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

[Steve_uk]

     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.

How far are we going to go back gringo? Should the 200,000 Crimean Tartars deported to Uzbekistan in 1944 be allowed a vote in a referendum? Whilst we're about it: why has Russia kept Kaliningrad? It's been populated by ethnic Germans since 1255.

[gringo]

How far are we going to go back gringo? Should the 200,000 Crimean Tartars deported to Uzbekistan in 1944 be allowed a vote in a referendum? Whilst we're about it: why has Russia kept Kaliningrad? It's been populated by ethnic Germans since 1255.

    Russia keeping Kaliningrad was something to do with the invasion and killing of 27 million Soviet citizens and armed forces by Germany. It was part of the price paid for launching a murderous war against the Soviet Union in a thing called World War 2 that you might have heard of. Having shown such barbaric murderous intent, it seems fairly reasonable that the aggressors lose territory that is vital to such an endeavour. It is irrelevant to the matter of Crimea, however, but you bring it up as if it is a mystery how Russia took possession  of Kaliningrad. Almost suggesting that it is some kind of aggression by Russia, rather than as a result of their standing up to unprecedented aggression.
      You suggest a vote for Crimea, that isn't on offer by Ukraine, and instead of dealing with the facts in front of you, have to resort to ever more bizarre arguments. The population of Crimea, including ethnic Ukrainians and Tatars, prefer Russian rule. Even Western governments and the Ukrainian government agree with this. It has nothing to do with "votes at gunpoint" and other bullshit. The clear and expressed will of the Crimeans, acknowledged by everyone, is to remain part of Russia.
      The Crimeans neither want nor need "liberating" by Nazis who openly state that they will be ethnically cleansed. Any supporter of Russian rule would be "suicidal" to stay "when " the Ukrainians "liberate" Crimea, according to Ukrainian Head of Military Intel. They openly state this. Stop concerning yourself with liberating people who would rather that everyone displaying their faux concern fucked off and left them alone.

[Steve_uk]

    Russia keeping Kaliningrad was something to do with the invasion and killing of 27 million Soviet citizens and armed forces by Germany. It was part of the price paid for launching a murderous war against the Soviet Union in a thing called World War 2 that you might have heard of. Having shown such barbaric murderous intent, it seems fairly reasonable that the aggressors lose territory that is vital to such an endeavour. It is irrelevant to the matter of Crimea, however, but you bring it up as if it is a mystery how Russia took possession  of Kaliningrad. Almost suggesting that it is some kind of aggression by Russia, rather than as a result of their standing up to unprecedented aggression.
      You suggest a vote for Crimea, that isn't on offer by Ukraine, and instead of dealing with the facts in front of you, have to resort to ever more bizarre arguments. The population of Crimea, including ethnic Ukrainians and Tatars, prefer Russian rule. Even Western governments and the Ukrainian government agree with this. It has nothing to do with "votes at gunpoint" and other bullshit. The clear and expressed will of the Crimeans, acknowledged by everyone, is to remain part of Russia.
      The Crimeans neither want nor need "liberating" by Nazis who openly state that they will be ethnically cleansed. Any supporter of Russian rule would be "suicidal" to stay "when " the Ukrainians "liberate" Crimea, according to Ukrainian Head of Military Intel. They openly state this. Stop concerning yourself with liberating people who would rather that everyone displaying their faux concern fucked off and left them alone.

Russia made off with Crimea with no military response from the West. They then invaded sovereign territory, which they had vouchsafed in the Budapest Memorandum of 1994.  Kaliningrad is an exclave anomaly not even bordering Russian territory and they should hand it back.

 Please stop trying to rewrite history to tally with your Marxist-Leninist views.

[gringo]

Russia made off with Crimea with no military response from the West. They then invaded sovereign territory, which they had vouchsafed in the Budapest Memorandum of 1994.  Kaliningrad is an exclave anomaly not even bordering Russian territory and they should hand it back.

 Please stop trying to rewrite history to tally with your Marxist-Leninist views.

     I'm pointing out to you the uncomfortable truths about Ukrainian/NATO "ambitions" for Crimea and particularly the inhabitants. NATO/Ukraine hierarchy make no secret of their animosity to the current population and are under no illusions that the Crimeans are awaiting "liberation" from a regime that they(Crimeans) consider hostile. These are the hard facts. Everyone knows this including all western governments and media. To still support Ukrainian "liberation" of Crimea despite knowing this makes you an open supporter of genocide and ethnic cleansing. No amount of deflection and dragging up irrelevant historical non-comparisons is relevant to the situation in Crimea now.
     Any historical view that I have given has the necessary context to demonstrate the relevance. You on the other hand simply throw irrelevant context free "mantras" around which you don't understand or have any depth of knowledge about.
     I have lost count of the times that you have brought up the Budapest Memorandum, but always only one line which is completely removed from any context. Just the same as all the western media have trained you to. Your knowledge has the depth of a puddle. You do the same on this issue. Your supposed support of a OSCE observed referendum is a pathetic cop out from answering the real question. There is no referendum offered because the Ukraine government, along with everyone else, could predict with certainty what the result will be.
     The only two options on offer, Steve, are;
    1) Maintaining the current status quo of Russian rule which everyone agrees is the will of the population(ethnic Russians, Ukrainians and Tatars).
     or,
    2) Militarily invading Crimea, which if successful would lead to huge loss of life and the genocide or ethnic cleansing of the current inhabitants. Oh and probably nuclear war.

    They are literally the choices on offer. There is no number 3 (OSCE referendum). You just make that up to avoid admitting that your opposition to 1 (because Russia) means that, by default, you support the ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Crimean population. That is the inevitable consequence if the side that you blindly support managed to "win". And probable nuclear war.
     

[Steve_uk]

     I'm pointing out to you the uncomfortable truths about Ukrainian/NATO "ambitions" for Crimea and particularly the inhabitants. NATO/Ukraine hierarchy make no secret of their animosity to the current population and are under no illusions that the Crimeans are awaiting "liberation" from a regime that they(Crimeans) consider hostile. These are the hard facts. Everyone knows this including all western governments and media. To still support Ukrainian "liberation" of Crimea despite knowing this makes you an open supporter of genocide and ethnic cleansing. No amount of deflection and dragging up irrelevant historical non-comparisons is relevant to the situation in Crimea now.
     Any historical view that I have given has the necessary context to demonstrate the relevance. You on the other hand simply throw irrelevant context free "mantras" around which you don't understand or have any depth of knowledge about.
     I have lost count of the times that you have brought up the Budapest Memorandum, but always only one line which is completely removed from any context. Just the same as all the western media have trained you to. Your knowledge has the depth of a puddle. You do the same on this issue. Your supposed support of a OSCE observed referendum is a pathetic cop out from answering the real question. There is no referendum offered because the Ukraine government, along with everyone else, could predict with certainty what the result will be.
     The only two options on offer Steve, are;
    1) Maintaining the current status quo of Russian rule which everyone agrees is the will of the population(ethnic Russians, Ukrainians and Tatars).
     or,
    2) Militarily invading Crimea, which if successful would lead to huge loss of life and the genocide or ethnic cleansing of the current inhabitants. Oh and probably nuclear war.

    They are literally the choices on offer. There is no number 3 (OSCE referendum). You just make that up to avoid admitting that your opposition to 1 (because Russia) means that, by default, you support the ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Crimean population. That is the inevitable consequence if the side that you blindly support managed to "win". And probable nuclear war.
   

I really can't let you get away with these canards. This is the genocide perpetrated against the Crimeans.

https://crimea.suspilne.media/en/articles/71

I might agree that given the current situation it might be well advised to leave the Russians in situ in Crimea. That is what pertained until 24 February 2022. But you know full well the annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and  Zaporizhzhia was done to protect the spoils of March 2014, namely the Sevastopol Naval Base, not primarily for the welfare of Ukrainian citizens.

On the latter point I challenge your assertion that Ukrainians felt an overwhelming desire to be united with Russia. https://www.lse.ac.uk/research/research-for-the-world/society/were-crimeans-really-pro-russian-before-annexation

[Steve_uk]

    Russia keeping Kaliningrad was something to do with the invasion and killing of 27 million Soviet citizens and armed forces by Germany. It was part of the price paid for launching a murderous war against the Soviet Union in a thing called World War 2 that you might have heard of. Having shown such barbaric murderous intent, it seems fairly reasonable that the aggressors lose territory that is vital to such an endeavour. It is irrelevant to the matter of Crimea, however, but you bring it up as if it is a mystery how Russia took possession  of Kaliningrad. Almost suggesting that it is some kind of aggression by Russia, rather than as a result of their standing up to unprecedented aggression.
      You suggest a vote for Crimea, that isn't on offer by Ukraine, and instead of dealing with the facts in front of you, have to resort to ever more bizarre arguments. The population of Crimea, including ethnic Ukrainians and Tatars, prefer Russian rule. Even Western governments and the Ukrainian government agree with this. It has nothing to do with "votes at gunpoint" and other bullshit. The clear and expressed will of the Crimeans, acknowledged by everyone, is to remain part of Russia.
      The Crimeans neither want nor need "liberating" by Nazis who openly state that they will be ethnically cleansed. Any supporter of Russian rule would be "suicidal" to stay "when " the Ukrainians "liberate" Crimea, according to Ukrainian Head of Military Intel. They openly state this. Stop concerning yourself with liberating people who would rather that everyone displaying their faux concern fucked off and left them alone.

So there was no historical connection to the territory? It was just the spoils of war? And I'm supposed to have the intellectual depth of a puddle, or whatever the remark made was. You've justified Israel's annexation of so-called Palestinian lands, if you don't realize it.

[gringo]

So there was no historical connection to the territory? It was just the spoils of war? And I'm supposed to have the intellectual depth of a puddle, or whatever the remark made was. You've justified Israel's annexation of so-called Palestinian lands, if you don't realize it.

    The territory was used to launch genocidal attacks on Russia. There is no comparison with the Zionist theft of Palestine. Palestinians hadn't previously been using their territory to launch attacks on anyone, nor had they declared and launched a genocidal war. You demonstrate the shallowness of your knowledge with such crass comparisons.

[gringo]

So there was no historical connection to the territory? It was just the spoils of war? And I'm supposed to have the intellectual depth of a puddle, or whatever the remark made was. You've justified Israel's annexation of so-called Palestinian lands, if you don't realize it.

    If you really believe that there is an equivalence to be drawn between Crimea and Kaliningrad then you have displayed your shallowness for all to see. What exactly is your thought process that manages these mental gymnastics to draw equivalence between events that have such hugely different context and circumstances. You then stretch even further by throwing in Palestine as a comparison. Why not throw in Gibraltar and the Falklands too, they are as equally relevant. Or, in other words, they are not relevant at all.
      The side you offer support to now in Ukraine also have made no secret of their intention to ethnically cleanse the Crimean population, so any equivalence that does exist between Crimea and Palestine doesn't say what you imagine it does. In both cases you support the side that makes no secret of their genocidal plans.
     
     

[Steve_uk]

    If you really believe that there is an equivalence to be drawn between Crimea and Kaliningrad then you have displayed your shallowness for all to see. What exactly is your thought process that manages these mental gymnastics to draw equivalence between events that have such hugely different context and circumstances. You then stretch even further by throwing in Palestine as a comparison. Why not throw in Gibraltar and the Falklands too, they are as equally relevant. Or, in other words, they are not relevant at all.
      The side you offer support to now in Ukraine also have made no secret of their intention to ethnically cleanse the Crimean population, so any equivalence that does exist between Crimea and Palestine doesn't say what you imagine it does. In both cases you support the side that makes no secret of their genocidal plans.
     
   

..and I am reminding you of the uncomfortable truth that it was the Soviet Union which instigated the ethnic cleansing of Crimea in 1944.

[Steve_uk]

    The territory was used to launch genocidal attacks on Russia. There is no comparison with the Zionist theft of Palestine. Palestinians hadn't previously been using their territory to launch attacks on anyone, nor had they declared and launched a genocidal war. You demonstrate the shallowness of your knowledge with such crass comparisons.

Why do you think Israel blockades the Gaza Strip?

[gringo]

..and I am reminding you of the uncomfortable truth that it was the Soviet Union which instigated the ethnic cleansing of Crimea in 1944.

    Describe what happened during this ethnic cleansing and then demonstrate the comparison with the words and actions of Ukrainian officials now and the Soviet actions. Show that your analysis has more depth than you are currently demonstrating. Why are these two events comparable? I can give many clear reasons why there is no equivalence.
     Did Stalin threaten the Tatars with death? Have Ukrainian government spokespeople threatened the current inhabitants(including many Tatars who also support the current status quo) with death? There's one big difference for starters, Steve.
     The answers to the above two questions are No and Yes, in that order. If you understand this, why would you draw equivalence between these circumstances. Are you an apologist for genocidal Nazis?

[gringo]

Why do you think Israel blockades the Gaza Strip?

    To enforce their genocidal land thieving.

[Steve_uk]

    To enforce their genocidal land thieving.

They would have remained inside Gaza had that been the case.

[Steve_uk]

    Describe what happened during this ethnic cleansing and then demonstrate the comparison with the words and actions of Ukrainian officials now and the Soviet actions. Show that your analysis has more depth than you are currently demonstrating. Why are these two events comparable? I can give many clear reasons why there is no equivalence.
    Did Stalin threaten the Tatars with death? Have Ukrainian government spokespeople threatened the current inhabitants(including many Tatars who also support the current status quo) with death? There's one big difference for starters, Steve.
     The answers to the above two questions are No and Yes, in that order. If you understand this, why would you draw equivalence between these circumstances. Are you an apologist for genocidal Nazis?

I already did.  https://crimea.suspilne.media/en/articles/71

He must have known there would be casualties. https://uaccmn.org/crimean-tatar-genocide/

I don't wish to see genocide, wherever it occurs.

[gringo]

They would have remained inside Gaza had that been the case.

     Israel isn't real, Steve. It is stolen Palestinian land occupied largely by genocidal European Zionists. Isn'trealis(white Europeans) should have remained inside Europe instead of stealing territory and committing genocide. It is about to succumb to its historical 80 year curse anyway. Israel will cease to exist as the "Jewish State" in a few years. Apartheid is not a sustainable model for governance. Oppression only works until it doesn't and Israel as an apartheid Jewish State is living on borrowed time.