Of course, but you can't deny it's selective morality. If Russia wouldn't have occupied Crimea, all those people raising their fingers now still wouldn't know or care. My point is, I can't take that outcry seriously.
European Politics
- Thread starter Forostar
- Start date
Of course, but you can't deny it's selective morality. If Russia wouldn't have occupied Crimea, all those people raising their fingers now still wouldn't know or care. My point is, I can't take that outcry seriously.
D
Deleted member 7164
Guest
Well Crimean Tatars have been promised a lot of some seats. I don't really know how Ukraine/Crimea legislature works, but they will significantly increase their presence in top representations like gov't and parliament.
A week ago their leader traveled to Tatarstan to talk to Republic of Tatarstan president, few days ago media reported they agreed with new Crimea authorities regarding situation of Crieman Tatars in a new state (which legally applies if and once Crimea becomes a Russian Federal subject). Russian Tatarstan is richest Russian Federal subject.
AFAIK, Crimean Tatars participated in this referendum.
I've always said, Kosovo was Pandora's Box. "West" ignored a bigger part of international law by recognizing independence, and spit on it when ICJ ruled that Kosovo effort was legit.
Kosovo case has no connections with Croatian or Bosnian cases. It's a different beast, I can elaborate that in great detail, on request.
Anyways, it's also good to note that Crimean population in whole wasn't very happy when Khruschev handed them over to Ukraine in 1954.
By the way, any comments on this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...s-for-referendum-on-secession-from-Italy.html
Brought on funny connotations in our local press, since my city was under Most Serene Republic for about half a millennium.
A week ago their leader traveled to Tatarstan to talk to Republic of Tatarstan president, few days ago media reported they agreed with new Crimea authorities regarding situation of Crieman Tatars in a new state (which legally applies if and once Crimea becomes a Russian Federal subject). Russian Tatarstan is richest Russian Federal subject.
AFAIK, Crimean Tatars participated in this referendum.
I've always said, Kosovo was Pandora's Box. "West" ignored a bigger part of international law by recognizing independence, and spit on it when ICJ ruled that Kosovo effort was legit.
Kosovo case has no connections with Croatian or Bosnian cases. It's a different beast, I can elaborate that in great detail, on request.
Anyways, it's also good to note that Crimean population in whole wasn't very happy when Khruschev handed them over to Ukraine in 1954.
By the way, any comments on this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...s-for-referendum-on-secession-from-Italy.html
Brought on funny connotations in our local press, since my city was under Most Serene Republic for about half a millennium.
Black Wizard
Pleb Hunter
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
I am not sure I buy that. There are tons of people that never heard of them ... not that they did not care before and now do ... at least in the US
The Flash
Dennis Wilcock did 9/11
That's true. I'm sure not many people had even heard of Crimean Tatars, I'm just very sensitive about the matter as it's quite personal.
I know, and I'm sorry if I offended you in any way.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
What does it matter if people would not care, compared to what is going on now. Something has happened recently. It did not only draw attention, it also brought fear upon a minority. A fear which is -just like their history- not that difficult to recognize.
The referendum was illegal. According to Ukrainian law, and according to international law. It was held under threat of an invasion.
By the way: Not even 60 percent of the Crimean population is R. 80% of Crimea voted? 97% of these voted to join? That's a combination that's hard to believe.
Some people trust certain journalists out there. Journalists which have followed what's going on there. At this point, it's still possible to have journalists out there. The ones who report to foreign media are the ones that are not censored.
A quick glance at R occupation with military on the streets, R policy under Putin, doesn't sound like a safe, or nice prospect.
Why uncritically?
Last edited:
An article I read the other day (Crimea: Competing Self-Determination Movements by Tetyana Malyarenko and David J. Galbreath) published in July 2013, i.e. before Euromaidan, stated that a majority of both Russian and Ukrainian Crimeans favoured separation from Ukraine.
Can you name them and give credentials? Can you tell me what makes them neutral and objective? What makes you so sure those reporting to foreign media are not censored, and more than that, don't report a particular picture that sells papers in the west?
And street battles, fascist protesters and rampant corruption in Ukraine is a safe, nice prospect?
Because I haven't seen a hint of criticism on the version spread by western media by some people, not a single question if what we are being fed by the evening news is correct, not a shred of interest in an opposing point of view.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
I can't prove that a journalist can be trusted for 100%. But I am also not alarmed that a certain person should not be trusted. E.g., I have seen a journalist that is out there and who is doing his reports live for radio and television. I have not yet heard or seen anything which could indicate that what he is selling is nonsense. I have not yet read a report that Dutch media in general should be mistrusted (have a bad name).
In other words, I need to trust my own judgement. As soon as I have a reason to mistrust something or someone, or if anyone will say that I am wrong, I am the first to admit it.
Would you mention some indications why some foreign journalists would not be neutral? I am listening, critically. ;-)
edit:
Thanks for mentioning that article. I am curious to read it.
In other words, I need to trust my own judgement. As soon as I have a reason to mistrust something or someone, or if anyone will say that I am wrong, I am the first to admit it.
Would you mention some indications why some foreign journalists would not be neutral? I am listening, critically. ;-)
edit:
Thanks for mentioning that article. I am curious to read it.
Yes. They need to sell papers, need to make easy headlines, and need to transmit a picture that is easy to present in a five-minute news segment or a three-page article. They shouldn't scare away sponsors or readers. They need to serve a market. Ergo they do what the market demands.
Unfortunately, I haven't found it to be freely available to non-academic servers. You can read the abstract here, though: http://opus.bath.ac.uk/36013/
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
You're sketching an image that I have of Russian "freedom" of press (controlled media), especially the last three sentences.
Dr. Eddies Wingman
Brighter than thousand_suns
In this situation I'm quite happy with Norwegian news media. The main papers seem interested in showing the nuances, not only showing Russia as the big bad wolf. I'm not so impressed with our Foreign Minister, who just seems to talk in headlines when talking about the referendum in Crimea (basically he says it is illegitimate and against international law. We already know that Western governments are of that opinion, Mr. Minister)
What is clear, though, is that Russia have soldiers in Crimea and not only in their bases. The circumstances of the referendum are not suited to give it legitimacy. That does not mean the result doesn't reflect the will of the majority, but the numbers are too overwhelming to be believed.
As for the sanctions the US and the EU are now imposing on some high-profile Putin supporters: Are they justified? The US and EU don't care. They want a certain response from Putin and impose sanctions because they think it's a way of forcing that response. This is basically chess. A chess game that can turn really unpleasant when Russian gas supplies come into play.
What is clear, though, is that Russia have soldiers in Crimea and not only in their bases. The circumstances of the referendum are not suited to give it legitimacy. That does not mean the result doesn't reflect the will of the majority, but the numbers are too overwhelming to be believed.
As for the sanctions the US and the EU are now imposing on some high-profile Putin supporters: Are they justified? The US and EU don't care. They want a certain response from Putin and impose sanctions because they think it's a way of forcing that response. This is basically chess. A chess game that can turn really unpleasant when Russian gas supplies come into play.
Crimson Idol
Caveman
Unless I have misunderstood somewhere (please correct if so), there are two differences between favouring separation from Ukraine then and now. The first is that the Ukranian government itself has changed since then, and the second is that it is now not just about separation, but about joining Russia instead. Many may wish to leave the Ukraine and become a country themselves, but not have any desire to join Russia, and with that as the alternative may even see Ukraine as the lesser of two evils so to speak.
To me, it comes down to the thought that this particular election is being held under rapidity and at the best, abnormal circumstances. There should have been more negotiation with the Ukraine to ensure a fair election. But it's one of those situations where it probably hasn't changed the outcome. Today this is a coup. In 50 years, historians may see it as a liberation.