4 ms·

> Russia annexed Crimea The Russian military was in the Crimea back when redcoats were stationed in New York City, and has been in the Crimea ever since.

jcranmer 5y ago
Russia also signed a treaty that said it agreed that Crimea was part of Ukraine, not Russia. It tore that treaty up and invaded Crimea because Ukraine was thinking about not extending Russia's lease on Sevastopol.
- VictorPath 5y ago
  The US secretary of state, James Baker, promised Russia that NATO would not expand eastward if Russia withdrew its military from the Warsaw Pact countries. This sounds like a broken promise to me.
  - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
    I think that's fair, but it's not like the former communist countries were forced at gunpoint to join NATO. Russia may not like it (and I'd imagine I wouldn't were I in the same position) but invading countries because of their own sovereign decisions is unlikely to be successful in the long-term.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > The US secretary of state, James Baker, promised Russia that NATO would not expand eastward if Russia withdrew its military from the Warsaw Pact countries No, he didn't. And even if he did promise the USSR that, I don't see a signed international agreement. Any such personal assurance with no formal agreement could not reasonably be viewed by anyone as anything more than a statement of policy of the then-current administration, not an open-ended binding commitment. I do see a signed treaty, signed much later, committing Russia to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, that was in force when it invaded and occupied much of Ukraine.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    Except he didn't promise the USSR anything like that. The only commitment he made was to relay the request for a commitment to not expand NATO to the US negotiating team. It was rejected by the US team and the language the USSR suggested never made it into any treaty.
- moltar 5y ago
  … and because American naval base was to be built there. https://en.topwar.ru/44990-zachem-vms-ssha-sobiralis-remontirovat-shkolu-v-sevastopole.html https://en.topwar.ru/44990-zachem-vms-ssha-sobiralis-remonti... The link to the official government page is dead now. But I have seen the original with my own eyes back a few years ago. And even saved it as a PDF, but can’t find it now.
disgruntledphd2 5y ago
Ah now, by that logic it would be acceptable for the British government to invade and occupy Ireland, India, and much of the rest of the world. By which I mean, historical presence in an area tells us little about the legitimacy of current day activities. And even then, Crimea was a terrible thing, but it made strategic sense (the russian fleet base is there). I don't see any real strategic benefit for Russia with invading the rest of Ukraine.
- VictorPath 5y ago
  > British government to invade and occupy Ireland The British government does occupy Ireland, its military is stationed in Thiepval and Holywood. The last all-island democratic vote in Ireland was the second Dáil, which voted for the island to separate from the UK. A century on, British troops, who have been on a bloody campaign in Ireland from Drogheda to Bloody Sunday and on, still occupy Ireland.
  - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
    > The British government does occupy Ireland, its military is stationed in Thiepval and Holywood. Are you from Ireland? Because I am, and this is an absolutely ludicrous reading of the situation. The British and Irish governments partitioned Ireland, for a bunch of reasons 100 years ago. If you look at what people in the North of ireland (still part of the UK want), most of them want to remain as they are (which is fine, even if I personally would prefer the island of Ireland to be one nation again). > The last all-island democratic vote in Ireland was the second Dáil, which voted for the island to separate from the UK. A century on, British troops, who have been on a bloody campaign in Ireland from Drogheda to Bloody Sunday and on, still occupy Ireland. The last all ireland vote occurred in 1998, to ratify the Good Friday agreement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Northern_Ireland_Good_Friday_Agreement_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Northern_Ireland_Good_Fri... While I'm sure that tensions run high in the Russian/Central/Eastern Europe part of the world with respect to Ukraine, dragging in inflammatory propaganda from other parts of the world (that you clearly know very little about) is incredibly unhelpful, and quite frankly rather offensive to people who have to live with it. But, I also mentioned India in my comment. By your OP, it appears legitimate for the British to invade India right now. Do you agree or disagree with this statement, and why or why not?
dragonwriter 5y ago
> The Russian military was in the Crimea back when redcoats were stationed in New York City, and has been in the Crimea ever since. No, it hasn't. From the creation of Soviet Ukraine in 1919 through 2014, Russia neither controlled nor pretended to control Crimea (except for a 9 year period from 1945-1954), which it acknowledged was its own entity (prior to 1945) or part of Ukraine (after 1954). (People sometimes equate the USSR, which essentially replaced the Russian Empire with “Russia”, but the modern Russian Federation is a direct linear continuation of the entity that was known as the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic, not the USSR, just as Ukraine is a direct linear continuation of the entity that was known as the Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic.)
- Koshkin 5y ago
  Crimea was part of Russia until about sixty year ago.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Crimea was part of Russia until about sixty year ago. The 9 year period it was part of the Russian Federation ended closer to 70 years ago, but I’ve updated the GP to reflect it.
    - Koshkin 5y ago
      > its own entity (prior to 1945) Still, nested within the Russian Federation as an administrative entity. (Also, autonomy throughout the USSR was more or less a formality anyway.)
- justsomehnguy 5y ago
  Strange, Wikipedia thinks it was a part of RSFSR: > The Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic[a] was an Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic *of the Russian SFSR* (1921–45) and the Ukrainian SSR (1991–92) located on the Crimean Peninsula. The political unit was succeeded by the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. [0] > On April 26, 1954 The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea Oblast *from the Russian SFSR* to the Ukrainian SSR. > Taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic and cultural ties between the Crimea Province and the Ukrainian SSR, the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet decrees: > To approve the joint presentation of the Presidium of the Russian SFSR Supreme Soviet and the Presidium of the Ukrainian SSR Supreme Soviet on the transfer of the Crimea Province *from the Russian SFSR* to the Ukrainian SSR. Regarding "...is a direct linear continuation of the entity that was known as the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic, not the USSR": > The Republic of Byelarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine, as successor states of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in connection with the Treaty, shall assume the obligations of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under the Treaty [1] Does USA position on this matters? Especially considering Russia is still repaying USSR's foreign debt. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_transfer_of_Crimea#Decree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_transfer_of_Crimea#Decree [1] https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/27389.pdf https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/27389.pdf

jcranmer 5y ago

Russia also signed a treaty that said it agreed that Crimea was part of Ukraine, not Russia. It tore that treaty up and invaded Crimea because Ukraine was thinking about not extending Russia's lease on Sevastopol.

VictorPath 5y ago
The US secretary of state, James Baker, promised Russia that NATO would not expand eastward if Russia withdrew its military from the Warsaw Pact countries. This sounds like a broken promise to me.
- disgruntledphd2 5y ago
  I think that's fair, but it's not like the former communist countries were forced at gunpoint to join NATO. Russia may not like it (and I'd imagine I wouldn't were I in the same position) but invading countries because of their own sovereign decisions is unlikely to be successful in the long-term.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The US secretary of state, James Baker, promised Russia that NATO would not expand eastward if Russia withdrew its military from the Warsaw Pact countries No, he didn't. And even if he did promise the USSR that, I don't see a signed international agreement. Any such personal assurance with no formal agreement could not reasonably be viewed by anyone as anything more than a statement of policy of the then-current administration, not an open-ended binding commitment. I do see a signed treaty, signed much later, committing Russia to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, that was in force when it invaded and occupied much of Ukraine.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  Except he didn't promise the USSR anything like that. The only commitment he made was to relay the request for a commitment to not expand NATO to the US negotiating team. It was rejected by the US team and the language the USSR suggested never made it into any treaty.
moltar 5y ago
… and because American naval base was to be built there. https://en.topwar.ru/44990-zachem-vms-ssha-sobiralis-remontirovat-shkolu-v-sevastopole.html https://en.topwar.ru/44990-zachem-vms-ssha-sobiralis-remonti... The link to the official government page is dead now. But I have seen the original with my own eyes back a few years ago. And even saved it as a PDF, but can’t find it now.

disgruntledphd2 5y ago

Ah now, by that logic it would be acceptable for the British government to invade and occupy Ireland, India, and much of the rest of the world. By which I mean, historical presence in an area tells us little about the legitimacy of current day activities. And even then, Crimea was a terrible thing, but it made strategic sense (the russian fleet base is there). I don't see any real strategic benefit for Russia with invading the rest of Ukraine.

VictorPath 5y ago
> British government to invade and occupy Ireland The British government does occupy Ireland, its military is stationed in Thiepval and Holywood. The last all-island democratic vote in Ireland was the second Dáil, which voted for the island to separate from the UK. A century on, British troops, who have been on a bloody campaign in Ireland from Drogheda to Bloody Sunday and on, still occupy Ireland.
- disgruntledphd2 5y ago
  > The British government does occupy Ireland, its military is stationed in Thiepval and Holywood. Are you from Ireland? Because I am, and this is an absolutely ludicrous reading of the situation. The British and Irish governments partitioned Ireland, for a bunch of reasons 100 years ago. If you look at what people in the North of ireland (still part of the UK want), most of them want to remain as they are (which is fine, even if I personally would prefer the island of Ireland to be one nation again). > The last all-island democratic vote in Ireland was the second Dáil, which voted for the island to separate from the UK. A century on, British troops, who have been on a bloody campaign in Ireland from Drogheda to Bloody Sunday and on, still occupy Ireland. The last all ireland vote occurred in 1998, to ratify the Good Friday agreement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Northern_Ireland_Good_Friday_Agreement_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Northern_Ireland_Good_Fri... While I'm sure that tensions run high in the Russian/Central/Eastern Europe part of the world with respect to Ukraine, dragging in inflammatory propaganda from other parts of the world (that you clearly know very little about) is incredibly unhelpful, and quite frankly rather offensive to people who have to live with it. But, I also mentioned India in my comment. By your OP, it appears legitimate for the British to invade India right now. Do you agree or disagree with this statement, and why or why not?

dragonwriter 5y ago

> The Russian military was in the Crimea back when redcoats were stationed in New York City, and has been in the Crimea ever since. No, it hasn't. From the creation of Soviet Ukraine in 1919 through 2014, Russia neither controlled nor pretended to control Crimea (except for a 9 year period from 1945-1954), which it acknowledged was its own entity (prior to 1945) or part of Ukraine (after 1954). (People sometimes equate the USSR, which essentially replaced the Russian Empire with “Russia”, but the modern Russian Federation is a direct linear continuation of the entity that was known as the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic, not the USSR, just as Ukraine is a direct linear continuation of the entity that was known as the Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic.)

Koshkin 5y ago
Crimea was part of Russia until about sixty year ago.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Crimea was part of Russia until about sixty year ago. The 9 year period it was part of the Russian Federation ended closer to 70 years ago, but I’ve updated the GP to reflect it.
  - Koshkin 5y ago
    > its own entity (prior to 1945) Still, nested within the Russian Federation as an administrative entity. (Also, autonomy throughout the USSR was more or less a formality anyway.)
justsomehnguy 5y ago
Strange, Wikipedia thinks it was a part of RSFSR: > The Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic[a] was an Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic *of the Russian SFSR* (1921–45) and the Ukrainian SSR (1991–92) located on the Crimean Peninsula. The political unit was succeeded by the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. [0] > On April 26, 1954 The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea Oblast *from the Russian SFSR* to the Ukrainian SSR. > Taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic and cultural ties between the Crimea Province and the Ukrainian SSR, the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet decrees: > To approve the joint presentation of the Presidium of the Russian SFSR Supreme Soviet and the Presidium of the Ukrainian SSR Supreme Soviet on the transfer of the Crimea Province *from the Russian SFSR* to the Ukrainian SSR. Regarding "...is a direct linear continuation of the entity that was known as the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic, not the USSR": > The Republic of Byelarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine, as successor states of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in connection with the Treaty, shall assume the obligations of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under the Treaty [1] Does USA position on this matters? Especially considering Russia is still repaying USSR's foreign debt. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_transfer_of_Crimea#Decree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_transfer_of_Crimea#Decree [1] https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/27389.pdf https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/27389.pdf