It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You are missing the point. Because they officially became autonomous Republic they were also officially granted constitutional rights - one of them being they could vote to become independent. It happened in 1991 so Ukraine cannot all of a sudden change their mind 20 years later and evoke Crimea's constitutional rights. Just like it cannot happen in America.
Of course autonomy does not equal independence but with Crimean autonomy came a RIGHT to become independent. By a democratic referendum. And it really doesn't matter that you think it's not fair all of Ukraine population doesn't have a vote about it - it is simply how it is and how politicians agreed upon in 1991.
I also cannot be completely sure how the voting went down, I'm reading 93% of the voters (80plus percent out of 1,8 million voters in Crimea) said yes to Russia but i know that in my country the number was even higher, 97% of all voters (88%) said yes to independence. I don't find it so hard to believe.
edit on 16-3-2014 by Exitt because: .
What occurred in 1991 was the collapse of the Soviet Union. Crimea was given to Ukraine by the Soviet Leadership in the 1950's. After 1991, Russia released all claims concerning Crimea.
As has been stated, they were autonomous under Ukraine, NOT independent. They cannot just up and decide to leave Ukraine. Any change in territory requires a nationwide referendum.
Can you please point out in the Ukrainian Constitution is says this about Crimea - Ukraine Constitution
Of course what I say does not matter. just as what you say does not matter.
The ability to become independent requires actions be taken for all Ukraine, not just Crimea via Russian troops.
You really need to read the agreements, from 1953 up to the present in terms of Crimea and its place in Ukraine.
Should we look into allegations of people with Russian passports voting in Crimean elections?
How about accusations of pro Ukraine supporters being intimidated to prevent the vote?
While Pro Russian media states a large Tartar turnout occurred, the Tartar population would disagree as they boycotted the elections.
And for rest, yes, everybody will deny...
But, I won't argue, you know what you know, I know what I know
"He [Bugarcic] said that, throughout the war, a tremendous, an extremely effective, propaganda campaign had been mounted by the Serbian military. The aim was to keep the populace believing their forces were mounting a spirited defence. "Using the state broadcaster, unofficial 'Russian intelligence' web pages and Army communiqués, the deception had been so successful that many people were fooled. My 22-year-old translator, Vlada Kopric, was one example. While he vehemently denounced the government-controlled RTS media network as spouting 'pure lies,' his explorations on the Internet had led him to the bogus Russian intelligence site. As a result, up until my November interview with Bugarcic, Vlada had truly believed that the Serbian military had successfully shot down 78 NATO aircraft. "He was devastated when he learned the truth."
"Belgrade, 01/06/1999 (MPA):
The Deputy Secretary of Information of the Serb government, Radmila Visic, claimed that Yugoslavia has shot down more than 190 NATO aircrafts since March 24, when the Alliance launched air raids against the country, in her interview at the Macedonian Press Agency. Mrs Visic accused NATO of concealing the actual number of its losses during the two-month war in Yugoslavia and reassured that when the hostilities are over, the Alliance will be forced to inform first of all the mothers of the dead pilots, who still don't know the truth. "Of course Americans and the rest of the NATO allies do not admit that they lost 190 aircrafts and they will not admit it in any of their briefings. However, even in the Internet, in NATO's web-site there are data that confirm this number and verify the claims of the Yugoslav army", said Mrs. Visic. "I am certain that when this is all over, then the international public opinion and especially the American one will face the Vietnam syndrome and then the mothers of the pilots of the shot down planes will be informed that their sons where killed in the raids against Yugoslavia", she stressed. When asked about why the Yugoslav authorities do not present photos or videos that confirm their allegations of having downed 190 planes, the Serb minister noted that even NATO itself has admitted that Yugoslavia has a remarkable strategy. "It is part of our tactics, not to show them. I, like a good soldier, will not give more information on this...."
reply to post by Xcathdra
Same story that happened with Kosovo, former Yugoslavia... Why Europe and rest of the world accepted that? You think Albanians really have rights to that land?
I've been there in 1999, when NATO was bombing Serbia and Montenegro... reason? No reasons...
......................."Russia is the only country in the world realistically capable of turning the United States into radioactive ash," anchor Dmitry Kiselyov said on his weekly news show on state-controlled Rossiya 1 television.
Kiselyov made the comment to support his argument that the United States and President Barack Obama were living in fear of Russia led by President Vladimir Putin amid the Ukraine crisis.
His programme was broadcast as the first exit polls were being published showing an overwhelming majority of Crimeans voting to leave Ukraine and join Russia.
He stood in his studio in front of a gigantic image of a mushroom cloud produced after a nuclear attack, with the words "into radioactive ash".
"Americans themselves consider Putin to be a stronger leader than Obama," he added, pointing to opinion polls which then popped up on the screen.
reply to post by CondorUnit
Not Albanians but Kosova people and yes they do have a right to that land.
Especially because 'neighbors' tried to exterminate them, that's a humongous reason to secure borders, don't you agree.
reply to post by Reinmax
No its not what it says.
Respectfully, read the Ukrainian constitution before jumping to a wrong conclusion. What it says is the federal government is responsible for territorial integrity of Ukraine, including the Crimea. It states if territory is to be changed, it requires an all country referendum and not just Crimea.
While Crimea is autonomous, there are areas they cannot wade into (Also specifically spelled out in the Ukrainian constitution - like unilateral voting to become independent, requesting foreign nations to send in military units, etc etc etc.
Crimea has had 2 votes over the last decade to become independent / change the relationship, which was voted down by a majority of the people.
Constitution of Ukraine - Title X The Autonomous Republic of Crimea
My question is WHY ARMED if your only taking about recon operations?
I am non American or English, so sorry for any mistake made in writing.
We have yet to see any proof that the drone was -
A - Brought down
B - That is was armed
The media carrying that story have yet to back up the story with any type of photo.
Does that apply to Israel as well?
Any chance of shooting me a link to the Crimean independence vote info?
Moldova declared itself an independent state with the same boundaries as the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1991 as part of the dissolution of the Soviet Union. A new constitution was adopted on July 29, 1994. A strip of Moldova's internationally recognised territory on the east bank of the river Dniester has been under the de facto control of the breakaway government of Transnistria since 1990.
I see a lot of bashing our president (administration) over their inability to react effectively to Russia.
My question, what do you suppose he do? What options does he have?
Shut the hell up and stop making empty ultimatums would be a great start.
If you cant back up your threats stop making them.
There's not a thread that goes by without the same predictable group complaining about the current administration. It's really starting to give me a headache, all partisan political beliefs aside. The majority of what I see is twisting, spinning, grasping, and even plain lies. Some things are actually legitimate concerns about Obama's real shortcomings. I just have to accept that some people just enjoy slapping each other on the back and pretending they are informed. It makes them feel just a little bit less powerless. None of these people would measure up as a good president. Most of the crap they spout would lead to a foreign policy nightmare if put into action, with more wars, more death, more of the same. 99% of you would accept huge campaign contributions from lobbyists and then bumble around the white house with your head up your butt for four years trying to push your extremely narrow agenda on a nation that does not agree with you. If you are really so brilliant, please run for president. At least put your actions where your mouth is in some way shape or form. Your words have become meaningless through repetition.
And not a thread goes by when an Obama apologist says "you couldn't do any better".
You have no clue who we are. This is the worst Presidency ever. Look at the polls.
You act like we are the only people against this feckless and worthless Administration.
Maybe for your headache you could sign up for Obamacare...if you can afford it.