Posted on 08/21/2023 8:52:24 AM PDT by canuck_conservative
“The Donbas and Crimea were lost in 2014, when Petro Poroshenko resorted to total warfare against those who were supposedly his own people.”
The civil war didn’t start until after Crimea was invaded and occupied in late February, 2014; and on March 18, 2014 annexed by Russia. During that same period Russia fomented civil war and inserted Russian forces into the Donbas for that purpose.
The civil war began in April 2014 when armed Russian-backed separatists seized government buildings, and the Ukrainian government launched an operation against them.
Facts are stubborn things.
I’ve fought against a LOT of Russian propaganda on Free Republic, but Crimea was NOT invaded. And this is WHY I would oppose Ukrainian revanchism. There wasn’t a shot fired. Crimea, which was only attached to Ukraine for the first time by Brezhnev’s attempt to dilute the Ukrainian population within “Ukraine,” voted to join the Ukraine only on several conditions. When Poroshenko rescinded every condition, Crimea voted by an overwhelming majority to secede. There were Russian agents present as the vote was implemented, but by that standard, the US has invaded every nation in the Western world.
Trying to assert Kiev’s control over the Crimean population would itself be a crime.
No, but they have landed an Elite Nazi Child in the Prime Ministry of their sorry ass Frog run, Muslim kissing, Canuckistan.
This is going to stir up the Ukraine haters. Good news is bad news to them.
“I’ve fought against a LOT of Russian propaganda on Free Republic, but Crimea was NOT invaded.”
But, it was. And it also employed a number of homegrown (i.e., Crimean) assets in effecting that invasion. An invasion does not have to involve massed forces storming across a border bent on death and destruction.
“And this is WHY I would oppose Ukrainian revanchism.”
And I respect your opinion in that regard. And, it may turn out, in the end, that Ukraine will NOT be able to recover its territories that are presently occupied by Russia. But, to write it off at this stage is not only premature, but would hamstring Ukraine’s position at any cease fire or peace negotiation.
“Crimea, which was only attached to Ukraine for the first time by Brezhnev’s attempt to dilute the Ukrainian population within ‘Ukraine’...”
Crimea was transferred to Ukraine by Krushchev — who was Ukrainian — in 1954. It had nothing at all with wanting to “dilute” the Ukrainian population. And, remember; years before, Stalin — a Georgian — removed the indigenous Tatars from Crimea and replaced them with ethnic Russians.
“...voted to join the Ukraine only on several conditions. When Poroshenko rescinded every condition...”
EVERY condition? Can you identify them? And, don’t forget, the Ukrainian constitution requires that any referenda on the independence of any part of Ukraine must be put to the whole of the Ukrainian people, not just those of the subject area.
“...Crimea voted by an overwhelming majority to secede.”
Crimea’s vote was illegal on its face (see my comment above about the Ukrainian constitution).
“Trying to assert Kiev’s control over the Crimean population would itself be a crime.”
No, it wouldn’t; because legally Crimea is part of Ukraine, regardless what Russia says or what Russia-inclined Crimeans say. If those Crimeans want to be part of Russia, they can simply move to Russia; but they can’t take part of Ukraine with them. Finally, Russia’s annexation of Crimea is not recognized by any recognized legal body, or any international organization.
The Russians have bombed civilians in Ukraine.
“Newsweak” globalist-Marxist spam.
Crimea is Russian.
At this rate, both sides might just quit.
The Ukrainians are not exactly fired up
I’ll concede I meant Kruschev when I wrote Brezhnev, but that is all. An invasion literally means massed forces storming across a border. An invasion using ‘home-grown assets’ is called separatists having foreign support, not an invasion. And in the case of Crimea, the separatists were the overwhelming majority.
You write, “And, don’t forget, the Ukrainian constitution requires that any referenda on the independence of any part of Ukraine must be put to the whole of the Ukrainian people, not just those of the subject area.”
But while the Russian propagandists (I usually call them neo-Soviets) conflate Zelenskyy with Poroshenko, you must acknowledge the constitutional crisis created by Poroshenko’s takeover, and Poroshenko’s conduct during the early stages of the civil war showed he had no intention of ever allowing the Donbas to integrate with Ukraine.
“Crimea is Russian.”
Only in Russia’s mind. To the rest of the world? No.
“An invasion literally means massed forces storming across a border.”
If that is your definition, then we better not catch you calling what is happening on our Southern border an invasion.
“And in the case of Crimea, the separatists were the overwhelming majority.”
So? It was still illegal. If there is no rule of law, then there is no law at all; there is anarchy. Is that what you want? If so, please post your physical address here on FR.
“But while the Russian propagandists (I usually call them neo-Soviets) conflate Zelenskyy with Poroshenko, you must acknowledge the constitutional crisis created by Poroshenko’s takeover, and Poroshenko’s conduct during the early stages of the civil war showed he had no intention of ever allowing the Donbas to integrate with Ukraine.”
What nonsense! Donbas was already integrated with Ukraine.
Don’t forget to list the Crimean conditions you claim Poroshenko “rescinded.” And, remember: You said Poroshenko rescinded EVERY condition.
“Yes! And the Azov militia had shelled Russian speaking Ukrainians before the Russians invaded.”
Uh, no. Russia first invaded Ukraine in February, 2014; and illegally annexed Crimea and fomented civil war in Donbas in March, 2014. The Ukrainian government didn’t take action against the separatist areas until April, 2014.
Finally, Russia’s annexation of Crimea is not recognized by any recognized legal body, or any international organization.
Doesn’t mean much. The USA never recognized the Soviet annexation of the Baltic States.
>> If that is your definition, then we better not catch you calling what is happening on our Southern border an invasion.
<<
I don’t... but the point is that they are coming across the border from another country.
>> So? It was still illegal. If there is no rule of law, then there is no law at all; there is anarchy. Is that what you want? <<
Ukraine was already far beyond anywhere that was covered by the rule of law. The Maidan overthrew the corruptly, but validly elected President; he was impeached outside the rule of law on the basis of having supposedly ordered his troops to fire on innocent protestors. Ukrainian courts later determined that the fire came form elsewhere, an apparent false-flag operation apparently orchestrated by Soros. Nothing about the Poroschenko administration was legal or legitimate.
My beef with the Soviet apologists is that Zelenskyy WAS one-hundred percent legitimate. And no amount of corruption or illegitimacy makes invading and bombing a sovereign nation acceptable.
>> What nonsense! Donbas was already integrated with Ukraine. <<
I’m referring to reconstruction. Poroschenko did not wage war with the Donbas as if they were his constituents who had been invaded by a foreign power; he waged war against them as if every single last person in the Donbas was the enemy, as if the land were Ukraine’s, but every soul in the land were an invader.
The West likes to imagine that Ukraine was a single nation, living in peace and harmony until those evil Russian invaders came. Russia propaganda presents the historical region of “Novorussia” instead as still part of Russia. The problem is that the Poroschenko regime saw the land as Ukraine’s because “LOOK! WE HAVE PAPERS! IT’S OURS!” but they saw the inhabitants themselves as those evil Russians who inflicted unspeakable evils on the Ukrainian people. That position is understandable, given their histories, but it is entirely incompatible with nationhood.
If your position is that Crimea’s secession from Ukraine was illegal no matter how badly Ukraine violated the treaty of union, because Crimea didn’t follow a legal secession plan, how was Crimea’s secession from the Soviet Union legal? Or even Ukraine’s? I recognized Crimea’s independence (not that I’m a sovereign state whose recognition matters) BECAUSE I recognized Ukraine’s... and because as an American, I’m no subject of King Chucky.
When dealing with situations beyond the scope of states’ constitutions, legal isn’t what is in the legal code, but what is just. Ukraine’s abuse of Crimea was unjust, and Ukraine’s regime was beyond the scope of the Constitution. (And I should be careful to add, so as not to justify any of the Soviets’ propaganda, Yanukovich shares a large part of this blame; I do not forget the Soviet poisoning of Yushchenkov. Before the Maidan, Ukraine was in a constitutional crisis.)
The fact that Khrushchev transferred a Russian territory to The Ukraine doesn’t change that Crimea is historically Russian. Returning it to Russia is rectifying a Soviet-Communist action.
The rest of the world that knows history knows this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.