The Soviet Leader Krushchev, of Ukrainian origin, gave it away to the Ukranian SR.
Crimea (and East Ukraine) has been Russian since they took it from the Ottomans a couple of hundred years ago (and cleansed the Tatars).
Printable View
The Soviet Leader Krushchev, of Ukrainian origin, gave it away to the Ukranian SR.
Crimea (and East Ukraine) has been Russian since they took it from the Ottomans a couple of hundred years ago (and cleansed the Tatars).
Of course not. What's I am saying if the legal means, peaceful protests, etc are used to raise the issue of Crimea transfer to Russia, this will take decades, while the locals are being possibly harassed, persecuted, and subjugated by Kiev. Why should Crimeans have to go through this in the name of "International Law" which has failed so many other separatists?Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
And the United States indeed did a lot of shit around the world. The bloody US sponsored coup in Chile, absolutely illegal attack on Vietnam. The Second Iraq war. Where was the "International Law" then? International Law is basically on the side of those with force. Plain and simple. Sometimes it coincides with the needs of the strong countries in which case everything is done by the law and sometimes the strong do their thing anyways regardless of any laws.
The economy of places like parts of Germany, Korea, Japan, and the Philippines, to name a few, are tied to American military bases. So they should be part of America too, right?[/quote:ryj0h1ic]Quote:
[quote:ryj0h1ic]What do you know about what Putin and the rest of Russians feel about their ethnic keens in Crimea as well as the importance of Crimea to Russian history? To Russians, the situation of Russians in the Crimea was the main national cause celebre for the last two decades. The Black Sea Fleet was stationed there for as long as the black sea fleet existed (two centuries?). The majority of Crimea population are Russian and a huge part of their economy is tied to Russia's Black Sea Fleet.
Like I said, what do you know about the place of Crimea in Russian History? Apparently nothing.
The point here is that Russia gave it away. Talking about taking Crimea back is one thing. A military invasion is quite another.[/quote:ryj0h1ic]Quote:
[quote:ryj0h1ic] In Putin's view, he is not expanding his influence. He's just taking back what was lost a couple of decades ago. Certainly, right now is the best time to raise the issue of Crimea. After all, why would have Russia raised the issue of Crimea at the time when its relations with Ukraine are at an all time high? When Ukraine was the poster child of the soviet union, they assigned Crimea to Ukraine. On the other hand, once the relationship with Kiev reaches an all time low, it seems like the appropriate time to talk about taking Crimea back.
No. that's the same thing. And Russia did not give anything away. The Soviet leadership did. Ukraine was the poster child of the Soviet Union and has received an amazing amount of resources from the center, besides Crimea. It's only appropriate that once Ukraine, despite all the bribing, Ukraine becomes independent and pursues openly anti-Russian policy that Russians ask for their property back.
Do not stray away from the main point I meant, which was to call BS on the "ethnic cleansing" fear mongering. I don't want to engage in rhetoric regarding other things.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
There is absolutely no credible evidence that the Russian population of Crimea was being "harassed, persecuted and subjugated" by Kiev. Though that's the smoke screen Putin has thrown up.Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
Couple of things here: First, yes the US has done some not so nice things over the years. That's still no excuse for anyone else to do them either. Second, your version of Vietnam is revisionist at best. Both Vietnam and the US were part of SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization) the east version of NATO and we were obliged by that treaty to come to the aid of SV. It was North Vietnam which sponsored the Viet Cong fighters in the south and later crossed the border into South Vietnam with it's own troops. That several US presidents were eager to honor the treaty doesn't change the fact that the treaty existed.Quote:
And the United States indeed did a lot of shit around the world. The bloody US sponsored coup in Chile, absolutely illegal attack on Vietnam. The Second Iraq war. Where was the "International Law" then? International Law is basically on the side of those with force. Plain and simple. Sometimes it coincides with the needs of the strong countries in which case everything is done by the law and sometimes the strong do their thing anyways regardless of any laws.
Please don't buy into the falsehood that all Americans are stupid and uneducated. I don't need to be an expert to know the basics of the situation.Quote:
Like I said, what do you know about the place of Crimea in Russian History? Apparently nothing.
I've no issue with Russia talking about taking Crimea back. It's the armed invasion I have a problem with. Just like Georgia. Why not have a UN administered referendum and see what the citizens of Crimea want?Quote:
In Putin's view, he is not expanding his influence. He's just taking back what was lost a couple of decades ago. Certainly, right now is the best time to raise the issue of Crimea. After all, why would have Russia raised the issue of Crimea at the time when its relations with Ukraine are at an all time high? When Ukraine was the poster child of the soviet union, they assigned Crimea to Ukraine. On the other hand, once the relationship with Kiev reaches an all time low, it seems like the appropriate time to talk about taking Crimea back.
Let me see if I understand your position correctly. The previous Russian leaders gave Crimea away, so with new leadership its OK to take it back? So anytime a country's leadership changes its alright to void treaties, invade neighbors and do what you will? I guess Mexico will be wanting Texas back; France will be wanting Canada back; Norway will want Iceland back; India will want Pakistan back; China will want large parts of central Asia and the middle east back; etc. etc. etc.Quote:
No. that's the same thing. And Russia did not give anything away. The Soviet leadership did. Ukraine was the poster child of the Soviet Union and has received an amazing amount of resources from the center, besides Crimea. It's only appropriate that once Ukraine, despite all the bribing, Ukraine becomes independent and pursues openly anti-Russian policy that Russians ask for their property back.
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
Within the same paragraph you state that: No. that's the same thing. And Russia did not give anything away. The Soviet leadership did.
It was never Russian property to take back. Maybe you didn't read your own words but Russia as a separate thing didn't exist until after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Russia did not give anything away; because they did not give anything away, they can not take back what was not theirs.
This is an invasion. Story. End of.
You don't seem to be reading what I was saying. The _future_ path to separating Crimea from Ukraine by legal means is indeed fraught with harassment and persecution for decades. Why should Russia or Crimea pay respect to the law which is never on the side of separatists? Saying why don't you secede by legal means is like asking people to condemn themselves to decades of struggle. What you observe right now is a nice clean break that's a lot better than wars and ugly sectarian mess observed elsewhere. The politicians in Kiev will thump their chests to score some political points at home, and the move on about doing other business. I'd be surprised to find that many in Ukraine are losing their sleep over "losing" Crimea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Couple of things here: First, yes the US has done some not so nice things over the years. That's still no excuse for anyone else to do them either.[/quote:two08iy1]Quote:
[quote:two08iy1]And the United States indeed did a lot of shit around the world. The bloody US sponsored coup in Chile, absolutely illegal attack on Vietnam. The Second Iraq war. Where was the "International Law" then? International Law is basically on the side of those with force. Plain and simple. Sometimes it coincides with the needs of the strong countries in which case everything is done by the law and sometimes the strong do their thing anyways regardless of any laws.
That's not an excuse. I am just stating the fact that the "International Laws" that supposedly make Russian occupation of Crimea illegal are simply bent and twisted to serve the strong. They're meaningless. The strong follow the international law when it suits them, but make mockery of it when they want to do things their way. The USA has set plenty of ugly precedents already. If USA cared for International Laws and treaties, they wouldn't go to war unilaterally with Iraq. But they did? Why is that? They just could. International law always works and has force, except of course when it doesn't.
Really? Have you heard of bullcrap known as the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident", which was the nice "legal" excuse used by America to start the Vietnam War? If Americans really wanted to respect the wishes of the people of Vietnam, instead of the puppet government in South Vietnam, they'd just let everyone hold a UN-led referendum on the unification of the country. Americans obviously did not want it as that would mean overwhelming victory of Communists. Instead they sign a bunch of treaties that "oblige" to defend the South, etc. Setting just another precedent of "legal by force of the strongest" proving my point.Quote:
Second, your version of Vietnam is revisionist at best. Both Vietnam and the US were part of SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization) the east version of NATO and we were obliged by that treaty to come to the aid of SV. It was North Vietnam which sponsored the Viet Cong fighters in the south and later crossed the border into South Vietnam with it's own troops. That several US presidents were eager to honor the treaty doesn't change the fact that the treaty existed.
Please don't buy into the falsehood that all Americans are stupid and uneducated. I don't need to be an expert to know the basics of the situation.[/quote:two08iy1]Quote:
[quote:two08iy1]Like I said, what do you know about the place of Crimea in Russian History? Apparently nothing.
You're drawing a flawed analogy between a US Military base in Phillipinens and BSF in Crimea. What do you expect me to think? Crimea was Russian territory for over two centuries and with a large Russian populatin. Which part of that hard to understand? It was _the_ base of Russian Black Sea Fleet since pretty much the time it was created. Russians fought for it in three wars.
I've no issue with Russia talking about taking Crimea back. It's the armed invasion I have a problem with. Just like Georgia. Why not have a UN administered referendum and see what the citizens of Crimea want?[/quote:two08iy1]Quote:
[quote:two08iy1] In Putin's view, he is not expanding his influence. He's just taking back what was lost a couple of decades ago. Certainly, right now is the best time to raise the issue of Crimea. After all, why would have Russia raised the issue of Crimea at the time when its relations with Ukraine are at an all time high? When Ukraine was the poster child of the soviet union, they assigned Crimea to Ukraine. On the other hand, once the relationship with Kiev reaches an all time low, it seems like the appropriate time to talk about taking Crimea back.
Why not? Good question. Do you really believe it could ever happen with US having veto power on the security council?
Let me see if I understand your position correctly. The previous Russian leaders gave Crimea away, so with new leadership its OK to take it back? So anytime a country's leadership changes its alright to void treaties, invade neighbors and do what you will? I guess Mexico will be wanting Texas back; France will be wanting Canada back; Norway will want Iceland back; India will want Pakistan back; China will want large parts of central Asia and the middle east back; etc. etc. etc.[/quote:two08iy1]Quote:
[quote:two08iy1]No. that's the same thing. And Russia did not give anything away. The Soviet leadership did. Ukraine was the poster child of the Soviet Union and has received an amazing amount of resources from the center, besides Crimea. It's only appropriate that once Ukraine, despite all the bribing, Ukraine becomes independent and pursues openly anti-Russian policy that Russians ask for their property back.
You don't understand my position correctly. Russian leadership DID NOT give anything away to Crimea, ever. It was the USSR leadership that did this, the previous overlord country of all 15 Soviet republics. Russia was technically one out of 15 subject republics of USSR in that day. Russians didn't care back then about this issue because nationalism was suppressed and the change was only nominal it was all one country anyways. Everyone thought along the lines "we're brothers and comrades" and the soviet internal borders are meaningless. Russia did not raise the question about status of Crimea until recently because they had the hope to create and maintain a cozy relationship with Ukraine. In terms of fairness and strategy, it's absolutely the best time for Russians to raise the question of Crimea at this time, when the government in Kiev is clearly anti-Russian.
I've highlighted the inconsistent part of this. It looks like you're trying to tell me what will happen in the future. If you can see ahead that well I could use a few stock tips and some lottery numbers. And, to logically follow your reasoning here, Russia should immediately get out of Chechnya.Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
[/quote]Really? Have you heard of bullcrap known as the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident", which was the nice "legal" excuse used by America to start the Vietnam War? If Americans really wanted to respect the wishes of the people of Vietnam, instead of the puppet government in South Vietnam, they'd just let everyone hold a UN-led referendum on the unification of the country. Americans obviously did not want it as that would mean overwhelming victory of Communists. Instead they sign a bunch of treaties that "oblige" to defend the South, etc. Setting just another precedent of "legal by force of the strongest" proving my point.[/quote]
Now you are the one with a fuzzy grasp of history. SEATO was establish somewhat after WWII (September 1954) more or less at the end of France's war with the communist insurgents in (then) Indochina. The partition into North & South Vietnam was the settlement at the end of that war. Supposedly elections were to be held to resolve the issue, but that never happened as both the USSR & America were using it as proxies in their Cold War struggle and couldn't agree on terms of the election. Your reference to a UN held election is interesting as USSR was the one who objected to that. And, while many Vietnamese were communists, also many wanted no part of communism. The US already was in Vietnam by the time of the Gulf of Tonkin with advisers, helicopter transport for SV troops and supplies.
And what is now the (eastern) United States was an English colony for almost as long as its been a country. So what?Quote:
You're drawing a flawed analogy between a US Military base in Phillipinens and BSF in Crimea. What do you expect me to think? Crimea was Russian territory for over two centuries and with a large Russian populatin. Which part of that hard to understand? It was _the_ base of Russian Black Sea Fleet since pretty much the time it was created. Russians fought for it in three wars.
Actually I do. Not happily, but yes. That election will never happen though because Russia also has veto power.Quote:
Why not? Good question. Do you really believe it could ever happen with US having veto power on the security council?
I understand your position well. Once again, if Crimea wants to rejoin Russia, a UN conducted election would be the best way to accomplish this - NOT an armed invasion.Quote:
You don't understand my position correctly. Russian leadership DID NOT give anything away to Crimea, ever. It was the USSR leadership that did this, the previous overlord country of all 15 Soviet republics. Russia was technically one out of 15 subject republics of USSR in that day. Russians didn't care back then about this issue because nationalism was suppressed and the change was only nominal it was all one country anyways. Everyone thought along the lines "we're brothers and comrades" and the soviet internal borders are meaningless. Russia did not raise the question about status of Crimea until recently because they had the hope to create and maintain a cozy relationship with Ukraine. In terms of fairness and strategy, it's absolutely the best time for Russians to raise the question of Crimea at this time, when the government in Kiev is clearly anti-Russian.
Do you care to explain how the invasion of an Autonomous Republic within the sovereign borders of another country, constitutes anything resembling "fairness"?Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
And then this....
Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
So if the same happens to the same group of people at the end of a shotgun barrel, this somehow avoids the issue? I'm sorry, but your argument contains double standards of gross proportion if it leads you to think that legal means subjects people to issues or human rights, while illegal means do not.
It seems in your eyes illegal invasion of a sovereign country is justified due to the possibility that Russians might not be treated fairly if legal means are used, yet you completely ignore that the same violations are already actually taking place against the Crimeans.
Good luck with that. You can go back in history much, much further than your given examples, and you won't find one in which the US or the majority of nations have done such a thing. Well other than the Nazi's, Saddam and other such fine people.
Okay, fine, Crimea is Russian etc. I don't really care as I have no stakes there. Would anybody bother to explain to me, though, how they are going to earn their income now? The only properly functioning segment of their economy is tourism. With their new status, which is nobody is going to recognize, tourists are not coming. The summer season is just two months away. What are they thinking?