"Historical Information on the Russia/Ukraine Crimea " Topic

First of all I am in no away being apologetic for Russia's aggression in Crimea as any territorial dispute should be settled by negotiation and not arms

Simply put the claims to ownership of the Crimea and associated parts of Eastern Ukraine are complicated.

In 1783, Crimea was annexed by the Russian Empire. Prior to that date it was the Crimean Khannate this a Tatar territory and vassal state of the Ottomans

Following the Russian Revolution of 1917, Crimea became an autonomous part within the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic in the USSR.

In 1954, the Crimean Oblast and the Donbas region was transferred to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, by Nikita Khrushchev in order to bolster the "unity of Russians and Ukrainians" and the "great and indissoluble friendship" between the two peoples. Since it was still part of the Soviet Union ethic Russians stayed.

Khrushchev's decision was done primarily to increase his support in Ukraine and surrounding areas which was in effect his personal power base I do not think that at that time anyone would have imagined that Ukraine would one day be independent.

After Ukrainian independence in 1991 the Russian Black Sea Fleet stayed in the Crimea Since 1997, after the Peace and Friendship Treaty signed by Russia and Ukraine, Crimea hosts the Russian Black Sea Fleet naval base in Sevastopol. The ex-Soviet Black Sea Fleet and its facilities were divided between Russia's Black Sea Fleet and the Ukrainian Naval Forces.

On April 27, 2010, Russia and Ukraine ratified the Russian Ukrainian Naval Base for Gas treaty, extending the Russian Navy's lease of Crimean facilities for 25 years after 2017 (through 2042) with an option to prolong the lease in 5-year extensions.

In 2014 the situation changed when the pro Russian president Viktor Yanukovych was ousted in the revolt of that year Shortly after that Russia occupied the Crimea and has sponsored pro independence forces in the Donbas region hoping to see if that area can also be taken over.

So who is right ? The Ukrainian claim to historical possession of the Crimea and Donbas dates back only to 1954.

Russia is now trying to retake lost territory that it sees as traditionally Russia while Uraine has treaty rights for control

You left out Stalin's deporting most of the Crimean Tartar population to Siberia, thus putting Russians in the majority.

The answer is simple, not complex. Crimea was part of the sovereign state of Ukraine until Putin intervened. As is the territory he is seeking to take now. The history is irrelevant unless one thinks that the borders of sovereign states should be "adjusted" to reflect the realities of the past. If that were the case, where does the "adjusting" stop?
Do we give Crimea back to Turkey? Or maybe we should transport the Tartar ethnics back to Crimea and grant them independence under a Khan, like they were before the Ottomans? This can go on and on all over the world.
Shall the US give the entire nation back to the Native Americans? The southwest to Mexico?
Lets be real: Putin chose this path to cement his hold on Russia through the use of nationalism. It also takes the people's eyes off their economy and civil rights. Failure to recognize this concedes the entire argument to him.

A lot of the minorities have returned since 1991 adding in a another factor as they are being threatened and seduced by both sides They have also filed international law suits to have the land returned to them

link

What about the 1954 and 2010 treaties that allow Russian bases and shared control over certain areas that both sides agreed to at one point ? Would Ukraine be willing to accept this limitation on "sovereignty" as an opening point for discussion? Remember that the 1954 Treaty was the actual means by which the territories were transferred

I have no idea what Ukraine would or would not accept at this point. Speaking for myself alone, such would be "crazy" given that Putin used the Sevastopol base to piggy back commandos into Crimea, set up the questionable plebiscite, and take over the area. Fool me once, shame on me….

Heaven knows what Putin has up his sleeve for January 21.

So much for friendship.

I am inclined to believe that if Ukraine did not force the issue with the Maidan Revolution and allowing its nationalists to depose Yanukovych, the Crimea would still be hers.

The Ukrainian people have the rights to self-determination, including kicking out the crooks in charge and replacing them with a different group of crooks.

The basing agreement you refer to was passed fraudulantly by Yanukovich with missing members voting.
That basing agreement also was in violation of the law which was to no longer allow foreign military bases in Ukraine.
That basing agreement also meant Ukraine was paying above market rates for energy.
Russia invaded in breach of the Budapest agreement and had also signed two other treaties recognising Crimea was part of Ukraine.
Russia invaded and annexed Crimea after Yanukovich fled Ukraine.
Only Russia and a few Russian allies recognise Russian annexation.
The rest of the words considers it to still be part of Ukraine.

I doubt it.

Putin wanted that warm-water port desperately, which is I suspect also one of the main reasons he's backing Assad so heavily in Syria, and cozying up to the Iranians and Egyptians too.

Lots of borders done without historical common sense are puting a huge mess in the world. One useful job of the UN instead of powerplay and hosting expensive cronies, should be to correct the mess done in the past by colonial powers or clueless / short sighted politicoes. The world would be a better place.
The 1954 transfer is a bit like if EU decides Perpignan should be joined with Cataluña as Barcelona is quite close, for ease of administration. After all it was Spanish before LouisXIV.

Tartar where already a minority by far , for a long time. Irrelevant. Historically they were conquered when their technology/ warfare had them lose the fights and stop raiding, slaughtering North, taking slaves, which they did for centuries. ( wargamers could be interested by Molodi battle for ex) History as used by some has strange walls, conveniently stopping at some points for convenient manipulation.

A treaty is a treaty and should be respected. The 'mistake' was made in 1954.

But:

What do the Crimean people want?
Was Yanukovich ousted due to CIA actions?
As Yanukovich was still (is still?) the legitimate government, was Crimea a 'government in exile' rather than breakaway state?

Lots about Ukraine come under the heading of murky waters. Are the Russians right to feel that the 'loss' of Ukraine from their sphere of influence was an attack by NATO?

I don't know. I doubt that many people even in the Ukraine know.

But… in the West we naturally think that if Russia is involved they must be in the wrong, we never think they might have a point.

The history is clear on what happened. Protests started when Yanukovich pivoted away from a deal with the EU to joining a custom union with Putin.
The Ukraine population didn't like it and protested. After the security services failed to clear the protest and shot many protestors before retreating when the protestors fought back.
After the security services then lost authority Yanukovich fled as he was going to be held accountable for the actions of the security services.
Putin realised he had lost his puppet in Yanukovich and met to discuss how to extract him using Russian SF. At that same meeting he decided to annex Crimea as he feared losing Sebastapol.
Now Putin is stuck as he has no direct supply to Crimea and the sanctions are hurting. He is looking for a way out where he keeps everything he has.
I can't see Europe acceptinv that after the MH17 shootdown and because if the obvious threat that accepting Putin's actions would have on the other EU states that border Russia.
The original poster seems to be following the Russian hybrid warfare plan by floating an idea and seeing if it gains traction in the population.
There is a "Troll Factory" in St Petersburg of operatives who post on social media, news media and other sites such as this to further Russian political objectives.
They are usually easy enough to spot as details get left out such as the 1994 Budapest agreement ir that Putin admitted in Russian TV that he planned the military operation to retake Crimea.

If only there had beren a proper referendum… one where both side shad equal access to the media, opposition figures weren't beaten up and the votes counted by armed men from one side.

Had that happened, we'd have some idea.

As it is, Tartars are now complaining of repression again.

A the "original poster" I can assure Kiltboy that I am definitely not a Russian troll and suggesting that I am could possibly be deemed as a personal attack under TMP guidelines I am not pursuing it but will cite it as an example of the passions that Modern politics can engender Simply put it reflects that the attitude that everything is black and white and Russia is always an evil agressor

I posted the information as I have never seen the 1954 Treaty mentioned in any discussion of Crimea.

Of course Russia has violated the 1994 Budapest Agreement and their actions in supporting separatist forces within eastern Ukraine is not acceptable and Putin should be held accountable for any damage and casualties that occur.

The 2010 Bases for Gas treaty was signed after the 1994 accord and even if the way it was negotiated is questionable it is still an ongoing treaty that has to be taken into consideration Issuing ultimatums to Russia to immediately withdraw will not result in anything but more Russian intransigence and bluster.

i was hoping that this post would show that the Crimea is not simply a case of one country taking over part of another due many complicating. I have also learned that trying inject some basic history into a Modern Warfare topic is not a good idea

Well then you really need to read more history as that has been covered extensively as part of what happened Ukraine.
You did miss several points in your narrative including the Budapest agreement when Ukraine gave up their nuclear deterrent.
To highlight your post with the similarities of Russian trolls is not a personal attack but highlights a bias inserted into the discussion that seeks to distort away from the factual reality in favor of a Russian generated falsehood.

Regardless of all the pro and cons presented and argued here, the brute fact is Crimea is now part of Russia. It isn't going back to Ukraine. That is the reality.

In international relations, too often might makes right. Russia took back what she saw as her own and the Ukraine was punished for forgetting that might makes right when it gave up its nuclear capability. And before we cry cry-me-a river of tears over Crimean Tartars, do not forget that they conquered the Crimea by force of arms too. States make treaties and states break treaties when it is in their interests to do so. Russia did nothing that the UK, Germany, France or the US has not done in the past. This in no way excuses what Russia did but the hypocritical and self-righteous outrage of the West is getting a bit hard to take.

Cheers and happy New Year.
Rod Robertson.

Let's not ignore the fact that the Maidan Revolution was the direct result of a concerted effort by the US and EU to break Ukraine from Russia's economic orbit. The globalist Idealpolitik-driven foreign policy of the US is to spread liberal democracy around the world through persuasion and "soft power" by way of NGO's and mass social media.

When "soft power" isn't enough and results in push-back as we've seen in Ukraine and Syria, we invariably end up making things worse. Hopefully the new administration will put a stop to all this uncalled for meddling in affairs we have no business in. Realpolitik needs to make a comeback.

I disagree, the protestors on the Maidan died for self determination.
A totalitarian government can only last for a finite time before it is no longer feared and falls.
Assad would have fallen had Russia not gotten involved as the Strian army was pretty much bled out and was burning through it's hardware.

However like most wars it then comes down to an economic match as the countries gear up oroduction to a war footing and Russia currntly beats bith the rebels in Syria and the Ukranians. The Ukranians have been caoable of inflicting many kire casualties than Russia can hide and so Putin has had to stop. He is now stuck and looking for a way out.

Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.

Nothing sweet about dieing.

There are things worth fighting for and too many have forgotten that.

Assad would have fallen had Russia not gotten involved…

Precisely. The west had gotten so used to advancing its foreign policy abroad through soft power unchecked that it took things for granted and believed that everything will go its way unopposed. Hubris set in and we see the result with the failed Arab Spring experiment.

The west also gambled that geopolitics can be ignored and that Ukraine can be turned westward with little opposition from Russia.

The New World Order inevitably marches on.

Hold on, the arab spring wasn't an experimen in Syria that happened in a vacuum
It started on the other side of the med and spread eastwards. Prior to tat event Assad's father had ruled and the state if emergency had existed for some 30 years prior.
The Syrians started the uprising and were fighting to a stalemate due to lack of organisation and competing factions' self interest.
The advantage Russia has is that it is now run by the former KGB as a security state. There is no dissent towards what Putin wants and there is no mechanism to hold Putin accountable.
The only way to compete is to use hard power and that means no negotiation and absolutely no way anything he has done in Ukraine can be accepted.

I guess that some missed the alternate meaning of my last post so to make it a little clearer

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.

Wilfred Owen

Ah yes, it's always America's fault (heavy sarcasm intended in case you can't tell).

Or never America's fault.

Trouble is, lots of people won't accept that sometimes the other side is right and they are wrong.

And that's not heavy sarcasm intended, nor is it meant to be a comment on any particular case.

Also, sometimes it isn't about America at all.