I don't think this will stop putin.

What the population itself wants is much more representative than in Kiev. If we allow the change in Kiev with less than a majority how can we then fight the will of a much larger and clear majority in Crimea? It is hypocritical not to, especially given that Crimea is legally semi-autonomous and has always be recognized and self determining.

Can we both agree that we do not want to see civil war and the 10s of thousands of deaths (or hundreds of thousands) that would ensue?

As that is the clearest means of avoiding the widespread fighting you profess to fear.

I do believe a serious offer that includes constitutional protections and an EU type independence would.

The situation was moving toward civil war and it is even closer noe. The "standoff" has stopped that for the moment. But militias on both sides have formed and if Russia were to goo back to bases all that would happen is the militia and other citizens would stand firm in their place.

Think about it. There is a good chance if that happened There would be skirmishes between Ukraine or the maiden contingent ofNeo-nazis. That would definitely bring everyone into it, and could result in hundreds of thousand of deaths.

You are not arguing for a peaceful resolution; you are defending a Russian land grab. If you are going to support an imperialist venture, by all means, stand up boldly and say so: you will get more respect in the long run. Everyone prefers an honest rogue to a weasel....

No vote there can be trusted while the occupation continues.

Newthinking, the new Kyiv government recently made an offer of wider autonomy to Crimea, have you heard about that or do I need to find a link?

The problem is that now everyone's backs are up. If they really are willing to compromise on this they also need to tamper the rhetoric so that the people themselves can gain some confidence. But indeed it is very tricky at this point.

http:[link:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/05/arseniy-yatsenyuk-crimea-ukraine-ukrainian-pm_n_4902928.html|

www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/05/arseniy-yatsenyuk-crimea-ukraine-ukrainian-pm_n_4902928.html

Here is Ukrainian PM going on the record with the wider autonomy statement:

'..Yatsenyuk said Crimea must remain part of Ukraine, but may be granted more local powers. He said was in favor of establishing a special task force "to consider what kind of additional autonomy the Crimean Republic could get."..'

I am not saying that all the extrernal pressures are a good thing. I am just making the point that given where things are now at, they need to make a *real* solid proposal, in writing and with the agreement of the US (since we have been in the middle of it all along). Just my analysis and 2 cents.

which makes a vote in 9 days' time a farce.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/07/us-ukraine-crisis-osce-observer-idUSBREA2613Z20140307

the party of Regions (threatened most of their politicians, forced them to resign, burned down their offices. Same with other parties of the coallation) the end of May is not near enough time for representation to re-organize for half the country. It is a farce.

But in Crimea, where Nationalist parties have never reached anywhere close to half, there is much broader room for error and if everyone is honest they know where most of Crimea would stand.

Having said that, it indeed would be better to move it back. But I don't think that is going to happen. The chances of things remaining reasonable when out the window on the day that maiden broke the agreement and overthrew the government.

1. The change in Kyiv was enacted by parliament with a constitutional majority

2. There is no way to objectively determine what the Crimean population wants at this point while the region is being occupied by unidentified armed men that attack international observers

3. There has been no threat of civil war prior to the unidentified troops appearing on the ground as there has not been a single incident of violence against ethnic Russian population in the area

Are Putin and Crimean Russian authorities worried that a 3-month delay might jeopardize the pro-Russia outcome of the vote? Forecasting the political mood (and the status of Russian forces) that far into the future was too risky to base your foreign policy on an unknown referendum outcome. Plus the current diplomatic confrontation with Europe and the US could benefit from a favorable referendum outcome ASAP.

After all, a little over 40% of Crimeans are not ethnic Russians (Ukrainians and Tatar Muslims) and are likely to vote overwhelmingly to remain part of Ukraine. Among the ethnic Russians there will be some that see no need to be governed by people of their own ethnicity (imagine that) or are liberals who see a more liberal future with Europe than with Russia or see themselves as both Ukrainian and ethnically Russia and don't want to change that.

The outcome of a legitimate referendum (with a couple of months of debate and time to get monitors in place) would be far from a foregone conclusion. So it was decided to move the date up once and then once again so that the 'climate' for the referendum was more predictable and favorable. (Needless to say, a negative outcome to a referendum on becoming part of Russia would be a major embarrassment to Putin. Most Russian know that embarrassing Putin is not how you get ahead in this world.)

Also reports are that the only election monitors who will be invited are Russians. The UN and OSCE cannot even get peacekeeping monitors into Crimea, much less election monitors - so this is an ideal time to hold a referendum from the pro-Russian perspective.

I agree with you.
Nothing is clear and clean as it should be, but that is all a result of what happened two weeks ago when maiden bypassed the treaty and overthrew the government.

But even with the unclear status, the will of the people in Crimea is much more clear and transparent than in Kiev. The majority in Crimea has always favored close ties to Russia. They consistently voted for party of regions. The Fatherland party would not stand a chance of winning an election in Crimea. But the Party of Regions was elected in Ukraine nationwide.

How do you roll the clock back?

The only right they have is might, which as is often the case, will likely suffice....

And I look forward to someone posting the official Russian reply via RT.

Sid

For instance, most all of my links have been to liberal blogs, NGOs, newspapers, etc. It is disingenuous and somewhat inflamatory when some call out those with differing opinions, even if they did use RT on a topic as an alternative viewpoint. It would be nice if folks could have an argument without the labels.

Agreements signed 20 years ago when a country had a weak army surely do not apply now when the army is strong. I can't believe a true liberal would suggest such a thing.

republicans are quietly nodding their heads. They know the advantages of wasting so much money on an oversized military. You get to make up the rules that other folks have to live by, just as Putin is doing.

Russia is the only developed country with a military budget that is a larger part of their GDP than in the US. It's 4.5% in Russia, 4.2% in the US. Other notables: Ukraine - 2.8%; Germany - 2.0%; Poland - 1.9%, Canada - 1.2%; China - 2.0%.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS

All that extra money Russian citizens have spent on their military are paying off.

It is as critical to their survival as Panama or New Orleans are to us. So all the western papers and pundits can blather and bleat as it suits them, but Putin will never really let go. Fortunately, Obama and the EU leadership understand this as well.

Panama gets go remain free so long as their leaders understand who's actually in charge.

Seriously, stop playing games here. If Panama even winked at China or Russia we would be invading and arresting their leaders by the end of the week. They are free so long as they understand the limits of that freedom.

and see what it's like there before pontificating and acting as if you know everything worth knowing about it.

China or Russia"?Do you think that Chinese and Russian ships don't use the Panama Canal?

Or does 'winking' mean something much more dramatic to you than 'winking' means to most of us. Perhaps that Russia suddenly decides that Panama is the newest member of the Russian Federation and that "ethnic Russians" (there must be some in Panama somewhere) are under threat from Panamanian terrorists.

a Chinese company got the concession to clean up the waters of the bay of Panama just off the Pacific entrance to the Canal to make them safe for a beach to eventually be placed there within the city limits of Panama City.

Ridiculous.

There are many factors involved and it is not a simple situation. It is better for all if we recognize that. Tough talk is simply making the situation worse.

It's irrelevant because REALITY. You might not be familiar with the history of the last century, or be incapable of looking at a map, but I do not suffer these deficiencies. You are free to be as outraged as you like, but nothing meaningful will happen here. Obama is handling this correctly so far. He'll make some speeches, express outrage, maybe call for some minor sanctions, and that will be that.

"You might not be familiar with the history of the last century, or be incapable of looking at a map, but I do not suffer these deficiencies. You are free to be as outraged as you like, but nothing meaningful will happen here. Obama is handling this correctly so far. He'll make some speeches, express outrage, maybe call for some minor sanctions, and that will be that."

Pure BS. The only "reality" that makes violating international law "irrelevant" is bullshit Putin apoligia.

You have the ethical high ground, no question, but none of that matters.

Violating international law is not "irrelevant," and using "sanctions" to define "irrelevant" is beyond absurd.

Rather, I am saying that all the hand wringing and pontificating are irrelevant because NOTHING WILL HAPPEN.

It's Russian territory, and it is a vital national interest that they hold it. Countering this we have a whole lot of 'wouldn't it be nice if' nonsense. Yeah, it would be nice, no doubt, but that's not reality. Reality is that Russia will not abandon a critical piece of real estate, one that has already proven itself to be vital to their survival as a nation and even as a people, just because some folks in America think they aught to.

"Let me try again. I am not apologizing for Putin, who I detest...Rather, I am saying that all the hand wringing and pontificating are irrelevant because NOTHING WILL HAPPEN."

...that's not what you said or meant, and after insulting others for not understanding the situation, you went on to demonstrate your own lack of understanding of history.

This: "Irrelevant. Russia has vital strategic interests in the Crimea..."

...is not a statement implying "nothing will happen." It's defending Putin's actions.

left. It cost us billions to move everything, but we didn't invade the country. We've since been granted a new lease, and I'm sure one of the reasons is because we allowed for the legal process to decide and respected it.

The Chinese claim the famous nine-dash territorial waters line that scoops down deep as far as Malaysia and Brunei and takes in just about all the sea up to the beaches of the other nations that border that sea.

I'm having trouble keeping track of which islands or shoals are claimed by the Philippines and by China, but I believe they are the Spratleys.

I have also seen articles referring to instances of the Chinese stopping and harassing Philippine fishing boats in the South China Sea.

Maybe the Vietnamese will ask us back to Cam Rahn Bay if the Chinese get too rough. Stranger things have happened.

Big Vladdy.. no matter what. And, why? My guess is 'cause Putin's against the USA and President Obama. What do you think? Close?

I don't think affection for Putin or personal antipathy to Obama are significant motivating factors.

I do think that antipathy towards the US and a desire to make it out to be the Worst Country in the World are, though.

I think you'll see the same opposition to just about any other position the USA adopts, irrespective of who it's against, or who the president is.

They could survive with the strait dividing Crimea from Russia having one bank under Ukrainian control. They could survive with bases in Crimea. They already have, since Ukrainian independence.

piece:

With Journalists Under Attack, Crimea Faces ‘Information Crisis’ Ahead Of National Referendum
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024630765