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

[ngb1066]

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

I do certainly support the peace process.  I do not want to see the bloodshed which I fear is becoming more and more likely as a result of the increasingly abhorrent attitude and behaviour of the Israeli government.  They will reap what they sow unfortunately and I am very pessimistic about the prospects.  There are many Israeli Jews who have campaigned and fought for justice and continue to do so in the face of increasing difficulties, but unfortunately the ultra Zionist element have gained the ascendancy in Israel.  The USA is in my view largely responsible for this.

It is terrible to watch and I really fear the outcome.

   

[gringo]

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

    The corrupted media space in the UK is unfortunately an impediment, deliberately, in preventing more people being given enough balanced information to achieve such clarity, ngb. We have a heavily propagandised public. Most are completely unaware of the manipulations of their emotions and thoughts and/or just blissful in their ignorance.
    The replies on this thread demonstrate that in spades. And still no-one has put forward a coherent positive case for Ukrainian(or Tatar) control of Crimea. Lots of irrelevant diversions but none has articulated a coherent argument.

[ngb1066]

    The corrupted media space in the UK is unfortunately an impediment, deliberately, in preventing more people being given enough balanced information to achieve such clarity, ngb. We have a heavily propagandised public. Most are completely unaware of the manipulations of their emotions and thoughts and/or just blissful in their ignorance.
    The replies on this thread demonstrate that in spades. And still no-one has put forward a coherent positive case for Ukrainian(or Tatar) control of Crimea. Lots of irrelevant diversions but none has articulated a coherent argument.

I agree totally.

[gringo]

I do certainly support the peace process.  I do not want to see the bloodshed which I fear is becoming more and more likely as a result of the increasingly abhorrent attitude and behaviour of the Israeli government.  They will reap what they sow unfortunately and I am very pessimistic about the prospects.  There are many Israeli Jews who have campaigned and fought for justice and continue to do so in the face of increasing difficulties, but unfortunately the ultra Zionist element have gained the ascendancy in Israel.  The USA is in my view largely responsible for this.

It is terrible to watch and I really fear the outcome.

 

    Your pessimism is shared, ngb. The Israeli government intransigence and brutality over the years, based no doubt on their feelings of power and invulnerability, is about to bite them hard. Power is clearly shifting and the US Middle Eastern presence, the guarantor thus far of Israeli power, is being challenged as never before. No US presence in the Middle East would mark the end of the "Israel experiment". Events are inexorably heading towards a violent denouement.

[Steve_uk]

    The corrupted media space in the UK is unfortunately an impediment, deliberately, in preventing more people being given enough balanced information to achieve such clarity, ngb. We have a heavily propagandised public. Most are completely unaware of the manipulations of their emotions and thoughts and/or just blissful in their ignorance.
    The replies on this thread demonstrate that in spades. And still no-one has put forward a coherent positive case for Ukrainian(or Tatar) control of Crimea. Lots of irrelevant diversions but none has articulated a coherent argument.

People can make up their own minds when reading newspapers and internet sources. I suppose the Russian media is a paradigm of uprightness, along with Putin and his henchmen. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/putin-s-millionaire-crony-found-dead-in-second-mystery-death-in-just-48-hours/ar-AA1ed0Re?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=45dfc5bc6365489e827b0371a0805153&ei=50

You seem to forget Russia escaped with a slap on the wrist when it annexed (or invaded) Crimea. It was the incursion into (or invasion) of sovereign territory in February 2022 which landed us in this position.

By the way: Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, and for what? Is it any wonder they think twice about ceding more territory to the terrorist gangs?

[gringo]

People can make up their own minds when reading newspapers and internet sources. I suppose the Russian media is a paradigm of uprightness, along with Putin and his henchmen. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/putin-s-millionaire-crony-found-dead-in-second-mystery-death-in-just-48-hours/ar-AA1ed0Re?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=45dfc5bc6365489e827b0371a0805153&ei=50

You seem to forget Russia escaped with a slap on the wrist when it annexed (or invaded) Crimea. It was the incursion into (or invasion) of sovereign territory in February 2022 which landed us in this position.

By the way: Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, and for what? Is it any wonder they think twice about ceding more territory to the terrorist gangs?

   Steve, why don't you just lay out the Ukrainian case for sovereignty of Crimea. You still haven't. I can only assume that you cannot make the argument. Then you can lay out how it all unfolds. Your unwillingness/inability to do so speaks volumes.
      The reversal of victim and oppressor in Palestine is a prime example of the "corrupted media space as an impediment" in having access to "balanced information". Your reply to this point stating that "people can make up their own minds when reading newspapers" seems unintentionally ironic. Your almost verbatim parroting of the corrupted information from our "corrupted media" suggests that you swallowed it all, wholesale, and had your mind made up for you. It seems very little, "making up your own mind", occurred.

[Steve_uk]

   Steve, why don't you just lay out the Ukrainian case for sovereignty of Crimea. You still haven't. I can only assume that you cannot make the argument. Then you can lay out how it all unfolds. Your unwillingness/inability to do so speaks volumes.
      The reversal of victim and oppressor in Palestine is a prime example of the "corrupted media space as an impediment" in having access to "balanced information". Your reply to this point stating that "people can make up their own minds when reading newspapers" seems unintentionally ironic. Your almost verbatim parroting of the corrupted information from our "corrupted media" suggests that you swallowed it all, wholesale, and had your mind made up for you. It seems very little, "making up your own mind", occurred.

Ukraine had de facto control over Crimea, if not de jure. Russia had a lease on a naval base, which is where all this stems from. Do you believe in the legal process, have you studied the ICC ruling, or do you just condemn Israel's force and not Putin's?  https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-ukraine-icc-judges-issue-arrest-warrants-against-vladimir-vladimirovich-putin-and

[gringo]

Ukraine had de facto control over Crimea, if not de jure. Russia had a lease on a naval base, which is where all this stems from. Do you believe in the legal process, have you studied the ICC ruling, or do you just condemn Israel's force and not Putin's?  https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-ukraine-icc-judges-issue-arrest-warrants-against-vladimir-vladimirovich-putin-and

    "Ukraine had de facto control over Crimea, if not de jure".
     That is your argument for Ukraine sovereignty? No will of the people argument? No historic case for Ukraine sovereignty? No cultural or language traditions to call on to further elaborate the argument?
    Where did this "de facto" control come from, Steve?
    What effect does the admission of no "de jure" control have in relation to your weak as piss argument?
    You may not like to admit it, but your entire argument for Ukrainian sovereignty over Crimea relies entirely on the arbitrary decision of Soviet leader, Nikita Krushchev, in 1954. You believe that Crimea is Ukrainian because Krushchev transferred the territory, many say unconstitutionally, to Ukraine arbitrarily and without consultation. If you are left relying on the word of someone that you see as a dictator in an evil empire for the legitimacy of your case-then you have already conceded defeat 

[Steve_uk]

    "Ukraine had de facto control over Crimea, if not de jure".
     That is your argument for Ukraine sovereignty? No will of the people argument? No historic case for Ukraine sovereignty? No cultural or language traditions to call on to further elaborate the argument?
    Where did this "de facto" control come from, Steve?
    What effect does the admission of no "de jure" control have in relation to your weak as piss argument?
    You may not like to admit it, but your entire argument for Ukrainian sovereignty over Crimea relies entirely on the arbitrary decision of Soviet leader, Nikita Krushchev, in 1954. You believe that Crimea is Ukrainian because Krushchev transferred the territory, many say unconstitutionally, to Ukraine arbitrarily and without consultation. If you are left relying on the word of someone that you see as a dictator in an evil empire for the legitimacy of your case-then you have already conceded defeat 

That's what I meant by de facto if not de jure. But Ukraine's borders were guaranteed by the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. I should more correctly have said Ukraine had a de facto claim through Khrushchev which later became de jure. The naval base at Sevastopol is the key to the Russian invasion, as you and your mutual co-appreciator know full well, not deep-down concern for the Crimean people.

[gringo]

That's what I meant by de facto if not de jure. But Ukraine's borders were guaranteed by the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. The naval base at Sevastopol is the key to the Russian invasion, as you and your mutual co-appreciator know full well, not deep-down concern for the Crimean people.

    Where is your "deep down concern" for the Crimean people? Instead of making snide comments about "concern for Crimeans", you need to address the fact that the NATO sponsored Ukraine regime, that you support in their annexation attempt, has spelled out with crystal clarity their concern for the "pro Russian" Crimeans. They intend them to leave and expect them to leave because they do not believe them to be "suicidal". Those that don't leave, and are therefore suicidal according to chief of Ukraine Mil Intel, will be dealt with. You support this?
     Your admission that the "de facto" control that Ukraine had was entirely reliant on the whim of Krushchev in 1954 doesn't really advance your case, Steve. The naval base at Sevastopol is key- you are correct-but to the attempted NATO/Ukraine annexation. Sevastopol has been Russian for 250 years. Russia never needed to invade. The Ukrainian regime and their NATO sponsors covet Sevastopol. Russia already have it and have been there for 250 years. They will be there for the next 250 also.

[Steve_uk]

    Where is your "deep down concern" for the Crimean people? Instead of making snide comments about "concern for Crimeans", you need to address the fact that the NATO sponsored Ukraine regime, that you support in their annexation attempt, has spelled out with crystal clarity their concern for the "pro Russian" Crimeans. They intend them to leave and expect them to leave because they do not believe them to be "suicidal". Those that don't leave, and are therefore suicidal according to chief of Ukraine Mil Intel, will be dealt with. You support this?
     Your admission that the "de facto" control that Ukraine had was entirely reliant on the whim of Krushchev in 1954 doesn't really advance your case, Steve. The naval base at Sevastopol is key- you are correct-but to the attempted NATO/Ukraine annexation. Sevastopol has been Russian for 250 years. Russia never needed to invade. The Ukrainian regime and their NATO sponsors covet Sevastopol. Russia already have it and have been there for 250 years. They will be there for the next 250 also.

But you are economical with the truth again gringo, though I'm glad we both agree the Sevastopol naval base is key, even if Russia did not own it outright but enjoyed a leasehold arrangement until 2042.

[gringo]

But you are economical with the truth again gringo, though I'm glad we both agree the Sevastopol naval base is key, even if Russia did not own it outright but enjoyed a leasehold arrangement until 2042.

    You make many accusations - none of which you support with any facts. "Misleading" and "economical with the truth" but you never say how. Sevastopol has never had a Ukrainian/NATO presence. The leasehold exists because of the decision by Krushchev and is merely bureaucracy, as you well know. I would say that your representation of these facts is deliberately "misleading" and certainly "economical with the truth".
     You ignore all inconvenient facts. I embrace all facts and make my own conclusions based on those unexpurgated facts. My position is based on analysing the facts and as such, I have no position to defend. I am interested only in truth, I have no "side" to defend. This is shown by my full replies to your posts where I am happy to address every point you raise. I avoid nothing. You are selective in which facts or questions you will consider. I am interested only in truth, I have no "side" to defend. If my posts are seen as pro-Russian-well the truth must be pro Russian also.

[gringo]

The problem with your posts gringo is that they mislead: whether intentionally or inadvertently remains a mystery. The state-wide referendum on March 17, 1991 was boycotted by Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Armenia, Moldova and Georgia.

Why is Russia so frightened of free and fair elections? https://www.coe.int/en/web/kyiv/-/holding-referendums-during-wars-and-military-threats-is-against-european-standards

But we don't accept the results of referenda held at gunpoint. The 1991 referendum was held when Ukraine was still part of the Soviet Union. Russia promised to respect Ukraine's borders in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, or have you forgotten that?  -Steve again.

     Below an article from Forbes, hardly a Kremlin mouthpiece, admitting exactly what you refuse to admit. The Crimeans, including the ethnic Ukrainians and the Tatars, support the referendum, prefer life as part of Russia by massive majority. The polling by Western polling companies reflects the referendum results almost perfectly.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/03/20/one-year-after-russia-annexed-crimea-locals-prefer-moscow-to-kiev/amp/

     
     

[Steve_uk]

But we don't accept the results of referenda held at gunpoint. The 1991 referendum was held when Ukraine was still part of the Soviet Union. Russia promised to respect Ukraine's borders in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, or have you forgotten that?  -Steve again.

     Below an article from Forbes, hardly a Kremlin mouthpiece, admitting exactly what you refuse to admit. The Crimeans, including the ethnic Ukrainians and the Tatars, support the referendum, prefer life as part of Russia by massive majority. The polling by Western polling companies reflects the referendum results almost perfectly.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/03/20/one-year-after-russia-annexed-crimea-locals-prefer-moscow-to-kiev/amp/

     
   

Then why not have a plebiscite with Western observers on the lines of the Saar in 1935? Why the need for a covert operation involving Russian soldiers in plain uniforms occupying the Crimean parliament at gunpoint?

[gringo]

Then why not have a plebiscite with Western observers on the lines of the Saar in 1935? Why the need for a covert operation involving Russian soldiers in plain uniforms occupying the Crimean parliament at gunpoint?

     Russian soldiers are needed to protect the population from the Ukraine Armed Forces who intend the Crimeans harm. Ukrainians admit this themselves. I have linked you previously to the statements directly from Ukrainian official spokespersons explicitly stating that the population of Crimea will be "ethnically cleansed", not just of Russians but of supporters of the occupation. If you have read the previous link to Western polling then you will know that a majority of ethnic Ukrainians and Tatars would have to be "ethnically cleansed" by the Ukrainians. You are simply wilfully ignoring very inconvenient facts.