I stated a fact that Crimea was given to Ukraine by Khrushchev. This is a fact. I never implied what you say I implied. That is your delusion. Question – Did Khrushchev give Crimea to Ukraine? This is a yes or no answer.
when you try to misrepresent Nikita Kruschev as a Ukrainian who did something wrong to the poor disadvantaged Russians who are invading the Ukraine.
I said nothing of the sort. Again, these are your words, not mine. I read something that said Khrushchev was Ukrainian. I knew he was the head of the communist party in Ukraine. I thought he was Ukrainian. My bad.
My simple statement was that Crimea was part of Russia longer than Texas was part of the United States. This is a fact. I also said Crimea was given to Ukraine in 1954. Also a fact. It is not surprising that Russia wants it back. The better example would be 0bama gave us socialized medicine and took over 1/6 of the US economy. We want it back, and will change the unconstitutional usurpation of our economy.
“I stated a fact that Crimea was given to Ukraine by Khrushchev. This is a fact.”
No, that is still a fiction and not a fact. The dictionary definition of the word, “given”, is something “presented as a gift : bestowed without compensation.” The Crimea was transferred to or bestowed upon the Ukraine as reparations and compensation for the lives and treasure taken from the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (Ukraine) by the Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (Russia) and rest of the Soviet Union. Therefore the transfer of the Crimea to the Ukranian Soviet Socialist Republic is that exact opposite of the definition of the word “given” you falsely stated was a fact. The implication is inherent in your statement of the fiction.
“Did Khrushchev give Crimea to Ukraine? This is a yes or no answer.”
The answer is “no”, because the Soviet Union and not just Nikita Kruschev transferred the Crimean Oblast to the Ukranian Soviet Socialist Republic as a reparation and compensation and did not “give” it to anyone.
“My simple statement was that Crimea was part of Russia longer than Texas was part of the United States. This is a fact. I also said Crimea was given to Ukraine in 1954. Also a fact.”
Yes, those are facts; but it is also a fact that Turkey possessed the Crimea longer than Russia possessed it and would like to have it back under the terms of the treaty it had with Russia and Russia abrogated. So, if the length of prior possession is the measure of who should have the right to forcibly take possession of the Crimea, then NATO would be able to rightfully invade the Crimea and transfer possession of the Crimea to Turkey to secure the treaty terms for the independence of the Tatars. Since the advent of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the Charter of the United Nations, and the Russian obligations to respect the territorial integrity of the Ukraine specifying the Crimea in particular in the 1994 and 1997 agreements, the right of possession of the Crimea belongs to the Ukraine and not to Russia. That is a fact plainly written on the papers of the agreements with Russia’s signature.
“We want it back, and will change the unconstitutional usurpation of our economy.”
The transfer of the Crimea from the Soviet Federative Socialist Republic was a constitutional act and was not a usurpation of any rights possessed by the Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. If anything, the transfer of the Crimea to the Ukranian Soviet Socialist Republic was a Russian usurpation of the Turkish treaty rights to preserve the political independence of the Crimean Tatars. That is a real fact written on the paper of the peace treaty.
Therefore, it is a fact that your example of Obama’s usurpations are a false comparison to the non-existant Russian right of possession of the Crimea.