Jeremy Bamber Forum
OFF TOPIC => Russia/Ukraine/Nato => Topic started by: gringo on July 24, 2023, 10:20:PM
-
A few facts about Crimea, which is obviously a central part(the main prize even) of the whole conflict. It is difficult to articulate a coherent case for Crimea to "return" to Ukraine. In truth it has never been part of Ukraine. Since 1783, Crimea has had a Russian port at Sevastopol. Its language, history and culture is Russian. At no time have Crimeans identified as being Ukrainian.
In 1954 Crimea as part of Russia and the Soviet Union was transferred by then leader, Nikita Krushchev. The whys and wherefores of this question are much discussed in Russia/Crimea and subject of some interesting theories. Until the break up of the Soviet Union, this bureaucratic move of Crimea to Ukraine was of little to no significance.
Before the dissolution of the USSR, a referendum was held on the question of preserving the Union- the "All Union Referendum";
https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/71359/.
https://www.rbth.com/articles/2011/03/17/the_first_and_only_national_referendum_in_soviet_history_12297
The result of the Crimean Republic vote was overwhelming, over 95%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_Union_referendum#:~:text=The%20referendum's%20question%20was%20approved,Union%20Treaty%20a%20day%20later.
Two months prior to the referendum the Crimean authorities held their own referendum to re-establish the, "Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic" of Crimea. Over 94% on an 81% turnout voted for autonomy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Crimean_sovereignty_referendum
In 1994 a further referendum was held;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Crimean_referendum
"A three-part referendum was held in Crimea on 27 March 1994 alongside regional and national elections. Voters were asked whether they were in favour of greater autonomy within Ukraine, whether residents should have dual Russian and Ukrainian citizenship, and whether presidential decrees should have the status of laws. All three proposals were approved."
After the Maidan coup most of the Ukrainian military that was based in Crimea defected to serve the Republic of Crimea;
"MOSCOW, March 4 (RIA Novosti) – More than 5,500 soldiers have defected from Ukraine’s military to serve the autonomous republic of Crimea, the region’s newly appointed leader said.
Sergei Aksyonov, named prime minister last week in a local parliamentary vote, said Tuesday that talks with unit commanders led to the defections of soldiers to join an independent Crimean military.
“Of the 34 Ukrainian military units stationed in Crimea, 23 have defected,” a local government representative told RIA Novosti on Tuesday."
Full article here;
https://sputnikglobe.com/20140304/5500-Ukrainian-Soldiers-Defect-to-Serve-an-Independent-Crimea-188085607.html
History, language, culture, ethnicity, the will of the people all point to Crimea being Russian and part of Russia in every way. Since 1991 there have been four referenda, all expressing the same desire.
Bizarrely the case for Ukrainian sovereignty, unless anyone can add anything, rests entirely on the signature of a "Soviet Dictator"(Krushchev) in 1954 transferring Crimea to Ukraine. Surely the "self appointed" defenders of "democracy" have a better case than that? ???
-
it bbelonged to the tarter orginal so really neather side hs a cliam to it though russia is better than ukrianes
-
it bbelonged to the tarter orginal so really neather side hs a cliam to it though russia is better than ukrianes
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?
-
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?
the tarters were there until secound world war when they were expelled by stalin it was majority untill then
in 1763 russia annaxedd it before that the tarters had been there about 700 years and they were still the majority up untill the 1940s
if thats not a cliam i dont know what is
-
the tarters were there until secound world war when they were expelled by stalin it was majority untill then
in 1763 russia annaxedd it before that the tarters had been there about 700 years and they were still the majority up untill the 1940s
if thats not a cliam i dont know what is
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.
-
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
-
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
How was anything I wrote misleading? The articles linked made clear that the referendum was boycotted in those five states. What does that have to do with the Crimean question? The referendum held in 1991 (two in Crimea) as well as the 1994 referendum and the 2014 referendum all have shown consistently that their is no support to be part of Ukraine. Calling my post misleading without elaborating how avoids the bother of answering the simple question posed.
Can you spell out a legitimate Ukrainian claim to Crimea? Just say no if you can't make the case. I have invited the counter claim. Making false criticism of the case that I have laid out seems to demonstrate the absence of a reasonable positive argument in favour of Ukrainian sovereignty. Prove me wrong.
-
How was anything I wrote misleading? The articles linked made clear that the referendum was boycotted in those five states. What does that have to do with the Crimean question? The referendum held in 1991 (two in Crimea) as well as the 1994 referendum and the 2014 referendum all have shown consistently that their is no support to be part of Ukraine. Calling my post misleading without elaborating how avoids the bother of answering the simple question posed.
Can you spell out a legitimate Ukrainian claim to Crimea? Just say no if you can't make the case. I have invited the counter claim. Making false criticism of the case that I have laid out seems to demonstrate the absence of a reasonable positive argument in favour of Ukrainian sovereignty. Prove me wrong.
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?
-
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, there have been four referenda since 1991. Are you suggesting that all four were held at gun point? This is simply not true and only demonstrates that you cannot lay out a legitimate case for Ukrainian sovereignty over Crimea.
The 1994 Budapest Memorandum is something that you have often brought up, but beyond the promise to "respect Ukraine's borders", you seem to know little more of its purpose and provisions. It has nothing to do with the Crimean question and was about Nuclear non-proliferation.
The first vote in Crimea in 1991, prior to the All State Referendum, was organised by the Crimeans. They voted to re-establish the ASSR of Crimea. Over 94%. Are you suggesting that this was held at gunpoint?
The second vote in 1991, organised by the Soviet Union, was to vote on whether to preserve the Union. This is the vote boycotted by five republics and part of another. (the 3 Baltic states plus Moldova, Armenia, Georgia). Was this held at gunpoint? and what does the boycott of those states have to do with the Crimean Question?
The third vote was held in 1994, but you seem to believe the Budapest Memorandum is more relevant despite not even addressing Crimea. In the third vote, three questions were asked.
1) Are you for the restoration of the provision of the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea of 6 May 1992 which determines the regulation of mutual relations between the Republic of Crimea and Ukraine on the basis of a Treaty of Agreements?
2) Are you for the restoration of the provision of the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea of 6 May 1992 that proclaimed the right of citizens of the Republic of Crimea to dual citizenship?
3) Are you for conceding the force of laws to the edicts of the president of the Republic of Crimea on questions that are temporarily not regulated by legislation of the Republic of Crimea?
Again all three measures were overwhelmingly passed. The results in favour were, 79, 83 and 78% in favour of the three measures(rounded up).
Are you claiming that this referendum was also held "at gunpoint"?
Finally the 2014 referendum only confirmed what the Crimeans have been saying ever since the initial break from the Soviet Union. Allegations that it is illegitimate and held at gunpoint ignore the fact that it merely re-emphasised what the Crimeans have repeatedly voted for. No gunpoint was required.
You have yet to articulate a positive case, or even hint at one, for Ukrainian sovereignty over Crimea. There is no evidence whatsoever that Crimeans want to "rejoin" Ukraine. The Ukrainians make no secret that they want the land minus the people. They also are fully aware that their presence and governance is not wanted.
The preference that you have previously stated for a OSCE overseen referendum is not on offer by the Ukrainians, because they already know what the result will be(same as the other four). The only argument that remains for Ukraine sovereignty over Crimea is that it was transferred arbitrarily in 1954 by then Soviet leader, Nikita Krushchev. This cannot be the the entirety of the case. Crimea is Ukrainian because Krushchev arbitrarily transferred the territory within the borders of the USSR in 1954. That is the only time that Crimea has been "part" of Ukraine. There wasn't then, and has never been a democratic mandate supporting Ukrainian sovereignty.
You have seen the statements of Kyrylo Budanov. You can easily find statements of a similar ilk by other Ukrainian officials. Ukraine plan to annex, offer no vote(gunpoint or otherwise) and punish or deport all Crimeans who are "pro Russian" or who "collaborated" with the pro Russian authorities. You may believe that you support something other than this, but you don't. Simply wishing doesn't make something so.
Can you articulate your positive case? and tell us how the Crimeans will be "liberated"?
-
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.
-
Again you slant the news in your favour. In the 1991 referendum Crimeans voted for autonomy, not to leave Ukraine completely. In 1994 they voted for dual Ukrainian and Russian citizenship, not to secede from Ukraine altogether. The 2014 referendum was illegal and I post no further comment thereon.
-
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.
The problem, even if we accept what you say, is that the titbit of Crimea with its Sevastopol naval base was not sufficient to assuage Putin's paranoia over NATO, and when it became clear post-Yanukovych that Ukraine was heading in a westerly direction they had to find an excuse to invade to hang onto the Crimean booty they seized illegally in the first place.
-
Again you slant the news in your favour. In the 1991 referendum Crimeans voted for autonomy, not to leave Ukraine completely. In 1994 they voted for dual Ukrainian and Russian citizenship, not to secede from Ukraine altogether. The 2014 referendum was illegal and I post no further comment thereon.
I'm not "slanting" anything. I have stated unambiguously what each vote was for. The common theme is that the Crimeans do not accept rule from Kiev.
There were two referenda in 1991, Steve. I made clear earlier the terms of those referenda.
There is zero evidence of Crimeans accepting rule from Kiev. You know this really. This raises very uncomfortable questions that you shy away from. How would Kiev subdue or deal with the recalcitrant population? They have told us but you don't want to hear.
It is inconsistent and indefensible to support Ukraine forcing sovereignty onto Crimea.
-
I'm not "slanting" anything. I have stated unambiguously what each vote was for. The common theme is that the Crimeans do not accept rule from Kiev.
There were two referenda in 1991, Steve. I made clear earlier the terms of those referenda.
There is zero evidence of Crimeans accepting rule from Kiev. You know this really. This raises very uncomfortable questions that you shy away from. How would Kiev subdue or deal with the recalcitrant population? They have told us but you don't want to hear.
It is inconsistent and indefensible to support Ukraine forcing sovereignty onto Crimea.
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.
-
The problem, even if we accept what you say, is that the titbit of Crimea with its Sevastopol naval base was not sufficient to assuage Putin's paranoia over NATO, and when it became clear post-Yanukovych that Ukraine was heading in a westerly direction they had to find an excuse to invade to hang onto the Crimean booty they seized illegally in the first place.
This is simply not true and a ridiculously paranoid false narrative of events in Crimea in 1991. In this "invasion" how much blood was spilled? Why did the majority of the Ukrainian Army based there defect? Describe the "invasion" and "annexation" to me. There has been a Russian base there for 250 years. Ukraine would need to militarily annex Crimea, they are not wanted there. Why do you ignore this most vital of facts, the will of the Crimeans. Disbelieving the repeated stated desire of the Crimeans whilst offering no evidence to support the alternative is incoherent. As is supporting the Ukrainians on the basis of a OSCE overseen referendum that isn't even on offer. Your position makes no sense and ignores inconvenient realities.
You have made perfectly clear that there is no case for Ukraine sovereignty of Crimea. I have asked you to make the case and you haven't even attempted it. The consequences of the actions that you support are likely catastrophic if they succeeded.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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, 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
-
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 :-[ :o
-
"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 :-[ :o
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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/
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
..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?
-
Why do you think Israel blockades the Gaza Strip?
To enforce their genocidal land thieving.
-
To enforce their genocidal land thieving.
They would have remained inside Gaza had that been the case.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
"The claims of Russia for their illegal 2014 invasion of Crimea have no historical or political basis." https://youtu.be/vsqJBYGc5O4
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.