Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by excieve 2068 days ago
What many don't seem to understand about Crimea, is that Crimea is an occupied territory of Ukraine [0] (as understood by UN, as well as most countries except the Russian Federation and several of its affiliated states).

As an occupied territory, it doesn't have any legitimate institutions (such as a recognised government, banks, courts, etc.) — only a foreign occupation regime. Same way as Germany's Reichskommissariats and Reichprotektorats during WW2 were never legitimate entities despite being de facto governed by Germany.

This means than no contract (private or public) with a Crimean entity can be internationally recognised and will be easily contested by any court/arbitrage outside of the RF.

In addition to this, there's a moral concern of giving legitimacy to a foreign occupation. There's just no way to justify this unless one supports the mentioned occupation, with following systemic abuse of human rights, change of ethnic composition and militarisation.

[0]: https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/71/205

4 comments

On the other hand, many of the people living there are not at fault for any of this. They just ... live there.

This is why I have such mixed feelings about these kind of sanctions: sure, I don't really disagree with what you're saying, but on the other hand in practice it means hurting normal people just building a life for themselves.

I read an opinion piece by Margret Meed (I think, memory may be off). Her claim was sanctions don't work. And all the burden falls on the powerless. All you end up doing is harming people that can't do anything and are blameless.

I haven't seen anything in the last 35 years that contradicts that.

The worse thing I've seen is the US is now so schizophrenic that countries under sanctions can't trust that making a deal with US to get sanctions lifted won't prevent them from being reimposed because some other fraction gains power.

I think I read the same piece a while ago, or something very similar to it. I'm not entirely sure what to think of it, I'd have to do some in-depth study to really have an informed opinion and chances are the effectiveness depends on the country as well; I'm not sure if generalizing "all sanctions are {good,bad}" across all countries is a good idea, as North-Korea is not the same as Iran. One case where sanctions and other pressure probably helped is ending apartheid in South-Africa.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24886573.
There are many examples of occupied territories which are not treated the same though.
FWIW the people of Crimea overwhelmingly support Russian occupation according to independent Pew surveys. Any sanctions only serve to punish Crimeans, presumably to appease the Ukraine government (which is just as corrupt as Russia).
Conducting 'independent surveys' under military occupation in an authoritarian state is a thoroughly nonsensical proposition. In Russia, it is literally a crime (incitement of separatism) to question Crimea's status as rightfully Russian[0].

[0] https://meduza.io/cards/kak-v-rossii-presleduyut-za-prizyvy-...

I'm more inclined to trust nonpartisan independent Pew Research than your opinion. It's not the only independent survey either. There's also survey evidence from before the occupation.
Polls before occupation were in the range of 40-60%. If that's a good enough metric for conducting drive-by referenda under the watchful eye of heavily armed 'observers', someone tell the Catalonians and the Scots about this option (among many others).
My opinion, Crimea is a geopolitical nuance. Any cunning plan cooked up by a western leader that has to do with Crimea blows up in their face.
It is not a nuance, it is a terrible precedent showing that Russia can just come and take away a sovereign states territory. It is like a bigger tougher person coming into your home and starting to live there and there is nobody who is going to help you.
Yeah Russia took The Crimea from the Turks almost 250 years ago. Western designs on the place never have anything to do with the people that live there. Always blow up in their face to determent of the various peoples that live there.
it's not a precedent, kosovo was a precedent. there can't be two precedents. international law got fucked up back then.