Crimea parliament votes to join Russia; referendum date set


In a twist that's perhaps not really a surprise, Crimea's parliament has voted unanimously for the province to become a part of Russia.

The people of Crimea will get to have their say in a referendum on March 16.

Crimea was part of Russia until 1954 and over the half the population is Russian.

Meanwhile, EU leaders are holding an emergency summit in Brussels to discuss sanctions against Russia over its takeover of Crimea. A yes vote in the referendum would put the West in a bit of a democratic bind.

More on Ukraine.

Russian and Eastern European ETFs: RSX, RUSL, ERUS, RUSS, RSXJ, RBL, RUDR, GUR, ESR

From other sites
Comments (23)
  • mitrado
    , contributor
    Comments (2033) | Send Message
     
    EU should also discuss sanctions on the terrorists that have taken control of Ukraine: http://ino.to/1g0u9b0
    6 Mar 2014, 06:19 AM Reply Like
  • Land of Milk and Honey
    , contributor
    Comments (8507) | Send Message
     
    That's yellow journalism. No real proof, just accusations from those not in a position to be held accountable. So it's meaningless drivel. Zerohedge often has alarmist articles.
    6 Mar 2014, 08:02 PM Reply Like
  • mitrado
    , contributor
    Comments (2033) | Send Message
     
    I see:

     

    1) You refused to hear the 10 minute phone call between the Foreign Minister Urmas Paet and EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton: http://bit.ly/1hSeE59

     

    2) You ignored the press release by the Estonian Ministry of foreign Affairs confirming the call's authencity: http://bit.ly/1hSeElo

     

    3) You went on a rage about that journalism being meaningless drivel without even checking the facts for yourself...

     

    Need to say more?
    7 Mar 2014, 03:46 AM Reply Like
  • Land of Milk and Honey
    , contributor
    Comments (8507) | Send Message
     
    mitrado

     

    That's what you base this accusation on? A youtube posted? With speculation? That doesn't even go as far as the Zerohedge article conclusions?

     

    1) The callers -speculate- that the bullets are from the same group. Not proof seen, but word of one person (Olga). A person, no matter how well intended, under stressful times, can misinterpret & mis-see things and misstate evidence even accidently. It's happened before. That's why journalists verify.

     

    2) Even if true, the callers don't speculate that it's "EU & US". Only that the new coalition g'vt & their supporters are behind it. Even pointing to the g'vt is -speculation- without proof. There is no evidence of why or what anyone was up to.

     

    3) The call itself, the youtube, is curious. Extremely high sound quality on a recorded call. No indication that either speaker knows they are being recorded or not recorded, and whether their statements will be on record. Even if a legit call, one wonders if it was planned... in order to put their own seeds out to the public.

     

    In other words, if this is what you base -Conclusions- on then I'll skip getting information from you... Sure, put this into the mix and investigate... but don't come to large impacting accusations at EU & US off of this vague, unsubstantiated gossip that doesn't even do that.

     

    Thanks for sharing, but, this reinforces that the ZH article was not quality journalism.
    7 Mar 2014, 10:00 AM Reply Like
  • mitrado
    , contributor
    Comments (2033) | Send Message
     
    You can't see the sun while you're staring directly at it. And if you insist on keep doing it, you'll go blind. Good luck with your "I don't like it, so I'll just just ignore it" strategy. I'm not wasting another second of my time with you. Bye.
    7 Mar 2014, 10:03 AM Reply Like
  • Land of Milk and Honey
    , contributor
    Comments (8507) | Send Message
     
    mitrado

     

    Even here you avoid debate on the actual merits and insult instead. I pointed out the facts of why your "sun" isn't remotely a sun.

     

    Yep, your reply makes me think that your thoughtful and don't leap easily to negative claims about others, hum...
    7 Mar 2014, 10:10 AM Reply Like
  • mitrado
    , contributor
    Comments (2033) | Send Message
     
    I'm not avoiding debate. Just avoiding wasting my time with a discussion that has no legs to run. There's a big difference.

     

    I'm always open to a logical and interesting exchange of ideas, but unfortunately, that's an impossible thing to do with you. You've already decided what the truth is and you'll stick to it like a Creationist sticks to his fairy tales.
    7 Mar 2014, 10:20 AM Reply Like
  • Land of Milk and Honey
    , contributor
    Comments (8507) | Send Message
     
    Mitrado

     

    If you could find time to type that, you could find time to but in an actual factual merit based counter-comment. You're either too lazy, or too afraid.

     

    Instead YOU"VE decided what I think. Which is yet more evidence that you leap to conclusions without thinking things through. If you had an argument to make, I'd have taken it into consideration. After all... I listened to the TEN minutes of video before coming to conclusions. You've not taken a half a min to write anything of merit, only empty insults. And you're accusing me of pre-determined conclusions??

     

    Good bye.
    7 Mar 2014, 10:27 AM Reply Like
  • mitrado
    , contributor
    Comments (2033) | Send Message
     
    What insults? Thanks again for proving my point: you're not here to have a logical debate, you're here to pick up a fight and nothing else. It's so sad that Seeking Alpha doesn't allow to ban people like you.
    7 Mar 2014, 10:36 AM Reply Like
  • Land of Milk and Honey
    , contributor
    Comments (8507) | Send Message
     
    mitrado

     

    Good grief. You're insulting me some more. And still not posting anything having to do with the topic. Try it. It'd be interesting to hear actual counter arguments to the arguments I posted.

     

    "you're not here to have a logical debate, " IS an insult.
    "you're here to pick up a fight and nothing else. " IS an insult.
    Both are false and nonsense. Hard to have a debate when you haven't posted anything to debate.
    7 Mar 2014, 10:46 AM Reply Like
  • mitrado
    , contributor
    Comments (2033) | Send Message
     
    No, I wasn't insulting you. But apparently you believe I am. Pffff.

     

    "Hard to have a debate when you haven't posted anything to debate."

     

    So now you know exactly how I feel.
    7 Mar 2014, 10:54 AM Reply Like
  • Land of Milk and Honey
    , contributor
    Comments (8507) | Send Message
     
    You still haven't posted any actual debatable concepts about the situation. I'm not going to reply any further, unless you do. Unless you switch to talking about the original topic.

     

    Good bye.
    7 Mar 2014, 11:01 AM Reply Like
  • mitrado
    , contributor
    Comments (2033) | Send Message
     
    Ok, you really want to debate? Let's try again.

     

    1) Snipers killed both cops and protesters - which constitutes a crime;
    2) The new government is refusing to investigate who's behind these shootings.

     

    To find out who ordered these attacks there's a need for an investigation.

     

    Now...
    - Why would a president order an attack on his own police forces?
    - Why would the new government be against an investigation of a crime?
    7 Mar 2014, 12:19 PM Reply Like
  • Land of Milk and Honey
    , contributor
    Comments (8507) | Send Message
     
    Ooh, content.

     

    1) We don't know snipers killed both cops and protesters. We know a person named Olga who's involved with the protestors, said so. Even that we don't know, and are only told by a third party.

     

    Shooting random people is a crime, doesn't matter who's shooting.

     

    2) We know a third party tells us the g'vt doesn't want to investigate. We don't have the g'vt's side of the story. Maybe they don't see any credible evidence that would make it worth even considering. Meanwhile it would get media attention and make life messier, so they'd have to have a reason to do it.

     

    Investigating even just the police's actions (assuming no police were shot) is not in the best interests of this new g'vt that more or less coupe'd it's way into place. Those shootings were already cause for great distresses at them. Putting the shooting front and center for an investigation and ongoing public attention, would not be wise of them.

     

    3) We still have no evidence or connection or reason to believe it's EU & US. Point blank.

     

    - Did the president order an attack on his own forces? Or were there rogue shooters with their own agenda? Or does the whole thing not exist, and is being spread by those who have a problem with this "g'vt" (not that this g'vt got there through proper means.)

     

    - Are they against investigation for reasons I've given, or just don't think there's anything credible to focus on at all? Are they overloaded and worried about what damage that would do to their reputation even if they've done nothing wrong? What if they're worried they have rogue units, and a public investigation would get in the way of dealing with the internal problem?

     

    And it still doesn't mean it's backed by some foreign g'vts. It could be backed by some local or internal political group with it's own agenda. There's zip evidence tying in any other gov't. The callers don't even go there!!

     

    Truth isn't in filling in details with what "seems possible" but in investigating. Journalists are supposed to investigate first before reporting. At the least they should make clear what is fact and what is fully conjecture. The article claims things that aren't remotely supported.

     

    There isn't evidence here of anything. There is enough for a good investigative reporter to look into, and maybe down the road, tell an actual story. Right now, we have some gossip.
    7 Mar 2014, 03:51 PM Reply Like
  • The Sociology of Finance
    , contributor
    Comments (955) | Send Message
     
    Let them vote. If Crimeans choose Russia, problem solved. It is not in our national interest to throw more money into Eurasian land wars.
    6 Mar 2014, 08:42 AM Reply Like
  • Averog
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    That is democracy in action.
    6 Mar 2014, 09:41 AM Reply Like
  • PeteCal
    , contributor
    Comments (90) | Send Message
     
    I would think Putin is against this. Wouldn't he want all these Russians voting in future Ukraine elections? He wants to rebuild the Soviet empire. He wants all of Ukraine.
    6 Mar 2014, 09:50 AM Reply Like
  • taxman100
    , contributor
    Comments (551) | Send Message
     
    Just the economically and culturally valuable part to Russia - the east.

     

    The western part was part of Austria-Hungary and the Eastern part Russian until the end of World War I, and then Poland until the end of World War II. The Commies split it up into Ukraine after World War II.

     

    I know history is not considered valuable in the government schools (not like diversity and feelings), but the rest of the world doesn't always think that way, nor can they be bought off by Central Banks printing money out of thin air.
    7 Mar 2014, 12:02 AM Reply Like
  • sidewatch
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    Case in Ukraine amaze me is if changing government by protesting is legal, why to have election in first place.
    6 Mar 2014, 12:35 PM Reply Like
  • sidewatch
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    The thigns amazed me is the elected Ukraine government is changed by people protesting on street. So why to have election in first place?
    6 Mar 2014, 12:36 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1741) | Send Message
     
    Side; According to the UN Stolen Assets Recovery Initiative, Yanukovych and his cronies made off with an astounding $30 Billion. $30 Billion. Without that, the Ukraine would be a fairly prosperous economy, in fact it was very prosperous for a few. Elected or not, corrupt politicians can be removed, even if it requires public demonstrations or eventual revolution. A lot of that money made it's way into Russian banks by the way. Without Yanukovych the incredible money machine shuts down but the proceeds of being 3rd or 4th in exporting wheat, 3rd or 4th in exporting corn, and 3rd in exporting weapons globally can flow to the economy and the rest of the citizens. Just because a crook got elected doesn't mean he can keep the job.
    6 Mar 2014, 07:31 PM Reply Like
  • mitrado
    , contributor
    Comments (2033) | Send Message
     
    And after the corrupted politicians are removed from power, equalliy corrupted politicians take the power: http://bit.ly/O0wY1l

     

    And please don't tell me the objective of Revolution of the Ukrainian population was for them to become even poorer. That would be incredibly stupid. Who'd risk dying to ask for a 50% pension cut?
    7 Mar 2014, 03:49 AM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1741) | Send Message
     
    So you figure nothing can ever change and the population is doomed forever? Maybe so but maybe not. Something will change one way or another because the country is broke.
    7 Mar 2014, 03:35 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs