Ukraine

[RGH0]

"It wasn't mutually agreed"

The transfer of Crimea from the Russian soviet republic to the Ukraine soviet republic in 1954 was mutually agreed by those two countries at that time. The reason it was done is vague but probably related to a desire to increase the ethnic Russian speaking population of the Ukraine. Stalin had "eliminated" most of the non Russian population of Crimea and replaced it with Russians. The Ukraine Soviet Republic had also just fought a civil war with Western Ukraine provinces and wanted to boost the Russian influence in the country. Russia at the time probably thought the USSR was invincible so transferring land into a member satellite state was not seen as any risk in terms of losing access to Sebastopol

The takeover in 2014 by Russia ignored this 60 years earlier transfer and was clearly illegal under international law and treaty agreements at the time. In a fair and free election I doubt that you would get a 95% vote from the people of Crimea despite the strong ethnic Russian background of many.

But all of this is academic debate. "Political power grows out of the point of a gun" as Mao once said. The Russian are trying to prove that and failing miserably? Clearly their guns are not pointy enough. The reality is that political power grows out of the population that's prepared to fight for their own freedom and sovereignty The combination of 40 million angry Ukrainians backed up by the West who is in no mood to take more bullshit from Russian imperialism looks more and more likely to prevail each day this goes on.

 

[RGH0]

"I think that it will come to a conclusion in few days maximum"

?....JMR wrote on March 1

 

[Uwe]

The transfer of Crimea from the Russian soviet republic to the Ukraine soviet republic in 1954 was mutually agreed by those two countries at that time.

Your premise is incorrect. Russia and Ukraine were not separate countries at the time. They were states within the one country called the Soviet Union. Thus this was nothing more than a transfer of regional administration. You admit this yourself further down in your post.

And let's not forget that Russia acquired Crimea in 1783. It was part of Russia from then until 1954.

"Political power grows out of the point of a gun" as Mao once said.

There is much truth to that statement, which is why we Americans are quite adamant about keeping our guns.

he Russian are trying to prove that and failing miserably?

Are they failing? Seem to me they currently have control over virtually all of the territory where majority of the population is culturally Russian.

The combination of 40 million angry Ukrainians backed up by the West

I think it would be a mistake to believe the entire population of Ukraine is angry, or to ignore the fact that the West is committing economic suicide with our sanctions and money-printing.

-Uwe-

 

[Crasher]

"I think that it will come to a conclusion in few days maximum"

?....JMR wrote on March 1

Don’t worry, it will all be over by Christmas… it’s just which Christmas?

 

[Uwe]

Don’t worry, it will all be over by Christmas… it’s just which Christmas?

Remember this?



-Uwe-

 

[Crasher]

That is political BS intended to keep the box ticking masses on board thinking all is OK so they can carry on shagging, eating junk food and living in a bubble.

 

[vreihen]

.

 

[morris39]

Don’t worry, it will all be over by Christmas… it’s just which Christmas?

Military conflicts end in one of 3 ways. Unconditional surrender which is uncommon e.g Romans vs Israelis, Mongols vs everybody, WWII Germany. The current situations lacks necessary conditions, resolves.
Standoff which is rarer still and tends to be on generational scales. Too soon to tell.
Sue for peace once the military outcome is sufficiently clear. The usual.
But there are confusing things here. USA promises military aid in amount greater than EU countries (individual) annual military budgets. Wow. And the wishful thinking in the West is that Russia is losing. So who knows but bloggers?

 

[DV52]

"Political power grows out of the point of a gun" as Mao once said.

There is much truth to that statement, which is why we Americans are quite adamant about keeping our guns.

@Uwe: wow - I think that your response above is the first that I have seen in this place giving reason for America's gun culture (which I consider to be the most fascinating aspect of American culture in general)!!

This is definitely not a topic that I want to start in this thread (or on this forum), but I couldn't resist pointing-out the palpable irony of linking the raison d'être for American gun culture to the ideology of a Chinese communist revolutionary who was the founder of the People's Republic of China!!

Given that Mao's famous adage was about the Chinese-civil war and assuming your response is about citizen freedoms - perhaps at a fundamental visceral level there are very few differences between the internal systems of checks and balances in the two countries?

Don
PS: of course the reality is that notwithstanding Mao's saying (or maybe, deliberately because of Mao's saying) China doesn't have a gun culture!!

 

[vreihen]

@Uwe: wow - I think that your response above is the first that I have seen in this place giving reason for America's gun culture (which I consider to be the most fascinating aspect of American culture in general)!!

Feel free to peruse the Amendments to the US Constitution.....

.

 

[RGH0]

Your premise is incorrect. Russia and Ukraine were not separate countries at the time. They were states within the one country called the Soviet Union. Thus this was nothing more than a transfer of regional administration. You admit this yourself further down in your post.

And let's not forget that Russia acquired Crimea in 1783. It was part of Russia from then until 1954.

In strictly technical terms they were separate countries with the Ukraine being a UN member since 1945. Maybe all the USA states (or at least Texas) should sign up to the UN independently to help stop small country votes being bought by the major powers to swing decisions in the UN. However in practical terms the UkrSSR and the USSR acted in concert on all matters so it was not a true independent country but a vassal state I agree. I was just trying to highlight that past ownership at any particular time of a piece of land is not a reason to go to war in the modern age and is explicitly prohibited if you are a UN member. If I took your 100 years limit then the Ukraine held it for longer than Russia in the last 100 years prior to the Russian invasion

There is much truth to that statement, which is why we Americans are quite adamant about keeping our guns.

However there is a difference between a "well regulated militia" and random crazies armed with assault rifles I believe

Are they failing? Seem to me they currently have control over virtually all of the territory where majority of the population is culturally Russian.

I think it would be a mistake to believe the entire population of Ukraine is angry, or to ignore the fact that the West is committing economic suicide with our sanctions and money-printing.

Yes the Russian's have control over a small proportion of the country and they have had it for many years with their silent invasion of little green men and in Crimea where Stalin had inserted a Russian population. The current war is not about these territories but about Russians attempts to take over the whole of the Ukraine which has failed miserably for all to see including Putin. This war of Putin's to prevent NATO being on Russia's borders has just guaranteed that...which I call a spectacular failure. It has also demonstrated the weakness of the mighty Russian armed forces in the face of determined opposition which will be remembered for a long time both inside and outside Russia .... another spectacular own goal.

There are 44 million Ukrainians and I said 40 million are angry. About 4 million are ethnic Russian that support the Russian invasion who live in the East. 70 years ago a small proportion of the Ukrainian's in the West of the country revolted against soviet domination and were suppressed. The proportion of Ukrainians prepared to fight for independence has grown significantly since then to 90% of the population.

Personally I would prefer the West to be a little poorer and have to work a little harder if that means Russia learns to stay in its borders and Vlad the mad not try to re-establish the Tsarist empire

 

[morris39]

In strictly technical terms they were separate countries with the Ukraine being a UN member since 1945. Maybe all the USA states (or at least Texas) should sign up to the UN independently to help stop small country votes being bought by the major powers to swing decisions in the UN. However in practical terms the UkrSSR and the USSR acted in concert on all matters so it was not a true independent country but a vassal state I agree. I was just trying to highlight that past ownership at any particular time of a piece of land is not a reason to go to war in the modern age and is explicitly prohibited if you are a UN member. If I took your 100 years limit then the Ukraine held it for longer than Russia in the last 100 years prior to the Russian invasion



However there is a difference between a "well regulated militia" and random crazies armed with assault rifles I believe





Yes the Russian's have control over a small proportion of the country and they have had it for many years with their silent invasion of little green men and in Crimea where Stalin had inserted a Russian population. The current war is not about these territories but about Russians attempts to take over the whole of the Ukraine which has failed miserably for all to see including Putin. This war of Putin's to prevent NATO being on Russia's borders has just guaranteed that...which I call a spectacular failure. It has also demonstrated the weakness of the mighty Russian armed forces in the face of determined opposition which will be remembered for a long time both inside and outside Russia .... another spectacular own goal.

There are 44 million Ukrainians and I said 40 million are angry. About 4 million are ethnic Russian that support the Russian invasion who live in the East. 70 years ago a small proportion of the Ukrainian's in the West of the country revolted against soviet domination and were suppressed. The proportion of Ukrainians prepared to fight for independence has grown significantly since then to 90% of the population.

Personally I would prefer the West to be a little poorer and have to work a little harder if that means Russia learns to stay in its borders and Vlad the mad not try to re-establish the Tsarist empire

There may be a simpler explanation why Ukrainians hate the Russians that can be drawn from history. Russia colonized Ukraine in the 20th C but not in quite the same sense as England colonized America i.e. settlers came to well, settle. Russia did not need more land. The people who came were the privileged minority and they remained privileged. These people established order, their order, their language.
Before mid 18th C Ukraine was a territory without a government and suffered ongoing predation by the Mongols (Crimean Tatars) for centuries.
The Ukrainian situation is comparable to indigenous people of North America. Natives are citizens of their countries but they are not ethnically part of their counties and although they speak the same language and share some culture they resent their situation. The comparison is weak in that Natives started as stone age society when colonists arrived, Ukrainians have a different cultural history. Yet Ukraine has a much shorter history of living in a self governed society and that may explain why it has struggled. So ethnicity has more weight than de jure country status. Resentment is a powerful emotion.
As far as rights, particularly moral rights, who is it that decides, and by what authority.

 

[DV52]

As far as rights, particularly moral rights, who is it that decides, and by what authority.

I like your "first nations people" analogy in Ukraine and there are many examples of similar situations other than America (Australia being another). However, I'm not sure that sovereignty of any country on this planet is (or ever has been) based on the identity of the original inhabitants!!

In any event, your specific question above has already been answered by the Mao quote!!

Don

 

[vreihen]

.

 

[morris39]

Tongue in cheek?

 

[morris39]

I like your "first nations people" analogy in Ukraine and there are many examples of similar situations other than America (Australia being another). However, I'm not sure that sovereignty of any country on this planet is (or ever has been) based on the identity of the original inhabitants!!

In any event, your specific question above has already been answered by the Mao quote!!

Don

No, I do not imply any causality between original inhabitants and sovereignty claims legitimacy. Whatever makes you say that? The post is about the possible source of the animus as it pertains to the belligerents (cute old word).
Between the lines you can infer the role and effectiveness of emotion on collective decision making. That perceived injustice/suffering and emotion are on a personal (not social) level is not controversial. Can collective decisions be improved by limiting emotion in this case?

 

[Crasher]

It did make laugh when they proudly proclaimed they had taken Chernobyl, my immediate thought was "poisoned chalice", then when they started kicking up radioactivity and digging trenches so hundreds of soldiers fell ill from radiation poising I just new they were incompetent.

 

[RGH0]

Just one more demonstration that the Russian army is a mass of unwilling lead by a bunch of evil incompetent clowns with a lot of dangerous toys. How you fight that combination the Ukrainians are demonstrating well.

 

[Sebastian]

It slowly sinks into Russian minds, that what they have been doing is doomed to fail. On Russia 1, the #1 state TV.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1526293852704890882

In addition, here are some very much related analysis about the direct results for Russia when (not if) Finland joins Nato...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1525959053490458624

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1525891663918510085

...and to complete this, let's have a look at Sweden.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1526529979638489088

 

[Crasher]

I wonder how long it will be before Mikhail Khodaryonok "accidentally" falls from a high window?