i see there being high probability of the Mosque bombing which ignited the civil war in Iraq, as being the work of a third party. There are many other potential false flag activities in recent time. Israel being home to many. With lots of historical events having been established as factual false flags.

The following two paragraphs are not real, just a bit of satire from me:

How will the referendum be conducted? Well to make sure everyone gets a fair chance armed self defense forces will go to every house and ask "Are you with us or what?". At least 100% approval is guaranteed. Only population could decrease slightly.

And when will the referendum be held? Well, we had to make it earlier. It was yesterday. Every member of the self defense forces was for it. Those who weren't aren't in the force anymore.



Okay, this is pure speculation and probably not true. But the referendum is still a farce. There are armed forces in the area, there is not enough time, it's not prepared, there was no discussion, it's not clear what will happen to the minorities or to people who don't want to be russian, and so on...

I just wonder, why are they making this really bad show when even a fool should be able to see through it easily? Maybe the participating leaders need it to convince themselves that what they are doing is fully okay (Look we even asked the people quickly once after invading the area and replacing all important persons, so it must be okay.).

Crimean Tatar TV made a poll about joining Russia. Only 16% of people voted for joining Russia. Shortly after they presented results online, Tatar TV website was taken down.

Nonesense!

I am sure 140% Crimean population wants to be part of Russia - empire under flaming sun!

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/18k1daz57fwuujpg.jpg

No I think the data is 300% population is for Russia - Long live the Soviet Union !

Do they really think we are that dumb?

Well, it is tatar-oriented TV channel, most of them don't want Russia. Still, if site was blocked, it is kind of sad.

Yeah that vote is going to be a joke. Probably all the mercenary soldiers will get votes too.

When last asked only 5% of the population wanted to be part of Ukraine, and indeed there were... certain manoevrings to keep them in Ukraine after repeated votes for them not to be. If the USSR had lasted longer Crimea may well have been independent when it went.

Not that these sorts of things get much mention in the media, indeed most people seem to think that the whole issue has blown up conveniently and without any context in the last two weeks.

But they weren't asked if they want to be part of Russia, but if they want to be independent. There is party called Russian Unity that want to Crimea to be united with Russia. They managed to get astonishing 4,02% of votes during last election.

Honestly is the common sense answer to let Crimea become part of Russia and then Ukraine can move much faster toward NATO and EU membership? Yes, that's probably the most common sense answer.

However we can't expect countries to just be fine with a neighbor coming in and occupying their territory and taking it. The international community has to make it clear that's unacceptable, because it is, even if the outcome makes sense.

I see this all over the internet but since when do two wrongs make a right? Even if I agreed with everything you wrote, which I almost do, I don't see how it matters one diddly-fuck when it comes to whether Russia is in the right or wrong on this.

Also we didn't keep land in any of those countries (though I do understand the concept of cultural and financial imperialism).

The problem comes about because you have to have some way of actually defining 'right and wrong' in a geopolitical sense. The idea is to have rules- international laws- which are developed by general consensus and adhered to by all without fear or favour, much as individuals are expected to in any given country whether they're politicians or police or doctors or teachers or fast food technicians.

So the problem with the way the west acts is that we like to think of ourselves as the fair lawman in town, upholding international norms against evil doers. But by any objective measure we aren't even slightly fair. We are happy to break the rules ourselves when it's in our best interests or convenient to, and happy for our friends to do so too. It only becomes a problem when it isn't our friends doing it. We like to act as if we have Moral Imperative, and many in the public like to think that we have Moral Imperative. But we actually act exactly the same way as others with the same realpolitik explanations and influences, but dress our acts up in PR and convince ourselves we have the best of intentions, while those other guys don't. We want the cake of morality, but to eat it too whenever we want a snack.

So, ultimately yes, two wrongs do not make a right, though I'm personally unconvinced that the Russians are wrong here, since Crimea has a history of being anti Ukraine and is only a part of it due to Nikita Krushchev giving it to his own SSR and the USSR breaking up inconveniently. But, there can be no doubt that we'd happily and blithely commit a third, future, wrong if it were in our interests to, and dress it up as the right thing to do, whatever international law says. Then, we'd expect Russia and everyone else to go along with it. Most people would consider a corrupt lawman far worse than a mere criminal committing the same act.

Really though, there's no such thing as right and wrong at the high echelons of diplomacy. Those lies we tell ourselves are for the little people, those with no real power. For the powerful there's what you can get away with, and what you can't.

Yes, but the tl;dr version is that the US is the "world's only superpower", so whatever they do sets an example for other countries. By invading Iraq/Afghanistan they effectively set a precedent which weakened the international concept of sovereignty.

I'm not a fan of military interventions made by US, but there is big difference between US and Russia. Russia is annexing conquered lands. Well, few years before Kruschev, Crimea was ethnically cleansed. If it wouldn't be, then it wouldn't be now dominated by Russians. Also it wasn't always part of Russia, it was conquered by them.

Using this thinking, Poland have the right to invade Lviv, after all it was Polish until 1945 and still a lot of Poles live there. Germany have the right to invade western Poland. Lithuania can invade Belearus and oh boy, I don't even want to start talking about ex-Yugoslavian countries.

If we will start looking at historical borders in Europe then pretty much every country have right to invade his neighbors.

There are plenty of regions in Eastern European countries where Russians are majority. If you allowing Russia to conquer regions dominated by Russian ethnicity, then you pretty much opening them doors to invade any other Easter European country.