Internet2 mins ago
Would Russia Invade Ukraine (Again)?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ichkeria. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Russia’s desire for naval ports explained a lot, be it the annexation of Koningsberg (now Kaliningrad) at the end of WWII, Poti in 2008 and the move to secure Sevastopol in 2014.
Gromit’s comments about Putin are quite accurate: he (and not only he of course) is a gangster and those sorts of people have no moral compass: if they want something, they take it if there’s no cost to them
Gromit’s comments about Putin are quite accurate: he (and not only he of course) is a gangster and those sorts of people have no moral compass: if they want something, they take it if there’s no cost to them
Crimea has belonged to Russia since Catherine the Great & was given to Ukraine as a gift. 'Presidium of the Supreme Council gathered for a session on 19 February 1954 when only 13 of 27 members were present. There was no quorum, but the decision was adopted unanimously.
The transfer of the Crimean Oblast to Ukraine has been described as a "symbolic gesture", marking the 300th anniversary of the 1654 Treaty of Pereyaslav. That "symbolic gesture" came out as a post factum and was never discussed as one of the reasons prior to the transfer which was attributed to Nikita Khrushchev.
It made little difference at the time for Russia to access the Black Sea via Crimea, but with the dissolution of the USSR it was critical for them that it was regained.
The transfer of the Crimean Oblast to Ukraine has been described as a "symbolic gesture", marking the 300th anniversary of the 1654 Treaty of Pereyaslav. That "symbolic gesture" came out as a post factum and was never discussed as one of the reasons prior to the transfer which was attributed to Nikita Khrushchev.
It made little difference at the time for Russia to access the Black Sea via Crimea, but with the dissolution of the USSR it was critical for them that it was regained.
"It made little difference at the time for Russia to access the Black Sea via Crimea, but with the dissolution of the USSR it was critical for them that it was regained. "
As previously explained, Russia never lost access to the Black Sea as the Russian navy never left Sevastopol, where it co-existed with the Ukrainian navy.
As also previously explained, Russia was due to vacate the base by 2017 but under the Yanukovich presidency this peolicy appeared to be reversed.
Regrettably, since Russia's annexation of the peninsula in 2014, it has resumed ethnic cleansing of the returned Tatar population, originally carried out by Stalin in the 1940s.
The US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken commented re the recent events in Kazakhstan that once you invite Russians into your house it can be difficult getting them to leave, but the real issue is what they do once there.
As previously explained, Russia never lost access to the Black Sea as the Russian navy never left Sevastopol, where it co-existed with the Ukrainian navy.
As also previously explained, Russia was due to vacate the base by 2017 but under the Yanukovich presidency this peolicy appeared to be reversed.
Regrettably, since Russia's annexation of the peninsula in 2014, it has resumed ethnic cleansing of the returned Tatar population, originally carried out by Stalin in the 1940s.
The US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken commented re the recent events in Kazakhstan that once you invite Russians into your house it can be difficult getting them to leave, but the real issue is what they do once there.
ichi //You said it was critical to regain it//
Of course it was, because after the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine became an independent nation state & Crimea was no longer part of their 'empire' & they could no longer access their fleet without crossing another country.
The blunder was, as I said earlier made in the 50s, giving Crimea as a gesture to Ukraine in the first place, which is considered to have been an illegal, unconstitutional act anyway.
Of course it was, because after the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine became an independent nation state & Crimea was no longer part of their 'empire' & they could no longer access their fleet without crossing another country.
The blunder was, as I said earlier made in the 50s, giving Crimea as a gesture to Ukraine in the first place, which is considered to have been an illegal, unconstitutional act anyway.
Of course they could access it!
They had the same “access” as they have to the annexed territory of Kaliningrad.
They do not have land access to Sevastopol other than the bridge that now exists across the Kerch (“The Crimean Bridge Built With Love” lol)
The danger is they could still try to occupy SE Ukraine to create a land route
I personally think the assessment would be that the cost would be too high, and posturing with a troop build up is more the intention - but you have to assume the worst sometimes to stop the worst from happening
They had the same “access” as they have to the annexed territory of Kaliningrad.
They do not have land access to Sevastopol other than the bridge that now exists across the Kerch (“The Crimean Bridge Built With Love” lol)
The danger is they could still try to occupy SE Ukraine to create a land route
I personally think the assessment would be that the cost would be too high, and posturing with a troop build up is more the intention - but you have to assume the worst sometimes to stop the worst from happening
ichi ; You are continually blindsided by your personal connections to Ukraine I think. These are the historic facts which go back a long way before 2014:
https:/
https:/
We all know the history Khandro and your interpretation of it is as biased as anyone’s.
Especially the startling idea that the Soviet Union’s ceding of Crimea was “illegal” (!)
I’m simply going by the events of 2014 which were by any standards “illegal”. And it’s something the entire civilised world holds to be true
Especially the startling idea that the Soviet Union’s ceding of Crimea was “illegal” (!)
I’m simply going by the events of 2014 which were by any standards “illegal”. And it’s something the entire civilised world holds to be true
ichi: //.. the startling idea that the Soviet Union’s ceding of Crimea was “illegal” (!)//
I say the decision to donate Crimea to Ukraine was illegal, because the meeting at which it was decided was not quorate & no minutes were kept.
btw, I also remember the decision had something to do with the fact that Khrushchev's mother lived there, & who would want to argue with Khrushchev anyway?
I say the decision to donate Crimea to Ukraine was illegal, because the meeting at which it was decided was not quorate & no minutes were kept.
btw, I also remember the decision had something to do with the fact that Khrushchev's mother lived there, & who would want to argue with Khrushchev anyway?
Latest Posts
News6 mins ago
ChatterBank19 mins ago
Farleigh Hospice Food And Drink
Quizzes & Puzzles20 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.