POLL: Only 26% of Americans want US heavily involved in Ukraine war

Post Millenial ^

[Tench_Coxe]

Nearly one year after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, public support for the role the United States is playing in supplying weapons and funds to the eastern European nation has declined among both Democrats and Republicans alike.

[ought-six]

“Regardless of what you or I think, Putin believes Crimea is an intrinsic part of Russia. He said so in his July 2021 article ‘On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians’”

Oh, too funny!

Putin has insulted and vilified Ukrainians for years; and on the flip side, Ukrainians have a white-hot hatred of Russians.
Some unity.

[ought-six]

“And it is just total lie. If weapon is deployed then it must be launched for sure or else no sense to deploy it.”

Oh, you’re clueless. You are hopelessly ignorant. Your beloved Russia has deployed nukes for decades, but none have been launched.

[nickfrost1]

Your beloved Russia has deployed nukes for decades, but none have been launched.==

It is YOU who clueless. If you think that they deploy weaponry to make expression on media then think again.

Russia didn’t do well the public relations aka “soft power”. She think it just NOT important.

But she is fairly good in applying the “hard power”. And always ready to do it. It is a Russian way and helped her to survive 1000 wars she fought during her history.

And all what she really afraid of is a surprise attack. SO what her military is doing all the times is just to be a battle ready and alerted.

Also if Russia deploys any weapon then it is real thing and she absolutely ready to use against anyone she chooses at the moment.

[ought-six]

“It is YOU who clueless. If you think that they deploy weaponry to make expression on media then think again.”

No wonder you guys lost the Cold War so readily: You’re morons.

You said, on this very thread, in post #96: “If weapon is deployed then it must be launched for sure or else no sense to deploy it.”

I pointed out to you that for decades your beloved Russia deployed nukes, yet never launched one. So are you saying that your beloved Russia was incompetent? That it didn’t know how to launch them? Bad wiring, maybe? Launch instructions too difficult to read?

Nukes are deployed as DETERRENTS; and, if worse comes to worst, to be launched or fired. But, in your twisted and imbecilic mind, they SHOULD have been launched, because...well, they were deployed. Laika had more intelligence than you. And you morons killed her.

“It is a Russian way and helped her to survive 1000 wars she fought during her history....And all what she really afraid of is a surprise attack.”

She’s afraid of her own shadow; or else why would she have invaded Georgia, and waged war against Chechnya? They posed no threat to Russia. Just as Ukraine posed no threat to Russia. And neither does Moldova, which you buffoons are getting ready to assail.

“Also if Russia deploys any weapon then it is real thing and she absolutely ready to use against anyone she chooses at the moment.”

That goes both ways, Ivan.

[kabar]

My God, but you are naïve. You clearly don’t know what it takes to become a NATO member. It is a lengthy and detailed process, during which the nation seeking membership must meet certain criteria and fulfill certain requirements, after which the candidate must be accepted UNANIMOUSLY by the full NATO membership. One of those criteria is that the candidate country cannot be engaged in hostilities at the time of consideration. So, right off the bat Ukraine is ineligible. Then there is the unanimous vote: Ukraine has NO chance of getting a unanimous vote. For instance, Turkey and Hungary would be definite no votes. Then, Zelensky himself has said that Ukraine membership in NATO is not going to be pursued.

I know exactly what it takes to get into NATO and the EU. But that is not relevant to our discussion. Why does NATO and the US continue to hold out the possibility that Ukraine can join NATO? Why not categorically rule it out period? It is just a provocation for Putin who has as one of his red lines, that Ukraine will never be a member of NATO.

Do you have even the vaguest idea what a NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partner is? It is a country that will work with NATO under certain circumstances and conditions.

Of course I do, which is why I sent you the link on the program. From Russia's perspective, Ukraine has a junior membership in NATO. One of the key aspects is "interoperability" and all that it entails. It is a red flag for Russia, which views NATO as an adversary.

Ukraine did not have the wherewithal to try to get Crimea back, but it did have the means to combat the civil war in the Donbas. And, are you seriously trying to argue that it was only Ukraine that shelled the Donbas? Because so did the Russian-backed separatists and, yes, even Russian forces in eastern Ukraine. So, a Russian-backed coup is now under way in Moldova. Will you condemn that, as you have condemned the “coup” by the Obama administration in 2014 in Ukraine? Or, is the coup in Moldova okay because Russia is doing it, and is trying to “rescue” native Russians there (does that excuse sound familiar yet)?

I can condemn it. My point is that we should not get involved in this dispute. There are limits to our power and we have no strategic national interests that would justify our involvement. Let the Europeans address it.

Look at a map. Russia’s intermediate goal vis-à-vis NATO is to break NATO’s soft underbelly, and the road goes through Ukraine and Moldova to Romania, which has a pro-Russia Serbia on its west, and a weak Bulgaria to its south; and Bulgaria has pro-Russia Serbia and non-aligned Macedonia to its west. If Russia remains true to its usual behavior, you will see soon pro-Russia and separatist unrest in Romania and Bulgaria and Albania, and in the Balkans in general with the possible exception of Croatia. Russia wants to restore the hegemony of the Soviet Union. But, its hardest nut to crack in that regard would be in the north, in Poland, and I think Russia will forego that and concentrate on the three Baltic states.

It has been NATO expanding ever closer to Russia's borders after the fall of the Soviet Union that has created instability. America's greatest diplomat of the 20th century, the author of the "Long Telegram" that formed the basis of our containment policy, George Kennan, summed it up best in 1997:

"First, your reference to the implicit understanding that the West would not take advantage of the Russian strategic and political withdrawal from Eastern Europe is not only warranted, but could have been strengthened. It is my understanding that Gorbachev on more than one occasion was given to understand, in informal talks with senior American and other Western personalities, that if the USSR would accept a united Germany remaining in NATO, the jurisdiction of that alliance would not be moved further eastward. We did not, I am sure, intend to trick the Russians; but the actual determinants of our later behavior--lack of coordination of political with military policy, and the amateurism of later White House diplomacy--would scarcely have been more creditable on our part than a real intention to deceive."

"Secondly, I could not associate myself more strongly with what you write about the realist case that sees Russia as an inherently and incorrigibly expansionist country, and suggest that this tendency marks the present Russian regime no less than it did the Russian regimes of the past. We have seen this view reflected time and again, occasionally in even more violent forms, in efforts to justify the recent expansion of NATO's boundaries and further possible expansions of that name. So numerous and extensive have the distortions and misunderstandings on which this view is based been that it would be hard even to list them in a letter of this sort. It grossly oversimplifies and misconstrues must of the history of Russian diplomacy of the czarist period. It ignores the whole great complexity of Russia's part in World War II. It allows and encourages one to forget that the Soviet military advances into Western Europe during the last war took place with our enthusiastic approval, and the political ones of the ensuing period at least wit hour initial consent and support. It usually avoids mention of the Communist period, and attributes to ``the Russians'' generally all the excesses of the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe in the Cold War period."

"Worst of all, it tends to equate, at least by implication, the Russian-Communist dictatorship of recent memory with the present Russian republic--a republic, the product of an amazingly bloodless revolution, which has, for all its many faults, succeeded in carrying on for several years with an elected government, a largely free press and media, without concentration camps or executions, and with a minimum of police brutality. This curious present Russia, we are asked to believe, is obsessed by the same dreams of conquest and oppression of others as were the worst examples, real or imaginative, of its predecessors."

Russia is a country with 147 million people. Its GDP is dwarfed by the EU and the US. The median age in Russia is 40.3 years compared to 38.5 years for the US. Life expectancy in Russia is 72.44 years (156 in the world) and for males alone, 66.9 years. Infant mortality is 168th worst in the world.

Russia's ability to project power globally is limited. It is having a hard time logistically in supplying its forces in Ukraine. The idea that Russia could attack and occupy NATO countries is ludicrous. Russia poses no real conventional military threat to Europe. The only existential threat to America is China.

[kabar]

Then you are strongly opposed to yourself.

Explain how I am a neocon? I am against endless wars and/or our involvement in disputes that don't involve our strategic national interests.

[kabar]

Oh, too funny! Putin has insulted and vilified Ukrainians for years; and on the flip side, Ukrainians have a white-hot hatred of Russians. Some unity.

Putin considers Crimea to be part of Russia. He will do whatever is necessary to preserve the homeland. An attack against Crimea is an attack on Russia. You can laugh all you want, but that is the reality.

[kabar]

Then they can move to Russia, but they can’t take Ukrainian territory with them.

The Ukrainian constitution addresses these things: Any and all referenda for autonomy or independence must be put to a vote of all Ukrainians, and not just those in in the subject areas. Which makes sense, because separation would affect all Ukrainians.

From Putin's perspective, the Ukrainian Constitution doesn't apply to Crimea, which is currently part of Russia.

[ought-six]

“Why does NATO and the US continue to hold out the possibility that Ukraine can join NATO?”

They don’t.

“Why not categorically rule it out period? It is just a provocation for Putin who has as one of his red lines, that Ukraine will never be a member of NATO. “

Oh, for God’s sake. The sun rising in the east is a provocation for Putin. In other words, Putin will say ANYTHING is provocation if he can use that to justify his actions.

“Of course I do, which is why I sent you the link on the program. From Russia’s perspective, Ukraine has a junior membership in NATO.”

A JUNIOR membership? There is no such thing. There are various conditional partnership programs but they do not contain anything even remotely close to an Article 5 obligation as is present in NATO membership. The former Soviet republic of Georgia became a such a conditional partner in 2014. Why didn’t Russia invade Georgia then? Or anytime since then? Finland is such a conditional partner, as well (and might even become a NATO member); yet, Russia has not invaded Finland (and Finland has an 800 mile border with Russia). So, Russia getting the fantods over a conditional partnership doesn’t pass the smell test.

“There are limits to our power and we have no strategic national interests that would justify our involvement.”

Resisting Russian’s natural tendency towards aggression and domination of others is very much in our national interests. Don’t you think it would be better to stop such aggression early, and not let it metastasize into more and greater aggression?

You use the EXACT argument that the pacifists in the 1930s used vis-a-vis Nazi Germany: “Oh, let Hitler reoccupy and remilitarize the Rhineland; because, after all, it used to be part of Germany. Oh, let him incorporate Austria into Germany because, after all, the Austrians speak German, too. Oh, let him invade and annex the Sudetenland, because, after all, there are ethnic Germans living there. Oh, let him have all of Czechoslovakia, because, after all, he pretty much has it anyway; and, besides, he has said he has no more territorial ambitions.”

Like Hitler, Putin is a bully. And bullies forever need to bully; they can’t help it.

“It has been NATO expanding ever closer to Russia’s borders after the fall of the Soviet Union that has created instability.”

It was former victims of Soviet (Russian) aggression rushing to join NATO because they did not want to have to live through another Russian aggression and domination. Don’t blame NATO for that: That was ALL Russia’s doing.

“America’s greatest diplomat of the 20th century...George Kennan...”

In your opinion.

“Said: ‘It is my understanding that Gorbachev on more than one occasion was given to understand, in informal talks with senior American and other Western personalities, that if the USSR would accept a united Germany remaining in NATO, the jurisdiction of that alliance would not be moved further eastward.’”

Which Gorbachev himself denied! Gorbachev said there was no talk of any agreement, casual or formal.

For your reading pleasure:

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/03/12/gorbachev-not-hear/#:~:text=O%20n%20December%2012%2C%202017%2C%20The%20National%20Security,the%20West%20later%20reneged%E2%80%94that%20NATO%20would%20not%20expand.

[kabar]

“Why does NATO and the US continue to hold out the possibility that Ukraine can join NATO?” They don’t.

Give me a source where NATO or the US says that Ukraine will never be allowed to join NATO.

A JUNIOR membership? There is no such thing. There are various conditional partnership programs but they do not contain anything even remotely close to an Article 5 obligation as is present in NATO membership. The former Soviet republic of Georgia became a such a conditional partner in 2014. Why didn’t Russia invade Georgia then? Or anytime since then? Finland is such a conditional partner, as well (and might even become a NATO member); yet, Russia has not invaded Finland (and Finland has an 800 mile border with Russia). So, Russia getting the fantods over a conditional partnership doesn’t pass the smell test.

"As a NATO partner, Ukraine has provided troops to Allied operations, including in Afghanistan and Kosovo, as well as to the NATO Response Force and NATO exercises. Allies highly value these significant contributions, which demonstrate Ukraine’s commitment to Euro-Atlantic security."

"As an Enhanced Opportunities Partner, Ukraine will benefit from tailor-made opportunities to help sustain such contributions. This includes enhanced access to interoperability programmes and exercises, and more sharing of information, including lessons learned."

Resisting Russian’s natural tendency towards aggression and domination of others is very much in our national interests. Don’t you think it would be better to stop such aggression early, and not let it metastasize into more and greater aggression?

Why didn't we intervene during the Hungarian Uprising, the Prague Spring, the construction of the Berlin Wall, etc.? Because we had responsible leadership that realized the limits of our power and the risks involved.

You use the EXACT argument that the pacifists in the 1930s used vis-a-vis Nazi Germany: “Oh, let Hitler reoccupy and remilitarize the Rhineland; because, after all, it used to be part of Germany. Oh, let him incorporate Austria into Germany because, after all, the Austrians speak German, too. Oh, let him invade and annex the Sudetenland, because, after all, there are ethnic Germans living there. Oh, let him have all of Czechoslovakia, because, after all, he pretty much has it anyway; and, besides, he has said he has no more territorial ambitions.”

The reality was that Europe was not ready for a war with Germany. The Brits declared war against Germany when it invaded Poland in 1939. They were otherwise ill-prepared to do anything about it. Germany declared war against the US on December 11, 1941. There was strong sentiment in the US not to get involved again in Europe after our experience in WWI, the war to end all wars.

It was former victims of Soviet (Russian) aggression rushing to join NATO because they did not want to have to live through another Russian aggression and domination. Don’t blame NATO for that: That was ALL Russia’s doing.

I lived two years in Warsaw (1981-83) during the days of martial law and Solidarnosc'. The poles hatred for the Russians was palpable. Of course they wanted into NATO so the US could be the guarantor of Polish sovereignty. As I mentioned before, we provided the insurance and paid the premiums. A no-brainer for the former Warsaw Pact countries.

For your reading pleasure: NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard--Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner

Slavic Studies Panel Addresses “Who Promised What to Whom on NATO Expansion?” The 30 documents provided are clear evidence of such assurances.

Washington D.C., December 12, 2017 – U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).

The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’” The Bonn cable also noted Genscher’s proposal to leave the East German territory out of NATO military structures even in a unified Germany in NATO.

Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” (See Document 6)

Afterwards, Baker wrote to Helmut Kohl who would meet with the Soviet leader on the next day, with much of the very same language. Baker reported: “And then I put the following question to him [Gorbachev]. Would you prefer to see a united Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position? He answered that the Soviet leadership was giving real thought to all such options [….] He then added, ‘Certainly any extension of the zone of NATO would be unacceptable.’” Baker added in parentheses, for Kohl’s benefit, “By implication, NATO in its current zone might be acceptable.” (See Document 8)

[Chgogal]

Too bad Putin did stop with Crimea in 2014.

[ought-six]

“From Putin’s perspective, the Ukrainian Constitution doesn’t apply to Crimea, which is currently part of Russia.”

In my perspective, Putin is a pedophile.

[ought-six]

“From Putin’s perspective, the Ukrainian Constitution doesn’t apply to Crimea, which is currently part of Russia.”

What Putin thinks about the Ukrainian constitution is irrelevant.

[ought-six]

“Give me a source where NATO or the US says that Ukraine will never be allowed to join NATO.”

There is no such thing as “never” in geopolitics. There is a huge difference between “never” and “not holding out a possibility.” But you wouldn’t understand that.

“As a NATO partner, Ukraine has provided troops to Allied operations, including in Afghanistan and Kosovo, as well as to the NATO Response Force and NATO exercises. Allies highly value these significant contributions, which demonstrate Ukraine’s commitment to Euro-Atlantic security.”

It was under no obligation to do so. It chose to do so. And, yes, it makes sense that Ukraine would demonstrate a commitment to Euro-Atlantic security, because Ukraine is in Europe, and thus would be affected.

“Why didn’t we intervene during the Hungarian Uprising, the Prague Spring, the construction of the Berlin Wall, etc.? Because we had responsible leadership that realized the limits of our power and the risks involved.”

I’m going to give you a very basic primer in Cold War geo-politics: The cases you cited were ALL in the Warsaw Pact, and thus those were internal matters within the Warsaw Pact. Ukraine is in no pact with Russia. The two cases are as different as night and day.

“The reality was that Europe was not ready for a war with Germany. The Brits declared war against Germany when it invaded Poland in 1939. They were otherwise ill-prepared to do anything about it. Germany declared war against the US on December 11, 1941. There was strong sentiment in the US not to get involved again in Europe after our experience in WWI, the war to end all wars.”

I don’t think you know history at all. Britain declared war on Germany after Germany invaded Poland because Britain was obligated to do so under the Anglo-Polish Pact.

As for the “not one inch further” comment attributed to James Baker, Baker could only commit the Bush I administration; he could not commit any future administrations, and certainly could not commit Congress or even NATO: He had no authority to do so. So any “commitment” or “guarantee” ended in January, 1993 when Clinton took office.

[kabar]

Your perspective is meaningless when it comes to the war in Ukraine. Putin won’t abide by the Ukrainian constitution. Crimea stands.

[ought-six]

“Your perspective is meaningless when it comes to the war in Ukraine. Putin won’t abide by the Ukrainian constitution.”

Of course he won’t: Putin is not bound by the Ukrainian constitution; but Crimea is.

[kabar]

There is no such thing as “never” in geopolitics. There is a huge difference between “never” and “not holding out a possibility.” But you wouldn’t understand that.

That difference matters to Russia. NATO and the US continue to hold out the possibility that Ukraine can be a member of NATO. It is one of Russia's four demands to end the war, i.e., Ukraine will not be a member of NATO.

It was under no obligation to do so. It chose to do so. And, yes, it makes sense that Ukraine would demonstrate a commitment to Euro-Atlantic security, because Ukraine is in Europe, and thus would be affected.

It just reinforces Russia's perception that Ukraine is really part of NATO. Cuba as an independent country had every right to allow Soviet missiles to be stationed on its territory. We didn't recognize that right because we deemed it a threat to our national security. We were willing to risk nuclear war to prevent it.

I’m going to give you a very basic primer in Cold War geo-politics: The cases you cited were ALL in the Warsaw Pact, and thus those were internal matters within the Warsaw Pact. Ukraine is in no pact with Russia. The two cases are as different as night and day.

The Warsaw Pact was a defensive organization to counter NATO. It did not authorize Soviet intervention in the internal affairs of member nations. However, the puppet governments of those countries "invited" Soviet intervention. We are fighting a proxy war in Ukraine against Russia. Zelensky is a US puppet who depends entirely on US/NATO support to survive. Zelensky would love to have direct US/NATO involvement, but they have refused. Why shouldn't the US become directly involved to defend Ukraine?

Biden has not explained to the American people why we have become so involved in Ukraine and there has not been an up and down vote in Congress on his open-ended commitment. What is the definition of victory? What is the exit strategy? How much money are we willing to spend to spend to defend Ukraine's sovereignty? Why is the US paying the lion's share of the costs?

I don’t think you know history at all. Britain declared war on Germany after Germany invaded Poland because Britain was obligated to do so under the Anglo-Polish Pact.

As usual, you miss the point. Britain was not prepared to fight the war, hence the appeasement policies of Chamberlain. The Anglo-Polish Pact was signed on August 25, 1939 and Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939. Two days later Great Britain and France, after delivering an ultimatum demanding the immediate withdrawal of the invading forces, declared war on Germany. The Brits thought that the pact with Poland would deter Hitler from invading. They miscalculated. What assumptions are we making about Putin's intentions? His red lines?

As for the “not one inch further” comment attributed to James Baker, Baker could only commit the Bush I administration; he could not commit any future administrations, and certainly could not commit Congress or even NATO: He had no authority to do so. So any “commitment” or “guarantee” ended in January, 1993 when Clinton took office.

I gave you Kennan's reaction. Intentional or not, Russia believed it was a commitment from the US and the rest of the national leaders engaged in the talks to unify Germany.

[kabar]

Crimea is part of Russia. It has been for the last nine years. Before Ukraine's independence, it was part of Russia/Soviet Union since for hundreds of years. 90% of Crimea is Russian-speaking.

Sevastopol is the largest city in Crimea, and a major port on the Black Sea. Since the city's founding in 1783 it has been a major base for Russia's Black Sea Fleet.

[ought-six]

Where to start?

Zelensky has already said Ukraine is not going to become a NATO member. Moreover, neither Turkey nor Hungary would vote for Ukraine’s admission; and without a unanimous vote of all the member nations a candidate can’t get in.

As for Cuba, we had no issue with Soviet troops in Cuba, nor did we have any issue with defensive weapons in Cuba. What we had an issue with was the Soviets introducing into Cuba OFFENSIVE nuclear missiles capable of striking the entirety of the lower 48 of the US (with the exception of a small slice in the Pacific northwest), all of Mexico and Central America and the Caribbean, and most of South America.

As for the Warsaw Pact, you seem to lack the facts. The 1956 Hungarian Revolution involved an uprising against the Stalinist regime in Hungary. A new prime minister, Imre Nagy, took office on October 24, 1956 and announced the new government’s intent to WITHDRAW Hungary from the Warsaw Pact and establish free elections, and the Soviets ordered the Red Army in Hungary to quash the uprising. Then, on November 1, 1956 Nagy formally announced Hungary’s withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact and declared Hungary’s neutrality, and the Soviets invaded. It should be noted that just a few weeks earlier Poland had made a similar move for neutrality, and that movement was readily crushed. Hungary thought its chances of success were better than Poland’s. Hungary did NOT invite the Soviets to invade.

You mention a proxy war. Yes, Ukraine is a proxy war for the West; just as Korea was a proxy war by the Soviets and initially a proxy war by the ChiComs until the ChiComs decided to actively join the fight; and just as Vietnam was a proxy war by the Soviets and the ChiComs. Proxy wars have been around since antiquity, and are rather common. Almost all wars have an element of a proxy war. It is how the game is played.

How, I am firmly opposed to having US boots on the ground in Ukraine in a combat role and/or US helmets in the air over Ukraine in a combat role.

“I gave you Kennan’s reaction. Intentional or not, Russia believed it was a commitment from the US and the rest of the national leaders engaged in the talks to unify Germany.”

Nonsense. Even Gorbachev — who was there — said there was no commitment.

[ought-six]

“Crimea is part of Russia. It has been for the last nine years.”

Crimea was illegally annexed by Russia in 2014. Only a handful of Russian toadies accept that annexation.

“Before Ukraine’s independence, it was part of Russia/Soviet Union since for hundreds of years.”

Crimea was ceded to Ukraine in 1954 and became part of the Ukraine SSR.

“90% of Crimea is Russian-speaking.”

So what? They are Ukrainian citizens. Did you know that native English-speakers in Los Angeles are a minority? If, say, Mexico laid claim to Los Angeles, and declared it to be part of Mexico, would it in fact be Mexican? No, of course not.

“Sevastopol is the largest city in Crimea, and a major port on the Black Sea. Since the city’s founding in 1783 it has been a major base for Russia’s Black Sea Fleet.”

Yeah, and Russia leased it from Ukraine for over 20 years before it invaded Ukraine in 2014 and illegally annexed Crimea.