The claim, often made, that the non-participation of Crimean Tartars invalidates the result of the Russian Annexation referendum, does not hold up to the lightest scrutiny, showing how shallow the Western disinformation system assumes its citizens to be. (And likewise with Venezuela, Syria, Hong Kong, Ukraine, Libya, Honduras, the War on Drugs, Immigrant Invasions, etc, etc.)
This point is central, as the Russian Annexation is the #1 justification for Sanctions against Russia, and the recently increasing belicosity towards Russia. (Imagine the nerve of those Russians--interfering with our world re-sculpting project, which just happens to take away their key ports.)
In this post, I'm going to rely on facts from Wikipedia. I financially support and use Wikipedia on a daily (if not hourly) basis. But I also understand that Wikipedia is based in the USA and relies on volunteers, which means it may not be immune from Western bias (which is widely believed in the antiwar sector). In no way would I ever expect it to have pro-Russian bias, except in topics of limited general interest.
First of all, according to the 2014 Census, the Crimean population was 10.6% Tartars, and 67.9% Russians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea
The official Referendum result was 97% favoring annexation.
The Majlis of the Tartars claimed the results were invalid because only 34.2% of Tartars were able to participate.
Post-election polls by Gallop showed 82.8% of Crimeans supported the result.
Post-election polls by Pew Research showed that 91% of Crimeans considered the Referendum to be free and fair, and 88% said that Kiev should respect it.
The 88% number looks to me like the best assessment of the pro-Annexation sentiment, with sub-population bias removed. I would call that total level of support "overwhelming", although Western countries and organizations have endlessly worked to discredit it. Western countries have a clear Imperial imperative to deny Russia the port it has had for most of 200 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum
Needless to say, the apparent policy of the USA is "separation for thee, but not for me." Not that it should be made universal! Separatism is a bourgeois concept that almost never works out for the best. The major historical tendency has been towards unification, for historical necessities. Ultimately, the best would be one government for the whole world and all the people controlling it. Separatism is moving backwards from that, each into it's own enclave, all the better for local strongmen to control and wage proxy wars with Imperial support.
False unifications like the European Union don't count. The European Union is a neoliberal unification, based on the infinite mobility of ficticious captial and the far less real mobility of human and real capital. It rejects cultural and welfare unification, which are the most important aspects of any unification. In the end, it's not much different from any other worker-robbing Investors Rights Agreement (commonly and falsely called Trade Agreement).
This has relevance to a lot of proxy separatist conflicts the USA has stirred up around the world: Ukraine, Hong Kong, Syria, Libya, and China itself.
Currently, the Hong Kong movement appears most like a foreign- and oligarch- backed separatist movement, aka "Color Revolution," with organization from those sectors being obvious and substantial. However, to the degree that it may also represents a true-Democracy movement, support change to 1-person-1-vote for Chief Executive, that would be a good thing in principle by universal standards. But is that simply the picture on the red cape being flashed before the charging bull of popular unrest and violence, to be pulled away at the last moment?
Best is for US never ever to spend one cent of federal money for "influencing" distant government progress through NED, CIA, DOD, whatever. If US Oligarchs choose to give money to their friendly oligarchs-to-be in other countries, that should be capped at some level--as with other "capital flows." Even allowing that at all, we should expect it from others.
Even if local self-determination movements are fully ethical and desirable, assisting them appears and probably is corrupt.
Likewise, not one cent of federal money ought to be spent to promulgate or support sanctions, which are an act of war.
This point is central, as the Russian Annexation is the #1 justification for Sanctions against Russia, and the recently increasing belicosity towards Russia. (Imagine the nerve of those Russians--interfering with our world re-sculpting project, which just happens to take away their key ports.)
In this post, I'm going to rely on facts from Wikipedia. I financially support and use Wikipedia on a daily (if not hourly) basis. But I also understand that Wikipedia is based in the USA and relies on volunteers, which means it may not be immune from Western bias (which is widely believed in the antiwar sector). In no way would I ever expect it to have pro-Russian bias, except in topics of limited general interest.
First of all, according to the 2014 Census, the Crimean population was 10.6% Tartars, and 67.9% Russians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea
The official Referendum result was 97% favoring annexation.
The Majlis of the Tartars claimed the results were invalid because only 34.2% of Tartars were able to participate.
Post-election polls by Gallop showed 82.8% of Crimeans supported the result.
Post-election polls by Pew Research showed that 91% of Crimeans considered the Referendum to be free and fair, and 88% said that Kiev should respect it.
The 88% number looks to me like the best assessment of the pro-Annexation sentiment, with sub-population bias removed. I would call that total level of support "overwhelming", although Western countries and organizations have endlessly worked to discredit it. Western countries have a clear Imperial imperative to deny Russia the port it has had for most of 200 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum
Needless to say, the apparent policy of the USA is "separation for thee, but not for me." Not that it should be made universal! Separatism is a bourgeois concept that almost never works out for the best. The major historical tendency has been towards unification, for historical necessities. Ultimately, the best would be one government for the whole world and all the people controlling it. Separatism is moving backwards from that, each into it's own enclave, all the better for local strongmen to control and wage proxy wars with Imperial support.
False unifications like the European Union don't count. The European Union is a neoliberal unification, based on the infinite mobility of ficticious captial and the far less real mobility of human and real capital. It rejects cultural and welfare unification, which are the most important aspects of any unification. In the end, it's not much different from any other worker-robbing Investors Rights Agreement (commonly and falsely called Trade Agreement).
This has relevance to a lot of proxy separatist conflicts the USA has stirred up around the world: Ukraine, Hong Kong, Syria, Libya, and China itself.
Currently, the Hong Kong movement appears most like a foreign- and oligarch- backed separatist movement, aka "Color Revolution," with organization from those sectors being obvious and substantial. However, to the degree that it may also represents a true-Democracy movement, support change to 1-person-1-vote for Chief Executive, that would be a good thing in principle by universal standards. But is that simply the picture on the red cape being flashed before the charging bull of popular unrest and violence, to be pulled away at the last moment?
Best is for US never ever to spend one cent of federal money for "influencing" distant government progress through NED, CIA, DOD, whatever. If US Oligarchs choose to give money to their friendly oligarchs-to-be in other countries, that should be capped at some level--as with other "capital flows." Even allowing that at all, we should expect it from others.
Even if local self-determination movements are fully ethical and desirable, assisting them appears and probably is corrupt.
Likewise, not one cent of federal money ought to be spent to promulgate or support sanctions, which are an act of war.
No comments:
Post a Comment