One Year Later, Crimeans Prefer Russia

[crispy]

So then, why not just have a referendum that wouldn't have involved brown shirts?

Because of the violence happening in ukraine at the time, and that seemed to be spreading into Crimea.
Russia already had troops in Crimea under the long standing agreement in place. So they secured the place while the referendum happened.

Who in their right mind would have believed an population that was mainly "Russian" would have voted to go with Ukraine after the coup and with the violence spreading?

Russia had up to 25,000 troops in Crimea under the agreement. The Crimeans were never going to go with Ukraine. Those in Crimea were mainly of Russian extraction anyway.

It was a perfect storm for Russia. With what was happening in Ukraine they pretty much had to secure the place to have a referendum, and they made the most of the opportunity.
They were never going to let Crimea fall to Nato. Never.

It was like Syria. As soon as John Kerry made that gaff, Putin pounced.
Putin's timing was very good, and he seems to know when to act and when not to

Wait, I thought you said the russian military had no part in the vote on Crimea?

 

[tupac chopra]

Wait, I thought you said the russian military had no part in the vote on Crimea?

Can you show where I said that?

 

[crispy]

Wait, I thought you said the russian military had no part in the vote on Crimea?

Can you show where I said that?

Here.

 

[Ford]

Can you show where I said that?

Here.

Clearly, this is Western propaganda! Putin is peaceful leader like Buddha or Dalai Lama!

 

[tupac chopra]

Can you show where I said that?

Here.

You are confusing what I said about the eastern Ukraine with what I said about Crimea.

1. Russia had up to 25,000 troops already in Crimea. They were permanently stationed there. This was part of a long standing agreement. These troops secured Crimea for the referendum.
2. There is a war going on in eastern Ukraine. Russia had no troops stationed in eastern Ukraine. If Putin sent troops and weapons in they would easily defeat the forces which are shelling civilian areas in eastern Ukraine

 

[Ford]

You are confusing what I said about the eastern Ukraine Russia with what I said about Crimea.Russia.

There. Fixed it for you.


FYI, if you keep referring to these regions as anything other than Russia, I'll have to report you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014–15_Russian_military_intervention_in_Ukraine

Where is the evidence that Putin sent troops in. What has been "known" or suspected for some time is that volunteers have been going over to help.
This is different from Putin sending troops in. If you'd like to discuss anyone piece of evidence we can do that but there is just too much stuff in the link you posted and much of it is just linking to other false reports in western media

When Moscow says "you will volunteer", you "volunteer".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So then, why not just have a referendum that wouldn't have involved brown shirts?

Because of the violence happening in ukraine at the time, and that seemed to be spreading into Crimea.
Russia already had troops in Crimea under the long standing agreement in place. So they secured the place while the referendum happened.

Who in their right mind would have believed an population that was mainly "Russian" would have voted to go with Ukraine after the coup and with the violence spreading?

Russia had up to 25,000 troops in Crimea under the agreement. The Crimeans were never going to go with Ukraine. Those in Crimea were mainly of Russian extraction anyway.

It was a perfect storm for Russia. With what was happening in Ukraine they pretty much had to secure the place to have a referendum, and they made the most of the opportunity.
They were never going to let Crimea fall to Nato. Never.

It was like Syria. As soon as John Kerry made that gaff, Putin pounced.
Putin's timing was very good, and he seems to know when to act and when not to

Of course they didn't go with Ukraine--that option wasn't on the ballot.

 

[barbos]

Berezovets is inclined to credit Crimea's "Orwellian atmosphere" for some of that near-unanimity. He's probably right. Given the ubiquitous FSB attention and the arrest of some pro-Ukrainian activists -- the persecution of filmmaker Oleg Sentsov is the cause celebre -- as "extremists," few people are likely to be brave enough to condemn the annexation on the phone, especially when the caller is a stranger.

From Wikipedia:

I read the article.

Quarter Yes No Undecided
2009 Q3[37] 70% 14% 16%
2009 Q4[37] 67% 15% 18%
2010 Q1[38] 66% 14% 20%
2010 Q2[38] 65% 12% 23%
2010 Q3[38] 67% 11% 22%
2010 Q4[38] 66% 9% 25%
2011 Q4[39] 65.6% 14.2% 20.2%

Yes, and what is your point exactly?

Thats its a stretch to say that Crimea prefers russia.

No, that's a fact, inconvenient for you but nevertheless fact.

 

[tupac chopra]

Crimeans are no doubt aware of how things are likely to go for Ukraine.
Has the IMF Annexed Ukraine?

Michael Hudson, an economist at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and author of the upcoming book “Killing the Host: Financial Parasites and Wall Street’s War on Capitalism,” says the terms attached to the loans made by the IMF to Ukraine are likely to turn its people into penniless serfs of international banks.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Why on Earth would someone prefer Russia? It is on the edge of being a Third World country with no future other than decline or as a best case scenario stagnation.

I hear more people saying that about America these days...

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Because of the violence happening in ukraine at the time, and that seemed to be spreading into Crimea.
Russia already had troops in Crimea under the long standing agreement in place. So they secured the place while the referendum happened.

Who in their right mind would have believed an population that was mainly "Russian" would have voted to go with Ukraine after the coup and with the violence spreading?

Russia had up to 25,000 troops in Crimea under the agreement. The Crimeans were never going to go with Ukraine. Those in Crimea were mainly of Russian extraction anyway.

It was a perfect storm for Russia. With what was happening in Ukraine they pretty much had to secure the place to have a referendum, and they made the most of the opportunity.
They were never going to let Crimea fall to Nato. Never.

It was like Syria. As soon as John Kerry made that gaff, Putin pounced.
Putin's timing was very good, and he seems to know when to act and when not to

Wait, I thought you said the russian military had no part in the vote on Crimea?

I thought we were talking about UKRAINE? It's already been established the Russians quietly stationed special forces troops in Crimea to prevent a counter-referendum. They are being accused of doing the same thing in Ukraine, primarily by the U.S., who after all this time is STILL peddling the "domino theory."

 

[Harry Bosch]

I hear more people saying that about America these days...

Yes. Americans are famous for not traveling much, not speaking foreign languages, and not understanding the world.

 

[bilby]

Crimeans are no doubt aware of how things are likely to go for Ukraine.
Has the IMF Annexed Ukraine?

Michael Hudson, an economist at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and author of the upcoming book “Killing the Host: Financial Parasites and Wall Street’s War on Capitalism,” says the terms attached to the loans made by the IMF to Ukraine are likely to turn its people into penniless serfs of international banks.

Meh. I know plenty of penniless surfers, and they mostly seem happy enough.

 

[Togo]

Russia is providing 75% of the Crimean budget, while Ukraine is at war.

If preferring the former to the latter really supposed to indicate a political preference?

 

[Jayjay]

I think that part of the reason why Putin destabilized Eastern Ukraine was to turn attention away from Crimea. .

Putin did not destabilise eastern Crimea.
1. A coup happened in Kiev and the democratically elected leader was ousted.
2.Those in the East refused to recognise the junta who took power.
3.The junta attacked the east.

Nothing to do with Putin

That's nonsense and you know it. "Those in the east" were not the people in the eastern provinces but a small group of armed militants who were very likely following orders from Moscow. About one third of them weren't even residents of Eastern Ukraine, including their leader Igor Girkin, a former FSB agent. And since the first days there were unmarked Russian troops present, the very same "little green men" you saw in Crimea.

Second, the separatists would not have had a chance of success without troops and weapons from Russia throughout the war. The entire conflict would have been over in a matter of weeks. So even if we forget the Russian involvement in starting the war, it's blatantly obvious that Russia could have ended it at any time by just closing the border. It was Putin who created the conflict, and kept it going either as a distraction from his annexation of Crimea, or to teach Ukraine a lesson not to fuck with him, or some combination of the two.

 

[Jayjay]

So whats he doing sending weapons and troops there? Can't we at least agree that its not helping stabilize the area?

If Putin sent troops and weapons in the war would be over in a couple of days.

Not if his goal is to merely destabilize Ukraine, rather than conquer as much land as possible. Exactly the same scenario played out in Georgia in 2008. Besides, Russia still has the option to quickly advance all the way to Crimea if necessary.

 

[tupac chopra]

It was Putin who created the conflict,

Any evidence of that?

The Putin-Did-It Conspiracy Theory

But there is zero evidence that Putin engineered these events. There is no evidence that he got Merkel and the EU to overplay their hand; no evidence that he organized the neo-Nazi militias in Lviv; no evidence that he manipulated U.S. officials to manipulate the “regime change” behind the scenes; no evidence that he ordered the Maidan militants to attack.

Is the New York Times really suggesting that Putin pulled the strings on the likes of Merkel and Nuland, secretly organized neo-Nazi brigades, and ruthlessly deployed these thugs to Kiev to provoke violence and overthrow Yanukovych, all while pretending to try to save Yanukovych’s government – all so Putin could advance some dastardly plot to conquer Europe?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Any evidence of that?

The Putin-Did-It Conspiracy Theory

But there is zero evidence that Putin engineered these events. There is no evidence that he got Merkel and the EU to overplay their hand; no evidence that he organized the neo-Nazi militias in Lviv; no evidence that he manipulated U.S. officials to manipulate the “regime change” behind the scenes; no evidence that he ordered the Maidan militants to attack.

Is the New York Times really suggesting that Putin pulled the strings on the likes of Merkel and Nuland, secretly organized neo-Nazi brigades, and ruthlessly deployed these thugs to Kiev to provoke violence and overthrow Yanukovych, all while pretending to try to save Yanukovych’s government – all so Putin could advance some dastardly plot to conquer Europe?

So unthinkable that Russia had anything to do with Crimea. About as unthinkable as Russia trying to assassinate the Pro-West Ukrainian candidate for President.

 

[tupac chopra]

Russia is providing 75% of the Crimean budget, while Ukraine is at war.
If preferring the former to the latter really supposed to indicate a political preference?

I'm not sure your question makes sense.
What we know is that one year on Crimeans are relatively happy with the situation. No doubt money plays a part in that.

Which option would you prefer? Or what realistic alternative seems better?