is shown to increase from 35.9% in 2013 to 41% in 2014 Obviously, this was domestically loaded question and polls are absolutely not prescriptive, and it's likewise easy to find stuff that will show lower and higher numbers than those (some Russian-organised polls trend higher, some Western-organised polls trend lower). Anecdotally, I don't recall any polls that would show >50% Crimean support for joining Russia between the 2012 parliament elections and the 2014 annexation of Crimea. After the annexation sure, there's dozens of polls with North Korea elections-tier 103.75% support for Russia. Chaser link: May 7, 2014 (freshly post-annexation) report from Putin administration's human rights council, in Russian (a cool read in general, if you read Russian or can stomach Google Translate) http://web.archive.org/web/20140427...teley_kryma.php My translation of the relevant bit: According to the opinion of almost all polled experts and citizens: - Majority of Sevastopol residents voted to join Russia (50-80% turnout), and in Crimea varying sources indicated 50-60% vote in support of joing Russia, with total turnout of 30-50%; - Inhabitants of Crimea were voting not quite for joining Russia, but for a ceasement of, in their own words, "oppressive corruption and thievery freely carried out by lawless Donetsk henchmen". Sevastopol's inhabitants, on the other hand, were voting specifically to join Russia. Fear of illegal armed groups was greater in Sevastopol than elsewhere in Ukraine. cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Feb 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 18:13
|
|
|
TipTow posted:How many nuclear weapons does Jupiter have? What are its force projection capabilities? France also has an actual competent military (which they mostly use to do dubious things in Africa).
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 18:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 04:44 |
|
|
OddObserver posted:France also has an actual competent military (which they mostly use to do dubious things in Africa). Right, that's what I was alluding to with the force projection thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 18:18
|
|