1 photos
What a funny and thoroughly confused guy!
[QUOTE=Questner;2809657]
What will happen if the states in upper stream of the mighty Colorado River block the water supply to California and other states down the stream? Nonsense, you would say, it would never happen.
So, how the people of Crimea different? Why would anyone in their clear mind block water supply to population, especially when the population is considered to be own citizens? The same asinine mentality prevailed when the Ukrainian government blocked water supply to Donbass region. Donetsk is almost without water for the last year, and the newly constructed pipe is going to be open this month.[/QUOTE]Only you've conveniently forgotten to mention that the water supply was blocked ONLY after your "little green people" invaded and grabbed the lands that don't belong to them.
In what world is a victim of aggression supposed ("in their clear mind") to supply water to the aggressor?
Wait. . .
1954 is superseded by (at a minimum) 1991 and1997.
[QUOTE=Questner;2809657]Contrary to public belief the transfer of Crimea in 1954 into the Ukrainian SSR was done mainly to construct and administer the North Crimean Canal; no nationalistic ideas were behind the move.
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Crimean_Canal[/URL]
What will happen if the states in upper stream of the mighty Colorado River block the water supply to California and other states down the stream? Nonsense, you would say, it would never happen.
So, how the people of Crimea different? Why would anyone in their clear mind block water supply to population, especially when the population is considered to be own citizens? The same asinine mentality prevailed when the Ukrainian government blocked water supply to Donbass region. Donetsk is almost without water for the last year, and the newly constructed pipe is going to be open this month.[/QUOTE]As the USSR was in the process of dissolution, Ukraine's legislature declared independence TWICE, once in July of 1990 and then again in August of 1991.
[URL]https://www.npr.org/2022/02/12/1080205477/history-ukraine-russia[/URL]
And Russia OFFICIALLY recognized Ukrainian independence in August 1991.
[URL]https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-russia-recognizes-ukrainian-independence-1991-20220224-uptvhapy7rh23lr73a4xreiime-story.html[/URL]
Ukraine followed up the declaration by holding a referendum vote that encompassed EVERY part of the territory that was universally recognized as the (now former) Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic.
Here are the voting percentages, and you'll notice the first area on the list is Crimea, and further down you'll see the Donbas regions of Luhansk and Donetsk (both over 80 percent).
[URL]https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1991-2/the-end-of-the-soviet-union/the-end-of-the-soviet-union-texts/ukrainian-independence-declaration/[/URL]
If Russia had any territorial claims to make, or any objection to the referendum being held in Crimea, or the Donbas, that was the time to raise the issue. All the events of 1991 detailed above are conclusive evidence that Crimea, Donbas, and ALL the territory of the Ukraine SSR, were considered part of the newly independent Ukraine. And that fact was officially recognized by Russia, Ukraine itself, and the world at large.
But wait, there's more!
In 1997 two treaties were signed between Ukraine and Russia. One was the "Partition Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet," and the other was the "Russian-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty" In neither of those treaties did Russia seek to exert a claim on Crimea or any other area.
Two additional points re 1997:
1. As part of the Friendship Treaty, BOTH nations recognized the inviolability of EXISTING borders. And those borders included Crimea + Donbas as part of Ukraine (see 1991).
2. As part of the Black Sea Fleet Status Treaty, by agreeing to pay Ukraine for the lease of the naval base at Sevastopol, Russia explicitly recognized it as sovereign Ukrainian territory. They, Russia, were leasing from the owner, Ukraine.
I could go on, but there's no need. From 1991 the world has recognized that Crimea is part of the territory of Ukraine, and the Donbas as well. Russia itself also recognized this fact from 1991 to 2014, when they decided to invade. But, aside from maybe a couple of rogue states, NO country in the world accepts Russia's annexation of Crimea OR the Donbas. Not China and, IIRC, not even Iran.
Oh, and as far as your "water issues" are concerned, it's none of Russia's fucking business what Ukraine does on its OWN territory. If Russia hadn't invaded, there would be NO water-related issues. So the invader Russkies should fuck off back to Russia where they can go piss in the Volga and drink it. What a lame attempt to justify the unjustifiable! You really are a Putin apologist of the most extremely vile kind.
Class dismissed. Any questions?
I propose a different list for you
[QUOTE=Questner;2809650]Do me a favour, put me on your Ignore list. This is an accepted way in this forum to keep it cool.[/QUOTE]Rather than ignore, it's the "heap scorn and humiliation on the Putin butt-boy" list.
Kind of a catchy name, don't you think?
Legal vs Practical + a proposed strategy for retaking Crimea
[QUOTE=WyattEarp;2809802]I'm not trying to make excuses for Putin or offer any support to the Russian cause. The reality is permanent Russian control of Crimea is likely still on the table. The Crimean vote cited was a 54% vote to stay in the Ukraine. However, the turnout was anemic relative to the other provinces. Crimea has strong ties to both countries. Any student of history knows that Russia fought an allied army of France, Britain and the Ottoman Empire on Crimean soil. (That's not to say Ukrainians didn't contribute.)
No one knows how a peace settlement will look or how lasting it will be. Perhaps the Ukraine can force another reaffirming vote on the matter in Crimea. However, a vote like this under the aura of open hostility can become very violent and messy.
I'm not sure if the Ukraine decides to fight for Crimea the Russians will end the hostilities under any arrangement.[/QUOTE]One of the points of my earlier post was to debunk the bogus narrative that Russia has a legal claim to Crimea. It's clear that they don't, full stop. When the USSR dissolved it split into (IIRC) 15 newly independent countries. That's a shitload of border issues that needed to be resolved and, in the case of Ukraine, those were clearly settled in 1991 and 1997, per the evidence I've already cited.
With respect to referendum insufficiency (or irregularity), I find that argument wholly unpersuasive. As I recall, there were international observers so, as long as standards for fair elections were met, the turnout was what it was and the results were what they were. It was a binary "stay or leave" choice and almost 55% (in Crimea) voted to leave. From 1991 to 1997, Russia had ample opportunity to raise this issue and, to my knowledge, they didn't. The 1997 treaty re the inviolability of the existing borders effectively puts that issue to rest. And it's also noteworthy that not even the Russians are advancing any kind of independence referendum-centric argument.
With respect to the historic connection argument, that's not only unpersuasive but it's flat-out hogwash. Did they fight in Crimea? Sure, so what? How many times has the Alsace-Lorraine region changed hands? How many pieces of European (and elsewhere) territory once belonged to other countries? Hell, by the connection-language-ethnicity argument, Switzerland should be carved up and divided between France, Germany, and Italy. And which parts of the former Austro-Hungarian empire need to be rejiggered? Lots of battles fought, and blood spilled, in those areas.
And, getting back to Russia, they could equally claim that they fought for territory that is now part of the Baltics, or one of the 'Stan countries, etc. In fact, it's that very fear that accounts for the high level of Ukraine support from countries on Russia's western border. At some point lines have to be drawn and, in Ukraine's case, those lines were clearly drawn (and explicitly recognized by Russia and the world) in 1991 and 1997. So, in view of the above facts, I would assert that Ukraine's claim to Crimea is indisputable.
However, as you noted, legal doesn't always = practical. And the conventional methods of militarily retaking Ukraine are definitely daunting and problematic. There is, however, at least one alternative that holds out some promising potential. And it's the strategy laid out by LT. Gen. (ret) Ben Hodges, former commander of US forces in Europe.
[URL]https://www.rand.org/blog/2023/04/why-blockading-rather-than-retaking-crimea-might-be.html[/URL]
If Ukraine mounts an offensive that effectively blocks the land route to Crimea, and knocks out the Kerch Strait bridge, they can make it damn difficult (if not impossible) for Russia to maintain a military presence on the peninsula. See the article for more specifics. But the basic point is that a conventional land campaign isn't necessarily required. How the war develops over the next few months will tell us a lot.
P.S. I highly doubt Ukraine will hold another referendum in Crimea. Why should they? The only country disputing Ukrainian sovereignty is Russia, and they can go fuck themselves. The referendum was held valid from 1991 to 1997 (when Russia recognized the borders), and through the 2014 invasion, and to present day (among the vast majority of countries). Why give in to the endless do-over demands of the losers? Scottish independence lost by 44.7-55.3, and Brexit won by 52-48. Do-overs? Fuhgeddaboudit! You lost, deal with it and move on.
Russia and China: Long-term negative demographic outlook.
While the war has obviously received the lion's share of recent attention, other significant developments are flying under the radar. One of these is demographics, specifically the negative trends seen in both Russia and China.
[URL]https://english.elpais.com/opinion/the-global-observer/2023-04-19/russias-population-shrinks-and-chinas-ages.html[/URL]
China is obviously dealing with the effects of their one child policy, which is no longer in place. They're struggling to reverse those effects, but that's a topic better addressed in a separate post (and perhaps even in a different forum).
What's more relevant here is the situation Russia is facing. In addition to an already low birthrate, they're experiencing an out-migration of a significant number of men and women, as well as the untimely deaths of military-age males. In fact, the article quotes another publication (The Economist) as saying "A demographic tragedy is unfolding in Russia. Over the past three years the country has lost around two million more people than it would ordinarily have done, as a result of war, disease and exodus. The life expectancy of Russian males aged 15 fell by almost five years, to the same level as in Haiti".
Of course, the Soviets lost millions of men in WW-II, but the USSR was larger than Russia and the birthrate was higher. A low birthrate might possibly be addressed by inward migration, but (IMO) Putin's Russia and Xi's China are not exactly first-choice destinations for most migrants. So, unless things change, China's problems will likely continue along their current course while Russia's problems will very likely accelerate.
One possibility is, since there's an excess of Chinese men over women (one child policy effects), for Russian women to mate with Chinese men. While that might produce more children, it creates a new set of problems. In which country will those children live? Also, if they're half-Russian and half-Chinese, will either country fully accept them? And, if they don't feel fully accepted in Russia or China, what's to keep them from going somewhere else?
A French philosopher (Comte) is quoted as saying "Demography is destiny". That's rather ominous as it's hard to see much in the way of effective solutions on the horizon for Russia or China. BTW, none of this is meant to downplay the demographic challenges facing many Western countries. Those certainly exist, but in many cases they're (at least partially) offset by immigration.
You have zero facts to back up your narrative.
[QUOTE=DramaFree11;2810137]You guys truly live in a Fantasy world. Ukraine is done. The sooner they figure that out, many lives will be saved, we can move on, and we will avoid World War 3. Sometimes I actually believe this is what you want. You wanted a war, now we all have to deal with the consequences, and Ukraine is being destroyed, but in your liberal world this might be a win.
Ukraine military has out performed every ones expectations, but they are done and the support from their allies is slowing down. If there government was not so corrupt who knows what might have happened, but they always have to cheat, lie and steal. You guys watch CNN and All the other crap networks. The sad part is your actually believe there Crap.[/QUOTE]You have a preferred narrative that you CHOOSE to believe. And yet you accuse others of the same thing. It's classic projection, nothing more.
You claim Ukraine is done, but you have no factual basis for that statement. Ukraine continues to fight and continues to amass battlefield assets from Western allies.
If Ukraine was truly "done," as you claim, then Russia would have already won (defined as taking and holding additional territory) or would be in the process of visibly winning. There are zero objective facts to support that position.
Not only has Russia been pushed back from territory they previously held, but even their singular push to capture one city (Bakhmut) has languished for almost 10 months.
While I don't have a crystal ball as to the eventual outcome, the CURRENT state of affairs blows your thesis out of the water. You really should take your cracked crystall ball to the repair shop.
P.S. I guess in your preferred fantasy world, you've forgotten that Putin gave the order to start the war. Nobody forced him, and neither Ukraine or NATO posed any credible threat. So, either Putin is somebody's puppet or else he's 100% responsible for starting the war.
P. P.S. Russia is the uber-corrupt kleptocracy of all time. Any corruption that plagued, or plagues, Ukraine is a product of their time in the USSR. It will take years to root out, but membership in the EU is a key motivator and Ukraine is taking positive steps. This isn't optional for them, because survival requires EU (and NATO) membership and anti-corruption measures (real, not window dressing) are required before membership will be considered or granted. Russia, meanwhile, continues in a corrupt death spiral that will end up with them becoming nothing more a larger version of North Korea. An isolated pariah state. Good riddance!
Q: Why won't the cowardly clown engage in direct debate?
[QUOTE=Questner;2810184]Today Russia has got her own KKK, namely Kaliningrad Region, Kuril Islands and Krim (Crimea) as the most fortified and strategic regions of the country. Would you expect to cede Hawaii to Chinese, San Diego to Mexico and Chesapeake Bay to, let's say, the British? Nope. How successful would Mexico be in retaking control of Texas should we supply it with tanks, ammunition and finance the conflict? Nonsense, it would never happen. So, how do you think Crimea is different? The thing that had pissed the agencies in the West was the secrecy, the boldness and the swiftness of the 2014 operation which was achieved without even one round shot and almost with complete support of the local population.
The other important distinction was the decision in Moscow to support the region, the administration and the people who opposed the right wing nationalistic coup, but at the same not to extend the same support in other regions of Ukraine, where the opposition and resistance to the coup was ultimately defeated by all known dictatorial means. In the recent interview the Russian President admitted that the country in that time was not ready to offer such support on one hand, and relied on the process of negotiations on the other.
'The Crimea is ours and always will be' - the WWII poster below.
'Ours' meaning of course Russian belonging to the people of Crimea. Ukrainians, Russians, Crimean Tatars, Greeks etc. But not to Germany, Britain, Poland, France, Turkey or any other country.[/QUOTE]A: Because he's a cowardly clown!
I responded directly to your bogus assertions with clear evidence that debunks any so-called claim of Russia over Crimea. The full post isn't very far down the page, so it's obvious that you chose to ignore, rather than address it. That's a clear mark of cowardice AND a tacit admission that you're unable to refute the facts presented. As to those facts, here's a short excerpt:
[QUOTE]Russia OFFICIALLY recognized Ukrainian independence in August 1991.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]If Russia had any territorial claims to make, or any objection to the referendum being held in Crimea, or the Donbas, that was the time to raise the issue. All the events of 1991 detailed above are conclusive evidence that Crimea, Donbas, and ALL the territory of the Ukraine SSR, were considered part of the newly independent Ukraine. And that fact was officially recognized by Russia, Ukraine itself, and the world at large.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]In 1997 two treaties were signed between Ukraine and Russia. One was the "Partition Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet," and the other was the "Russian-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty" In neither of those treaties did Russia seek to exert a claim on Crimea or any other area.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
Two additional points re 1997:
1. As part of the Friendship Treaty, BOTH nations recognized the inviolability of EXISTING borders. And those borders included Crimea + Donbas as part of Ukraine (see 1991).
2. As part of the Black Sea Fleet Status Treaty, by agreeing to pay Ukraine for the lease of the naval base at Sevastopol, Russia explicitly recognized it as sovereign Ukrainian territory. They, Russia, were leasing from the owner, Ukraine.
I could go on, but there's no need.[/QUOTE]All the source links are contained in my original post. But you won't check them, or even acknowledge them, because you've clearly shown your cowardly stripes.
Here's an interesting question I'm sure the forum would find fascinating: Are you the kind of coward who, when confronted, pisses himself in public? Or are you the kind of coward who slinks off to his hole and pisses himself in private?
I'm guessing you're the second kind. Maybe we should start a forum poll, eh? Or maybe it doesn't even matter, 'cause either way you're still a cowardly self-pisser.
