Jump to content

Is Crimea Legally Russian or Ukrainian Land?


Franz Von Dietrich
 Share

Recommended Posts

 Respectfully, it is Ukrainian. It was given to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (Soviet union Era) by the Russian Federative Socialist Republic. The current Russian Government can claim all they like about how it's theirs, but really? it isn't. You can't take back something you give. The Russian Federation should kindly go away with their dream to unite the Soviet Union, as most previous USSR member states do not wish to see it come back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crimea is incredibly fortunate it escaped Ukraine, I fear if Russia did not step to protect them then war would be waging in Crimea like in other parts of Ukraine. 

The problem is the government of Ukraine was illegally overthrown because of fascists and now everything went to shit with fascists trying to eliminate Russian culture in Ukraine completely which is breaching human rights. 

Ukraine is a sinking ship and at this point all we can hope for is that the fascists are removed from government which seems unlikely. 

IpHGyGc.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people who live there have spoken, as are the people in the east.

 

 

It's legally Russian under Russian law, and legally Ukrainian under everyone else's law.

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russia does not want to bring back the Soviet Union, this is just slander from Western media. If the Russians wanted to establish military bases somewhere as close to the United States as Crimea is to Russia, would you be surprised if the Americans reacted the same way the Russians did? I wouldn't. I'm not saying that what the Russians did was right, but it is understandable.

 

Both Western and Russian media are using Ukraine to polarise their respective societies and citizens against each other, and it barely stops short of propaganda. None of the sides in this conflict have behaved and acted perfectly, and it's wrong to place the blame entirely on Russia. The West and the Ukrainians are certainly not "the good guys" and neither are the Russians. Both sides are infected with right-wing extremism, neo-nazism and fascism, and I trust the businessmen of the Ukrainian Rada even less than I trust the oligarchs of Russia.

  • Upvote 1

orwell_s_1984_oceania_s_currency_by_dungsc127_d97k1zt-fullview.jpg.9994c8f495b96849443aa0defa8730be.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

historically crimea belonged to ukraine, and the russians when they were expanding conquered it sometime during the dark ages and maybe even earlier and i believe this was before the tsars or possible during the early stages or tsarism but after they took crimea, crimea remained in russian hands for nearly 500 years more or less.. And when the USSR granted Ukraine independence they gave ukraine crimea as good faith or as insurance which ever you prefer.

 

But historically crimea is ukraine but as of now it is russian. Plus the only reason why russia quickly took crimea and not the rest of eastern ukraine which is filled with pro-russians is because crimea houses russias black sea fleet.

Edited by Dark Specter

Amidst the eternal waves of time From a ripple of change shall the storm rise Out of the abyss peer the eyes of a demon Behold the razgriz, its wings of black sheath The demon soars through dark skies Fear and death trail its shadow beneath Until men united weild a hallowed sabre In final reckoning, the beast is slain As the demon sleeps, man turns on man His own blood and madness soon cover the earth From the depths of despair awaken the razgriz Its raven wings ablaze in majestic light

Link to comment
Share on other sites

historically crimea belonged to ukraine, and the russians when they were expanding conquered it sometime during the dark ages and maybe even earlier and i believe this was before the tsars or possible during the early stages or tsarism but after they took crimea, crimea remained in russian hands for nearly 500 years more or less.. And when the USSR granted Ukraine independence they gave ukraine crimea as good faith or as insurance which ever you prefer.

 

But historically crimea is ukraine but as of now it is russian. Plus the only reason why russia quickly took crimea and not the rest of eastern ukraine which is filled with pro-russians is because crimea houses russias black sea fleet.

 

I didn't want to be pro-Russian when I came in here, but that's a kinda broad idea of historical ownership. Why should who owned what 500 years ago matter today? (INB4 Palestine derail). The other way of putting it is that Russia owned Crimea for 500 years, except for a recent interlude of 50. That seems like the weightier historical argument, (not that I accept it as valid).

hxvRjGK.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think historical ownership plays a role in situations like these because even today nations still argue over ownership of certain lands.. Like for example china is fighting with japan and other asian nations over some bodies of water along with some islands in south east asia. So when it comes to ownership, modern nations will bring in historical ownership as a kind of heritage card.

Amidst the eternal waves of time From a ripple of change shall the storm rise Out of the abyss peer the eyes of a demon Behold the razgriz, its wings of black sheath The demon soars through dark skies Fear and death trail its shadow beneath Until men united weild a hallowed sabre In final reckoning, the beast is slain As the demon sleeps, man turns on man His own blood and madness soon cover the earth From the depths of despair awaken the razgriz Its raven wings ablaze in majestic light

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think historical ownership plays a role in situations like these because even today nations still argue over ownership of certain lands.. Like for example china is fighting with japan and other asian nations over some bodies of water along with some islands in south east asia. So when it comes to ownership, modern nations will bring in historical ownership as a kind of heritage card.

 

Historically the Crimea belonged to a people that were destroyed as a cohesive ethic group over 70 years ago. They were neither Ukrainian nor Russian. The vacuum was filled by Russian immigrants. Weep for the Crimean Tatars, but acknowledge that whoever holds the territory effectively owns it. Nobody argues for Cuba being returned to the Taínos, why pretend that the Crimean Tatars were secretly Ukrainian?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

historically crimea belonged to ukraine, and the russians when they were expanding conquered it sometime during the dark ages and maybe even earlier and i believe this was before the tsars or possible during the early stages or tsarism but after they took crimea, crimea remained in russian hands for nearly 500 years more or less.. And when the USSR granted Ukraine independence they gave ukraine crimea as good faith or as insurance which ever you prefer.

But historically crimea is ukraine but as of now it is russian. Plus the only reason why russia quickly took crimea and not the rest of eastern ukraine which is filled with pro-russians is because crimea houses russias black sea fleet.

Actually, it's historically a Tatar region formerly owned by the Crimean Khanate. Before it was captured by the Russians under Catherine the Great, in the 18th century, Ukraine was nominally a part of the Russian Empire. People get caught up in what belongs to Ukraine, and what was given. What people forget is that Ukraine was under oppression by Polish noblemen in the 17th century, and they along with the Don Cossacks petitioned Russia for assistance. The Russians agreed, under the stipulation that Ukraine becomes part of the Russian state. Obviously we know They accepted. Crimea was not outside of the Khanate's control until after this happened. So it is clearly Russian, and was paid for by Russian blood.

 

Furthermore, anything granted by the RFSR is a non factor with the fall of the Soviet Union.

Edited by Sindorin

sinsig.png

 

Grand Moff Hirohito of Dromund Kaas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Borders change all the time, though. Look at the culture and ethnicity of the region. Is it primarily Russian, or primarily Ukrainian? 

yVHTSLQ.png

(TEst lives on but I'm in BK stronk now and too lazy to change the image)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russia does not want to bring back the Soviet Union, this is just slander from Western media. If the Russians wanted to establish military bases somewhere as close to the United States as Crimea is to Russia, would you be surprised if the Americans reacted the same way the Russians did? I wouldn't. I'm not saying that what the Russians did was right, but it is understandable.

 

Both Western and Russian media are using Ukraine to polarise their respective societies and citizens against each other, and it barely stops short of propaganda. None of the sides in this conflict have behaved and acted perfectly, and it's wrong to place the blame entirely on Russia. The West and the Ukrainians are certainly not "the good guys" and neither are the Russians. Both sides are infected with right-wing extremism, neo-nazism and fascism, and I trust the businessmen of the Ukrainian Rada even less than I trust the oligarchs of Russia.

They want to bring back the vast influence the union had, and a lot of people really do want the Soviet Union back. Since the fall of USSR, the west has been buddying up to the post-Soviet states, boxing in Russia behind a new iron curtain of missiles in Europe. Russia, and Russians want to retain that influence, and why wouldn't they?

And yes, western Ukrainians are nowhere near the good guys. Far too fond of the Nazis and Ukrainian nationalism to be the good guys here. There is a lot of right wing extremism all over that area, but I think it's worse on the western Ukrainian side.

Edited by Fox Fire

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They want to bring back the vast influence the union had, and a lot of people really do want the Soviet Union back. Since the fall of USSR, the west has been buddying up to the post-Soviet states, boxing in Russia behind a new iron curtain of missiles in Europe. Russia, and Russians want to retain that influence, and why wouldn't they?

And yes, western Ukrainians are nowhere near the good guys. Far too fond of the Nazis and Ukrainian nationalism to be the good guys here. There is a lot of right wing extremism all over that area, but I think it's worse on the western Ukrainian side.

 

You are probably right about the western Ukrainians and it really troubles me that a lot of western governments back these guys, although I probably shouldn't be surprised.

 

And you are definitely not wrong, a lot of people in Russia would like to bring back the Soviet Union, the Communist Party of Russia is the second largest in the country after all, but is it not NATO and the European Union that has expanded and sought to expand further the most? A quick glance at the map tells the story:

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/EC-EU-enlargement_animation.gif

 

 

640px-History_of_NATO_enlargement.svg.pn

 

 

Sure, the Russians have made a ruckus in instances like Abkhazia, South Ossetia and most recently the Donbass, but these territories are tiny and almost inconsequential compared to the gains NATO and the EU have made, and in all these instances Russia's reaction was triggered by NATO and or the EU trying to expand further. They have not been acting, they have been reacting, and I really wouldn't expect them to react differently from the way they have. If Russia is trying to expand, it's only because NATO and EU are trying expand.

orwell_s_1984_oceania_s_currency_by_dungsc127_d97k1zt-fullview.jpg.9994c8f495b96849443aa0defa8730be.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are probably right about the western Ukrainians and it really troubles me that a lot of western governments back these guys, although I probably shouldn't be surprised.

 

And you are definitely not wrong, a lot of people in Russia would like to bring back the Soviet Union, the Communist Party of Russia is the second largest in the country after all, but is it not NATO and the European Union that has expanded and sought to expand further the most? A quick glance at the map tells the story:

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/EC-EU-enlargement_animation.gif

 

 

640px-History_of_NATO_enlargement.svg.pn

 

 

Sure, the Russians have made a ruckus in instances like Abkhazia, South Ossetia and most recently the Donbass, but these territories are tiny and almost inconsequential compared to the gains NATO and the EU have made, and in all these instances Russia's reaction was triggered by NATO and or the EU trying to expand further. They have not been acting, they have been reacting, and I really wouldn't expect them to react differently from the way they have. If Russia is trying to expand, it's only because NATO and EU are trying expand.

And I agree with that, which is what I said.

  • Upvote 1

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are probably right about the western Ukrainians and it really troubles me that a lot of western governments back these guys, although I probably shouldn't be surprised.

 

And you are definitely not wrong, a lot of people in Russia would like to bring back the Soviet Union, the Communist Party of Russia is the second largest in the country after all, but is it not NATO and the European Union that has expanded and sought to expand further the most? A quick glance at the map tells the story:

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/EC-EU-enlargement_animation.gif

 

I don't think the EU/NATO invaded any of those countries, though. Every one of them joined voluntarily because they saw more benefit in that than in remaining aligned with Russia. And now Russia's all jelly about it.

hxvRjGK.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the EU/NATO invaded any of those countries, though. Every one of them joined voluntarily because they saw more benefit in that than in remaining aligned with Russia. And now Russia's all jelly about it.

as bad as the Soviet union was, and I by no means liked or miss the USSR, they were in many ways better off than they are now. Russia's economy is a wreck, no jobs, no opportunity. atleast in the soviet era, food may not of been plentiful but everyone had a job and a place to live, even if it was 5 families per apartment. now I am against reuniting the USSR under a flag of conquest, but if Russia and some of the former republics want back in, we need to stop interfering in that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the EU/NATO invaded any of those countries, though. Every one of them joined voluntarily because they saw more benefit in that than in remaining aligned with Russia. And now Russia's all jelly about it.

 

It's not as simple as that. Every country, especially every democratic country, is in constant disagreement with itself. It's quite clear that the areas Russia moved into, which all have a large percentage of Russians and/or Russian speakers, did not want to move closer to the EU/NATO. It's not like Russia straight out invaded and occupied all of Georgia or Ukraine out of nowhere and completely without reason, or without local support. There are a lot of people in the areas in question that actually do believe that staying aligned with Russia will benefit them more.

 

Expansionism doesn't always come in the form of invasion or military force, there's many other ways of pressuring people into joining your side, and even if it is voluntary, it's still expansion. I'm not sure it makes a big difference to the Russian government.

orwell_s_1984_oceania_s_currency_by_dungsc127_d97k1zt-fullview.jpg.9994c8f495b96849443aa0defa8730be.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not as simple as that. Every country, especially every democratic country, is in constant disagreement with itself. It's quite clear that the areas Russia moved into, which all have a large percentage of Russians and/or Russian speakers, did not want to move closer to the EU/NATO. It's not like Russia straight out invaded and occupied all of Georgia or Ukraine out of nowhere and completely without reason, or without local support. There are a lot of people in the areas in question that actually do believe that staying aligned with Russia will benefit them more.

 

Expansionism doesn't always come in the form of invasion or military force, there's many other ways of pressuring people into joining your side, and even if it is voluntary, it's still expansion. I'm not sure it makes a big difference to the Russian government.

 

My point wasn't that Russian-speaking peoples ought to join the EU/NATO. I just feel its a false equivalence to point to the peaceful expansion of NATO and say "see, they did it too!" when it's a very different (peaceful) thing. I get that Russia has a siege mentality, and all that. NATO's post-cold war enlargement doesn't really make sense to me, TBH, and was probably a strategic mistake. But that doesn't justify the use of force to dismember sovereign nations.

hxvRjGK.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, it doesn't justify it and I don't agree with what the Russians did, but I do understand why they did it. I also think that NATO/EU has to take on part of the responsibility for causing the situation to develop as it has. This just reminded me, here are some excerpts from an article I read that I found to be very useful in trying to understand the situation:

 

KISSINGER. … But if the West is honest with itself, it has to admit that there were mistakes on its side. The annexation of Crimea was not a move toward global conquest. It was not Hitler moving into Czechoslovakia.

SPIEGEL. What was it then?

KISSINGER. One has to ask oneself this question: Putin spent tens of billions of dollars on the Winter Olympics in Sochi. The theme of the Olympics was that Russia is a progressive state tied to the West through its culture and, therefore, it presumably wants to be part of it. So it doesn’t make any sense that a week after the close of the Olympics, Putin would take Crimea and start a war over Ukraine. So one has to ask oneself, Why did it happen?

SPIEGEL. What you’re saying is that the West has at least a kind of responsibility for the escalation?

KISSINGER. Yes, I am saying that. Europe and America did not understand the impact of these events, starting with the negotiations about Ukraine’s economic relations with the European Union and culminating in the demonstrations in Kiev. All these, and their impact, should have been the subject of a dialogue with Russia. This does not mean the Russian response was appropriate.

 

… The United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West. At the same time, the EU’s expansion eastward and the West’s backing of the pro-democracy movement in Ukraine—beginning with the Orange Revolution in 2004—were critical elements, too. Since the mid-1990s, Russian leaders have adamantly opposed NATO enlargement, and in recent years, they have made it clear that they would not stand by while their strategically important neighbor turned into a Western bastion. For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected and pro-Russian president—which he rightly labeled a “coupâ€â€”coup—was was the final straw. He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to join the West.

 

 

If anyone is interested in reading the rest of it, here you go: http://www.salon.com/2014/12/04/new_york_times_propagandists_exposed_finally_the_truth_about_ukraine_and_putin_emerges/

orwell_s_1984_oceania_s_currency_by_dungsc127_d97k1zt-fullview.jpg.9994c8f495b96849443aa0defa8730be.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Respectfully, it is Ukrainian. It was given to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (Soviet union Era) by the Russian Federative Socialist Republic. The current Russian Government can claim all they like about how it's theirs, but really? it isn't. You can't take back something you give. The Russian Federation should kindly go away with their dream to unite the Soviet Union, as most previous USSR member states do not wish to see it come back.

Invading Crimea had nothing to do with reforming the USSR. Russia attacked because Ukraine was planning on joining the EU, and the EU was going to help them set up a natural gas extraction operation. Ukrainean gas is a huge threat to the Russian monopoly on gas in Europe. They wanted to make sure Ukraine has no chance to get a system in place and start cutting in on the market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.