Author Topic: Does Ukraine have a legitimate claim to Crimea? Can anyone spell it out?  (Read 15942 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6600
Re: Does Ukraine have a legitimate claim to Crimea? Can anyone spell it out?
« Reply #60 on: September 09, 2023, 08:48:PM »
     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.

I totally agree.


Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 20872
   Russia's claim goes back to 1783. Their is no serious Tatar claim to Crimea. The Crimean population want to be part of Russia. Anyone who believes in self-determination cannot deny the Russian claim. There is no expressed desire to start a "Tatar Republic".
     Are you suggesting it is returned to the Turkic Khaganate? the Ottoman Empire?
     Of course Russia has a claim to Crimea. It is the only legitimate claim that I have come across. I have laid it out and asked for anyone to lay out a comprehensive and coherent claim to Crimea of Ukraine, the Tatars, anyone?
   
Was it a legitimate claim? 

Catherine II was determined to continue her territorial expansion and preparations for annexation started over a year before the final annexation took place. In December 1782 she ordered the Foreign Affairs Board to start diplomatic work with European powers of the day such as Britain, France, Austria and Sardinia. Concluding that Russian ports would feel threatened by the Ottoman Empire, Catherine the Great issued a manifesto on April 1783 justifying the annexation of Crimea to the Russian Empire. The final documents were signed on February 2, 1784.

Russians were continually meddling in Crimea destabilizing their government. Catherine encouraged revolt against the Khan and installed a puppet government faithful to her. When the annexation took place Tartars raised in protest. She insisted that she was saving them from misgovernment.

European countries ultimately accepted the appropriation of the Crimean territory and it was considered a huge success of Russia’s foreign policy. The Treaty of Constantinople in 1784 ceded the Crimea Peninsula to the Russian Empire.

In order to secure its borders Catherine the Great gave orders to build the fortress of Sevastopol and the Black Sea Fleet. The construction of the Black Sea Fleet was given to Prince Grigory Potemkin, the Governor and General in Chief of Novorossiysk.



Offline gringo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3388
      It has already been established that Catherine the Great annexed Crimea from the Ottomans. What is the point you are attempting to make? Are you suggesting that the long gone "Ottoman Empire" be revived and that Russia should give Crimea back to the Ottomans? Crimeans, whether ethnically Tatar, Russian or Ukrainian have made quite clear that they regard themselves as Russian. They don't need or want annexing. What happens to the approx 2.5 million inhabitants of Crimea who would no longer be welcome if Ukraine were to annex Crimea?
     It is obvious that your posts are inspired by your indoctrinated hatred of all things Russian rather than any coherent understanding. It is also noticeable that you simply dispute Russian sovereignty of Crimea rather than put forward a case for Ukrainian sovereignty. The Tatars, the Ottomans... In other words, Steve, you fail to put forward any positive case whatsoever for Ukrainian ownership of Crimea. This is because there is no arguable case for Crimea to be annexed against the will of its inhabitants by Ukraine. You know this but your bias prevents you from acknowledging such uncomfortable truths.
      Given your "concern" over historical land acquirement, you should do USA, Canada, Australia next. The native populations of those territories were ethnically cleansed and genocided in order to annex their land. Way more brutal than anything that has happened in Crimea. Should we give back Australia to the Aborigines? How about Canada? Both are part of the UK commonwealth. I imagine you must be furious about the long standing historical grievances of the indigenous populations of those territories and spitting feathers at the treatment of the Chagossians.
     There are many more cases of dubiously acquired territories that escape your analysis. Why is this? Is it because the vast majority of annexed and occupied territory in the world was done by, or with the support of, UK/US Western imperialists? You aren't on the side of the anti-Imperialists, Steve, so the clothes don't fit when you attempt to clothe yourself as one. Your concern for Crimea is transparently anti Russian and anti the will of Crimeans. You support the annexation of Crimea on behalf of Imperialists but pretend it is on behalf of "freedom" or some such. You need to ask yourself, "For whom exactly are you advocating? You full well understand that Crimeans are happy as they are and any attempt to take Crimea from Russia would lead to quite probable World War. And you don't even know for whom you want to "liberate" Crimea!
     
       
     

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 20872
"The claims of Russia for their illegal 2014 invasion of Crimea have no historical or political basis." https://youtu.be/vsqJBYGc5O4

Offline gringo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3388
"The claims of Russia for their illegal 2014 invasion of Crimea have no historical or political basis." https://youtu.be/vsqJBYGc5O4
     You make my point for me;

     From my last post, "It is obvious that your posts are inspired by your indoctrinated hatred of all things Russian rather than any coherent understanding. It is also noticeable that you simply dispute Russian sovereignty of Crimea rather than put forward a case for Ukrainian sovereignty. The Tatars, the Ottomans... In other words, Steve, you fail to put forward any positive case whatsoever for Ukrainian ownership of Crimea. This is because there is no arguable case for Crimea to be annexed against the will of its inhabitants by Ukraine."

     The historical basis has been laid out and it is nonsensical to claim that there is no "historical or political basis" for Russia's claim. Their historical claim spans 3 centuries and the political basis is the will of the Crimeans. You cannot lay out a coherent case for Ukrainian sovereignty because it doesn't exist. You also ignore the fact that Ukrainian sovereignty over Crimea would by necessity involve the ethnic cleansing or genocide of the current inhabitants who want nothing to do with Ukraine.
     What do you see happening to the Crimeans were they to be annexed by Ukraine? What in your view would happen, if NATO's proxy army were to somehow seize Crimea? Is it a wise move with no consequences, do you think? Instead of cheering on your side, fuelled mostly by hate of the other, you should spend your time considering the consequences of the actions you blindly support and question the one sided, imperialist, idiotic view of history that you consume and espouse.

   

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 20872
     You make my point for me;

     From my last post, "It is obvious that your posts are inspired by your indoctrinated hatred of all things Russian rather than any coherent understanding. It is also noticeable that you simply dispute Russian sovereignty of Crimea rather than put forward a case for Ukrainian sovereignty. The Tatars, the Ottomans... In other words, Steve, you fail to put forward any positive case whatsoever for Ukrainian ownership of Crimea. This is because there is no arguable case for Crimea to be annexed against the will of its inhabitants by Ukraine."

     The historical basis has been laid out and it is nonsensical to claim that there is no "historical or political basis" for Russia's claim. Their historical claim spans 3 centuries and the political basis is the will of the Crimeans. You cannot lay out a coherent case for Ukrainian sovereignty because it doesn't exist. You also ignore the fact that Ukrainian sovereignty over Crimea would by necessity involve the ethnic cleansing or genocide of the current inhabitants who want nothing to do with Ukraine.
     What do you see happening to the Crimeans were they to be annexed by Ukraine? What in your view would happen, if NATO's proxy army were to somehow seize Crimea? Is it a wise move with no consequences, do you think? Instead of cheering on your side, fuelled mostly by hate of the other, you should spend your time considering the consequences of the actions you blindly support and question the one sided, imperialist, idiotic view of history that you consume and espouse.

 
It's a rather inane reply based on a false premise. How on earth could Ukraine be accused of annexing a piece of land when Russia invaded the territory in 2014? I've already discussed the machinations of Catherine the Great, the deportation of the Tatars in 1944 and the piece on YouTube by the Canadian academic, whose conclusion was that although Ukraine over the centuries didn't have a specific legal right to Crimea, when push comes to shove it was a better claim than Russia ever had.

I suppose as peace settlement and to prevent further unnecessary bloodshed one might foresee a role for the OSCE in organizing a legitimate referendum on sovereignty once Russian bully boys have left the territory. Only then could one gauge the true sentiments of the two million inhabitants who live in an area the size of Wales, just to confirm the scale of the misappropriation we are talking about.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44119
Don't believe there will be a peace deal.

Putin has no interest in peace & bombed Ukraine again this week. All Trump could do was tweet about it.

Zelensky will say 'not my fault' & hope America still financially support him. If not he will ask Europe for more.

Trump will walk away & say 'not America's war'. At least that shows him being decisive.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44119
Putin may not still be alive by the time Russia get all of Ukraine.

By then Ukraine will just be rubble.

The expense of the war & then to rebuild Ukraine, not sure what his reasoning was.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13705
Putin may not still be alive by the time Russia get all of Ukraine.

By then Ukraine will just be rubble.

The expense of the war & then to rebuild Ukraine, not sure what his reasoning was.

He thought it would be easy and Ukraine would buckle in weeks. And to be fair many people anticipated the same.

My own prediction was a Russian victory in two weeks and 5000 Russian troops dead.