KIEV -- A Russian nationalist poised for victory in Crimea's presidential election pledged Tuesday to press ahead with a local referendum on the future of the peninsula in southern Ukraine.
But Yury Meshkov reiterated at a news conference in Simferopol, the region's main city, that he did not plan to press for Crimea's separation from Ukraine.
Meshkov said on Monday: "Crimea will not separate from Ukraine. We will not live under either Ukraine or Russia but rather with both of them."
He added: "No one is talking about changing borders."
Hey newly founded, totally independent Republic of Crimea, how would you like to make some trade deals that reduce your dependence on Russia?
Oh, that sounds like a great id-where are these tanks coming from?
Because Russia has totally used military force to prevent a country from trading with whoever before. Oh wait, no they haven't.
Oh wait, THREE FUCKING DAYS AGO.
Jesus did the
KGBFSB somehow get really confused about the importance of this forum? And are using it to try and shape the western narrative, or is Comrade Agent Xrdd just screwing around at work when he should be catching capitalist pig spies.
Oh look, the guy who wants to murder children is accusing me of being a Russian plant.
Again, Russia didn't intervene militarily in the Ukraine to prevent economic relations with the west. They went into Crimea because the Ukrainian government has basically imploded, and the interim and possibly the next government are people who may try to fuck with their military installations and try to join NATO again (as they did before, against the wishes of the Ukrainian people). That the interim government are also assholes wrt ethnic Russians and generally don't give much of a shit about eastern Ukraine or Crimea gave them a useful excuse and caused the local population to basically welcome them with open arms.
EDIT: To be clear, I'm not saying Russia would be ecstatic about this, or that they would tolerate EU or NATO membership (as if Crimea would ever want either), I'm saying that Crimea having an economy independent of Russia isn't the kind of thing that would trigger military intervention.
EDIT2: It should also be pretty fucking clear that the hypothetical Republic of Crimea (HRC) would be pretty fucking closely aligned with Russia anyway, because the majority of the population would be Russian, and has in previous Ukrainian elections overwhelmingly supported pro-Russian candidates.
Right, so it's not that they couldn't trade with anyone they want, it's that they couldn't act how they wanted because if they ever did anything the Russians didn't like, oh look, tanks in the streets.
Even you in the post can't pretend it's anything but a vassal state.
The actions that I mentioned as potentially triggering military intervention don't really fall into the realm of "things the Republic of Crimea is going to want to do this century". Like I said, even without any Russian pressure, you'll find no love for NATO there.
Besides, that's not really enough to call something a vassal state, or basically every country with a neighbour with a vastly superior military would be a vassal state. Most countries could be provoked into an invasion if pushed far enough, after all.
I'm talknig about what you said about why they invaded.They went into Crimea because the Ukrainian government has basically imploded, and the interim and possibly the next government are people who may try to fuck with their military installations and try to join NATO again
ie - they went in to Crimea because Ukraine might have engaged in foreign policy they didn't like
When your neighbour will invade you for engaging in foreign policy that isn't, like, an invasion of said neighbour, you are a vassal state. They are enforcing their own policy on you by force. It's incredibly straightforward.
First of all, like I said, that's a useless defnition because it would apply to most countries with a neighbour with a vastly superior military.
No, it doesn't. Not unless you think those neighbours with vastly superior militaries are going around invading their neighbours for taking actions they don't like. FYI, that doesn't happen that often. And when it does, we call it what it is.
The threat of force to coerce policy from your neighbour is a dictionary definition of vassal state. They cannot act independently or they will be invaded, as this situation right now demonstrates.
Secondly, I don't think Ukraine potentially trying to join NATO again was the primary reason for Russia's actions. It's about their bases, having those in a country with a government that hates them is bad, having them in a NATO country with a government that hates them is even worse. If Crimea became independent and the rest of Ukraine tried to join NATO, they'd oppose like they did in the past, but I don't think anybody seriously thinks they'd try to roll their tanks into Kiev.
Right, I never said it was about NATO. I just quoted what you said. Which is the same thing here. They invaded another country because that country might have done something with it's supposedly independent government it didn't like.
If the Ukrainians cannot freely exert political power within their own country due to the threat of military force from Russia, then they are a vassal of Russia. By definition.
Again, that definition is useless. Every country bordering a country with a vastly superior military could face invasion if they become a sufficiently large threat to the more powerful country. That doesn't make them vassal states. "Actions they don't like" is too broad to be useful, because it covers plenty of actions that might make intervention by the more powerful country justifiable.
Screwing around with Russian military bases is not the same thing as "freely exerting political power within their own country".
Also, are you now arguing that Ukraine was already a vassal state anyway? In which case, why does it even matter to you if a new Crimean state would be one as well?