Putin puts troops in western Russia on alert in drill 1.1

[Shalcker]

Shalcker, let me know when you can offer more to dispute these links except your word. It isn't worth much.
Why are you having such difficulty in reading that link?

I did read it. Show me the quote there that supports your point with solid evidence that wasn't already refuted.

I called for Shalcker handwaving, and I got it in spades.
You heard it here, it's perfectly plausible that polls worldwide all sucked simultaneously.

What the hell do "polls worldwide" do with opinions in Crimea specifically?

Yeah, if you ignore all the accounts I linked last page on top of this, of people illegally voting. Which you obviously are.
This is the epitome of argumentative desperation.

How reliable are those accounts if there were no international observers? ...and, how many accounts exactly?

[Rukentuts]

What the hell do "polls worldwide" do with opinions in Crimea specifically?

Worldwide firms that did polling in Crimea. Jesus Christ, read a link for ONCE.

I did read it. Show me the quote there that supports your point with solid evidence that wasn't already refuted.

Yeah, just like you read the polling link.

How reliable are those accounts if there were no international observers? ...and, how many accounts exactly?

Far more reliable than you. All these things are just coincidences, aren't they? More people than registered voting, polls from various firms don't add up, people seeing illegal voting...

Handwave harder. You're not treading water.

[Talen]

Claiming that numbers prove fraud is logical fallacy. Fraud creates high numbers - reverse is not true at all.

High voting numbers (90%+) happened even in perfect democracies like Germany, depending on circumstances.

The vote in Crimea was rushed, with skewed questions, and with no option to stay in Ukraine. It was conducted with Russian troops on the ground, and international observers were kept out and turned away at the borders. It was carried out in an atmosphere of fear amongst those who would normally vote no and with everyone bombarded by just one message - vote yes.

Given the makeup of Crimea and the events at the time, it is possible that a free vote could have resulted in a "YES" vote anyway. But such a vote was not allowed. And such a referendum should have been preceded by MONTHS of build up and discussion, without foreign soldiers on the ground, without intimidation, and with everyone free to vote how they felt - and WITH the option to reject partition.

However, such a vote would - given past polls - have been very likely to fail. As it is, the presence of foreign troops on the ground, the skewed questions, the lack of a no, the extremely short duration of the campaign, the reported intimidation of the voters, etc all point to a rigged vote. Any ONE of those elements would have been enough to question the vote legitimacy. And they all occurred.

In short - the vote in Crimea was a farce and acceptable to Russians only because it gave them the result they wanted. But then, they appear used to rigged elections.

There needed to be MUCH more debate on the issue. Months not days.
Russian troops should NOT have been there.
The vote should NEVER have taken place given the events taking place.
The question SHOULD have allowed for a rejection of annexation

And more.

EJL

[Shalcker]

Worldwide firms that did polling in Crimea. Jesus Christ, read a link for ONCE.

They also point out why polling might have been inaccurate - because non-response rate was fairly high in certain population categories, reducing polling result reliability.

Yeah, just like you read the polling link.

Yes, i did.

Far more reliable than you. All these things are just coincidences, aren't they? More people than registered voting, polls from various firms don't add up, people seeing illegal voting...

"More people then registered voting" is media artifact - it NEVER appeared anywhere in official information. One information agency fat-fingered "total" number saying 1724563 instead of 1524563 that was actually announced, that's all. They fixed this mistake in about half-hour - but this was enough to create this hoax.
And polling agency themselves explained what could cause such disparity.
So, all that remains is "some people seeing illegal voting" - can you point out to source of such claim?

- - - Updated - - -

The vote in Crimea was rushed, with skewed questions, and with no option to stay in Ukraine.

Second option said "support Crimea as part of Ukraine" explicitly. It existed.

It was conducted with Russian troops on the ground, and international observers were kept out and turned away at the borders.

In fact international observers refused to participate to not give it an air of legitimacy and avoid antagonizing Kiev; on "turned away at the borders" incident they decided not to enter on their own, they could technically either wait to be allowed or use air route (with airport working perfectly).

It was carried out in an atmosphere of fear amongst those who would normally vote no and with everyone bombarded by just one message - vote yes.

Which were absolute minority. And "bombarded with just one message" is not undermining vote by itself, given circumstances.

Given the makeup of Crimea and the events at the time, it is possible that a free vote could have resulted in a "YES" vote anyway. But such a vote was not allowed. And such a referendum should have been preceded by MONTHS of build up and discussion, without foreign soldiers on the ground, without intimidation, and with everyone free to vote how they felt - and WITH the option to reject partition.

There was such option. Please stop with this completely false point that requires completely unproven "but they didn't MEAN what was written".

However, such a vote would - given past polls - have been very likely to fail.

Most likely explanation is that people didn't see such option as possible before. I haven't also seen actual question as it was asked.

As it is, the presence of foreign troops on the ground, the skewed questions, the lack of a no, the extremely short duration of the campaign, the reported intimidation of the voters, etc all point to a rigged vote. Any ONE of those elements would have been enough to question the vote legitimacy. And they all occurred.

"Lack of no" didn't happen. "Foreign troops on the ground" were there the entire time since Soviet Union dissolution.
"Intimidation of voters"... actually, Crimean Tatars were "intimidated" into "not voting" by Mejlis, those intimidations went both ways.

In short - the vote in Crimea was a farce and acceptable to Russians only because it gave them the result they wanted. But then, they appear used to rigged elections.

As did vote on Kosovo for West - but international court ruled that self-determination trumps all. Got to be consistent here.

There needed to be MUCH more debate on the issue. Months not days.

There were decades of this debate in Crimea, it wasn't something new and sudden.

Russian troops should NOT have been there.

They were there with authorization of legitimate president Yanukovich.

The vote should NEVER have taken place given the events taking place.

Actually events taking place were the only thing making such vote possible (rather then being intimidated by Kiev into not voting as it happened before).

The question SHOULD have allowed for a rejection of annexation

It did.

[Tierbook]

It allowed for breaking away from Ukraine and Becoming part of Russia later down the line or immediately joining russia.

[Rukentuts]

They also point out why polling might have been inaccurate - because non-response rate was fairly high in certain population categories, reducing polling result reliability.

Yeah, that's why all the polls were inaccurate, such a coincidence. That's why reports of overturnout, and reports of illegal voting are just a coincidence too. Seriously. This is some conspiracy level thinking.

Yes, i did.

If you did, you wouldn't be asking elementary questions.

"More people then registered voting" is media artifact - it NEVER appeared anywhere in official information.

You mean the "official" information that is in dispute by a variety of sources that cannot replicate the math?

One information agency fat-fingered "total" number saying 1724563 instead of 1524563 that was actually announced, that's all. They fixed this mistake in about half-hour - but this was enough to create this hoax.
And polling agency themselves explained what could cause such disparity.
So, all that remains is "some people seeing illegal voting" - can you point out to source of such claim?

I thought you said you read the links. Apparently you didn't read the part where a reporter with a Russian passport was handed a ballot.
I guess you didn't. But obviously even when stacked with reports of over-representation and unreplicatable poll numbers it's just a coincidence, right? I can't say I'm surprised the emissary of "the green men aren't Russian" is handwaving this much.

[Shalcker]

You mean the "official" information that is in dispute by a variety of sources that cannot replicate the math?

Can you point out to their source of those "disputed" numbers that does not originate from same mistake? I would guess you cannot. The math holds perfectly.

I thought you said you read the links. Apparently you didn't read the part where a reporter with a Russian passport was handed a ballot.

Do you think there were tens of thousands of Russians coming from Russia to skew voting?
So, that's one. Any more?

[Rukentuts]

Can you point out to their source of numbers that does not originate from same mistake? I would guess you cannot. The math holds perfectly.

You're ignoring my five links, again. Pollsters use different methods.

Give me ONE from a reputed international agency that holds up this math. You can't. You'll just handwave.

Ignore it one more time, for funsies.

We can debate the extent of fraud in the March 16 referendum, but only the Council’s highest estimate just yields the fifty percent turnout ratio normally required for major referendums. What counts is that the Putin regime solemnly announced to the world that 82 percent of the Crimean people voted to join Mother Russia, and many in the West swallowed this whopper. At best, according to Putin’s own council, only 30 percent did.

Do you think there were tens of thousands of Russians coming from Russia to skew voting?
So, that's one. Any more?

Let's see, given that's there's overrepresentation, and tens of thousands of additional troops, it's not out of the question.

But those green men weren't Russian.

[Deleted]

Shackler how do you feel about having a President for life?

[Rukentuts]

Shackler how do you feel about having a President for life?

I'd like to know what foreign currency Shalcker has elected to convert his savings to. Or if he'd rather lose almost half its real value with a terrible outlook going forward.

http://www.ft.com/fastft/247221/roub...lash-forecasts

Ironically, one of the best choices right now is the dollar.

And not like Russia has the money to stabilize itself.



What this graph doesn't tell you, is that oil may hit as low as $40 next year, with experts expecting a low yearly average could be about $50. That's insane.

[Tierbook]

It's Kerch Strait, not Kerch street. But I'm totally not surprised, you americans were always challenged in geography.

It's a pretty pathetic strait, it's got nothing on the Strait of Juan de Fuca or the Salish sea, you know where those are I presume.

[Deleted]

It's a pretty pathetic strait, it's got nothing on the Strait of Juan de Fuca or the Salish sea, you know where those are I presume.

Of course he does after a quick Google search.

[Kellhound]

It's a pretty pathetic strait, it's got nothing on the Strait of Juan de Fuca or the Salish sea, you know where those are I presume.

I would be mildly surprised if he knows where the Strait of Malacca or the Strait of Magellan are.
Hardly anyone knows about the Salish Sea, and even those that live on it rarely use the term, to be fair.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course he does after a quick Google search.

That would be cheating though.

[Shalcker]

Shackler how do you feel about having a President for life?

He'll be replaced the moment we'll have better option - and he'll be happy to be replaced as well as far as i see.

As for now, there is no better option; that means that some changes that would be appropriate now will not happen due to his somewhat rigid thinking. Still, got to support him when he does things right like with Crimea.

[Rukentuts]

Still, got to support him when he does things right like with Crimea.

Is that why with the economy in Russia on what appears to be a significant and extended downturn, there's growing opposition to his foreign policy despite the desperate efforts of state media to prop him up?

Maybe you should look at that graph once again, and see how much available money Russia will have if oil stays below $50 to Q3 2015, which Morgan Stanley expects it to. Crimea won't mean pittance with an impending default.

[Shalcker]

I'd like to know what foreign currency Shalcker has elected to convert his savings to. Or if he'd rather lose almost half its real value with a terrible outlook going forward.

http://www.ft.com/fastft/247221/roub...lash-forecasts

Ironically, one of the best choices right now is the dollar.

And not like Russia has the money to stabilize itself.



What this graph doesn't tell you, is that oil may hit as low as $40 next year, with experts expecting a low yearly average could be about $50. That's insane.

See 2008-2009 on that graph? Oil hit 40$ back then as well. And that did not change anything in my daily life at all. I expect same to happen this time.

[Rukentuts]

Do you remember last time oil hit 40$ ? We had about same amount of reserves back then. And that did not change anything in my daily life at all. I expect same to happen this time as well.

Do you know what happens when Russia's amount of "available reserves" hit $0, which they may in Q3 to Q4?

And the change in your daily life is that you're now worth about 40% less since this whole Crimea debacle.

[Kellhound]

See 2008-2009 on that graph? Oil hit 40$ back then as well. And that did not change anything in my daily life at all. I expect same to happen this time.

You do realize that Russian reserves are already almost as low as they were in 2008/09 and oil hasn't hit bottom yet?

[Rukentuts]

You do realize that Russian reserves are already almost as low as they were in 2008/09 and oil hasn't hit bottom yet?

Let's see what Putin's support looks like next year (and Russia's GDP) when massive austerity enters the picture in an effort to avoid default. Countries got out of the commodities market for this very reason. Once you rely on it due to a shitload of handouts one bad year can fuck you.

Coming into this thread I supported nationalization of energy in the United States. Now I don't, for this very reason.

[Shalcker]

Is that why with the economy in Russia on what appears to be a significant and extended downturn, there's growing opposition to his foreign policy despite the desperate efforts of state media to prop him up?

European economy also seems to be in "significant and extended downturn"; and "growing opposition" comes more from "Not enough! More anti-west stuff!" then from "Let's just be friends!", because Putin rhetoric was strictly conciliatory all this time. You just have to understand and respect Russian interests.

Maybe you should look at that graph once again, and see how much available money Russia will have if oil stays below $50 to Q3 2015, which Morgan Stanley expects it to. Crimea won't mean pittance with an impending default.

Those reserves that are counted currently as "not immediately usable" will be converted, that's all.

And default is decades away. Not that anyone would care about it too - our debt-to-gdp ratio is just around 10%, we can service debt pretty much indefinitely.