[disgruntledphd2]

Ah now, by that logic it would be acceptable for the British government to invade and occupy Ireland, India, and much of the rest of the world.

By which I mean, historical presence in an area tells us little about the legitimacy of current day activities.

And even then, Crimea was a terrible thing, but it made strategic sense (the russian fleet base is there). I don't see any real strategic benefit for Russia with invading the rest of Ukraine.

[VictorPath]

> British government to invade and occupy Ireland

The British government does occupy Ireland, its military is stationed in Thiepval and Holywood.

The last all-island democratic vote in Ireland was the second Dáil, which voted for the island to separate from the UK. A century on, British troops, who have been on a bloody campaign in Ireland from Drogheda to Bloody Sunday and on, still occupy Ireland.

[disgruntledphd2]

> The British government does occupy Ireland, its military is stationed in Thiepval and Holywood.

Are you from Ireland? Because I am, and this is an absolutely ludicrous reading of the situation.

The British and Irish governments partitioned Ireland, for a bunch of reasons 100 years ago. If you look at what people in the North of ireland (still part of the UK want), most of them want to remain as they are (which is fine, even if I personally would prefer the island of Ireland to be one nation again).

> The last all-island democratic vote in Ireland was the second Dáil, which voted for the island to separate from the UK. A century on, British troops, who have been on a bloody campaign in Ireland from Drogheda to Bloody Sunday and on, still occupy Ireland.

The last all ireland vote occurred in 1998, to ratify the Good Friday agreement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Northern_Ireland_Good_Fri...

While I'm sure that tensions run high in the Russian/Central/Eastern Europe part of the world with respect to Ukraine, dragging in inflammatory propaganda from other parts of the world (that you clearly know very little about) is incredibly unhelpful, and quite frankly rather offensive to people who have to live with it.

But, I also mentioned India in my comment. By your OP, it appears legitimate for the British to invade India right now. Do you agree or disagree with this statement, and why or why not?

[VictorPath]

> If you look at what people in the North of ireland (still part of the UK want), most of them want to remain as they are

If you look at what the people in Crimea voted for, they voted to be part of Russia. If what people in a region want is paramount as you seem to say then eastern Ukrainian regions seem to want to break from Ukraine and align with Russia. Russia has not done anything in the Ukraine which England has not done or is not doing in Ireland, to your apparent approval.

> The last all ireland vote occurred in 1998

The Dáil vote was all ireland, the 1998 was two separate votes, on the whole island for the same issue. Any how the result from the second Dáil and the 1998 vote were on the same principle affirmed, the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies.

> I also mentioned India

Your original comment has modern Ireland as unmolested by the British military, which is not the case.

[Koshkin]

A referendum held amidst annexation cannot possibly be legitimate.

[disgruntledphd2]

> If you look at what the people in Crimea voted for, they voted to be part of Russia. If what people in a region want is paramount as you seem to say then eastern Ukrainian regions seem to want to break from Ukraine and align with Russia.

So, I presume you're talking about this referendum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum

In general, I tend not to respect referendums that are preceded by invasion of military forces (who I believe were not Russian, according to the Russian government of the time?). But yes, you are correct, the people of Crimea did vote for this.

However, this is massively, massively different from both the original Treaty between the UK and Ireland in 1920, as all UK troops had withdrawn before this occurred. Additionally, the 1998 referendums took place in an environment where most of the violence had stopped for a number of years, which is definitely not the case in Ukraine.

> Russia has not done anything in the Ukraine which England has not done or is not doing in Ireland, to your apparent approval.

So, you'd be fine if the Russians wiped out the native language of the Ukrainian people, cut down their forests and watched as multiple millions of them died? Clearly you wouldn't be (I hope) and only someone with absolutely no context on Irish/UK history would make such a ludicrous claim. Additionally, it was the United Kingdom that this did, not England (which only exists as a nation in sports).

> The Dáil vote was all ireland, the 1998 was two separate votes, on the whole island for the same issue. Any how the result from the second Dáil and the 1998 vote were on the same principle affirmed, the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies.

I feel like you may have mistaken the 1916 proclamation of independence with the 1998 referendum, which I think speaks to your lack of understanding of the issues (and I cheerfully admit that I know very little about the history of Russia/Crimea/Ukraine). From a Republic of Ireland point of view, the 1998 referendum was actually about giving up a territorial claim on the six counties of Northern ireland, which is very different from what happened in Crimea.

> Your original comment has modern Ireland as unmolested by the British military,

I just cant even, with this statement. Like, every weekend when I was growing up, there were violent deaths in the North of ireland (and Britain) on behalf of terrorists/freedom fighters (delete as appropriate). There was definitely a bunch of terrible things done during this period, but the vast majority was driven by people living on the island of Ireland, not the British government. The British government didn't make it any better, but they didn't mass 130k troops around the North at any point.

> I also mentioned India

I'm going to assume that you have no answer to my question then.

On that note, I'll bow out of this conversation as I'm not sure it's productive for either of us. Hope you have a great morning/afternoon/evening.

[thesuperbigfrog]

>> Ah now, by that logic it would be acceptable for the British government to invade and occupy Ireland, India, and much of the rest of the world.

Mongolia would like to have a word.