March 16th, 2014

Crimea “votes” to secede from Ukraine

The results:

Fireworks exploded and Russian flags fluttered above jubilant crowds Sunday after residents in Crimea voted overwhelmingly to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. The United States and Europe condemned the ballot as illegal and destabilizing and were expected to slap sanctions against Russia for it.

Ukraine’s new government in Kiev called the referendum a “circus” directed at gunpoint by Moscow — referring to the thousands of Russian troops now in the strategic Black Sea peninsula after seizing it two weeks ago.

But after the polls closed late Sunday, crowds of ethnic Russians in the regional Crimean capital of Simferopol erupted with jubilant chants in the main square, overjoyed at the prospect of once again becoming part of Russia.

The Crimea referendum offered voters the choice of seeking annexation by Russia or remaining in Ukraine with greater autonomy. After 50 percent of the ballots were counted, Mikhail Malishev, head of the referendum committee, said more than 95 percent of voters had approved splitting off and joining Russia.

I have no doubt some people in Crimea are overjoyed. Maybe more than half. But 95%? No fair vote is 95%. And there’s no reason to think this was a fair vote:

Ethnic Ukrainians interviewed outside the Ukrainian Orthodox cathedral of Vladimir and Olga said they refused to take part in the referendum, calling it an illegal charade stage-managed by Moscow. Some said they were scared of the potential for widespread harassment.

There was never any question the vote would be for secession; no other result would have been allowed.

As for what the US, NATO, and Europe will do, I predict sanctions that will have little effect. And the eastern Ukraine, which is similar in Russian-leaning tendencies to Crimea, may be chomping at the bit to follow Crimea. It’s western Ukraine that wants greater ties to the west.

Oh, and by the way, let’s look at a little history in the area:

Crimea may have a majority Russian population today, but it hasn’t always been that way.

The peninsula’s dark history of ethnic cleansing is visible in the following chart from Reuters.

The chart shows a collapse in the population of native Crimean Tatars from 34.1% in 1897 to zero in 1959, marking brutal harassment leading up to Soviet leader Joseph Stalin’s forcible deportation of the entire population in 1944, with nearly half dying in the process. It took decades for the population to climb back to 12% by 2001.

While the population of Ukrainians and especially Russians rose, the percentage of the population falling into an unlisted category also fell from more than 20% in 1921 to around 5% in 1959. This was a consequence of the deportation of Armenians, Bulgarians, Greeks, and other groups.

Here’s the chart:

CrimeaEthnicity

Stalin paved the way.

41 Responses to “Crimea “votes” to secede from Ukraine”

  1. Q Says:

    Better than a long bloody civil war i suppose…

  2. Charles Says:

    Q; Who says that it will NOT lead to a long bloody civil war?

    Russia seems to want to return to its old Soviet (or Tsarist, if you prefer) borders and seems intent on nothing to stop it from getting there.

    That Russian forces have seized a gas distribution plant in the Ukraine near the Crimea border does send a message to other countries near Russia – do as we say or you could be next.

    Obama has clearly wanted a weaker United States and now he has one.

  3. Beverly Says:

    This blogger has a link to a fascinating and hair-raising interview with Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov. Those of you who haven’t seen him really should listen to the whole thing. This was filmed nearly 30 years ago, but it’s a chilling warning for us today, even more than it was then (he died in 1993).

    The blogger is a Russian who came to America when she was 8.

    Scroll down to see the video, embedded.

    http://thelibertyzone.wordpress.com/2014/03/14/my-putin-paranoia-fyi-some-sources-cited-are-in-russian/

  4. Beverly Says:

    Bezmenov talks at some length about the phenomenon of the Western (and Indian, actually) “Useful Idiots,” which we’ve discussed at length here (origins of the pathology; incurability of same, etc.).

    He was a KGB propagandist, and worked to con the Western “journalists” and “intellectuals” and “celebrities” who visited the USSR, as well as spreading lies while visiting their countries. Of note: as he became bitterly disillusioned, he tried to slip information to some of the “journalists,” but says he had no luck whatsoever. They simply deflected anything that didn’t chime with the Communist propaganda.

    He was involved with a 1967 cover story in LOOK magazine, e.g., that he says was a tissue of lies and pro-Soviet propaganda.

    Yuri warned us that we are in a real, total war with the Left, worldwide; that it will take us a generation to reverse the brainwashing of our students and instill them with proper patriotism and appreciation of freedom.

    And he’s now been dead for 21 years. What has changed? Well, we have a communist president, for one.

  5. Lady Lee Says:

    Q: What is “proper patriotism and appreciation of freedom”?

    A: Libertarian Brainwashing

    Those things aren’t tangible, Bev.

    A multiracial society instilled “with proper patriotism and appreciation of freedom” is a failed nation.

    Your race is your Nation; Homogeneity is strength.

    Diversity is a disaster.

  6. Irene Says:

    “But 95%? No fair vote is 95%.”

    “The Phildadelphia Inquirer reported today that, in 59 precincts in inner-city Philadelphia, the GOP nominee received not a single vote. And according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, nine precincts in Cleveland returned zero Romney votes.”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/romney-earned-zero-votes-in-some-urban-precincts/

    So, what does this say about the good ol’ USofA?

  7. Eric Says:

    Broken windows theory of law enforcement …

    Russia is aggressive on the Ukraine because when the US self-sabotaged and ceded the lead on the Syria problem, it signaled to Russia (and the world) that the US is letting go of our hegemonic authority in the world order.

    Of course, we ceded the lead on the Syria problem to Russia because the Dems went all in on the false narrative of the Iraq enforcement, and beyond just a 2008 election propaganda trick, Obama’s foreign policy has been *defined* by the false narrative of the Iraq enforcement. And the GOP conceded the false narrative of the Iraq enforcement.

    Dominoes.

  8. neo-neocon Says:

    Irene:

    If polls reveal that inner city black people will be voting 98% for Obama, I have no trouble believing that the actual vote could reflect that in a small area such as a precinct. Why would it not, if the precinct is populated virtually entirely by inner city black people?

    But that’s a very small, homogeneous area. In a country, or even in a fairly large section of a country (such as Crimea), where it is already known there are divergent opinions, such lopsided votes are bogus.

    Of course, they can also be bogus in these US precincts. But probably only slightly, because the trend is clear: inner city blacks are almost 100% for Obama. After the 2012 election, I looked into those reports of many such precincts casting not a single vote for Romney. It was true (here’s an article about the phenomenon, and here’s another).

    In fact, I might write a post about this some time. It’s a very interesting phenomenon.

  9. neo-neocon Says:

    Charles:

    A United States with more “flexibility.”

  10. neo-neocon Says:

    Beverly:

    And yet our liberals/left got such a great chuckle out of stupidheads Romney and Palin who warned that the Russian bear had not turned into a pussycat.

  11. rickl Says:

    Is it even possible to have a fair and honest election?

    I don’t just mean in the Crimea; I mean anywhere.

    I would say that it’s only possible if all involved are honest and believe in fair play. If any participant simply wants to win at all costs because “the end justifies the means”, then all bets are off. In that case elections are nothing more than a ruse to entertain the masses and allow the rulers to claim legitimacy.

  12. skullbuster Says:

    “It’s not the people who vote that count. It’s the people who count the votes.” (Joseph Stalin)

  13. rickl Says:

    Great link, Beverly.

    I love Nicki. I keep bumping into her here and there around the ‘net.

    I have not watched the whole 1 1/2 hour interview with Yuri Bezmenov, but I have watched some shorter videos of him on YouTube. If I were President, I would award him the Presidential Medal of Freedom posthumously. He tried to warn us.

  14. Ymarsakar Says:

    No fair vote is 95%

    What do you call DC voting 93% for Obama then in 08?

    And the South voting 95% for Democrats? Black inner city 90% for Democrats?

  15. Ymarsakar Says:

    Beverly, I saw old Bezmenov’s video interview in around 2007.

    One reason I realized that the extent of Leftist power in the US was more than the popular belief thought it was.

    Conventional thinking back a few years ago was mainly that the Left were composed of special interests, not an alliance of one god, one authority, one destination. Those special interests were taken in isolation, unions as a separate problem from PP abortion, as a separate problem from black crime, as a separate problem from immigration. TO the Left, these operations were all one and the same, carried out by different cannonfodder tools, fingers, and arms.

    To American patriots, they looked like individual issues, like individual math problems. They couldn’t connect the dots. Same for 9/11. Dots were not connected.

  16. Ymarsakar Says:

    I have no trouble believing that the actual vote could reflect that in a small area such as a precinct. Why would it not, if the precinct is populated virtually entirely by inner city black people?

    But these are not mere inner city neighborhoods, but entire metropolitan cities, entire regional areas like the Old Democrat South, and the national capital.

  17. blert Says:

    I won’t defend Stalin, the Tsars, nor ethnic cleansing generally, but;

    Both Turk and Tatar invaded from the distant east within the last one-thousand years — displacing the natives of the Crimea, Anatolia, and much else.

    Ask the Armenians how that worked out.

    What surprised me was the desire of the Tatars to return to the Crimea. It’s not as if the welcome mat had been laid out by the Soviets.

    Lest Putin forget: these ‘modern’ era exoduses occurred precisely because of ethnic cleansing being performed in the Far East. If it wasn’t the Mongols it was the Han.

    Most Europeans are generally unaware that the White race used to solely occupy Asian steppes that today are assumed to be the homeland of the Mongols.

    Burial goods with classic Scottish tartans have been exhumed from points as far east as Mongolia. They have been carbon dated back more than 2,500 ybp.

    Which brings us to the Slavic enmity against the Turks. I don’t expect it to die, ever.

    I also don’t expect the resource pressure from the Far East to let up. Russia will always be at risk from the Han. It’s far, far more likely that the next big conflict will be between the Slavs and the Han. There’s no moat between them. There’s plenty of dark history between them. Both have imperialistic, supremacist cultures.

    Putin is biting the hand that he must kiss.

    But, so does Barry.

  18. neo-neocon Says:

    Ymarsakar:

    Washington DC is still a relatively small (about half a million) and homogeneous place. Homogeneous in that it is composed of 2 groups who always seem to vote Democratic: poor black people and federal government bureaucrats. It’s hard to envision why they would vote Republican. And yet they still have voted for Democrats less than 95%. Not a lot less, but somewhat less (see this and this).

    I’m not sure what you mean by “the old Democratic South.” If you mean before civil rights legislation, that was a “fixed” vote as well, because black people were mostly not allowed to vote. And yet I don’t think the Democratic totals back then even began to approach 95%. For example (I just looked up a random state and year), see this.

    95% is highly unusual. And I don’t think the population in Crimea is anywhere near as homogeneous as that.

  19. Richard Saunders Says:

    Putin will now take either the southern portion of eastern Ukraine, or the whole of it, to secure the land link with Russia.

    As usual, Big O, Lurch, and the rest of the Stooges are without a clue. Putin isn’t acting out of 19th century thinking, he’s acting on Russian policy at least 500 years old: protect against invasion from the West, exploit the resources of the East, secure a warm-water port. How could his actions be a surprise to anyone who knows anything about history, geography, or diplomacy?

    The spectacle of His Barryness calling Putin on the phone and scolding him for 90 minutes is so hilarious and so sad at the same time — Putin must have been ROFLHAO. He must’ve hit the “Mute” button every time the interpreter started translating Barry’s remarks to keep Barry from hearing him roaring with laughter.

    Putin is a higher class of dictator than Chaucescu, Assad, Kim, Mugabe, Chavez, Bokassa, and Arafat. I’d put him in with Mubarak, Lee Kwan Yu, Diem, and maybe Syngman Rhee. Of course, he insists on getting his cut of every deal, but he is acting in what he understands, with a great deal of justification, Russia’s best interests to be, not just to benefit himself and his family.

  20. bob sykes Says:

    While 95% is suspicious, it is clear that a majority of the Crimean residents want to be part of Russia, and the referendum should be honored. In fact, referenda in other parts of the Ukraine are in order.

    What is illegitimate is the junta that occupies Kiev and other parts of Ukraine. The junta staged a violent coup d’etat that overthrew the legitimate, democratically elected government of the Ukraine. That is the reality. That the US/EU might have engineered the coup is a serious possibility that further delegitimizes the junta.

  21. Lurch Says:

    Little Eddie Snowden must be very proud of his adopted homeland.

  22. Sergey Says:

    Elections are meaningless when the population is stupid and disinformed. Putin is crazy. This is a clear medical case. I hope those who has a lot to lose from a crazy dictator in his close circle would soon make their move and dispose of him by any neccessary means.

  23. T Says:

    This morning Jim Hoft, over at The Gateway Pundit has this headline (3/17/14 @7:52 am):

    What a Turnout! 123% of Sevastopol, Crimea Voted for Merger With Mother Russia

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com

  24. T Says:

    “And yet our liberals/left got such a great chuckle out of stupidheads Romney and Palin who warned that the Russian bear had not turned into a pussycat.”

    This illustrates one of the great existential failings of conservatives and the opposition party (see the discussion at Neoneocon’s thread “Being a Liberal” 3/5/14). There should be ads running 24/7 in every possible medium repeating the Palin and Romney quotes along with headlines of Putin’s actions. This should be done to begin to damage and destroy the left’s ultimate goal of ridiculing the right (see Instapundit quoting Mickey Kaus this morning @8:30 am: “Painting Republicans as bigots is [the Democrats'] chief strategy.”)

  25. Ymarsakar Says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_1932

    % list at the bottom is what I was thinking of concerning old Democratic South.

    Precursor to 2008′s Blue dog Democrats of so and so.

    2 groups who always seem to vote Democratic: poor black people and federal government bureaucrats.

    Not always. Before the advent of the Democrat funded KKK, blacks voted Republican in the South and were put in line to represent their own communities.

  26. Lizzy Says:

    US-Russian Diplomacy in One Photo:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/us-russian-diplomacy-in-one-photo-2014-3

  27. OldTexan Says:

    I am not too surprised at the vote and it could be that skewed because the non-Russian population is tired of the Ukrainian leadership stealing everything that is not nailed down so they might be ready for a change to give the Russians a chance to screw them over. Lots of folks remember the good old USSR days when they were being stomped on by the Soviets with selective memory.

    The majority of the population in that whole region has a history of subjugation by various groups in power so it might be logical for them to put their hopes on a change. Especially if they know that they might be held accountable for how they voted when Putin comes to their rescue.

  28. DNW Says:

    Neo-neocon Says:
    March 16th, 2014 at 7:37 pm

    Irene:

    If polls reveal that inner city black people will be voting 98% for Obama, I have no trouble believing that the actual vote could reflect that in a small area such as a precinct. Why would it not, if the precinct is populated virtually entirely by inner city black people?

    But that’s a very small, homogeneous area. In a country, or even in a fairly large section of a country (such as Crimea), where it is already known there are divergent opinions, such lopsided votes are bogus.

    Of course, they can also be bogus in these US precincts. But probably only slightly, because the trend is clear: inner city blacks are almost 100% for Obama. After the 2012 election, I looked into those reports of many such precincts casting not a single vote for Romney. It was true (here’s an article about the phenomenon, and here’s another).

    In fact, I might write a post about this some time. It’s a very interesting phenomenon.”

    Check out Detroit’s voting history.

  29. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    “It’s a very interesting phenomenon.”

    It’s not a ‘phenomenon’, it’s racism plain and simple.

    Most blacks either can’t see past the color of Obama’s skin, to see the content of his character or they do and just don’t care, which would make them the most racist of all.

    “According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 31 percent of blacks recognize that the majority of blacks are racist.”

  30. Artfldgr Says:

    Stalin insured that each of these coutries would have a convenient enclave of russians… often by murdering and shipping out about 25% to 30% of the population…

    i pointed this out a long time ago…
    and so its a fait accompli for any country that does not eject them… (regardless of what happens to the innocents being used from beyond the grave)

    we are years past anything can be done…

    we are years past in terms of ourselves

  31. neo-neocon Says:

    Geoffrey Britain,

    Actually, in the case of inner city blacks voting for Obama in 2008 and 2012, it is not racism. Not in the sense you mean, anyway. Although racism (favoring a black person, in this case), has accentuated the effect somewhat, the truth is that inner city blacks (and blacks as a whole, actually) have voted for liberal Democrats in almost as high percentages, whether the candidate is white or black, for a long, long time.

    You can look it up; I don’t have time to find it for you right now (here’s a chart for blacks overall in presidential races since FDR, and the inner-city ones are even more extreme).

    The stats are very clear; Obama got only slightly more of the vote from inner city blacks than his white Democrat predecessors did. So the statistics are even more daunting than if the effect were just from voting for Obama in droves because he’s black. The truth is that Democrats have the black vote (and especially inner city blacks) locked in at close to 90% or sometimes more, whatever the race of the candidate.

  32. neo-neocon Says:

    Ymarsakar: I’m talking about the black vote in recent years. It started around the time of FDR, and became accentuated with LBJ. See the chart and article I linked to in the comment above this one.

  33. neo-neocon Says:

    T:

    You are absolutely correct. But they will never do it (I think).

    The reason? Besides being the stupid party? Perhaps they don’t want to remind people of Romney and Palin, who have been so successful labeled as reprehensible, for different reasons.

  34. Artfldgr Says:

    it started post war when the dems slaughtered them by the thousands for hayes tilden election..

    after that, they voted dem to get along, then forgoet their cultureal past….

    racism is about culture, not giving it up… not about skin color… but who the heck wants to get it right? better to guess what it is by the physical surface appearance, not the substance. which is why the exceptions to the wrong concept confuse.

    see trotsky… talking about slavophiles…

  35. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    “the truth is that inner city blacks (and blacks as a whole, actually) have voted for liberal Democrats in almost as high percentages, whether the candidate is white or black, for a long, long time.” neo

    While that is factually incontestable, I don’t think it fully applies. That is because when I stated,

    “Most blacks either can’t see past the color of Obama’s skin, to see the content of his character or they do and just don’t care”

    I was referring to black’s loyalty to Obama.

    I’m currently persuaded that it is primarily black racism that is responsible for black’s continued overwhelming support for Obama. I do think that an understandable reluctance to have ‘the first black President’ be viewed as a failure is also a secondary factor in that support.

    Many whites who voted for Obama in 2008 did not vote for him in 2012. They did so in spite of his skin color because his performance had demonstrated the ‘content of his character’. Black’s willful blindness to the content of Obama’s character has to be motivated by a causal factor(s).

  36. Artfldgr Says:

    obama…
    continuing to gut the military and destroy functional ability

    Two U.S. Air Force commanders in the 422nd Air Base Group at RAF Croughton have been relieved over a loss of confidence in their abilities.

  37. neo-neocon Says:

    Geoffrey Britain:

    In 2008, Obama got 43% of the white vote, whereas in 2012 he got 39%. That’s a drop of 4% in the white vote.

    In 2008, Obama got 96% of the black vote. In 2012 it was down to 93% (this article calls it a drop of 2%, but it may have been 3% by my calculations). What’s more, there was a male/female split among black voters regarding loyalty to Obama:

    The gender gap isn’t just a white thing. It exists even among minorities that vote overwhelmingly Democratic. Obama got 96 percent of black women’s votes, but 87 percent of black men’s, compared with 76 percent of Hispanic women and 65 percent of Hispanic men, according to the exit poll.

    You can take a look at more stats here, especially about the votes of young blacks. Big male/female differences. I can’t seem to find a way to measure whether the drop off in Obama support was bigger in black men than black women between 2008 and 2012, but I am pretty sure it was, and that the black male dropoff rivaled the white dropoff.

    Anyway, I don’t think it is simply racism operating here.

  38. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    neo,

    I am not suggesting that it is simply racism, I am suggesting that black support for Obama is primarily racial. Other factors are certainly involved as well.

    I would also suggest that continued white support for Obama is primarily ideological. That is certainly a major factor for blacks as well, I just think it is not the primary factor with blacks.

  39. neo-neocon Says:

    Geoffrey Britain:

    I agree that there’s little question that some of it is racial.

    I still don’t think it’s the primary factor, because there is almost as much support for liberal white candidates, and that support has been quite stable since the New Deal and especially since LBJ. That is at least partly “racial” too, in the sense that black people see Democrats as far more likely to pursue policies that help them (whether or not this is actually true). But not “racial” so much in the direct sense of “supporting the candidate who is black,” although that happens too, of course.

    But I’ll leave it there for now.

  40. blert Says:

    “…it started post war when the dems slaughtered them by the thousands for hayes tilden election… ”

    Art…

    I think you’ve got that all turned around.

    The pivotal moment was when the Republicans abandoned reconstruction policy — aka equalist rights — behind closed doors to get the Democrat Party to sign on for four more years of Republican tenure in the White House.

    The ‘Crime of ’73′ — the shift away from the silver standard of the US Constitution and into the arms of London and its gold standard and the American (City) bankers caused this nation to go through a prolonged era of deflation. The immediate impact was to cause a horrific financial panic and a collapse on Wall Street. Bankers were literally hanged from lamp posts at that time. (!)

    Because the Republicans had moved over to a hard money system (British gold) it was no longer possible to finance the reconstruction sized US Army.

    It was shrunk as the financial pressure built. By 1876 the last elements of the reconstruction era were tailing off. This was why the deal was struck.

    Without the US Army, the southern Democrats gained all — by hook or by crook. They then codified their dominance by installing poll taxes and literacy requirements — for a society that had previously made educating Negroes a felony.

    The hard edge of the oppression was courtesy of the KKK. What the local sheriffs would’ve considered ‘the night shift.’

    The southern Democrats were not retaliating for the 1876 vote in its particulars. They did so on general principles.

  41. expat Says:

    There was some interesting coverage of Crimea on German TV tonight. One of the show’s guests mentioned that the break-up of former East Block countries started when Germany alone recognized the sovreignity of Croatia.

    It was nice to see someone beside Bush bear some of the responsibility for things.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge