5 ms·

Balooney. Crimea was not historically part of Russia! Second, Russia is not just annexing Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula but also attempting to annex parts of eas

Balooney. Crimea was not historically part of Russia! Second, Russia is not just annexing Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula but also attempting to annex parts of eastern Ukraine and recently moved a bunch of troops potentially to expand their held territory beyond the peninsula and deeper into central Ukraine. I don’t understand these arguments carrying water for Russia. Yeah, we all know Russia wants to annex parts of Ukraine for what they consider strategic reasons. But we can’t go about justifying wars for annexation in the 21st bloody century! Doesn’t matter if it’s the US, China, or Russia. Annexation is not justifiable.

mc32 6y ago
It was made part of Russia by the Russian Empire during expansion a couple of centuries ago. It was its own soviet republic prior to WWII and afterwards made part of Ukraine SSR. Now Russia took it back. Majority speak Russian not Ukrainian since most actual native Crimeans were displaced during Soviet era.
- rmind 6y ago
  Crimea was part of the Ottoman Empire for 3 centuries and a part of the Golden Horde for 2 centuries before that. What's your point? Just because some state controlled the territory in the past doesn't mean it belongs to it in the XXI century. This world came up with the international law and rules for a reason.
  - mc32 6y ago
    The point is that it’s not historically Ukrainian and that given its history Russia has more claim in it than the other claimant. And given its strategic importance, I don’t see them giving up that claim. It’s akin to China asserting a claim on Guam. We will not let that happen.
    - danbst 6y ago
      You are correct about strategic importance (which is still not tolerable). But it is not correct to justify this annexation by any historical reasons. That's like saying Ukraine has claims in Kuban, because it was historically Ukrainian.
    - Robotbeat 6y ago
      On the contrary, both Ukraine and Turkey could make a more legitimate historical claim than Russia, and independence is even stronger. Russia does not have any legitimate claim to Crimea. China and the US are peers in terms of national power. Ukraine is a former vassal state of Russia that is much poorer and weaker, and Russia is also trying to annex the eastern portion. Where the heck do people get off on justifying imperialist annexation of smaller, weaker countries by an aggressor?
- uuidgen 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Tatars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Tatars
gritzko 6y ago
Crimea was historically a part of Imperial Russia for more than a century. In my understanding, if Ukraine becomes a NATO country, European Russia becomes indefensible. That means, the Russian govt is ready to escalate the matter all the way to the nukes. I don't expect a major conflict, but who knows.
- gritzko 6y ago
  Like I am trying to argue with a guy who is arguing with the map...
publicola1990 6y ago
But this region seemed to be majority Russian speaking, ethnically/culturally Russian. So there might be grassroots support in these regions to be a part of Russia.
- Robotbeat 6y ago
  Russia kept a naval base in Ukraine and many Russian people stationed there live in that area, along with retired military people. But that’s hardly an argument for annexation! Would the US be justified in annexing chunks of Japan or Germany or Cuba or Greenland or whathaveyou for the same reason? Absolutely not.
publicola1990 6y ago
Also at the end of coldwar, there was a certain promise of not expanding Nato eastwards and letting Russia continue to have a sphere of influence, which the West has not been adhering to.
- Robotbeat 6y ago
  More importantly, there was also a promise by the West and Russia that if Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons, Russia and the West would ensure Ukraine’s security (ie from attack and invasion). How’s that going? It’s insane to me that in a conflict between a smaller and poorer country and a larger imperial country, people keep taking the side of the aggressor who literally invaded and is attempted to annex portions of the smaller. NATO is no justification for this!
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    That promise was cynical more than anything. In reality, Ukraine had the choice to give up nuclear weapons (which they couldn't deploy) or be invaded, either by Russia or the US. This was a preferable option. As far as Russia, it's not a question of right or wrong. As part of the dissolution of the USSR, NATO made a tacti assurance TO Russia that they would not push until the border. The occupation of Ukraine is a response to calls from Ukraine to align with the EU and NATO. Since neither organism allows entry if there is an active territorial dispute, so Russia created one. From our position, it looks like Ukraine is only trying to defend from Russian imperialism, a much bigger power. From the Russian position, it looks like NATO coordinating a total encirclement of Russia and massing troops directly at its border and cutting off any hope Russia has to be able to assure its trade routes and even territorial security, against an openly interventionist empire. Ultimately, both perspectives are true. NATO does seek to geopolitically checkmate Russia, which will make life for the average Russian citizen worse and increase the risk of a major war. At the same time Russia is indeed imposing on Ukraine. Russia could be headed by anyone else under any even remotely functional system of government and it would go to amazing lengths to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, no matter what. It's a simple matter that there is not really any choice available here.

mc32 6y ago

It was made part of Russia by the Russian Empire during expansion a couple of centuries ago. It was its own soviet republic prior to WWII and afterwards made part of Ukraine SSR. Now Russia took it back. Majority speak Russian not Ukrainian since most actual native Crimeans were displaced during Soviet era.

rmind 6y ago
Crimea was part of the Ottoman Empire for 3 centuries and a part of the Golden Horde for 2 centuries before that. What's your point? Just because some state controlled the territory in the past doesn't mean it belongs to it in the XXI century. This world came up with the international law and rules for a reason.
- mc32 6y ago
  The point is that it’s not historically Ukrainian and that given its history Russia has more claim in it than the other claimant. And given its strategic importance, I don’t see them giving up that claim. It’s akin to China asserting a claim on Guam. We will not let that happen.
  - danbst 6y ago
    You are correct about strategic importance (which is still not tolerable). But it is not correct to justify this annexation by any historical reasons. That's like saying Ukraine has claims in Kuban, because it was historically Ukrainian.
  - Robotbeat 6y ago
    On the contrary, both Ukraine and Turkey could make a more legitimate historical claim than Russia, and independence is even stronger. Russia does not have any legitimate claim to Crimea. China and the US are peers in terms of national power. Ukraine is a former vassal state of Russia that is much poorer and weaker, and Russia is also trying to annex the eastern portion. Where the heck do people get off on justifying imperialist annexation of smaller, weaker countries by an aggressor?
uuidgen 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Tatars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Tatars

gritzko 6y ago

Crimea was historically a part of Imperial Russia for more than a century. In my understanding, if Ukraine becomes a NATO country, European Russia becomes indefensible. That means, the Russian govt is ready to escalate the matter all the way to the nukes. I don't expect a major conflict, but who knows.

gritzko 6y ago
Like I am trying to argue with a guy who is arguing with the map...

publicola1990 6y ago

But this region seemed to be majority Russian speaking, ethnically/culturally Russian. So there might be grassroots support in these regions to be a part of Russia.

Robotbeat 6y ago
Russia kept a naval base in Ukraine and many Russian people stationed there live in that area, along with retired military people. But that’s hardly an argument for annexation! Would the US be justified in annexing chunks of Japan or Germany or Cuba or Greenland or whathaveyou for the same reason? Absolutely not.

publicola1990 6y ago

Also at the end of coldwar, there was a certain promise of not expanding Nato eastwards and letting Russia continue to have a sphere of influence, which the West has not been adhering to.

Robotbeat 6y ago
More importantly, there was also a promise by the West and Russia that if Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons, Russia and the West would ensure Ukraine’s security (ie from attack and invasion). How’s that going? It’s insane to me that in a conflict between a smaller and poorer country and a larger imperial country, people keep taking the side of the aggressor who literally invaded and is attempted to annex portions of the smaller. NATO is no justification for this!
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  That promise was cynical more than anything. In reality, Ukraine had the choice to give up nuclear weapons (which they couldn't deploy) or be invaded, either by Russia or the US. This was a preferable option. As far as Russia, it's not a question of right or wrong. As part of the dissolution of the USSR, NATO made a tacti assurance TO Russia that they would not push until the border. The occupation of Ukraine is a response to calls from Ukraine to align with the EU and NATO. Since neither organism allows entry if there is an active territorial dispute, so Russia created one. From our position, it looks like Ukraine is only trying to defend from Russian imperialism, a much bigger power. From the Russian position, it looks like NATO coordinating a total encirclement of Russia and massing troops directly at its border and cutting off any hope Russia has to be able to assure its trade routes and even territorial security, against an openly interventionist empire. Ultimately, both perspectives are true. NATO does seek to geopolitically checkmate Russia, which will make life for the average Russian citizen worse and increase the risk of a major war. At the same time Russia is indeed imposing on Ukraine. Russia could be headed by anyone else under any even remotely functional system of government and it would go to amazing lengths to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, no matter what. It's a simple matter that there is not really any choice available here.