Crimea and the Referendum

On Sunday, after weeks of growing tension and threats, citizens of the Crimean peninsula voted overwhelmingly in favour of re-joining the Russian Federation. In fact, of the 82% of folks that came out to vote, over 96% wanted to join Russia. After the votes were counted people celebrated in the streets, holding up the Russian flag and chanting in support of Putin and Russia. This sounds like the idealistic beauty of democracy. We gave people what they had wanted for so long, in the fairest way possible, a vote. Somehow however, this democratic action was spat upon by the West and deemed unfair and unconstitutional. Most of the West actually said that they would never recognize the vote. Isn't this very disrespectful both to the Russians and to the Crimeans? It's sending a message of unacceptance and of double standards. 

Before I delve deeper into that subject, let me dispel a few myths which may make this article seem incorrect. 

Firstly, let's talk about why the West is choosing to ignore the results of the vote, considering that the West prides itself on being democratic and just. Well, firstly, the West feels that the vote was influenced by scary presence of Russian troops in Crimea. Secondly, they feel that there were certain technicalities -which were avoided by Russia- in the Ukrainian constitution, which make the vote invalid. Why are both of these reasons absolutely and absurdly and utterly wrong? Because (with regards to the first reason) if the voters truly were scared of the repercussions of voting against annexation due to military presence, would they come out to polling stations with Russian flags and later go out and hold a massive celebration in support of joining Russia? Probably not. It is absurd to think such a thing,  considering that the votes are private and one could easily vote against annexation without it ever being known that they were the ones who cast the ballot. 

If a voter is against Russian annexation and they are bullied into voting against their beliefs by troops, would that same voter enter the city centre carrying a Russian flag celebrating? No, that voter would sadly retreat to their home and weep over their ballot. Finally, if there was to be any intimidation from either side wouldn't it have come from the new self-appointed provisional government? The one who's Prime Minister said that separatists should beware of having "the ground burn beneath their feet"? 

As for the second reason, let's understand it at a deeper level. The Ukrainian constitution basically states  that a referendum cannot be held in only one part of the country. Any referendum held must be held throughout the country, or be approved by the federal government. Firstly, would a self-appointed, pro-West government approve a referendum to be held in only one part of the country like Crimea? No, of course not! A part of the country, which speaks predominantly Russian and has a population make-up which is predominantly ethnic Russian, is most likely going to vote to separate from Ukraine and go to Mother Russia. Secondly, there have been other situations, situations in which the West has supported crossing the constitution of a country to hold a referendum for independence. Kosovo, is one such example. 

Kosovo belonged to Serbia (and still does technically belong to Serbia, as it hasn't really achieved total autonomy). When Kosovo, a region with a ethnic Albanian majority, said that it wanted to break off from Serbia, despite it historically being the origin place of Serbs, the West (namely the US) supported the decision, and immediately accepted Kosovo as independent  Now, let's not forget that Serbia is a place that had a constitution too. They don't just let any province that feels like breaking off, break off. There are certain procedures necessary for a region to officially become autonomous. These procedures however, were completely ignored by the US. Why? Well because it was in the West's interests to have Kosovo separate from Serbia. Oops! Did I just say that?!?! I meant, because there were special reasons for Kosovo, such as the protruding conflict and civil war in the 90s etc.. 

Looking at Kosovo's example, we can see that the US had itself created a precedent for regions to break off and become autonomous, without ever having to consult the government to which the region belongs, and without paying any mind to that country's lawful constitution. So then why would Crimea not be able to join Russia and separate from the Ukraine? The circumstances are ravishingly similar to those of Kosovo. Crimea has an ethnic majority of Russians, Crimeans speak Russian and for the most part -judging from the vote- Crimeans support Russia. Why are the Crimeans unable to defy the constitution and wishes of their self-appointed government, to separate from the Ukraine? Beats me, but it doesn't take a genius to realize that this sounds like setting a huge double standard on the part of the US. 

To me, what's really funny is that when the Ukrainian nationalists walk out into the streets protest a democratically elected government and set buildings on fire, all in hopes of ousting a president who really made the right choice with regards to the EU**, they are applauded as expressing their freedom and standing up to corruption. When Yulia Tymoshenko, a woman who stole tons of money from the Ukrainian people, is released from jail, she is hailed as a brave hero. Her corruption and wrong-doings are conveniently forgotten. Could it perhaps be because she is a puppet of the West? When the self appointed new prime minister of Ukraine says that separatist leaders will have "the ground burn under their feet" it is not deemed an act of aggression, an act of intimidation or a suppression of democracy and freedom? Rather it is encouraged as a taking a tough stance for the right thing. Doesn't that statement seem eerily threatening? Doesn't it seem to set a huge double standard? 

When Putin says something even remotely threatening in defence of Russia, he is called an authoritarian and antagonized. When the pro-Russian minority exercises its right to free speech, they are quickly antagonized and silenced, because of any reason that can possibly arise, even if it means disregarding an already created precedent. This doesn't sound very fair to me. 

The funny thing is that these folks in Crimea, of whom 96% voted to join Russia, should have a right to state their wishes, as anyone else. If these anti-Russian, anti-Yanukovich protesters are recognized and applauded, why are these pro-Russian voters spat upon? Why is there right to expression suppressed? Why is their wish for democracy unrealized? This sounds terribly fascist and very wrongly undemocratic. But because the West is the side which is being undemocratic, everyone goes along with it and doesn't give it a second thought. The West is refusing to recognize this democratic referendum because it isn't good for them. They don't want to see Russia grow and increase their power on the world stage. They want Russia to fall off the face of the Earth, or at least for Putin to. Russia is big and scary, not one to back down and worst of all, Russia calls out BS, making the US look plain stupid. Putin is letting the US make statements which are so easily rebutted on his part that the US actually harms itself. (For further evidence of such rebuttals by Putin, please read the following article by RT. It demonstrates a bunch of things that Putin said during his address to the Parliament in response to claims made by the West.)

If I were a political advisor for the US government, I'd tell them to just shut up, because anything they say can and will be used against them in Putin's court. Putin is on the right side of history in this scenario and despite the West's best efforts to propagate Putin as a dictator, they will fail. No amount of sanctions and malicious words can stop Putin. It is quite shameful for the West to be suppressing this freedom of expression in such fashion. 

When Kerry told Putin that if he pulls his troops out of Crimea, Ukraine will change its constitution to protect the rights of ethnic Russian minorities, Putin calmly responded by asking Kerry how he can be so sure of that unless he is the one controlling Ukraine and its constitution, exposing the US and  exposing Ukraine's new unelected government as a puppet of the United States. When the vote in Crimea happened, people marched out into the streets to celebrate joining Russia - they were elated. So obviously they had wanted this for a long time, but had been denied, and are still being denied due to a "technicality in the constitution", or of course because the US is just scared.

Today, a decree was signed by Putin recognizing Crimea as Russia. During his address to parliament, he was greeted by a standing ovation, when he called Crimeans, Russians. The West is losing this battle and needs to back off. They need to stop constantly putting themselves into other folks business. This conflict is between the EU, the Ukraine and Russia, no one else. The EU isn't going to take steps against Russia because they rely on them. If the US allows itself on so many "humanitarian" missions around the world, ones in which the folks being "protected" aren't even mainly American, why then is Russia not allowed to go to a place on a humanitarian mission and protect folks who are mainly Russian? 

Up until it was discovered that the killed protesters in the anti-government protests were killed by Maidan snipers, it was propagated in the West that they had been killed by the Yanukovich regime. A obvious fallacy. How dare the new self-appointed government propagate that Yanukovich should be tried by the ICC! It is their people who are killing and framing others. The utter travesties that are revealed daily in this case, are just that - travesties. It needs to stop. 

Hands off Russia and their business!

**Yanukovich could've have either taken the dumb risk of joining the economically failing EU, an EU which hadn't even yet guaranteed acceptance for Ukraine, rather just made it a possibility. An EU which offered Ukraine 10 times less the money that Russia had. Or Yanukovich could've done as he had, and went with Ukraine's long time ally of Russia, which had offered Ukraine 10 times more money than the EU.