4 ms·

> Is there any chance they would cede Crimea back at this point? There is a literal 0% chance that Crimea will ever go back to Ukraine unless there is a major

by nickik 5y ago

> Is there any chance they would cede Crimea back at this point? There is a literal 0% chance that Crimea will ever go back to Ukraine unless there is a major collapse of the political power of Russia. It would have to be a collapse worse then the collapse of the Soviet Union with a ruler who was beyond desperate to get Western support. The Western world can sanction Russia (and likely will for the next 50 years) non of that matters to them nearly as much as Crimea. The only reason why it was part of Ukraine in the first place is because of inter-politburo power-struggles that lead Khrushchev to simply assign it to Soviet Republic of Ukraine because that was his power-base. For political reason all the post-Soviet states had to accepted their boarders that they had within the Soviet Union. Sevastopol has been one of the most important power bases of Russian power for hundreds of years, and even while it was officially part of Ukraine, practically it was only just barley so and the easy of witch the Russians took it showed that quite well. For Americans to get some context on that, when the US declare its independence the Russians annexed the Crimea. Ask yourself how much sanctions the US would endure in order to protect Norfolk Virginia and then realize that Sevastopol is basically the one practical harbor, while the US has 100s on multiple coasts. > Rogozyn Rogozyn is targeting a Russian audience, blaming everything on Western conspiracy is basic Russian communication. He is basically fighting to pretend that Russia is relevant in space while the actual institution is being destroyed with corruption. Under him Roscosmos has continued to collapse and the whole industry is continuing to go down the drain.

Teever 5y ago
> For Americans to get some context on that, when the US declare its independence the Russians annexed the Crimea. Ask yourself how much sanctions the US would endure in order to protect Norfolk Virginia and then realize that Sevastopol is basically the one practical harbor, while the US has 100s on multiple coasts. In this hypothetical what made the US give up Norfolk Virginia to Canada? In other words if this port was so important to the USSR why did they give it up to Ukraine, why didn't they take it back from Ukraine when they split up, and why did they wait until 2014 to take it back?
- icegreentea2 5y ago
  Assignment of Crimea to Ukraine was an internal assignment within the USSR, from the Russian SSR (or whatever) to the Ukrainian SSR. The USSR is kind of a weird beast - it was nominally a union of equal republics, but it was dominated by the Russians. In a certain sense, the transfer within the context of the USSR wasn't important to Russians at all, since it was still part of the USSR and Russians ran the USSR - didn't matter THAT much that it was part of Ukraine (though there still werevarious Russian objections to the transfer throughout the Soviet into the Post-Soviet era), at least from an geopolitical standpoint. When the USSR dissolved... well, it was definitely a period of chaos. As for why wait till 2014? I have no answer for that. There's no clean US analogy, since the US doesn't have a singular state that completely dominates its political landscape.
  - echoradio 5y ago
    The closest U.S. example I can think of is Liberty Island and Ellis Island. They are clearly within the boundaries of New Jersey, yet a part of New York (state and city). These also fall under federal jurisdiction as they are homes to national monuments. Yet control has been contested in the federal government at least five times since the 1800s, most recently in 1998 (Ellis Island) and 1987 (Liberty Island).
- nickik 5y ago
  The Soviet Union practically operated at one entity controlled by the party, but had multiple Soviet Socialist Republics inside it. And of course, before the Soviet Union existed, Ukraine was not a state of any kind, it was simply part of Russian empire. Ukraine had a brief flirt with 'independence' after the Russian Empire collapsed and the Germans tried be the sponsor of new entity. Ukrainian nationalism was in its infancy then and once Germany was defeated in the East the idea of independent Ukraine was gone quickly. The allies had no interest in the (foolishly) no interest in the idea. So basically practically speaking Ukrainian independence was never really a serious reality in basically all of modern Russian history. So for Khrushchev to move Crimea from one Soviet Republic to another was not a big deal. For him it was basically like moving some federal facility from one state to another in the US. The way the Soviet Union collapsed was basically that the party lost its power, and then the individual states politicians realized that without party control they constitution would basically give them the right to succeed. Of course they did this based on the official borders initially. This by itself was a very, very contentious issue when the Soviet Union was formed. Stalin actually strongly advocated against the idea of these Soviet Republics like Ukraine and wanted to integrate them into the Russian state the same way it was during the Imperial period. [1] Lenin however was more willing to give nationalism a bone as first of all he knew the party would control everything anyway and he based on ideology believed that nationalism would simply 'not be a thing' once socialism was in power. Stalin eventually build the Soviet Union based on Lenin lines from 1917 to 1924 as People's Commissariat for Nationalities. Interestingly enough even after Lenin was no longer capable to impact his choices Stalin did not go back and revisit it. There were of course many different republics and autonomous regions inside of the Soviet Socialist Russian Republic and those all are still part of Russia today. So Stalin was right to be wary of the nationalities, once they had an opportunity they did exactly what he feared and broke away and devolved communist party and the socialist institutions for the most part. That is also partly why in Russia today, Stalin is viewed more favorably then Lenin. > why didn't they take it back from Ukraine when they split up, and why did they wait until 2014 to take it back Because the new state Russia had little power and no money. In fact, even for any of these topics were relevant in the West Russia attempted in many places to roll the collapse, this lecture goes threw many of them [2]. The Russians did want it back very much and they brought it up in negotiations with the Ukraine and United states. However as they had no power to do much of anything about it. And the US had of course preferred as much territory to be removed from the core Russian state as possible, so there was no chance the US would side with Russia on this. Like the Germans before them they also were interested in creating a Ukrainian state as a counter balance to Russia. The British tried much the same with the Republic of Texas. The new Ukrainian government agree that the Russian Army/Navy would continue to use the base and of course Crimea was basically supplied from the Russian side. Practically speaking the Russian state and military had the power there. Russia in the last 20 years regained a part of its former power, while Ukraine remains a basket case. Worst from Russian perspective is that US and the European have serious efforts to get Ukraine to be closer to them and politicians who became popular based on supporting that. This caused fears about long term viability of operating Crimea within Ukraine. With this action Russia does two things at once, it makes it impossible for Ukraine to be integrated into NATO (as they did with Georgia) and they made sure that even if the Ukrainian state made serious turn towards the EU they could not influence Crimea in any way. I hope this helps with understanding the situation. [1] Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umIg0mrsZBs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umIg0mrsZBs

by nickik 5y ago

Teever 5y ago

> For Americans to get some context on that, when the US declare its independence the Russians annexed the Crimea. Ask yourself how much sanctions the US would endure in order to protect Norfolk Virginia and then realize that Sevastopol is basically the one practical harbor, while the US has 100s on multiple coasts. In this hypothetical what made the US give up Norfolk Virginia to Canada? In other words if this port was so important to the USSR why did they give it up to Ukraine, why didn't they take it back from Ukraine when they split up, and why did they wait until 2014 to take it back?

icegreentea2 5y ago
Assignment of Crimea to Ukraine was an internal assignment within the USSR, from the Russian SSR (or whatever) to the Ukrainian SSR. The USSR is kind of a weird beast - it was nominally a union of equal republics, but it was dominated by the Russians. In a certain sense, the transfer within the context of the USSR wasn't important to Russians at all, since it was still part of the USSR and Russians ran the USSR - didn't matter THAT much that it was part of Ukraine (though there still werevarious Russian objections to the transfer throughout the Soviet into the Post-Soviet era), at least from an geopolitical standpoint. When the USSR dissolved... well, it was definitely a period of chaos. As for why wait till 2014? I have no answer for that. There's no clean US analogy, since the US doesn't have a singular state that completely dominates its political landscape.
- echoradio 5y ago
  The closest U.S. example I can think of is Liberty Island and Ellis Island. They are clearly within the boundaries of New Jersey, yet a part of New York (state and city). These also fall under federal jurisdiction as they are homes to national monuments. Yet control has been contested in the federal government at least five times since the 1800s, most recently in 1998 (Ellis Island) and 1987 (Liberty Island).
nickik 5y ago
The Soviet Union practically operated at one entity controlled by the party, but had multiple Soviet Socialist Republics inside it. And of course, before the Soviet Union existed, Ukraine was not a state of any kind, it was simply part of Russian empire. Ukraine had a brief flirt with 'independence' after the Russian Empire collapsed and the Germans tried be the sponsor of new entity. Ukrainian nationalism was in its infancy then and once Germany was defeated in the East the idea of independent Ukraine was gone quickly. The allies had no interest in the (foolishly) no interest in the idea. So basically practically speaking Ukrainian independence was never really a serious reality in basically all of modern Russian history. So for Khrushchev to move Crimea from one Soviet Republic to another was not a big deal. For him it was basically like moving some federal facility from one state to another in the US. The way the Soviet Union collapsed was basically that the party lost its power, and then the individual states politicians realized that without party control they constitution would basically give them the right to succeed. Of course they did this based on the official borders initially. This by itself was a very, very contentious issue when the Soviet Union was formed. Stalin actually strongly advocated against the idea of these Soviet Republics like Ukraine and wanted to integrate them into the Russian state the same way it was during the Imperial period. [1] Lenin however was more willing to give nationalism a bone as first of all he knew the party would control everything anyway and he based on ideology believed that nationalism would simply 'not be a thing' once socialism was in power. Stalin eventually build the Soviet Union based on Lenin lines from 1917 to 1924 as People's Commissariat for Nationalities. Interestingly enough even after Lenin was no longer capable to impact his choices Stalin did not go back and revisit it. There were of course many different republics and autonomous regions inside of the Soviet Socialist Russian Republic and those all are still part of Russia today. So Stalin was right to be wary of the nationalities, once they had an opportunity they did exactly what he feared and broke away and devolved communist party and the socialist institutions for the most part. That is also partly why in Russia today, Stalin is viewed more favorably then Lenin. > why didn't they take it back from Ukraine when they split up, and why did they wait until 2014 to take it back Because the new state Russia had little power and no money. In fact, even for any of these topics were relevant in the West Russia attempted in many places to roll the collapse, this lecture goes threw many of them [2]. The Russians did want it back very much and they brought it up in negotiations with the Ukraine and United states. However as they had no power to do much of anything about it. And the US had of course preferred as much territory to be removed from the core Russian state as possible, so there was no chance the US would side with Russia on this. Like the Germans before them they also were interested in creating a Ukrainian state as a counter balance to Russia. The British tried much the same with the Republic of Texas. The new Ukrainian government agree that the Russian Army/Navy would continue to use the base and of course Crimea was basically supplied from the Russian side. Practically speaking the Russian state and military had the power there. Russia in the last 20 years regained a part of its former power, while Ukraine remains a basket case. Worst from Russian perspective is that US and the European have serious efforts to get Ukraine to be closer to them and politicians who became popular based on supporting that. This caused fears about long term viability of operating Crimea within Ukraine. With this action Russia does two things at once, it makes it impossible for Ukraine to be integrated into NATO (as they did with Georgia) and they made sure that even if the Ukrainian state made serious turn towards the EU they could not influence Crimea in any way. I hope this helps with understanding the situation. [1] Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umIg0mrsZBs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umIg0mrsZBs