Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Stats Government Politics

Actual Results of Crimean Secession Vote Leaked 557

Posted by timothy
from the not-quite-as-advertised dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Forbes reported on Monday that The President of Russia's Council on Civil Society and Human Rights very briefly and supposedly by accident posted the actual results of the Crimean secession vote. According to the blog post, which has since been taken down, only 30% of Crimeans participated in the vote instead of the 83% participation officially advertised by Russia, and of that 30% only half voted for secession, which means that 15% of all Crimeans voted for secession rather than the 82% officially reported by Russia. There is no way for this claim to be verified as no foreign observers were allowed during the voting process. The vote is reportedly being conducted again during the 'May 11 referendum on the status of the so-called People's Republic of Donetsk.'" We've had a lot of discussion over the years about election methods and transparency; it would be interesting to hear from Ukranian readers in particular on this topic.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Actual Results of Crimean Secession Vote Leaked

Comments Filter:
  • well (Score:2, Funny)

    by Keruo (771880)
    Crimea=Florida
    But who's counting..
    • Re:well (Score:4, Funny)

      by nitehawk214 (222219) on Tuesday May 06, 2014 @02:52PM (#46932005)

      Crimea=Florida

      But who's counting..

      Russia can have Florida.

  • Again? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jbmartin6 (1232050) on Tuesday May 06, 2014 @12:56PM (#46930273)
    Given how many lies and half-truths have been circulated by the press about this, I am not sure I believe this at all.
    • by bobbied (2522392)

      Given how many lies and half-truths have been circulated by the press

      Ahh... Just stop there and you got it...

  • by alen (225700) on Tuesday May 06, 2014 @12:58PM (#46930299)

    Edward Snowden fled there to escape US tyranny

    • by Bacon Bits (926911) on Tuesday May 06, 2014 @01:04PM (#46930405)

      Sometimes the only person who stands up to a bully is another bully.

    • by evilviper (135110)

      North Korea is probably a nice country, if you are in the leadership, or a VIP like Dennis Rodman, too.

      I've considered taking my savings, and living like a king in some 3rd world shithole before, myself, too. That some people have it good, doesn't make it a nice place.

      • by swb (14022)

        The problem is, as an outsider, you're on the hook for protection money forever. You've got no leverage and they will just bleed you dry and then dispose of you.

        As an insider, well, look what happens with top guys in DPRK when they fall out of favor -- they get hauled out of bed, shoved into a car and get shot someplace. And I don't think it's so easy to just be a low-profile yes-man, either. You don't get to be in the leadership or stay there without playing the game, which means angling for the spot ab

  • by Dachannien (617929) on Tuesday May 06, 2014 @01:04PM (#46930403)

    Seriously, DICE? I'm sitting here looking at the first few comments, hoping for a little clarity and maybe even some insightful discussion - you know, Slashdot style - when the window contents scroll up and a video ad, with sound, starts playing.

    I am done with this piece of shit website. How do I delete my account?

  • History lesson (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DaveAtFraud (460127) on Tuesday May 06, 2014 @01:05PM (#46930421) Homepage Journal

    “Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.”

      Joseph Stalin

    Sounds like Putin has studied history.

  • by WiglyWorm (1139035) on Tuesday May 06, 2014 @01:09PM (#46930475) Homepage
    The vote had 30% turnout. ~50% voted to be annexed. Thus 15% of the population voted yes, but ~50% of the VOTE was for annexation. Of course, going to go vote no while the russians are sitting around in your country with guns and amassed on the border couldn't be an easy decision.
    • by jonnythan (79727)

      You'd think it would take more than a simple majority to secede from your country.....

    • by fermion (181285)
      The key for an election, in the modern sense, is that everyone who is allowed to vote vote is equally able to vote in a way that will not result in individual retaliation for a vote. We don't know if that happened in this case, to a lesser or greater extent than anywhere else. In the US voting is an equal struggle. Many have had to vote for suffrage, and some are having road blocks added to keep them from equal access. Also for off year elections 30% is not such a low number in the US. Yes if we talk a
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The question of the referendum was posed as:
      [ ] Do you support Crimea joining Russian Federation?
      [ ] Do you support Crimea returning to its 1992 constitution and being part of Ukraine?
      Exactly one box must have been ticked for the ballot to be considered valid. Under the 1992 constitution Crimea was almost an independent state, with its own diplomatic relations etc, and it would have the power to secede from Ukraine anyway. So there was no option for status quo, no option to vote "no" at all, the only way to

    • but ~50% of the VOTE was for annexation.

      Yeah, but never mind that there was no option to stay in the Ukraine like a significant fraction of the population voted. The entire thing was rotten end to end.

      • Re:Misleading (Score:5, Informative)

        by guacamole (24270) on Tuesday May 06, 2014 @02:59PM (#46932101)

        You are wrong. There was an option to stay in Ukraine. Check your facts. Moreover, the Forbes article is garbage. The guy was posing hysterical anti-Russian garbage for months. The report said that _probably_ 30-50% of voters voted, with 50-60% voting pro-Russian. So why does the guy lowball his numbers? Forbes is the last place you should consult for the truth in international politics, by the way. It's a typical conservative, neo-con mouthpiece.

  • Observers (Score:4, Informative)

    by evilviper (135110) on Tuesday May 06, 2014 @01:09PM (#46930477) Journal

    OSCE observers were invited, but the organization declined. Somewhere around 100 international observers from other organizations were present. They might have mostly been Russian schills, but they were there.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Katatsumuri (1137173)
      Yes, OSCE refused to take any part in this circus, because the poll was illegal under Ukrainian law and was conducted under "protection" of Russian armed forces posing as local militia.
  • by joe_frisch (1366229) on Tuesday May 06, 2014 @01:11PM (#46930503)

    There really is no way to know what is real and what isn't with propaganda machines going full out on both sides.

  • by Richard_at_work (517087) <richardprice@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday May 06, 2014 @01:11PM (#46930515)

    You should tell the 30 strong team from Poland, Austria, France, Germany, Belgium, Bulgaria, Hungary, Greece, Italy and Latvia that they weren't there...

    No tensions in Ukraine’s autonomous republic of Crimea were reported by the team of international observers Saturday, as they started monitoring polling stations and readying for the crucial vote on the peninsula’s independence.

    Thirty observers, who come from 10 European nations, have arrived in Crimea at the invitation of the republic's election commission and have already started their work, Mateusz Piskorski, the director of the European Geopolitical Analysis Centre and the mission coordinator, said.

    “At the moment we are starting to monitor the preparation of polling stations. In general, the situation is very calm, there is no tension,” he told Interfax news agency. “Everyone hopes there will be no provocations."

    Members of the mission come from Poland, Austria, France, Germany, Belgium, Bulgaria, Hungary, Greece, Italy and Latvia. Representing the European Democracy and Election Monitoring Institute (Brussels), they are deputies from the European parliament, members of national parliaments of their native countries, as well as leading European international law experts and famous human rights activists.

    http://rt.com/news/crimea-refe... [rt.com]

    • by wooppp (921578) on Tuesday May 06, 2014 @01:23PM (#46930701) Homepage Journal
      Except that from http://www.theguardian.com/wor... [theguardian.com] ------- No major international organisations are monitoring the vote, but a group of observers from 23 countries – a mixture of anti-western ideologues and European far-right politicians – have arrived of their own accord and gave a press conference in Simferopol on Saturday evening. ------- I ain't sure whether some readers understand the implication of the Ukraine issue now, of which Putin is using the same strategy as in the Russo-Georgian War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_war) that ultimately led to ethnic cleansing. There will be lots of blood.
    • by Moskit (32486) on Tuesday May 06, 2014 @02:44PM (#46931895)

      Mr Piskorski has often commented that "Ukraine is a fallen country". He appeared on Russia Today tv station as "western expert" claiming Maidan was inspired by Western countries, and repeating Putin rhetorics.

      He was accused of being Russian agent since 2007. He is collaborating with CIS-EMO, who go to "observe" various elections in Russia, and produce reports positive for Russia.

      All in all - those observers were likely just used by Russians to validate "elections".

  • Who stands to gain? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The source, a blog posting, is not at all credible and the fact that its even newsworthy indicates it is being pushed by propaganda. Who stands to gain?

    According to what I have read (sorry i didn't bookmark the source) and in my conversations with people from the area, it is very understandable that the people of Crimea would have voted to join Russia. We get the NATO side of the propaganda over here.

  • by bigpat (158134) on Tuesday May 06, 2014 @01:21PM (#46930679)

    There is a blatant information war going on on both sides of this.

    Here is basically what is going on:

    1. 1) US/EU has been actively trying to keep Russia from forming an Eurasian Union with some of the members of the former Soviet Union. (most probably because the people running US/EU foreign policy grew up with the Soviet Union and are afraid of repeating the cold war)
    2. 2) Russia pressured/bribed Ukraine to move towards the Russia side after a brief foray towards the EU.
    3. 3) The EU/US fomented an overthrow of the government in Ukraine probably facilitated by covert operations in order to prevent the Eurasian Union from coming together with Ukraine as its economic crossroad to Europe.
    4. 4) Russia tried to salvage something out of this collapse of the pro-Russian government by grabbing Crimea with its majority Russian population.
    5. 5) Russia is now fomenting separatists in Eastern Ukraine using the same tactics the CIA used in Kiev and the US/EU doesn't like it.

    ....

    Next) Either Russia invades and annexes Eastern Ukraine following the Crimea model or they simply foment separatism which either succeeds in splitting the country or causes a bloody crackdown by Kiev which further de-legitimizes that interim government.

    - Probably China is cheer leading this US/EU/Russia split on because if the EU and Russia are forced further apart, then it forces resource rich Russia towards China which needs all the wood/oil/natural gas/mining that Russia has to offer to sustain its manufacturing economy and China doesn't want a strong Eurasian Union coming together either. This has already started with announcements of greater cooperation with China.

    I think the bitter irony in all this is that the foreign policy leaders in the West that are so afraid of repeating the Cold War are precipitating something like it now because of that fear. Russia has every right to be concerned that it is stuck between a growing EU and China and that it needs to build up its own alliance in the middle. Their historical lesson is that a Europe united under Germany is a threat. It seems to me that the EU and US are being very shortsighted to have undercut Putin so blatantly and overtly in Ukraine. The US and EU needs a strong Russia and something like a Eurasian Alliance to counterbalance China to the East. If anything the EU should have invited Russia to join it to form an even greater Union that would be a direct counterbalance to China instead of just leaving Russia as a buffer state.

    • Sounds like you are playing a video or board game. Any ways, so many other countries from the "eastern block" have joined or are on their way to be part of the EU. Russia doesn't want to as it has its own resources and its own oligarchy in place and those people don't want to impact their lifestyle. That whole country is an oligarchy of monopolies that permeates everything from food to infrastructure. They'd have to give that up to join the EU.
    • by ericloewe (2129490) on Tuesday May 06, 2014 @01:37PM (#46930939)

      3) Deserves a massive [Citation Needed] sticker. The only covert operations of which there is any proof is the massive Russian involvement.

    • by gman003 (1693318) on Tuesday May 06, 2014 @02:09PM (#46931387)

      There is a blatant information war going on on both sides of this.

      Here is basically what is going on:

      1. 1) US/EU has been actively trying to keep Russia from forming an Eurasian Union with some of the members of the former Soviet Union. (most probably because the people running US/EU foreign policy grew up with the Soviet Union and are afraid of repeating the cold war)
      2. 2) Russia pressured/bribed Ukraine to move towards the Russia side after a brief foray towards the EU.

      With you so far.

      1. 3) The EU/US fomented an overthrow of the government in Ukraine probably facilitated by covert operations in order to prevent the Eurasian Union from coming together with Ukraine as its economic crossroad to Europe.

      I have seen little evidence of US/EU covert operations in the revolution, and I've been following it closely. There was definitely propaganda support, maybe political pressure, perhaps even covert advisors trying to make sure that the revolution was successful, but it was by and large a Ukrainian revolution.

      The thrust of the revolution was forcing out a government that was blatantly corrupt and increasingly dictatorial, not to join up with the EU. While I usually frown on getting involved in other country's problems, I don't think I could get too upset about lending a hand to a revolution that was forcing out such a government, particularly when the support is only aiding a revolution that would have happened anyways, not forcing a revolution that the people did not really want

      1. 4) Russia tried to salvage something out of this collapse of the pro-Russian government by grabbing Crimea with its majority Russian population.

      Crimea is "majority Russian" only because Stalin forced out the native Tatars. And while there was a separatist movement (nonviolent) before the revolution, it was a secessionist movement, not a Russian one. There was no way they got the numbers they claimed legitimately.

      1. 5) Russia is now fomenting separatists in Eastern Ukraine using the same tactics the CIA used in Kiev and the US/EU doesn't like it.

      Russia's tactics are different. Even if you assume CIA involvement in the revolution, they let the actual people perform the revolution - which means a good number of people had to be ready to fight for it.

      Russia is sending in their own military. They are the ones fighting this counter-revolution - not the people they claim to be helping. This is by and large a Russian military intervention.

      The western revolution was fought with molotov cocktails by students and retired veterans. The eastern revolution is being fought by armed and trained soldiers, following radio orders from Moscow. It's impossible to claim they're the same tactics, which means it is completely valid to treat them differently.

      The CIA isn't mad that Russia is using the same tactics - they're mad because Russia is unable to find enough people to actually fight this war in Ukraine, so they're just sending in soldiers and pretending it's a popular rebellion.

      ....

      Next) Either Russia invades and annexes Eastern Ukraine following the Crimea model or they simply foment separatism which either succeeds in splitting the country or causes a bloody crackdown by Kiev which further de-legitimizes that interim government.

      - Probably China is cheer leading this US/EU/Russia split on because if the EU and Russia are forced further apart, then it forces resource rich Russia towards China which needs all the wood/oil/natural gas/mining that Russia has to offer to sustain its manufacturing economy and China doesn't want a strong Eurasian Union coming together either. This has already started with announcements of greater cooperation with China.

      I think the bitter irony in all this is that the foreign policy leaders in the West that are so afra

    • by swb (14022)

      I think China and Russia are much more conflicted with each other than you describe. They nearly went to war over some river island in 1969.

      While China certainly has a standing policy of accepting anything that goes on inside a country as its "internal affairs", that policy is a little sketchier when it comes to basically annexing territory of another sovereign state. It's not just internal affairs when the guy next door decides he wants to redraw your own Western boundary.

      Russia may be willing to extend

  • In addition to the massive difficulty in running an honest vote on such short notice, I have never found 82% of humans to ever agree on something so controversial. When I heard that number it was obviously and blatantly fake, even if a majority of people wanted to rejoin Russia there was no way that many people would agree to such a radical change.
  • Forbes NOT reporting (Score:5, Interesting)

    by radarskiy (2874255) on Tuesday May 06, 2014 @01:42PM (#46931001)

    This is an op-ed column, not a news article. Many news organization disclaim all fact-checking on op-eds; I don't know Forbes' specific policy.

  • by guacamole (24270) on Tuesday May 06, 2014 @02:09PM (#46931377)

    Forbes reported on Monday that The President of Russia's Council on Civil Society and Human Rights very briefly and supposedly by accident posted the actual results of the Crimean secession vote.

    Forbes is one of the primary neo-con internet mouthpieces. They have posted an incredible amount of ridiculous, 100% emotionally driven, and 0% fact-based articles on the Ukraine conflict.

    Moreover, the claim that's based on a website that was taken down is pure garbage. At least give us an archive version, please?

    There is no way for this claim to be verified as no foreign observers were allowed during the voting process.

    Foreign observers were allowed in Crimea, and I have seen many on TV, from Finland, Serbia, etc. If Americans, Germans, or British refused to attend, that's their problem.

    The vote is reportedly being conducted again during the 'May 11 referendum on the status of the so-called People's Republic of Donetsk.'"

    The vote is NOT conducted AGAIN. That's a different referendum, concerning a different territory and has nothing to do with Crimea.

  • by guacamole (24270) on Tuesday May 06, 2014 @02:35PM (#46931785)

    Let me point out that the article was based in the op-ed column by Paul Roderick Gregory, who referred to a web piece that we can no longer find ourselves. This guy has been posting anti-Russian articles, often quite ridiculous ones, about once a week of Forbes's web site. In my view, this guy is simply a neo-con mouthpiece and has zero credibility.

When the weight of the paperwork equals the weight of the plane, the plane will fly. -- Donald Douglas

Working...