Russia building up its forces in the Crimea
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,880
Received 2,824 Likes
on
1,204 Posts
Russia building up its forces in the Crimea
They never got asked in 1954 to be handed over to Ukraine.
Don't think anyone other than Russia got a real say when the Soviet Union gripped the area - the USSR was not exactly famed for its democracy.
You probably need to quote a source when you say that most of the Russian forces in the Crimea have lived there for decades.
You probably need to quote a source when you say that most of the Russian forces in the Crimea have lived there for decades.
So then anywhere that Russian military have lived justifies an invasion?
So will we be taking our piece of Germany then?, or Canada, USA, etc or everywhere where the sun never set? I'm sure that China will be wanting to open discussions about Russia's western border!
IG
So will we be taking our piece of Germany then?, or Canada, USA, etc or everywhere where the sun never set? I'm sure that China will be wanting to open discussions about Russia's western border!
IG
Last edited by Imagegear; 11th Dec 2018 at 04:00.
The Ukraine, including the Crimea area was granted independence in 1991. Russia also signed a security treaty with Ukraine in 1994, so winding the clock back to 1950's Soviet Union is utterly ridiculous and criminally naive.
What next racedo, all former USSR states belong to Russia?
What next racedo, all former USSR states belong to Russia?
You really ought to read the history of this area before making such a groundless statement.
Most of the military forces in Crimea have lived there for decades as have their families before them. To them it has always been home.
They never got asked in 1954 to be handed over to Ukraine.
They never got asked in 1954 to be handed over to Ukraine.
The Ukraine, including the Crimea area was granted independence in 1991. Russia also signed a security treaty with Ukraine in 1994, so winding the clock back to 1950's Soviet Union is utterly ridiculous and criminally naive.
What next racedo, all former USSR states belong to Russia?
What next racedo, all former USSR states belong to Russia?
https://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/06/w...m-ukraine.html Crimean parliment declared indpendence in 1992 and was thretaened with war by Kiev.
No they don't at anything below sovereign state level. In this case they are not self-determining or self-governing, they are now an annex of Russia.
In any case, you cannot spout self-determination and its status in international law when the very same international law was broken so grievously by a country that had accepted and signed an international treaty agreeing that this region was part of the Ukraine!
Don't you just love Russian trolls - this one lost his credibility from his very first post regarding the nerve agent attack on Sergei Skripal - not the Russian government apparently, just hired muscle in the private sector.
In any case, you cannot spout self-determination and its status in international law when the very same international law was broken so grievously by a country that had accepted and signed an international treaty agreeing that this region was part of the Ukraine!
Don't you just love Russian trolls - this one lost his credibility from his very first post regarding the nerve agent attack on Sergei Skripal - not the Russian government apparently, just hired muscle in the private sector.
No they don't at anything below sovereign state level. In this case they are not self-determining or self-governing, they are now an annex of Russia.
In any case, you cannot spout self-determination and its status in international law when the very same international law was broken so grievously by a country that had accepted and signed an international treaty agreeing that this region was part of the Ukraine!
Don't you just love Russian trolls - this one lost his credibility from his very first post regarding the nerve agent attack on Sergei Skripal - not the Russian government apparently, just hired muscle in the private sector.
In any case, you cannot spout self-determination and its status in international law when the very same international law was broken so grievously by a country that had accepted and signed an international treaty agreeing that this region was part of the Ukraine!
Don't you just love Russian trolls - this one lost his credibility from his very first post regarding the nerve agent attack on Sergei Skripal - not the Russian government apparently, just hired muscle in the private sector.
There is no legal basis in International Law to decide whom should have self determination and whom shouldn't.
As for it below Sovreign state level then what is Kosovo ?
Self determination is a free choice without external compulsion. That is not what happened in Crimea with the little green men. International law and treaties were violated and the external compulsion was manifest. The Crimea did not gain any autonomy in the annexation and was far removed from any legal or just process. Again, Crimea did not seek or gain independence; the status quo is now enforced by Russia military forces and not by any free choice.
Self determination is a free choice without external compulsion. That is not what happened in Crimea with the little green men. International law and treaties were violated and the external compulsion was manifest. The Crimea did not gain any autonomy in the annexation and was far removed from any legal or just process. Again, Crimea did not seek or gain independence; the status quo is now enforced by Russia military forces and not by any free choice.
There was a referndum in 2014, people voted to leave Ukraine.
Now 4 years later they are happy to be a part of Russia because were that not the case we would be reading of the Crimean Independence movement where thousands are protesting.
Crimeans sought Independence and then asked to join Russia, that is their right to do with their Independence what they want.
If Northern Ireland sought to join Republic of Ireland then you are saying it is NOT self determination because they didn't want to exist as a separate state ?
If another referendum under full United Nations occurred would you then agree with the result.
Poroshenko at moment needs martial law. Presidential election in March 2019 will see him lose heavily. The areas under martial law are all those areas where support is greatest for his opponent. RADA approved martial law for 30 days not the 60 he demanded, he needs to ensure something happens so he can extend the date continuously.
Losing means he will be investigated and likely be going to jail and his empire broken up.
If the Republic of Ireland then became embroiled in a conflict in west Wales, including shooting down an airliner over Shropshire I think we would have further reason for concern. Of course, if the Republic of Ireland had also invaded somewhere like Denmark (Georgia), used radioactive material and chemical weapons to kill people in sovereign states then I think we would treat Ireland with the same level of disgust as we currently reserve for Russia.
Of course, Ireland is a decent and functioning liberal democracy; far removed from the intolerable regime you support.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personal insult means lack of arguments :-)
BTW, there is the city of Sebastopol, the main Soviet and then Russia navy base in that area. It was not part of the Khruschev's gift to his Ukrainian commy lads in 1954 and remained the city of so called "central sub-ordination" ("reported" directly to Moscow). After 1991, according to the agreement between Russia and Ukraine the Russian fleet remained there and also totally 20K of the Russian military personnel was allowed to stay there in Crimea (in reality there were 18K).
Thus, there was no need to "invade".
As for the Ukrainian military forces in Crimea, there were also about 20K in total. After the referendum in 2014 (where 97% voted to leave Ukraine, turnout of voters was some 83%) about 6K+ of them were happy to join Russian forces, the same amount simply said "farewell to arms" and remaining 6K+ preferred to relocate to the continental part of Ukraine.
Thus, there was no need to invade or annex. Simply, absolute majority of the population gladly changed the citizenship.
As correctly mentioned above by Racedo, if anybody is OK with Northern Ireland as part of the UK, then Crimea integration with Russia is much more justifiable. No shooting, no blood, no IRA, etc.
As for the title of the thread, Russia is indeed strengthening its forces there, but not significantly. Adding one more battery of S-400 (to 3 already deployed) is not a big deal.
Better pay attention to Ukraine seriously concentrating their forces in the S-E Ukraine. Pres. Poroshenko arranged a provocation near the Crimean bridge to impose the martial law and extend his time in the pres, chair (elections are scheduled for March '19). But his internal rivals did not allow him to extend it for more than 30 days, thus a new, larger, provocation is needed before these 30 days expire. The most probable scenario is to start a serious offensive in the Donbass area controlled by separatists and blame Russia (as usual). We will see soon....
BTW, there is the city of Sebastopol, the main Soviet and then Russia navy base in that area. It was not part of the Khruschev's gift to his Ukrainian commy lads in 1954 and remained the city of so called "central sub-ordination" ("reported" directly to Moscow). After 1991, according to the agreement between Russia and Ukraine the Russian fleet remained there and also totally 20K of the Russian military personnel was allowed to stay there in Crimea (in reality there were 18K).
Thus, there was no need to "invade".
As for the Ukrainian military forces in Crimea, there were also about 20K in total. After the referendum in 2014 (where 97% voted to leave Ukraine, turnout of voters was some 83%) about 6K+ of them were happy to join Russian forces, the same amount simply said "farewell to arms" and remaining 6K+ preferred to relocate to the continental part of Ukraine.
Thus, there was no need to invade or annex. Simply, absolute majority of the population gladly changed the citizenship.
As correctly mentioned above by Racedo, if anybody is OK with Northern Ireland as part of the UK, then Crimea integration with Russia is much more justifiable. No shooting, no blood, no IRA, etc.
As for the title of the thread, Russia is indeed strengthening its forces there, but not significantly. Adding one more battery of S-400 (to 3 already deployed) is not a big deal.
Better pay attention to Ukraine seriously concentrating their forces in the S-E Ukraine. Pres. Poroshenko arranged a provocation near the Crimean bridge to impose the martial law and extend his time in the pres, chair (elections are scheduled for March '19). But his internal rivals did not allow him to extend it for more than 30 days, thus a new, larger, provocation is needed before these 30 days expire. The most probable scenario is to start a serious offensive in the Donbass area controlled by separatists and blame Russia (as usual). We will see soon....
Last edited by A_Van; 11th Dec 2018 at 15:46.
Sounds like RT news.