SB 2016-021: Ukranian Freedom Act (Passed Senate)

[tmthforu94]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Blair

The sponsor is welcome to speak on the bill. 72 hours minimum for debate.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Regarding section 3d: from where do these mysterious "US troops" hail? The State Department is not aware of any country by that name.

[tmthforu94]

Regarding section 3d: from where do these mysterious "US troops" hail? The State Department is not aware of any country by that name.

I think we can do a friendly changing that.

Do you think $170 million is enough money in assistance? Additionally, should be specify the terms of that loan, or do you think that is getting too specific (ex: requiring it to be paid off in ten years)?

[Pingvin]

While I do understand the intentions of this act, I'm highly skeptical of it. Ukrainian government is notorious for it's corruption levels, so we'll most likely see almost all of 170$ millions of aid go down the drain.

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

I am a house member, but please vote no on this bill. Crimea is Russian, the people voted, Atlasia has no right to determine the political map. That is their own people's job.

[Classic Conservative]

(Classic sneaks into the Senate)

I highly urge a YEA vote. Crimea is Ukraine, we should respect Ukranian sovereignty and rebuild the Eastern European Missile Defense Program.

[tmthforu94]

When possible, I would appreciate more information from the sponsor (or others) on the bill. This is an issue I am a bit unfamiliar with. I'll also be doing my own independent research.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

As others said, 97% of Crimeans voted to join the Russian Federation.  Even in light of accusations of voter fraud in the 2014 referendum, I do not think it would be responsible for Atlasia to execute an inherently anti-democratic military response, much as we oppose the Putin regime and support Ukrainian territorial integrity, if such an overwhelming majority of Crimeans favored secession.

[Blair]

I believe the 97% referendum was held whilst Russian Troops were occupying Crimea. It's a trend to invoke Godwin that was seen in the 1930s- German Military intervenes to 'protect German miniroity' they vote in a referendum and then Austria, and Czechoslaviqia are gone.

To give a Brief backdrop to Ukraine- from my head there was a pro Russian government that rejected an EU trade deal- mass uprising in west of the Country, government collapses and a more pro EU/NATO government gets in, Russia invades Crimea and begins sending Troops to Eastern 'and more pro Russian' Ukraine but claim they're 'freedom fighters' not Russian troops. Later shot down a passenger plane.


I'd be happy for people like Classic to amend this further in the House to expand funding- we need to be supporting Ukraine

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Blair and Classic are correct: the so-called "referendum" on independence was conducted by the occupying Russian Army. This is a fairly common tactic in faux democracies: the ruling authorities call a vote, employ every backhanded trick in the book to skew the results their way, and then report a massive victory in their favor to legitimize the regime. We've seen this in Syria, in Egypt under Mubarak, in North Korea - the list goes on and on. Keep in mind that because this "referendum" was extralegal (i.e. it was called by an invading army, not the Ukrainian government), most opponents of independence likely didn't vote, either because they did not want to legitimize the "referendum" or because they were intimidated by the presence of armed Russian troops backing independence.

In short, saying that "the people voted" is a woefully naive assessment of what went on in Crimea in 2013. This was an armed conquest, pure and simple, and it does not behove the Republic of Atlasia to sanction such actions.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Do you think $170 million is enough money in assistance?

I believe that should be sufficient, though I will look into the matter further and alert the Senate if an increase appears necessary. I would be interested to hear how Senator Blair came to settle on this figure - for example, is it based on past actions of this government, or requests by the Ukrainian authorities?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I think it would be helpful to at least have some idea of whether the Crimeans felt that their rights were being encroached upon in Russia's annexation of them.  My knowledge of Ukraine is limited, though by some accounts it would appear that Crimea intrinsically has more in common with Russia than with the rest of Ukraine; it is the only region of the country where Russian is the predominant language.

To my knowledge, the only available indicator of where Crimeans stand is the 2014 referendum.  Absent a fair analysis, my biggest concern is how increased military activity would impact the people living in the region.  If Crimeans have determined that they owe no loyalty to their official state, then impeding on them would only inflame tensions and potentially jeopardize our standing with the international community more than if we did nothing.

It would be helpful if Secretary Truman or Senator Blair could provide some more information on that.

[Blair]

The 170 million was based on what I thought we could spare- to be a wonk I saw a policy program saying we could take away arms funding from certain regimes (Pakistan, Saudi) and transfer it to Ukraine to allow us not to spend more.

It was brought together from bits and pieces I read- I don't have access to my laptop with all my political clippings on them. I'd be happy to increase the funding but still with a focus on governance/aid rather than simply handing over weaponry

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Again, there is no reason to believe that the so-called "referendum" is at all representative of the will of the Crimean people, except that Russia says it is. It is simply not a credible source with which to measure popular opinion.

A May 2013 poll conducted by the International Republican Institute found a healthy majority (53%) of Crimeans supported maintaining their status as an autonomous province within Ukraine, while just 23% supported independence. Past polling has been all over the place, but it's hard to conclude that Crimeans are united in support for unification with Russia. At best, the question is highly controversial, and I highly doubt that the 2014 "referendum" would even have occurred had it not been for the Russian occupation of the peninsula.

It is undeniable, however, that Crimea has seen a dramatic reduction in the standard of living since annexation, and it is difficult to see how their rights could be better protected by the Russian Federation - a country ruled by a strongman with no respect for the freedom of speech, one who has had his political opponents assassinated, whose actions in Eastern Europe pose a serious threat to international stability, and who uses aggression and war to distract from his crumbing economy - than by Ukraine.

[Senator Cris]

I agree with the Secretary of State. How we can even consider the results of that "referendum" after looking at the conditions on which it was conducted?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I think it would be helpful to at least have some idea of whether the Crimeans felt that their rights were being encroached upon in Russia's annexation of them.  My knowledge of Ukraine is limited, though by some accounts it would appear that Crimea intrinsically has more in common with Russia than with the rest of Ukraine; it is the only region of the country where Russian is the predominant language.

To my knowledge, the only available indicator of where Crimeans stand is the 2014 referendum.  Absent a fair analysis, my biggest concern is how increased military activity would impact the people living in the region.  If Crimeans have determined that they owe no loyalty to their official state, then impeding on them would only inflame tensions and potentially jeopardize our standing with the international community more than if we did nothing.

It would be helpful if Secretary Truman or Senator Blair could provide some more information on that.

As a Polish-Atlasian, I'd gladly comment on this later.

[tmthforu94]

There has been no debate - I am bringing this to a final vote. Senators, please vote AYE, NAY or ABSTAIN.

[Prince of Salem]

Aye

I'd support a fair referendum, not what we had instead.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Abstain.

[Pingvin]

Nay

[Senator Cris]

Aye

Aye

I'd support a fair referendum, not what we had instead.

I agree.

[Blair]

aye

[tmthforu94]

Abstain. Maybe the House will be able to look into this more, but with the information presented, I don't feel strongly enough in the arguments for it to vote in favor.


This has enough votes to pass. Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

This has passed, correct?

[tmthforu94]

Correct, sorry for not formalizing it in the thread.