Does Ukraine have a legitimate claim to Crimea? Can anyone spell it out?

[gringo]

If we are mutually nitpicking I might also assert that there has never been a free and fair vote in Crimeans (and I might refer to nugnug's comments here on wondering just exactly who they are) deciding to join the Russia as constituted on 25 December 1991.

   We aren't mutually nitpicking-you are nitpicking. You haven't put forward a case for me to nitpick at. Where is your case?
     Nugs comments about the Tatars are inaccurate. There are still Tatars in Crimea (15% of population). Your reference to Nugs comments "wondering who the Crimeans are" raises what issues exactly. It is just another ill made and defined nitpick to divert attention from the fact that you have no coherent positive case to make. I have, at least, articulated the case that Crimea is legitimately, and with the will of the population, Russian.
      You have yet to make the alternative case.

[nugnug]

   It isn't a claim in any real sense, nugs. Tatars make up around 15% of the population of Crimea today and are able to speak for themselves. They are part of the population who as a whole have chosen to align with Russia.  How does this "return" of Crimea to the Tatars work?  You would also have to argue for the return of the USA to various indigenous tribes, then Canada. Australia will also have to be returned to the Aborigines. They all have better claims than the Tatars to Crimea. The Tatars themselves were invaders and are by no stretch the original indigenous inhabitants. Why not also argue for the "return" of Gibraltar to Spain?
     Russia have a near 250 year old claim. There is zero doubt that the Crimeans themselves want to be part of Russia. There is also zero doubt that the Ukrainian regime plan to ethnically cleanse and genocide the current population. The Ukrainian regime know that they are not wanted by the population and they would have to subdue them in order to rule.
     Quite how this hypothetical Tatar government gain power is left to the imagination.
     Ukraine's plans have been spelt out by many Official representatives of the Regime. Such as Kyrylo Budanov the Intelligence Chief who recently made the statement below. No secret is made of this intention. The self determination of the Crimeans is what Russia offer. Ukraine openly offer ethnic cleansing and genocide;   

“The majority of the radical pro-Russian population, upon the arrival of Ukrainian units in Crimea through any form of advancement, be it offensive or otherwise, will promptly depart for the Russian Federation via the ferry crossing,” Budanov believes.
    “No one will remain here. They will vacate this territory — they are not suicidal, believe me,” he said.

     It is not open to any other interpretation, Budanov is openly threatening genocide of "pro Russian Crimeans". To be "pro Russian" in A Ukrainian controlled Crimea would be "suicidal". This would also apply to "pro Russian" Tatars, by the way.

   
   
 

reason there only 15 percent is they were removed just like the palasteiniens were by the same logic the paalstinians haent got a right to palstine

[Steve_uk]

reason there only 15 percent is they were removed just like the palasteiniens were by the same logic the paalstinians haent got a right to palstine

They left of their own accord, declared war on Israel alongside their Muslim friends, and lost.

[nugnug]

They left of their own accord, declared war on Israel alongside their Muslim friends, and lost.

they couldent declare war on isreal it dident exist at the time 


the idea they let of there own acord is laughable its was a land dispute beetween jews and mulims who the hell gives up there own land in a land dispute  it would make the whole thing pointless wouldent it

[Steve_uk]

they couldent declare war on isreal it dident exist at the time 


the idea they let of there own acord is laughable its was a land dispute beetween jews and mulims who the hell gives up there own land in a land dispute  it would make the whole thing pointless wouldent it

There was a UN plan to partition the land, which the future state of Israel accepted. It was rejected by the Palestinians, as you call them. They were told by their Muslim neighbours they could take the land back once they had expelled the Jews. I'll leave you to ponder exactly what that meant.

[gringo]

They left of their own accord, declared war on Israel alongside their Muslim friends, and lost.

reason there only 15 percent is they were removed just like the palasteiniens were by the same logic the paalstinians haent got a right to palstine

    See what happens when you raise non relevant historical references. Comparing Crimea and the Tatars to Palestine is inaccurate in many ways. The Palestinians were forced from their homes by armed gangs. Thousands were murdered and displaced and many more thousands ended up in Refugee camps where they and their descendants still are. How is this comparable to the relocation, albeit forced, of the Tatars? There were no villages and towns burnt down. No mass slaughter of Tatars by Stalin's soldiers. Even when the Tatars were removed to other republics they weren't a majority in Crimea (Just short of 200,000 were removed). The Tatars didn't rule or govern Crimea. The comparison with Palestine is historically illiterate.
    Steve's reply that the Palestinians "left of their own accord" is straight up untrue. That he can talk about Crimeans voting at "the point of a gun"(never happened) and in the next breath refer to the "voluntary evacuation of their own land" by Palestinians is breathtakingly dishonest and a laughably inaccurate historical view.
    It is correct that Palestine is history's greatest injustice. The comparison to Crimea is in no way merited and the situations not comparable.
   
     

[gringo]

There was a UN plan to partition the land, which the future state of Israel accepted. It was rejected by the Palestinians, as you call them. They were told by their Muslim neighbours they could take the land back once they had expelled the Jews. I'll leave you to ponder exactly what that meant.

      What is the phrase "the Palestinians, as you call them", meant to mean? What do you call the Palestinians? It was the Palestinians land- Why would they agree to a plan to take their land and give it to the armed Jewish/Zionist terrorists that were burning their villages and massacring them?

[gringo]

     Two simple questions for the "Crimea belongs to Ukraine" believers.

1) In what is referred to erroneously as the Russian annexation of Crimea-how many were killed?
2) Is there any scenario whereby Ukraine taking control of Crimea would be equally bloodless? or would it likely be extremely bloody?

     Attempting to take Crimea, against both the will of the Crimeans and Russians is insanely escalatory. Anyone supporting this either has a death wish or they simply haven't really thought it through.

   You haven't addressed the above questions, either Steve. Every point or question that you raise has been answered by me, but as usual you fail to address any questions put to you. If you can't answer them satisfactorily, does it not occur that your position is indefensible? Or at the very least, you can't defend it.

[Steve_uk]

There was a UN plan to partition the land, which the future state of Israel accepted. It was rejected by the Palestinians, as you call them. They were told by their Muslim neighbours they could take the land back once they had expelled the Jews. I'll leave you to ponder exactly what that meant.

      What is the phrase "the Palestinians, as you call them", meant to mean? What do you call the Palestinians? It was the Palestinians land- Why would they agree to a plan to take their land and give it to the armed Jewish/Zionist terrorists that were burning their villages and massacring them?

Strange how you condone Catherine the Great for invading Crimea in 1783, you accept the right of Palestinians, (a 20th century term) to possess the whole of the territory promised to Moses 3500 years ago, by implication rejecting the 1947 UN partition plan, and turn a blind eye to the deportation of 191000 Crimean Tartars in 1944, not to mention the 300,000 who left for the Ottoman Empire in the 18th century.

[Steve_uk]

   You haven't addressed the above questions, either Steve. Every point or question that you raise has been answered by me, but as usual you fail to address any questions put to you. If you can't answer them satisfactorily, does it not occur that your position is indefensible? Or at the very least, you can't defend it.

I am in favour of a UN peacekeeping force to be established in Crimea, not unilateral action from Putin, which you know full well has since 2022 had wider implications and incurred the loss of thousands of lives.

[gringo]

They left of their own accord, declared war on Israel alongside their Muslim friends, and lost.

    "Left of their own accord"    It is not arguable that the Palestinians didn't "leave of their own accord". The slaughter and terror meted out by the Zionists is a matter of historical fact.
     The injustice of Palestine is a festering sore that will be righted. The Zionists know that they are living on borrowed time on stolen land. Crimea is an injustice that has already been corrected.

[Steve_uk]

    "Left of their own accord"    It is not arguable that the Palestinians didn't "leave of their own accord". The slaughter and terror meted out by the Zionists is a matter of historical fact.
     The injustice of Palestine is a festering sore that will be righted. The Zionists know that they are living on borrowed time on stolen land. Crimea is an injustice that has already been corrected.

Some Palestinians were killed, along with some Jews. That's war for you. Now I'd like to ask you a question: should the Tartars of present-day Uzbekistan and those who left for the Ottoman Empire 200 years ago have the same right of return as you wish to grant to the Palestinians?

[ngb1066]

    See what happens when you raise non relevant historical references. Comparing Crimea and the Tatars to Palestine is inaccurate in many ways. The Palestinians were forced from their homes by armed gangs. Thousands were murdered and displaced and many more thousands ended up in Refugee camps where they and their descendants still are. How is this comparable to the relocation, albeit forced, of the Tatars? There were no villages and towns burnt down. No mass slaughter of Tatars by Stalin's soldiers. Even when the Tatars were removed to other republics they weren't a majority in Crimea (Just short of 200,000 were removed). The Tatars didn't rule or govern Crimea. The comparison with Palestine is historically illiterate.
    Steve's reply that the Palestinians "left of their own accord" is straight up untrue. That he can talk about Crimeans voting at "the point of a gun"(never happened) and in the next breath refer to the "voluntary evacuation of their own land" by Palestinians is breathtakingly dishonest and a laughably inaccurate historical view.
    It is correct that Palestine is history's greatest injustice. The comparison to Crimea is in no way merited and the situations not comparable.
   
   

I totally agree gringo.  You have summarised the position very well.  It is a pity more people do not follow that clarity of analysis.

[ngb1066]

Strange how you condone Catherine the Great for invading Crimea in 1783, you accept the right of Palestinians, (a 20th century term) to possess the whole of the territory promised to Moses 3500 years ago, by implication rejecting the 1947 UN partition plan, and turn a blind eye to the deportation of 191000 Crimean Tartars in 1944, not to mention the 300,000 who left for the Ottoman Empire in the 18th century.

That really demonstrates the horror of the position taken by Zionists.  God gave them the land, so anything they do is now justified. Zionism had some understandable origins and I can understand why Herzl's ideas resonated in the first half of the 20th century, but Zionism has become an evil force now. It is now a racial supremacist movement, rightly likened by the UN to apartheid.  Have you considered the abuse Christians like you are receiving now from extreme Zionists in Jerusalem? Are you comfortable with that? This is not going to end well, and Zionism will result in the downfall of so many people who do not deserve what is coming.



 

[Steve_uk]

That really demonstrates the horror of the position taken by Zionists.  God gave them the land, so anything they do is now justified. Zionism had some understandable origins and I can understand why Herzl's ideas resonated in the first half of the 20th century, but Zionism has become an evil force now.  Have you considered the abuse Christians like you are receiving now from Zionists in Israel? Are you comfortable with that?

No, but they are a minority. Did you support the peace process ngb1066? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/23/israel3