Thoughts on the Crimean Referendum
Godwin's law states that as a debate continues the probability of someone making a comparison with Hitler and the Nazis approaches unity. But in the case of what Russia is trying to do in the Crimea, I'm going to make that comparison right at the start.
Of course, Putin's agents in Ukraine have already been justifying Russia's actions and condemning the interim Ukranian government by accusing them of being Nazis or Fascists and threatening Russian speaking residents of Ukraine, so I am not the first person to do so.
Basically, Russia'a actions in using armed men to cut off part of the Ukraine, and then holding a referendum which did not offer a real choice to justify annexation, is straight out of the Nazi playbook as used when taking the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia and later when claiming the Polish corridor.
It is entirely possible that if the Ukraine had decided in a democratic manner to give the people of the Crimea a choice between the status quo, greater autonomy within Ukraine, Independence, or Union with Russia, that the latter would have been the most popular option.
But a hurried referendum under Russian guns with only two of those options on the table is not a democratic choice, it is a fig-leaf to cover a naked land grab.
That is why even Russia's closest ally China abstained when the issue was put to the vote at the United Nations - the Chinese have been on the wrong end of that kind of power grab a few times in their own history.
Ukraine is not a member of NATO and any attempt at military intervention on this occasion would be disastrous for all concerned.
Putin has damaged Russia as well as Ukraine with his actions and it is important that he is made to realise that. Otherwise he may try this tactic once too often, and blunder into World War III. The risk of such a conflict is now higher than at any time since the Berlin Wall came down.
By breaking the assurances which were given to Ukraine by Russia, Britain and the USA that if they gave up nuclear weapons their terrirorial integrity would be respected, Putin has also put the cause of nuclear non-proliferation back decades. Why should Iran, Pakistan or NorthKorea believe similar assurances now?
The line in the sand has to be that if Putin invades a NATO country - including one of those which used to be part of the Soviet Union - there will be a military response. Otherwise there is no point in having NATO. And without NATO every country in Europe is vulnerable.
Of course, Putin's agents in Ukraine have already been justifying Russia's actions and condemning the interim Ukranian government by accusing them of being Nazis or Fascists and threatening Russian speaking residents of Ukraine, so I am not the first person to do so.
Basically, Russia'a actions in using armed men to cut off part of the Ukraine, and then holding a referendum which did not offer a real choice to justify annexation, is straight out of the Nazi playbook as used when taking the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia and later when claiming the Polish corridor.
It is entirely possible that if the Ukraine had decided in a democratic manner to give the people of the Crimea a choice between the status quo, greater autonomy within Ukraine, Independence, or Union with Russia, that the latter would have been the most popular option.
But a hurried referendum under Russian guns with only two of those options on the table is not a democratic choice, it is a fig-leaf to cover a naked land grab.
That is why even Russia's closest ally China abstained when the issue was put to the vote at the United Nations - the Chinese have been on the wrong end of that kind of power grab a few times in their own history.
Ukraine is not a member of NATO and any attempt at military intervention on this occasion would be disastrous for all concerned.
Putin has damaged Russia as well as Ukraine with his actions and it is important that he is made to realise that. Otherwise he may try this tactic once too often, and blunder into World War III. The risk of such a conflict is now higher than at any time since the Berlin Wall came down.
By breaking the assurances which were given to Ukraine by Russia, Britain and the USA that if they gave up nuclear weapons their terrirorial integrity would be respected, Putin has also put the cause of nuclear non-proliferation back decades. Why should Iran, Pakistan or NorthKorea believe similar assurances now?
The line in the sand has to be that if Putin invades a NATO country - including one of those which used to be part of the Soviet Union - there will be a military response. Otherwise there is no point in having NATO. And without NATO every country in Europe is vulnerable.
Comments
Totally understandable? Possibly.
Justified? Absolutely not.
I don't believe anyone, including Vladimir Putin, wants a war, but it is his miscalculations that are most likely to cause one if he repeats the tactic he has used in Ukraine anywhere else.
Russia had guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine and there is no possible way a sane person can dispute that Putin has broken that guarantee.
Suppose Hitler had sent troops into the Sudetenland, held a referendum or election under Wehrmacht and SS guns in which 97% of Sudeten citizens voted Nazi, would you argue that his attitude was "totally understandable" that "nonsense" and "threats" from people like Churchill was more likely to cause World War II by antagonising Hitler?
Oh wait, that's exactly what Hitler did do.
And trying not to antagonise Hitler worked really well for Chamberlain didn't it?
Who is threatening whom? All the EU did was try to negotiate a trade treaty with the Ukraine. When Putin persuaded the former President of the Ukraine to reject it and sign a closer deal with him instead, the West was willing to accept Ukraine's decision. If the previous regime hadn't made grotesque and murderous errors in their handling of the demonstrations by their own people against this decision, that would probably have been that.
The West has been very careful not to threaten military action against Russia, and was right to avoid such threats.
Diplomatic and economic pressure is another matter entirely.