Is Crimea part of Russia or is it its own country that joined the Russian Federation, like for example Croatia joining the EU? Notice I'm not asking if its part of Ukraine, because Ukraine is pretty much done there. They also have their own issues. Also are there any plans to change the highway numbering system in Crimea so it doesn't match Ukraine's?
I believe that Russia is annexing Crimea outright, just like Germany did with the Sudetenland in 1938.
Quote from: Brandon on April 13, 2014, 08:46:36 AM
I believe that Russia is annexing Crimea outright, just like Germany did with the Sudetenland in 1938.
No. Crimea voted to declare itself an independent republic from Ukraine, and then it agreed to become a constituent republic of the Russian Federation. (Similar to a US state)
Quote from: Thing 342 on April 13, 2014, 09:57:41 AM
Quote from: Brandon on April 13, 2014, 08:46:36 AM
I believe that Russia is annexing Crimea outright, just like Germany did with the Sudetenland in 1938.
No. Crimea voted to declare itself an independent republic from Ukraine, and then it agreed to become a constituent republic of the Russian Federation. (Similar to a US state)
basically the same thing, but with a pretence of democracy. The referendum, where electoral fraud clearly took place is the fig leaf that Russia is using to create enough doubt to avoid massive censure.
Oh, and the independence was done without asking the public - just as the coup that took place in Kiev was undemocratic (and similar to the kind of mob action that gave Hitler the Sudenland), the Crimean Governmental response was just as much so.
Crimea is Ukraine. Russia pretends to have annexed it. Done.
Ukraine: this generation's East-West Germany :no:
Quote from: ET21 on April 13, 2014, 11:40:27 AM
Ukraine: this generation's East-West Germany :no:
This is not that at all, no matter how you perceive the politics. That was a war-torn country made up of one primary ethnic group occupied by two opposing outside factions. This is a territorial dispute over a piece of territory that has been part of both entities' boundaries at various points in history, and contains folks from both ethnic groups. If shit continues to go down in mainland Ukraine, that's a weird sort of buffer state dispute- it's almost more like the Poland or Finland or Baltic States of this generation.
To bring this back on topic sort of, Google pushed out updates. For most of the world, if you go to Google Maps, there's a dashed line indicating that it is part of Russia but a flexible border. Google Maps Ukraine shows no border, as the rest of the world did recently, and Google Maps Russia shows a solid line indicating Crimea as definitively being part of Russia.
In Soviet Russia, Crimea annexes YOU!
Quote from: corco on April 13, 2014, 01:37:34 PM
For most of the world, if you go to Google Maps, there's a dashed line indicating that it is part of Russia but a flexible border. Google Maps Ukraine shows no border, as the rest of the world did recently, and Google Maps Russia shows a solid line indicating Crimea as definitively being part of Russia.
Gotta love local pandering. Showing it as a disputed border is, of course, the most accurate way of doing it. But then, politics. Good business to try and piss off as few of your customers as you can.
This does bug me because I tend to have this old-fashioned idea that two people looking at the same map should see the same thing. But of course, Google is Google, and that went out the window with them years ago. Everything is personalized to the specific user.
The question is begged, though: if you go to Google maps (or any other Google site) from Crimea, which version does it direct you to? :spin:
Quote from: Duke87 on April 13, 2014, 02:58:41 PM
Quote from: corco on April 13, 2014, 01:37:34 PM
For most of the world, if you go to Google Maps, there's a dashed line indicating that it is part of Russia but a flexible border. Google Maps Ukraine shows no border, as the rest of the world did recently, and Google Maps Russia shows a solid line indicating Crimea as definitively being part of Russia.
Gotta love local pandering. Showing it as a disputed border is, of course, the most accurate way of doing it. But then, politics. Good business to try and piss off as few of your customers as you can.
This does bug me because I tend to have this old-fashioned idea that two people looking at the same map should see the same thing. But of course, Google is Google, and that went out the window with them years ago. Everything is personalized to the specific user.
The question is begged, though: if you go to Google maps (or any other Google site) from Crimea, which version does it direct you to? :spin:
In Soviet Ukraine, border define you!
As far as I'm concerned, the people of Crimea voted to join Russia, so they should be free to do so without interference. At this point I can't find a non-biased source to confirm or deny allegations of vote fraud, but Crimea is mostly ethnic Russians who never asked to be part of Ukraine, so a very high percentage voting to join Russia is not inconceivable.
There is almost no neutral journalism on the subject either. The American and European media is very anti-Russian, and the Russian media is so pro-Russia that it's comical. This isn't a good guys vs. bad guys fight. There are no good guys here. It's worth noting that American/EU involvement in the former Soviet republics explicitly broke a promise the US made to Gorbachev during the fall of the USSR. Also, Russia has a naval base to Crimea, which is Russia's only access to the Mediterranean. Russia is well aware that international alignments can change quickly and that they need to be prepared for invasion even from countries that aren't a threat in the here and now. Because the terrain is so flat, that means depth. They don't have that right now thanks to the expansion of the EU and NATO.
They're really between a rock and a hard place. The EU wants to impose austerity. Russia wants Ukraine in its sphere of influence. Ukraine can't go its own way due to debt. There's really no good option here, and either way, things won't end well for the Ukrainian people. The whole Crimea issue is essentially a pissing contest between the US and Russia.
To bring the issue closer to home so that people can get a less US-centric perspective: imagine if Cuba seized control of Guantanamo Bay and Russia or China sent troops to help them.
So if Florida voted to secede, we'd just let them? Bullshit.
Quote from: Alps on April 13, 2014, 04:55:05 PM
So if Florida voted to secede, we'd just let them? Bullshit.
We especially would if the Cubans filled the state with armed soldiers just prior to the referendum.
Quote from: corco on April 13, 2014, 04:57:41 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 13, 2014, 04:55:05 PM
So if Florida voted to secede, we'd just let them? Bullshit.
We especially would if the Cubans filled the state with armed soldiers just prior to the referendum.
Or we'd declare war on Cuba. Not an option for Ukraine. Sovereign territory should never be violated from without. (Without once being the antonym of within)
Quote from: vdeane on April 13, 2014, 04:08:02 PMAs far as I'm concerned, the people of Crimea voted to join Russia, so they should be free to do so without interference.
voter interference like the Russian army camping out there?
QuoteAt this point I can't find a non-biased source to confirm or deny allegations of vote fraud
photos of pre-marked ballots? Even the people calling the coup in Kiev a horrible thing were posting/retweeting those pictures.
Quotebut Crimea is mostly ethnic Russians who never asked to be part of Ukraine, so a very high percentage voting to join Russia is not inconceivable.
Crimea is 57% ethnic Russian. Even if you account for the other 43% boycotting the poll, the very high percentage that was the result was a serious swing from the opinion poll done in January.
Sure, the Ukrainian government went from pro-Russia to anti-Russia (not really pro-EU) thanks to the coup. But Crimea was apparently independent (done by hastily-voted-on-by-regional-governments unilateral declaration that no one recognised*), so the Ukrainian government's stance on Russia didn't matter as the choice was independence or Russia.
*not Russia, not Transnistria, not South Ossetia, not Kosovo, no one. They talked about the Kosovo process, but Germany recognised it instantly, and much of Europe within an hour or two. That Russia didn't recognise Crimean sovereignty, nor any of the Russia-loving breakaway republics that support each other for statehood.
QuoteThey're really between a rock and a hard place. The EU wants to impose austerity. Russia wants Ukraine in its sphere of influence. Ukraine can't go its own way due to debt. There's really no good option here, and either way, things won't end well for the Ukrainian people.
The EU doesn't want to impose austerity, at least as a primary aim. The EU's aim is the same as the Russians - have Ukraine in its sphere of influence. Oh, and out of Russia's!
The Russians, AFAICS, seem more open to Ukraine dealing with both them and the EU, ditto the pro-Russian Ukrainians. But that's the 'little European' mentality of many in the EU at play.
QuoteThe whole Crimea issue is essentially a pissing contest between the US and Russia.
So the elections weren't free-and-fair, but Russia pushing the US to see how far the US would go? a big change in stance in this sentence from the others.
Oh, and where is the EU in that?
QuoteQuoteThe whole Crimea issue is essentially a pissing contest between the US and Russia.
So the elections weren't free-and-fair, but Russia pushing the US to see how far the US would go? a big change in stance in this sentence from the others.
Oh, and where is the EU in that?
I don't see this as really having anything to do with America. This has very, very little to do with the United States, and we've responded in kind. It's about Europe and Russia and the balance of power in that region. The US certainly has an interest in that, but it's not about us. The US, as often happens despite what we Americans like to believe, really isn't that important here.
Russia wants Crimea. Crimea wants Russia. Ukraine, the EU, and the US can complain and stomp their feet all they want but as far as I'm concerned they can go be part of Russia.
Regardless of whether the US should be involved, the US government IS involving itself. And it's been poking Russia ever since the Soviet Union fell. And Russia owns the base where all the troops were stationed.
I have things to do, so I'm gonna primarily respond with news quotes. Though AlterNet is more pro-Russia on its Ukraine coverage than I'd like (in particular, it tends to ignore that the Ukrainian president ruled like a ruthless dictator), it's the best I've found. The only other source I can really recommend and am familiar with is Dan Carlin's Common Sense (http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/csarchive) (episodes 270-272).
On the EU:
QuoteNot that they have much time for the EU, which has been pushing Ukraine to sign an association agreement, offering loans for austerity, as part of a German-led drive to open up Ukraine for western companies. It was Viktor Yanukovych's abandonment of the EU option — after which Putin offered a $15bn bailout — that triggered the protests.
http://www.alternet.org/world/fascists-oligarchs-and-western-expansion-explaining-ukraines-crisis
On the alleged election fraud:
QuoteAdmittedly, the leaflets were designed to be nearly identical to the real ballots. There are two important differences, however. Unlike the official ballot announced earlier this week by Crimean election head Mikhail Malyshev, the leaflets were printed on white paper. (The actual ballots are being printed on yellow paper.) The paper size of the leaflets also seems to be larger than the dimensions that Malyshev advertised this Tuesday. Finally, of course, there is the booming red checkmark on the leaflets. If you look carefully at RBC's picture, you'll see that the box around the checkmark doesn't close completely. There is a small space left unfilled, making it impossible even to suggest that the vote was cast after the ballot was printed.
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/03/15/russias-crimea-ballot-fraud-that-wasnt/
Quote from: Alps on April 13, 2014, 04:55:05 PM
So if Florida voted to secede, we'd just let them? Bullshit.
I personally would, though I realize most Americans wouldn't. Though in my ideal world, all of humanity would be united in a democratic one-world government with no political/economic elite allowed.
No money either. It completely contradicts human nature, but I'm not a fan of human nature anyways.
So the US should have just let the Confederacy go and slavery continue back in 1861?
QuoteRegardless of whether the US should be involved, the US government IS involving itself. And it's been poking Russia ever since the Soviet Union fell. And Russia owns the base where all the troops were stationed.
The US is very minimally involved- we've imposed some token sanctions but we're mostly acting in support of the EU because our membership in the UN Security Council and in NATO requires us to. Russia isn't doing this because of the US, it's doing this because it's worried Ukraine will become too connected to the European Union.
Quote from: US 41 on April 13, 2014, 09:37:37 PM
So the US should have just let the Confederacy go and slavery continue back in 1861?
Short version: I support the right of
the people to decide whether or not to secede as long as nobody is harmed.
Addendum: I'm pretty sure that there was no popular vote on the issue; the legislatures decided it fully.
Quote from: corco on April 13, 2014, 09:52:33 PM
The US is very minimally involved- we've imposed some token sanctions but we're mostly acting in support of the EU because our membership in the UN Security Council and in NATO requires us to. Russia isn't doing this because of the US, it's doing this because it's worried Ukraine will become too connected to the European Union.
The government's rhetoric begs to differ. Plus the US is involved in just about everything.
The Security Council is a whole nother issue... let's not get into that. I could rant about it all day.
Quote from: vdeane on April 13, 2014, 11:15:07 PM
Quote from: US 41 on April 13, 2014, 09:37:37 PM
So the US should have just let the Confederacy go and slavery continue back in 1861?
Short version: I support the right of the people to decide whether or not to secede as long as nobody is harmed.
Addendum: I'm pretty sure that there was no popular vote on the issue; the legislatures decided it fully.
And some parts of the southern states refused to go, while others had dual governments (Kentucky, Missouri). Eastern Tennessee sent many troops to the Union while southern Illinois sent a fair number to the Confederacy.
Vastly different situation than having one country send in troops prior to an "election" and then conducting the "election".
One needs to bring up the history of these places (Crimea, Ukraine) before one can fully assess the situation.
Crimea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Crimea) was not originally Russian. It has gone back end forth between empires for centuries. It's been Byzantine and Ottoman, as well as its own Khanate. Russia then annexed the peninsula in 1783 under Catherine the Great. Most of the people there were Crimean Tartars during this time period. A war was fought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War) in the area to prevent further Russian expansion at the expense of the Ottoman Empire.
Later, under Stalin, the Tartars were deported (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tatars) to Siberia while Russians were brought in. Stalin was rather famous for population transfers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union) (OK, deporting people to Siberia and dropping them off there with no supplies - one reason I really hate the man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga_germans) - he did it to my relatives). After Stalin, in 1954, Crimea was transferred to Ukraine.
Ukraine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ukraine) is a bit different story, one caught between east and west. Ukraine really began as part of the Kievan Rus. This is where most modern Russians believe that Ukraine really is a part of Russia - Ukrainians beg to differ. Moscow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchy_of_Moscow) grew in power after the Rus was overrun by the Mongols, and the area now known as Ukraine was separated from Moscow. By the 16th Century, Ukraine was almost entirely a part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Lithuanian_Commonwealth). Yes, it was a part of historic Poland.
Ukraine was then subject to the Three Partitions of Poland in the late 18th Century. Part was taken by Austria, part was taken by Russia. The Russians then attempted to suppress the Ukrainian language in favor of Russification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification_of_Ukraine). The Austrians just let things be. Post-WWI, about one-half of Ukraine was in the Soviet Union, and one-half was in Poland. The part in the Soviet Union was subject to the Holodomor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor) in the 1930s (believed to be an ethnic cleansing event). It was not until the Invasion of Poland by both the Nazis and the Soviets that Ukraine, as we know it today, was united again. Because of this, western Ukraine has always looked west, and eastern Ukraine tends to look east (due to the effects of Russification). It's also one reason why the Ukrainians are reluctant to have Russian as a recognized national language. They tried for independence after WWI, some allied with the Germans in WWII (until the Nazis decided to kill off the Ukrainians), and finally obtained independence after the breakup of the Soviet Union (an event that has never sat well with Russians).
Some of Putin's language indicates that he wishes to restore the Russian Empire. That means it's not just Georgia, it's not just Crimea, but also the possibility of Finland, the Baltic States, and Poland being on his target list as well.
I understand the last time Russia invaded Finland, it did not go so well for the Russians. Putin would have to be crazy to try again–invading Finland would certainly provoke a much stronger response from the EU, and the US would probably get involved as well.
Quote from: Alps on April 13, 2014, 04:55:05 PM
So if Florida voted to secede, we'd just let them? Bullshit.
I am okay with this. where's the meme of Bugs Bunny sawing off the droopdong?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 14, 2014, 02:08:59 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 13, 2014, 04:55:05 PM
So if Florida voted to secede, we'd just let them? Bullshit.
I am okay with this. where's the meme of Bugs Bunny sawing off the droopdong?
Quote from: Brandon on April 14, 2014, 10:17:11 AMSome of Putin's language indicates that he wishes to restore the Russian Empire. That means it's not just Georgia, it's not just Crimea, but also the possibility of Finland, the Baltic States, and Poland being on his target list as well.
The most obvious low hanging fruit is parts of Eastern Ukraine.
Transnisteria is hard to get to without invading Ukrainian Ukraine, so after Russian Ukraine - if they feel up to attacking a NATO state - is probably SE Latvia. Kazakhstan and Belarus will stay as-is, unless they are annexed Austria-like.
Quote from: english si on April 14, 2014, 03:32:06 PM
Quote from: Brandon on April 14, 2014, 10:17:11 AMSome of Putin's language indicates that he wishes to restore the Russian Empire. That means it's not just Georgia, it's not just Crimea, but also the possibility of Finland, the Baltic States, and Poland being on his target list as well.
The most obvious low hanging fruit is parts of Eastern Ukraine.
Transnisteria is hard to get to without invading Ukrainian Ukraine, so after Russian Ukraine - if they feel up to attacking a NATO state - is probably SE Latvia. Kazakhstan and Belarus will stay as-is, unless they are annexed Austria-like.
Much agreed. We'll have to see what Putin does next, but this is probably the closest we've been to WWIII since 1961. Should Russia decide on Latvia as a target, that would bring in NATO, including the US and the UK.
As far as I know, Putin's ambitions are primarily for a Russian-led Eurasian Union (to which Ukraine was offered membership), not a territorial re-integration. The NATO states will be an interesting issue, but I'm certain of one thing - NONE of America's business/political elites want to go to nuclear war over a country like Latvia, so the west will find a way out, somehow. They were admitted to NATO under the pretense that Russia would never be a threat again, which Putin has shown to be false. They're still as strong relatively as they were in the cold war though.
What I find really interesting is that these tensions were essentially predicted in George Friedman's book The Next 100 Years. The chapter on Russia is excellent.
To show that something is fishy about the referendum:
8-18 Feb 2014 poll - 41% for union with Russia
16 Mar 2014 referendum - 96% for union with Russia
official turnout - 83%, but Ukrainian speakers and Tatars (much more the 17% of the population - over twice that) were boycotting it.
Quote from: english si on April 15, 2014, 07:31:52 PM
To show that something is fishy about the referendum:
8-18 Feb 2014 poll - 41% for union with Russia
16 Mar 2014 referendum - 96% for union with Russia
I'd be interested in knowing more about the poll, especially since poll results are so easy to manipulate by question phrasing and sample sizes (for example, a majority of Americans support the ACA, and yet a majority also oppose ObamaCare).
Quote
official turnout - 83%, but Ukrainian speakers and Tatars (much more the 17% of the population - over twice that) were boycotting it.
Their fault for boycotting it then. The only thing one does by boycotting an election is reduce the chances of their side winning. Like the vote or not, it's the percentage of people who voted, not the percentage of eligible votes, that determines the result.
Quote from: vdeane on April 16, 2014, 06:38:17 PM
Quote
official turnout - 83%, but Ukrainian speakers and Tatars (much more the 17% of the population - over twice that) were boycotting it.
Their fault for boycotting it then. The only thing one does by boycotting an election is reduce the chances of their side winning. Like the vote or not, it's the percentage of people who voted, not the percentage of eligible votes, that determines the result.
Wait, are you really suggesting that people should feel obligated to participate in an election held by a bunch of guys with guns? Also, and I feel like this is under talked about, don't forget that older Ukrainians were around during Soviet times, when there were elections held by guys with guns, but those elections were largely farces. I can see why they would be skeptical to participate in that sort of process- they're not taking fair elections for granted like we do.
Now, perhaps the international community should have endorsed and perhaps orchestrated the referendum, to make voters in the Ukraine more confident that the election was a free and fair election, but that's another matter entirely.
Quote from: vdeane on April 16, 2014, 06:38:17 PMQuote
official turnout - 83%, but Ukrainian speakers and Tatars (much more the 17% of the population - over twice that) were boycotting it.
Their fault for boycotting it then. The only thing one does by boycotting an election is reduce the chances of their side winning. Like the vote or not, it's the percentage of people who voted, not the percentage of eligible votes, that determines the result.
Way to miss the point that the number of votes cast wasn't equal to the number of people who voted.
The share of Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine is much larger than the share of actual ethnic Russians. Ukrainians are an ethnic majority in all eastern oblasts, even if they are majority Russian speaking.
Eastern Ukraine is a bit more developed than central and western Ukraine because most Ukrainian industry is located there (mostly in the Donbass region). Losing eastern Ukraine will be a significant blow to the Ukrainian tax base. Western Ukraine is not as developed and perhaps outright poor in rural areas (there are many aid organizations in western Europe that support local communities in Ukraine).
Personally I get the impression the average Dutch doesn't really care about what happens in Ukraine. They probably don't support Russia's actions, but nobody wants to risk an armed conflict over it. We have to be realistic that accession of Ukraine into the European Union likely won't happen for decades. Many feel that Romania and Bulgaria was already a bridge too far.
Quote from: corco on April 16, 2014, 07:39:35 PM
Now, perhaps the international community should have endorsed and perhaps orchestrated the referendum, to make voters in the Ukraine more confident that the election was a free and fair election, but that's another matter entirely.
That would have been a good idea. I doubt that would have gotten the west to accept any result other than "Crimea stays with Ukraine" though.
Google Maps put a discrepancy border around the region, but seriously hints at it being part of Russia (by removing the Crimea/Russia border).
I don't recall the Crimea/Russia border being marked even before the current dispute.
Quote from: vdeane on April 17, 2014, 07:06:05 PM
I don't recall the Crimea/Russia border being marked even before the current dispute.
Google often does not mark borders in open water. See also: Malaysia/Indonesia, Spain/Morocco, Greece/Turkey, Corsica/Sardinia, UK/France, Alaska/British Columbia, Denmark/Sweden...
Quote from: vdeane on April 17, 2014, 02:06:02 PMThat would have been a good idea. I doubt that would have gotten the west to accept any result other than "Crimea stays with Ukraine" though.
It would have done - you wouldn't want to piss off Russia without good reason, and the good reason for sanctions is that Russia invaded another country. Again.
Quote from: Chris on April 17, 2014, 01:53:48 PMWe have to be realistic that accession of Ukraine into the European Union likely won't happen for decades. Many feel that Romania and Bulgaria was already a bridge too far.
Ukraine and Turkey are string-along candidates. They will never be allowed in, as the French will never come around, but the EU will keep dangling the carrot.
Quote from: english si on April 18, 2014, 06:34:40 AM
Quote from: vdeane on April 17, 2014, 02:06:02 PMThat would have been a good idea. I doubt that would have gotten the west to accept any result other than "Crimea stays with Ukraine" though.
It would have done - you wouldn't want to piss off Russia without good reason
The west has been pissing off Russia ever since the cold war ended by expanding NATO even after promising not to. It would be like Russia expanding the Warsaw Pact to Mexico.
Quote
and the good reason for sanctions is that Russia invaded another country. Again.
Russia bringing more troops to their own base in Crimea is even less an invasion than the Union resupplying Fort Sumter after the Confederacy seceded.
Quote from: vdeane on April 17, 2014, 02:06:02 PM
Quote from: corco on April 16, 2014, 07:39:35 PM
Now, perhaps the international community should have endorsed and perhaps orchestrated the referendum, to make voters in the Ukraine more confident that the election was a free and fair election, but that's another matter entirely.
That would have been a good idea. I doubt that would have gotten the west to accept any result other than "Crimea stays with Ukraine" though.
I don't think the west cares about Crimea as such. It's a poor, weak province whose only strength is as a Navy base, which was Russian anyway. That's one reason Russia is getting just a slap on the wrist.
The west does care about provinces of another country getting swallowed up, based nonexistent abuse of a minority community and fraudulent elections. The world hoped we were past that kind of behavior, and it's been very exceptional since WW II. And there's no need for it except Russian nationalism, they already had the naval base which is their only legitimate interest in Crimea.
Quote from: english si on April 18, 2014, 06:34:40 AM
Quote from: vdeane on April 17, 2014, 02:06:02 PMThat would have been a good idea. I doubt that would have gotten the west to accept any result other than "Crimea stays with Ukraine" though.
It would have done - you wouldn't want to piss off Russia without good reason, and the good reason for sanctions is that Russia invaded another country. Again.Quote from: Chris on April 17, 2014, 01:53:48 PMWe have to be realistic that accession of Ukraine into the European Union likely won't happen for decades. Many feel that Romania and Bulgaria was already a bridge too far.
Ukraine and Turkey are string-along candidates. They will never be allowed in, as the French will never come around, but the EU will keep dangling the carrot.
There are probably a dozen reasons Turkey doesn't get in, but there are several good reasons it shouldn't, starting with an abysmal human rights record, enforced laws against free speech ("insulting Turkishness"), an ongoing century-long ethnic cleansing policy... Ukraine looks like a model candidate in comparison.
Not to mention that Turkey is also a muslim nation. Many in Europe will feel insecure knowing that. Turkey should never ever ever be allowed to join the union. Many nations in the EU might ditch the union if Turkey was allowed to join, because they would want to amp up their national security. Remember crossing from one EU nation to another EU nation is as easy as going to a different state in the US.
Quote from: US 41 on April 19, 2014, 08:10:52 PM
Not to mention that Turkey is also a muslim nation. Many in Europe will feel insecure knowing that. Turkey should never ever ever be allowed to join the union. Many nations in the EU might ditch the union if Turkey was allowed to join, because they would want to amp up their national security. Remember crossing from one EU nation to another EU nation is as easy as going to a different state in the US.
Only within the Schengen Zone though. Schengen to UK, for example, is not as easy as crossing from say, Illinois into Wisconsin.
Quote from: US 41 on April 19, 2014, 08:10:52 PM
Not to mention that Turkey is also a muslim nation. Many in Europe will feel insecure knowing that. Turkey should never ever ever be allowed to join the union. Many nations in the EU might ditch the union if Turkey was allowed to join, because they would want to amp up their national security. Remember crossing from one EU nation to another EU nation is as easy as going to a different state in the US.
Hm... I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that religious bigotry is probably
NOT the wisest thing to advocate in a publicly viewable forum. Oh well, sucks for you.
Quote from: US 41 on April 19, 2014, 08:10:52 PM
Not to mention that Turkey is also a muslim nation. Many in Europe will feel insecure knowing that. Turkey should never ever ever be allowed to join the union. Many nations in the EU might ditch the union if Turkey was allowed to join, because they would want to amp up their national security. Remember crossing from one EU nation to another EU nation is as easy as going to a different state in the US.
The Turks are mostly Muslim, but Turkey has a secular government, just like most Europeans are Christian but their governments are mostly secular. Religion has been a private matter for individuals to decide since 1921.
It was only a few hundred years ago they thought the Protestant and Catholic countries of Europe could never, ever get along.
There are several reasons for not admitting Turkey, but the population being mostly Muslim isn't one of them.
Quote from: kkt on April 20, 2014, 12:52:02 AM
The Turks are mostly Muslim, but Turkey has a secular government, just like most Europeans are Christian but their governments are mostly secular. Religion has been a private matter for individuals to decide since 1921.
The Turkish government has, not without controversy, been working to westernize the country for quite a while. All in the hopes of being admitted to the EU, which they see (rightly so) as offering greater opportunity than instead associating with middle eastern countries.
Quote from: kkt on April 20, 2014, 12:52:02 AM
There are several reasons for not admitting Turkey
Such as the fact that 99% of the country is in Asia, and therefore it has no business being part of something called the
European Union?
Quote from: US 41 on April 19, 2014, 08:10:52 PM
Remember crossing from one EU nation to another EU nation is as easy as going to a different state in the US.
Not in all cases. Border control is mostly eliminated between countries that are in the Schengen Area, but the Schengen Area is
not coterminous with the EU. The UK and Ireland have opted out of Schengen, and four countries in southeastern Europe have joined the EU but have not yet joined Schengen as some issues remain to be resolved before they can. Presumably, were Turkey to be admitted to the EU, the other member states would make sure it had reached a sufficiently stable, developed, and trouble-free state before it would be allowed into Schengen.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 20, 2014, 02:34:49 AM
Quote from: kkt on April 20, 2014, 12:52:02 AM
There are several reasons for not admitting Turkey
Such as the fact that 99% of the country is in Asia, and therefore it has no business being part of something called the European Union?
I think it has more to do with Turkey would have the second highest population in the EU, and nobody wants to give a "fringe" country that much power. That's not even considering that all those Turks would suddenly have the right to reside in western Europe. Romania and Bulgaria were sketchy enough to admit, and those countries are about a third and a tenth the size of Turkey. Admitting Turkey would be like admitting ten Bulgarias in terms of the possible immigrant hit, and nobody is ready to do that.
Quote from: Alps on April 20, 2014, 12:11:16 AM
Quote from: US 41 on April 19, 2014, 08:10:52 PM
Not to mention that Turkey is also a muslim nation. Many in Europe will feel insecure knowing that. Turkey should never ever ever be allowed to join the union. Many nations in the EU might ditch the union if Turkey was allowed to join, because they would want to amp up their national security. Remember crossing from one EU nation to another EU nation is as easy as going to a different state in the US.
Hm... I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that religious bigotry is probably NOT the wisest thing to advocate in a publicly viewable forum. Oh well, sucks for you.
I don't think US 41 expressed advocacy. I think it is stating the unspoken (or spoken) truth for much of Europe. Turkish immigrants are constant targets of violence in Germany, for example. Muslims in France are not permitted full public expression of their faith. The EU is not a paradise of tolerance, if there was any idea that it was.
Turkey, on the other hand, has a long ways to go in reaching even Europe's imperfect standards, and it has nothing to do with Islam. On the contrary, Turkey itself marginalizes public expression by practicing Muslims (women wearing the headscarf has been banned since 1924, and allowing it has been declared unconstitutional).
Criticizing the dead fascist icon Kemal Ataturk in public has been a jailable offense, as has been questioning the decades-old campaign against Turkey's Kurdish citizens, which not long ago involved things like language bans. Worst is the government's unrepentant denial of the Armenian genocide, a tried and convicted crime whose victims were never compensated and mentioning which is only recently possible without jail, but not necessarily without murder (see: Hrant Dink).
So no, it's not great to be a Muslim Turkey trying to get into a mostly secular/Christian EU. But it's not good to be anything but an obedient Turk in Turkey, which is going to keep Turkey out of the EU as much as or more than a Muslim population will.
Putin behaves as if he won "the game" as they say on the "intrnetz". But no, the world community will not tolerate any nation send troops first, then annex any piece of land in the world even though this came out of a "free and fair election by their people" and Russia's advances to claim Crimea is no exception.
In reading comparisons to other land conflicts in the world: Mexico called...and they want the Southwest states back (LOL). :sombrero: CA, Texas and the four corners of the southwest was formerly Spanish-Mexican lands until the Mexican-American war (1846-48), which the US were the victors and claimed the prized lands.
^^ The Mexican War was a bit more complex than that, as was the Texas Annexation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_annexation). I do not find the two comparable.
Following that logic, centuries of conquering also created Russia. I think the reasoning today, though, is "we don't do that anymore" in regard to simply marching in and annexing land.
It was a quiet war, but any breach of a nation's sovereign territory should be regarded as nothing less than an act of war.
It's more like Germany's annexation of Czechoslovakia and Austria. 1. Send agents provocateurs to commit various crimes and incite civil disturbances. 2. Claim ethnic members of your group are being oppressed. 3. Claim your military is vital to protect the oppressed minority. 4. Hold a sham election.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 18, 2014, 04:33:33 PMThere are probably a dozen reasons Turkey doesn't get in, but there are several good reasons it shouldn't, starting with an abysmal human rights record, enforced laws against free speech ("insulting Turkishness"), an ongoing century-long ethnic cleansing policy... Ukraine looks like a model candidate in comparison.
Oh yes. The question is one about what the EU is - is it a superstate, or is it a trading block? Certainly you can't have them in a superstate, but maybe you can have free trade with them - some argue that the free trade would be a political carrot to get them to improve the human rights record, others argue that free trade will aid the free trade of ideas, and the human rights record with improve (plus as they get economically free, they will want to be politically free). And it is quite clear that the not-good reasons are known to Turkey, so they only pretend to jump through the human rights hoops, while knowing that it doesn't matter.
As a candidate, Turkey gets lots of economic and political benefits from that status. As it isn't ever going to be a member state, it's human rights issues are not going to fixed as what benefits they get from candidacy make the additional benefits of membership not big enough to warrant giving the people freedom. As it is a candidate, there's not a desire to for the EU to severely condemn its human rights record and risk damaging their ties with the West. One of the reasons why Turkey is a candidate is to stop it looking South and East too much - just as the EU doesn't want Ukraine looking NE to Russia. (More so Ukraine, as the insular EU sees Russia as competition, not a potential place to do business. The Arab world is full of smaller countries not in a superstate, so the blinkered EUrocrats can't understand how they could be better placed economically than the EU).
Oh, and Cyprus will block them due to the Northern Cyprus question (which should have been sorted before letting Cyprus in the EU, so that a solution could have been reached).
Quote from: kkt on April 20, 2014, 12:52:02 AMThe Turks are mostly Muslim, but Turkey has a secular government, just like most Europeans are Christian but their governments are mostly secular. Religion has been a private matter for individuals to decide since 1921.
In theory, not in practise. The "insulting Turkishness" law works well to suppress non-Muslim views being openly espoused (and socially the exclusion that comes from not being Muslim is huge). The strict lacite of Ataturk still applies, with headscarf bans and so on, but while the Government is neither Islamic nor pro-Islamic, it is anti-non-Islamic. Especially at local levels.
QuoteIt was only a few hundred years ago they thought the Protestant and Catholic countries of Europe could never, ever get along.
Actually the wars of religion had almost nothing to do with religion and a lot to do with whether a country was ruled by Bourbons or Hapsburgs.
QuoteThere are several reasons for not admitting Turkey, but the population being mostly Muslim isn't one of them.
No it is a reason - arguably it's the dominant one. Even more ironically it is the country that invented the lacite (aggressive separation of both Church and State, and Religion and Politics) that Turkey practises that is most against Turkey joining the EU and this bigoted reason is a major one driving that Frankish opposition.
That they are Muslim just isn't a good reason to block them (Algeria used to be in the EU, when it was part of France). Nor a sensible one if the EU is serious about religious freedom in Turkey (rather more cultural than governmental, but still not great from the government).
Quote from: corco on April 20, 2014, 02:39:28 AMI think it has more to do with Turkey would have the second highest population in the EU, and nobody wants to give a "fringe" country that much power.
Especially as it's a good 10%, and maybe a bit more of the population, live in Europe (and we don't have issues with wholly Asian Cyprus, nor the outlying areas in the Caribbean, Africa and South America). Turkey is also growing in population, while Germany is shrinking fast: the UK (mostly through migration) will be the most populous EU country, at about 70 million, before too long (though Turkey would have over 90 million at that point).
The official reason for not officially considering Ukraine as a potential candidate a few years ago was that it was "too big" (Belarus was "too scary", Moldova "too poor"). OK, that came from one of those xenophobic 'little European' French Eurocrats, but I don't see Eastern Europe, nor the nations like the Netherlands and the UK that love trade (though like less being the places where immigrants to/within the EU/Schengen end up) pushing for Ukraine to be considered.