Skip to main content

View Diary: Donetsk Separatists Ask For Russian Incorporation (58 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Will of the people? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Texas Lefty, ER Doc

    Please tell me you aren't thinking this "referendum" was in any way legitimate or representative of anything.

    •  Zero sum argumentation is absurd; the validity (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ChadmanFL, LanceBoyle

      of the referendum is somewhere between 0% and 100%. You cannot simply erase from consideration those who did vote and be taken seriously.

      The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

      by Wolf10 on Mon May 12, 2014 at 11:29:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It was representative (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lawrence, Texas Lefty, ER Doc

        of the desires of the partisan groups who were running the "vote" only.  It certainly seems unclear whether any votes were actually counted, or whether the separatists merely announced the results they wanted.  After all, they haven't shown any respect for regular process so far and the "results" were essentially not really plausible.  It'd roughly be like having a bunch of armed Tea Partiers running a vote in Pennsylvania and then declaring that Rand Paul won the election with 98% of the vote.  It simply does not comport with any of the realities on the ground over the last 20years.

        Certainly, there's a strong argument for a debate and changes to how Ukraine is governed, but doing it by fake elections run by armed groups or foreign militaries is categorically NOT the way to do it.  We pretty much all know that no Kossack would support such a process in the US (ye gods, look at the outcry over merely having long voting lines in this country, much less the kinds of intimidation and lack on controls that was the case in this vote!), so my question is why are so many willing to endorse this vote as legitimate just because it happened in a foreign country that most, frankly, know quite little about.

        •  I don't even give much credence to our own (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ChadmanFL

          electoral process as a model for achieving representative governance. But putting that aside, it is possible to be critical of the process of the Ukrainian referendum without dismissing it as indicative of nothing worthy of discussion.

          I completely agree with your observation that "certainly, there's a strong argument for a debate and changes to how Ukraine is governed" and would argue that referendums offer an important means of including citizen input. It is unfortunate that this one was poorly executed but since it spooked elites on all sides it was a hasty, homemade, ad hoc affair. I would be most interested in the results of a more formal, well regulated and fair referendum and the fact that it was not had more to do with lack of official support than anything else.

          The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

          by Wolf10 on Mon May 12, 2014 at 12:07:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Indeed, the evidence is that it was in fact faked (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Texas Lefty, ER Doc

            Apparently, there's now recordings, posted May 7th of discussions that the result will be 89% in favor, precisely as was announced on May 11th.

            www.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/world/europe/ukraine.html?_r=0

            IN an interesting note, check out the logo of the Russian organization:

            http://barkashov.net/

            So, yes, the electoral process in the US has flaws, but this vote (and the Crimea vote) are in an entirely different universe of fakery.  Certainly, the fact that there were zero controls of any kind against fraud and intimidation, and the fact that the votes were entirely done by one party.  Would you trust the vote count in any "referendum" in the US if the entire process was handled by a coalition of Tea Partiers and white supremacists including tallying and announcing the vote?  Particularly if it announced 89% support for whatever agenda the coalition is pushing?  Particulary if all independent polling over the last many years showed stable opinion of no more than 25% in favor of it ever?  Then there's the violence against reporters and activists in both elections as well that further undermines any credibility.

            There's basically no credible basis for saying this referendum is indicative of anybody's opinion on anything.

            I think rather the better process is the one advanced by the Kyiv government and Prime Minister Yatsenyuk to have a roundtable discussion about future constitutional changes under a rational process is far better than ad hoc affairs run by lose affiliations of vets, Russian separatists, local neonazis and other politically disaffected men with guns.

            •  After Maidan, no more Maidans, appears to be the (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Lepanto, enhydra lutris, ChadmanFL

              position of Yats et al. Well, they got more than they bargained for so, yes, a roundtable discussion might be welcome relief.

              The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

              by Wolf10 on Mon May 12, 2014 at 12:34:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  not at all true (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Texas Lefty, ER Doc

                After all, there's a presidential election in two weeks, and it doesn't include the draconian anti-protest laws that Yanukovich had enacted (which you evidently support).  Frankly, you can't be attacking Euromaidan as antidemocratic and supporting the continuation in office of Yanukovitch without being wildly hypocritical.

                If you support democracy then it is pretty clear that Yanukovitch's departure was a very good thing, whatever flaws EuroMaidan has. At least they haven't tried to ban protests or arrest all the opposition leaders.  Yes, they've taken action against armed separatists working to support an invasion of the country, but then the US wasn't exactly gentle with the Confederacy, either.

                •  Rapacious and corrupt Western finance is the (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  fran1, ChadmanFL

                  the principal enemy from where I stand. To be sure there are other enemies and issues aplenty but for this moment in history almost anything that thwarts the expansion and aims of Western finance and its lackeys in D.C, London, Moscow, Geneva and elsewhere is not in all cases necessarily but in most cases probably to the good. If as Americans we renew our moral standing in the world by taking back our government from plutocrats I'll join the bandwagon for democracy elsewhere but the U.S. and its allies don't stand for much worth fighting for at the moment.

                  The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

                  by Wolf10 on Mon May 12, 2014 at 01:00:08 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Ooh (0+ / 0-)

                    That's a lovely tinfoil hat there

                    Too bad violent authoritarian regimes aren't something you are concerned with

                    •  Avoid name calling and stick to ideas if you (0+ / 0-)

                      wish to maintain civil discourse. Otherwise we have nothing further to discuss.

                      As for violent authoritarian regimes the U.S. currently and has historically supported them by the dozens. And I would add that U.S. finance capital is at present a greater threat to democracy at home and abroad than Putin could ever hope to be outside his very circumscribed geographical sphere.

                      The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

                      by Wolf10 on Mon May 12, 2014 at 05:23:55 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  sorry (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Wolf10

                        Believe it or not I logged in specifically to apologize and then saw your comment.  I was out of line, since I was responding to the conspiracy theories of others, and not what you wrote (others are peddling the line that the protests were bought by Wall Street or some such nonsense, which is NOT what you wrote).

                        Indeed, the US has supported such regimes, but the authoritarians were frequently quite homegrown, as here.  I'd agree that that is a bad thing, which leads me to wonder why people on this site are so willing to bed over backwards to make excuses for people like Putin, Yanukovitch, Assad, Maduro, and Al Sisi.  It seems that if you think that authoritarianism is bad, one should at minimum be critical of them and supportive of the mass movements that oppose them, instead of adopting the rhetoric put forward by authoritarians to justify their regimes and actions.

                        Sure, the financial industry is a massive threat, but then so too is authoritarianism.  We can critique both.  It isn't an either/or situation by any stretch of the imagination.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site