Quote:Quote:
And she's perfectly right.
However, it's not a question of giving but rather returning.
Crimea belongs to Ukraine, period. And it has since before Ukraine left the USSR.
Crimea was transferred to the Ukrainian SSR only in 1954 by Khrushchev, the majority of the population are ethnic Russians. Two referendums have been conducted on the status of the peninsula throughout the 1990s and both of them showed people wanting to either gain independence or join Russia, but were ignored by the Kiev regime.
But then again, Ukrainians themselves are delusional Russians as far as I am concerned. Ukraine as an independent state itself is largely a foreign invention. Indeed, historically some of the strongest advocates of "Ukrainian nationalism" have been foreign powers. The Swedes, the Austrians, the Germans, and now the Americans. Ukraine itself exists as an independent state mainly because it is an extremely convenient tool for rivals of Russia who want to weaken it (something that US National Security Advisor, the infamous Zbigniew Brezinski, basically pointed out in his 1998 book The Grand Chessboard).
That being said, Crimea has even less of a claim to being "Ukrainian" than the rest of that territory given it's history and population.
So what causes you to make this statement? I'm curious. The polls also show otherwise:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_st...ndum_polls
Quote:Quote:
The results of the survey by the Broadcasting Board of Governors, conducted 21–29 April 2014, showed that 83% of Crimeans felt that the results of the March 16 referendum on Crimea’s status likely reflected the views of most people there. Whereas, this view is shared only by 30% in the rest of Ukraine.[151]
According to the Gallup's survey performed on 21–27 April, 82.8% of Crimean people consider the referendum results reflecting most Crimeans’ views,[152] and 73.9% of Crimeans say Crimea’s becoming part of Russia will make life better for themselves and their families, just 5.5% disagree.[152]
According to survey carried out by Pew Research Center in April 2014, majority of Crimean residents say the referendum was free and fair (91%) and that the government in Kyiv ought to recognize the results of the vote (88%).[153]
A poll of the Crimean public was taken by the Ukrainian branch of Germany's biggest market research organization, GfK, on 16–22 January 2015. According to its results: "Eighty-two percent of those polled said they fully supported Crimea's inclusion in Russia, and another 11 percent expressed partial support. Only 4 percent spoke out against it. ... Fifty-one percent reported their well-being had improved in the past year."[154]
Bloomberg's Leonid Bershidsky noted that "The calls were made on Jan. 16-22 to people living in towns with a population of 20,000 or more, which probably led to the peninsula's native population, the Tatars, being underrepresented because many of them live in small villages. On the other hand, no calls were placed in Sevastopol, the most pro-Russian city in Crimea. Even with these limitations, it was the most representative independent poll taken on the peninsula since its annexation."[154]
These are fairly dated at this point, but I have read that more recent polling essentially shows the same picture as the ones above, I can provide more links if you want.
As for the point of it being "illegal" or whatever. So was the coup in Kiev in 2013-2014, but apparently overthrowing the democratically elected government and murdering police officers is perfectly acceptable if the situation aligns with US interests, seeing how Victoria Nuland was handing out cookies and John "Braindead" McCain was there cheering them on. Clearly laws are minor trivialities as far as the elites are concerned, who violate them whenever it suits their interests and then make up excuses, so who cares at this point if it's "illegal".
Also that would depend on how you interpret it. A referendum was conducted that showed the people's democratic will, and subsequently the local authorities went through the necessary legal procedures for the peninsula to become part of the Russian Federation, which Putin signed into law. Crimea has a greater claim to legality than America's Kosovo project, yet the same countries that support the Kiev regime also recognize the Albanian mafia state as being independent and legitimate.
Quote:Quote:
Got a video link? I'd like to see this.
It's from a recent interview with her on state television, I believe this is the one where she said it. It's about a half an hour long but I do not remember the exact time stamp at which said the "people want a world without borders" comment. If you haven't seen it may be an interesting watch anyway though. Here it is:
Quote:Quote:
I'm saying she made some excellent points and raised an uncomfortable question which Putin evaded under the same pretext of why he invaded Ukraine ("coup d'etat blah blah, Maidan, blah blah, do you really want that HERE?" bullshit).
Sure, some of the points she made were legitimate grievances, but I cannot help but respond to the second part of your sentence. Invaded Ukraine?
Sorry but the only Russian tanks I see rolling down the streets of Kiev right now are the ones used by the Ukrainian army. This whole "Russia invaded Ukraine" thing is a joke. As a retired German NATO general said, if that were the case Russia could easily invade Ukraine in 24-48 hours--especially given the Ukrainian army's poor performance in the southeast against militiamen.
Quote:Quote:
Agreed on that point, the opposition doesn't need to be "liberal". I mean Putin is no conservative his shtick to the contrary. Classical conservatism (and classical liberalism for that matter) is about minimizing the role of the government in your life so you're free to go about your business. And Putin's high horse and constant whining about the West's policies while he's practicing the same interventionism he decries is laughable.
The difference is Putin's interventionism has been completely defensive and directly in response to Western aggression.
Crimea ---> US-supported coup in Kiev threatens Russian interests directly.
Syria ---> US-sponsored jihadist invasion threatens to overthrow a Russian ally and create yet another chaotic mess (Libya 2.0).
Also, classical conservatism/libertarianism is effectively not applicable in Russia, at least not under current conditions. This is ironically a point that I agree with the opposition on. They say that Russia is an empire and within its huge imperial borders it cannot have a successful democracy. This experiment has already been tried twice -- 1917 and 1991-1999. Of course, it failed. I agree with that statement, but unlike them I do not see that as a bad thing since I am not a libertarian or a democrat.
Quote:Quote:
BUT let's put aside whether or not Sobchak is a legitimate candidate and instead address the fact that she asked Putin great questions and brought up great points which he didn't address at all.
He just evaded them and said do you want another Maidan? In other words, his approach is to attempt to frighten people into keeping him in power under the guise that Oceania is at war with Eurasia; (therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia.)
- Putin doesn't participate in debates: true or false?
- Putin has been in power for a long time (the immovability of power to which she referred). Most every democratic country has checks and balances in the form of term limits to prevent abuse and complacency.
- People are terrified to even rent a speaking space to an opposition candidate
- Government criticism and opposition is met with murder, imprisonment, threats, etc. Candidates to the presidency are character assassinated by the Novosti Press Agency (I mean, Russia Today) and allegations are fabricated agains them
- Press secretary Peskov claiming that the opposition is unripe and Putin claiming that they've no positive platform to run on. Excuse me, but is that for them to decide or for the people of the country?
Your bring up some valid points about the political system. I think the government is making a poor decision in blocking the opposition from effectively taking part in elections, because given the polling done by even pro-Western firms it seems their result would be pretty low anyway.
At the same time, given the geopolitical situation right now, it is valid concern that the US State Department is probably hoping for something along the lines of Maidan to happen in Russia. That's why the sanctions were implemented, with the hope of getting people's lives ruined enough to make them angry at the Russian government for it and get them to rise up. These "color revolution" regime change operations are quite well documented by this point.