acrashb

Unlikely.

Because if we don't, we guarantee they will do so again.  In fact, we incentivize them to do so again.  There is no good logic NOT to do something.

I do not think he wants to do it but RU Nats demand blood, so somebody has to go under the bus. On the other hand, this could be just a test of public opinion, and nothing might happen at all.  

Crimea, like any other piece of land, belongs to "those who reside there", not based on any written constitutions (which in theory codify both natural principles and operations / administration to enact those principles) but on the overall natural principle of self-determination.

This has been discussed; some more perspective and addressing of topics below.
In Canada, Quebec (a large province) has had two referenda on separation.  The last one - 1995 - was on the brink of success, and as a result there is now a federal law on the conditions for separation, called the "Clarity Act".  
What about the portions of a province that don't want to secede?  For example, in Quebec there are many regions / enclaves who wish to remain in Canada - mostly Anglo, but not all.  What about the various indigenous groups, most governed by the Indian Act, that prefer to be part of Canada vs. part of Quebec?  
What about the people who have been run out of the province?  Various pieces of legislation have pushed mostly-Anglos out of Quebec for about fifty years (I don't have a reference for that, but I recall kids in high school who exited with their families as a result of concern about their social and economic future).  Should they get a say in the next referendum, if there is one?
Why do lines on a map matter?  Because they set boundaries for social, economic and legal systems and opportunities, and strategic risks and opportunities.  They matter a lot.  If an American crosses the border to Canada with a restricted (in Canada) firearm (and no paperwork), serious consequences.  If a Canadian lands in Singapore with a joint - very serious consequences.
Applying this to Crimea / Donbas:
most importantly and differently from the Quebec example, they were taken forcibly and recently by a foreign state, so they should be returned "to" the original government to prevent the moral hazard where, in future, other states nibble provinces from each other.  If something is successful, it will be repeated. Having said that, the costs and risks of returning them to Ukraine will be and are being weighed against the moral hazard issue by Ukraine and its supporters.  The Ukraine government's maximalist position of all of the Donbas and Crimea is either a firm position or setting a stance for eventual negotiation - no way to tell. once returned: do the people in those regions want to be part of Ukraine?  If after a few years of stabilization, rebuilding, return of kidnapped and displaced persons, purging of RU agents and land occupiers (people who moved on to stolen land vs. purchased a nice house voluntarily on the market), there is overwhelming support for separation, what then?  The two basic alternatives are the use of force, which always results in insurgency and civil war, or a negotiated handshake and well-wishes with post-separation cultural, political and economic ties maintained.  On the first, perhaps civil war / insurgency is worth it in return for keeping the Russian Armed Forces physically further away from the rest of Ukraine - or not.  On the second (and the first ,for that matter), for the minority who wish to remain "in" Ukraine - sucks to be you, see the Quebec example above.   So there is no simple answer, and no risk-free way forward.  I'm on the "return them and them sort it out in a few years" camp because on balance, I think that that minimizes total (present, near-future and mid-term future) risk and maximizes 'fairness', which means different things to different people but unites the people (not governments) of the West. "Fair" and "realpolitik" are not always the same thing - when in conflict, choose realpolitik and try to turn it into fair later, but fair should weigh in.
One issue that hangs over all of this is the Western idea that every problem can have a good solution with sufficient good will and energy applied to same.  History, the present, and common sense tells us that not all problems have a solution that rises above neutral.  The current problem has, I think, at best a neutral outcome and likely only choices between bad, really bad, disastrously bad, and catastrophically bad.  Or, between ungood and double-plus ungood.

Going back to uncertainty, the Russian state could suffer a near-term peripheral collapse which would change the calculus entirely - my prediction on this is early 2026.  But it could be earlier, later, or not at all.
Someone - possibly the_capt - said that one good alternative is to leave the post 2014 borders, wait for Russian  to collapse and / or to abuse and neglect Donbas / Crimea and then try to re-unite them with Ukraine.  Not a bad idea - but strike while the iron is hot, and if not hot enough now, then make it hot by striking.  If we wait, apathy and inertia set in and the status quo gets entrenched - and Russia will never respect the will of the regions, so if in future they wish to re-unite it will be bloody regardless.
I get more "likes" from memes than from determined typing, so here is a meme  :


 
 
 

Crimea, like any other piece of land, belongs to "those who reside there", not based on any written constitutions (which in theory codify both natural principles and operations / administration to enact those principles) but on the overall natural principle of self-determination.

This has been discussed; some more perspective and addressing of topics below.
In Canada, Quebec (a large province) has had two referenda on separation.  The last one - 1995 - was on the brink of success, and as a result there is now a federal law on the conditions for separation, called the "Clarity Act".  
What about the portions of a province that don't want to secede?  For example, in Quebec there are many regions / enclaves who wish to remain in Canada - mostly Anglo, but not all.  What about the various indigenous groups, most governed by the Indian Act, that prefer to be part of Canada vs. part of Quebec?  
What about the people who have been run out of the province?  Various pieces of legislation have pushed mostly-Anglos out of Quebec for about fifty years (I don't have a reference for that, but I recall kids in high school who exited with their families as a result of concern about their social and economic future).  Should they get a say in the next referendum, if there is one?
Why do lines on a map matter?  Because they set boundaries for social, economic and legal systems and opportunities, and strategic risks and opportunities.  They matter a lot.  If an American crosses the border to Canada with a restricted (in Canada) firearm (and no paperwork), serious consequences.  If a Canadian lands in Singapore with a joint - very serious consequences.
Applying this to Crimea / Donbas:
most importantly and differently from the Quebec example, they were taken forcibly and recently by a foreign state, so they should be returned "to" the original government to prevent the moral hazard where, in future, other states nibble provinces from each other.  If something is successful, it will be repeated. Having said that, the costs and risks of returning them to Ukraine will be and are being weighed against the moral hazard issue by Ukraine and its supporters.  The Ukraine government's maximalist position of all of the Donbas and Crimea is either a firm position or setting a stance for eventual negotiation - no way to tell. once returned: do the people in those regions want to be part of Ukraine?  If after a few years of stabilization, rebuilding, return of kidnapped and displaced persons, purging of RU agents and land occupiers (people who moved on to stolen land vs. purchased a nice house voluntarily on the market), there is overwhelming support for separation, what then?  The two basic alternatives are the use of force, which always results in insurgency and civil war, or a negotiated handshake and well-wishes with post-separation cultural, political and economic ties maintained.  On the first, perhaps civil war / insurgency is worth it in return for keeping the Russian Armed Forces physically further away from the rest of Ukraine - or not.  On the second (and the first ,for that matter), for the minority who wish to remain "in" Ukraine - sucks to be you, see the Quebec example above.   So there is no simple answer, and no risk-free way forward.  I'm on the "return them and them sort it out in a few years" camp because on balance, I think that that minimizes total (present, near-future and mid-term future) risk and maximizes 'fairness', which means different things to different people but unites the people (not governments) of the West. "Fair" and "realpolitik" are not always the same thing - when in conflict, choose realpolitik and try to turn it into fair later, but fair should weigh in.
One issue that hangs over all of this is the Western idea that every problem can have a good solution with sufficient good will and energy applied to same.  History, the present, and common sense tells us that not all problems have a solution that rises above neutral.  The current problem has, I think, at best a neutral outcome and likely only choices between bad, really bad, disastrously bad, and catastrophically bad.  Or, between ungood and double-plus ungood.

Going back to uncertainty, the Russian state could suffer a near-term peripheral collapse which would change the calculus entirely - my prediction on this is early 2026.  But it could be earlier, later, or not at all.
Someone - possibly the_capt - said that one good alternative is to leave the post 2014 borders, wait for Russian  to collapse and / or to abuse and neglect Donbas / Crimea and then try to re-unite them with Ukraine.  Not a bad idea - but strike while the iron is hot, and if not hot enough now, then make it hot by striking.  If we wait, apathy and inertia set in and the status quo gets entrenched - and Russia will never respect the will of the regions, so if in future they wish to re-unite it will be bloody regardless.
I get more "likes" from memes than from determined typing, so here is a meme  :


 
 
 

Unlikely.

I did:
“Strategic value[edit]
The Port of Sevastopol is considered a key hold[clarification needed] for maritime routes between the Black Sea and the Sea of Marmara, and, therefore, the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. The port is one of the few warm deepwater ports available to Russia in the Black Sea. Russia leased the port from Ukraine, until its annexation in 2014. Access to the port is considered one of the main factors that sparked the 2014 Crimean crisis between Ukraine and Russia, and Russia's subsequent military intervention on Crimea.” (Wikipedia)
Now whether or not that is true really depends on how the Russians view it and whether it is a deal breaker.  I am pretty confident Russian nationalist will play it up as such.
 

It's already in our family coat of arms. A t-shirt would make it cheap. 

Unlikely.

You should put that on a T Shirt.

Your ability to rapidly find relevant, but highly-obscure video 'memes' is - both awesome and disturbing.

Very good overview... however, when it comes to the conclusion I tend to agree more with Steve and TheCapt that the cost-benefit analysis leans more towards the long game...

Your ability to rapidly find relevant, but highly-obscure video 'memes' is - both awesome and disturbing.

Crimea, like any other piece of land, belongs to "those who reside there", not based on any written constitutions (which in theory codify both natural principles and operations / administration to enact those principles) but on the overall natural principle of self-determination.

This has been discussed; some more perspective and addressing of topics below.
In Canada, Quebec (a large province) has had two referenda on separation.  The last one - 1995 - was on the brink of success, and as a result there is now a federal law on the conditions for separation, called the "Clarity Act".  
What about the portions of a province that don't want to secede?  For example, in Quebec there are many regions / enclaves who wish to remain in Canada - mostly Anglo, but not all.  What about the various indigenous groups, most governed by the Indian Act, that prefer to be part of Canada vs. part of Quebec?  
What about the people who have been run out of the province?  Various pieces of legislation have pushed mostly-Anglos out of Quebec for about fifty years (I don't have a reference for that, but I recall kids in high school who exited with their families as a result of concern about their social and economic future).  Should they get a say in the next referendum, if there is one?
Why do lines on a map matter?  Because they set boundaries for social, economic and legal systems and opportunities, and strategic risks and opportunities.  They matter a lot.  If an American crosses the border to Canada with a restricted (in Canada) firearm (and no paperwork), serious consequences.  If a Canadian lands in Singapore with a joint - very serious consequences.
Applying this to Crimea / Donbas:
most importantly and differently from the Quebec example, they were taken forcibly and recently by a foreign state, so they should be returned "to" the original government to prevent the moral hazard where, in future, other states nibble provinces from each other.  If something is successful, it will be repeated. Having said that, the costs and risks of returning them to Ukraine will be and are being weighed against the moral hazard issue by Ukraine and its supporters.  The Ukraine government's maximalist position of all of the Donbas and Crimea is either a firm position or setting a stance for eventual negotiation - no way to tell. once returned: do the people in those regions want to be part of Ukraine?  If after a few years of stabilization, rebuilding, return of kidnapped and displaced persons, purging of RU agents and land occupiers (people who moved on to stolen land vs. purchased a nice house voluntarily on the market), there is overwhelming support for separation, what then?  The two basic alternatives are the use of force, which always results in insurgency and civil war, or a negotiated handshake and well-wishes with post-separation cultural, political and economic ties maintained.  On the first, perhaps civil war / insurgency is worth it in return for keeping the Russian Armed Forces physically further away from the rest of Ukraine - or not.  On the second (and the first ,for that matter), for the minority who wish to remain "in" Ukraine - sucks to be you, see the Quebec example above.   So there is no simple answer, and no risk-free way forward.  I'm on the "return them and them sort it out in a few years" camp because on balance, I think that that minimizes total (present, near-future and mid-term future) risk and maximizes 'fairness', which means different things to different people but unites the people (not governments) of the West. "Fair" and "realpolitik" are not always the same thing - when in conflict, choose realpolitik and try to turn it into fair later, but fair should weigh in.
One issue that hangs over all of this is the Western idea that every problem can have a good solution with sufficient good will and energy applied to same.  History, the present, and common sense tells us that not all problems have a solution that rises above neutral.  The current problem has, I think, at best a neutral outcome and likely only choices between bad, really bad, disastrously bad, and catastrophically bad.  Or, between ungood and double-plus ungood.

Going back to uncertainty, the Russian state could suffer a near-term peripheral collapse which would change the calculus entirely - my prediction on this is early 2026.  But it could be earlier, later, or not at all.
Someone - possibly the_capt - said that one good alternative is to leave the post 2014 borders, wait for Russian  to collapse and / or to abuse and neglect Donbas / Crimea and then try to re-unite them with Ukraine.  Not a bad idea - but strike while the iron is hot, and if not hot enough now, then make it hot by striking.  If we wait, apathy and inertia set in and the status quo gets entrenched - and Russia will never respect the will of the regions, so if in future they wish to re-unite it will be bloody regardless.
I get more "likes" from memes than from determined typing, so here is a meme  :


 
 
 

In lighter news, Microsoft has announced a new version of Windows for the Russian market:


Seriously, this thread is well inside my OODA loop.  By the time I have absorbed and considered, someone has already either a) said what I had in mind or b) answered the question in my head.

 

Also try Explore the Map | Freedom House
Suggesting that the UK is a "semi democracy" is risible.  In many ways, it's more democratic, whatever that means, than Canada, even though they have the same score in the Democracy Data explorer.  I say this because Canada's governance is highly concentrated in the Prime Minister's Office (PMO), reducing the role of Ministers and Members of Parliament.



 

So argument by Exception rather than General rule ? Fine . That has happened once  in the last hundred years  in Australia and it happened with the co-operation of  many  interested parties in  Australia at the time - nothing at all to do with the Queen/Monarchy - and more to do with the Australian Senate   . No one has yet tried this in  NZ   - there was an incident in 1926  in Canada  which was controversial  but again   1 event in the last hundred years worthy of note .

Augggggggghhhhhh!!!!!!!!

You seem to have some misunderstandings as to how Elected Governments in the West work ?
The Monarchy has no power at all - its there for the Tourists  . The Prime Minister is always elected by members of his/her own party - works the same in all English based Parliamentary systems around the planet - You get to elect the party - not decide who is in  cabinet . The House of Lords is really  only a historical anomaly in the UK - and we commonwealth citizens generally  like our History . This particular part of the British system has not really been copied  over to  AUS/NZ/CAN  and elsewhere  - but we do get our Honors lists - and people like them .
Governments once elected are free to pursue whatever policies they like - but they do need to keep the electorates happy to some degree - since they are up for re-election again 3-4-5 years  . A Elected Government which chooses to follow unpopular policies won't be in Government for long .
 

Well done. Misunderstandinatin' 9/10. Nice work.

Data suggests otherwise ...
Democracy Data Explorer - Our World in Data
 

Hear, hear! I would be very interested to hear their experiences in Russian captivily.
And I always feel sorry for people who have been bullied during their youth. Personally I haven't been, because although quite short at the time I readily used my knuckles and once starting to fight, I was too stupid to walk away from a certain and thorough beating, but I know people who have been bullied and suffered for it all of their lives. So, sorry to hear that guys. I hate bullying, ill treatment of women and other "normal"cruel behaviour and I hope you have been able to leave it behind you.

In lighter news, Microsoft has announced a new version of Windows for the Russian market:


Seriously, this thread is well inside my OODA loop.  By the time I have absorbed and considered, someone has already either a) said what I had in mind or b) answered the question in my head.

 

In lighter news, Microsoft has announced a new version of Windows for the Russian market:


Seriously, this thread is well inside my OODA loop.  By the time I have absorbed and considered, someone has already either a) said what I had in mind or b) answered the question in my head.

 

In lighter news, Microsoft has announced a new version of Windows for the Russian market:


Seriously, this thread is well inside my OODA loop.  By the time I have absorbed and considered, someone has already either a) said what I had in mind or b) answered the question in my head.