[flagged]
So what you're saying it was transferred from one state to another by the head of that state, under the laws and rules of the state at the time?.
Nothing was stolen, you're just mad of Russias past actions.
"stolen from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic"
That's quite a frivolous use of the word 'stolen' devoiding it of any meaning besides 'bad!!!!!!!!1'.
Yes, it does. You are confusing 'Russian' and 'Soviet'.
"Soviet colonial policies"
That was funny. You are confusing with your colonial past.
"If you want to start settling old scores"
It's not about that. Russia was fine with the Crimea belonging to the Ukraine while it didn't matter much for Russia and for Crimeans themselves. That was until the nationalists took power in 2014 with the help of American 'midwifing' (quoting Obama here).
"you can demonstrate good faith"
USSR demonstrated good faith when it greenlighted reunification of Germany and got assurances that NATO won't expand to the east. Look how that worked out.
Of all the Russian propaganda you pick the one piece that was super easy to debunk, Gorbachev himself said this never happened.
The negotiations were always about NATO expanding into east Germany and not east in general.
NATO still isn’t in the former east Germany anyway.
I’m pretty sure I or others have told you this many times before though so I have to start questioning is you are posting in good faith or if your posting to push an agenda?.
[0] https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017...
Although I do know that NATO Expansion is another historical grievance Russia has (getting lots of these aren't they) because Russia is very much pro being able to invade states, and NATO stops that.
"Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, who participated in the 1990 negotiations, subsequently spoke out about the existence of a "guarantee of non-expansion of NATO to the east" inconsistently, confirming its existence in some interviews and refuting in others." [0]
Here is what Gorbachev was saying in 2008.
"Relations have further deteriorated after Nato promised eventual membership to Georgia and Ukraine, a move interpreted by Mr Gorbachev as an attempt to extend America's sphere of influence into Russia's backyard.
"The Americans promised that Nato wouldn't move beyond the boundaries of Germany after the Cold War but now half of central and eastern Europe are members, so what happened to their promises? It shows they cannot be trusted."" [1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_in_Russia_regardin...
[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/193...
There is no practical difference between the two. All Soviet "republics" were run by Politburo in Moscow, the same way all orders in Nazi Germany came from Berlin, bypassing whatever formal structures existed. Both loved to micromanage. Whenever a local puppet didn't dance as Moscow expected, he was replaced. Leaders of "republics" couldn't even select deputies (second secretaries); they were assigned directly from Moscow to keep a close eye on formal heads of "republics".
If you want to play games, then sure, we can also say that Nazi Germany had nothing to do with Germans either. It was run by an Austrian painter who illegitimately seized power, and in its heyday, most people in the vast Nazi empire were not even ethnic Germans, so Germans had nothing to do with it all, naturally.
>> That was funny. You are confusing with your colonial past.
I have no colonial past.
>> It's not about that. Russia was fine with the Crimea belonging to the Ukraine while it didn't matter much for Russia and for Crimeans themselves. That was until the nationalists took power in 2014 with the help of American 'midwifing' (quoting Obama here).
Indeed, all was fine and dandy until Putin needed justifications for the invasion. Then it was suddenly discovered that a Soviet leader illegitimately "gifted" Crimea away. What's next, some error in the sale of Alaska too maybe? Can we please have it back, our emperor was too fond of America when he signed it?
>> USSR demonstrated good faith when it greenlighted reunification of Germany and got assurances that NATO won't expand to the east.
It's once again one of those things that was suddenly "discovered" to justify the invasion - but never brought up when Eastern Europe actually joined NATO two decades ago. On top of that, Gorbachev and Shevardnadze have explicitly denied this hoax, the only one claiming this was a street thug in St Petersburg at the time.
This talking point is irrelevant anyway, as NATO did not place any permanent ground forces in Eastern Europe until the invasion of Ukraine. And whatever was left in Western Europe after the Cold War saw a reduction by an order of a magnitude, skewing the balance of military power in Europe heavily in favor of Russia.
Soviet leadership acted in the interests of the Soviet Union (and their own), not in the interests of RSFSR.
"we can also say that Nazi Germany had nothing to do with Germans either"
No, you can't. Nazi Germany proclaimed the superiority of Germans (and of so called 'Arian race') and tried to achieve ethnic purity. Soviet Union was a multiethnic state, ethnic Russians constituted about half of Soviet population and the idea of the 'friendship of ethnicities' was heavily promoted.
"I have no colonial past."
But your country does.
"Then it was suddenly discovered"
Again, that's not how it was. Some people in Russia remembered it pretty well, like Moscow major Luzhkov who was helping Sevastopol with money, but all the presidents and governments consistently refused to support this idea.
"It's once again one of those things that was suddenly "discovered" to justify the invasion"
"Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner" [0]
"but never brought up"
What's the point to complain and to be told to know your place? Anyway, ever heard of Putin's Munich speech in 2006?
"skewing the balance of military power in Europe heavily in favor of Russia"
Doesn't look like it.
[0] https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017...
What happened to its original inhabitants?
Which treaty did the RF sign in 1994 pledging to respect existing borders of Ukraine -- including its sovereignty over the Crimea -- for perpetuity?
Tell us more, please.
--- original comment below ---
I understand that these are passion-activating topics and that a war is being fought over them right now. Still, it's not ok to take HN threads into hellish flamewars, so please don't do this here.
HN is for curious conversation on topics of intellectual interest. That requires thoughtfulness, respect for others, and even a certain playfulness. If you're not in that state about a topic, please don't post on that topic for the time being.
You've got some straight-up trolls running around, posting blatantly pernicious nonsense in regard to these topics -- obviously without sincere intent, simply to push buttons.
Mixed with some merely woefully naive and/or highly obstinate folks, posting basically noise (wildly inaccurate narratives about extremely basic historical matters or recent events).
If there is a better strategy or tone to use for countering this kind of negative behavior -- I wish I knew what it was.
Once you've framed the other that way, it's easy to feel that you no longer need to follow the rules—since if the other person is pernicious and insincere, they should obviously just be annihilated.
This is how we end up in the flamewar situation where we end up having to ban accounts. Since everyone is following this logic, everyone is trying to annihilate the other. From an outside point of view, the interesting thing is how similarly all the parties are behaving, even as they perceive each other as enemies and opposites.
By far the better strategy is to resist this temptation altogether—to look for interpretations of the other as not pernicious or insincere, but rather sincere and legitimate—and then to try to meet them respectfully. This is a massively more effective way to go about it, and also won't get you banned here.
So a non-reciprocal response would be more effective.
By fighting the Ottoman Empire and their protectorate -- the remains of the Golden Horde known as Crimean Khanate [0]. The last was busy raiding Russia and selling captured slaves to Ottomans [1]. The Golden Horde, in case you don't know, is itself one the remains of the Mongol Empire.
"What happened to its original inhabitants?"
Scythians [2] and Tauri [3] were assimilated by Sarmatians and later were partly destroyed and party assimilated by Goths. Why did you ask?
"Which treaty"
It looks like you are asking in bad faith and already know the answer. When circumstances change treaties become obsolete. Ever heard of Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, for example? [4]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_the_Crimean_Khan...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean%E2%80%93Nogai_slave_ra...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythia_Minor_(Crimea)
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tauri
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty
Sweet so since the Budapest memorandum is out we can start rearming Ukraine with nukes after the war.
After all the treaty is obsolete right?.
The reason was to try and stop nuclear proliferation, not whatever made up reason your coming with today.
But Ukraine doesn't need Americas approval to make nuclear weapons they are more than capable of making them themselves.
They should also never sign another treaty with Russia ever, as clearly Russia just makes treaties "obsolete" when it benefits them.
Russia has always been unreliable partner I guess thats why they will only understand force in Ukraine.
Probably because you keep neglecting to mention, for some strange reason, the ethnic group that made up some 90 percent of the population the peninsula at the time of the (not so peaceful) 1783 annexation. Let alone what, specifically, happened to them in the summer of '44.
And how obscenely ridiculous it is, as a result -- to say that the peninsula was "Russian for 200 years" prior to the 1955 transfer.
ABM
Except the US didn't just thumb their noses at, and start violating willy-nilly (like Russia did with the 1994 treaty you are so hesitant to name). Rather - it had an opt-out clause which Bush chose to enact, giving the required 6 months notice.
But I did mention. [0]
"how obscenely ridiculous it is"
No more obscenely ridiculous than saying that the US exists for 200 years. Ever heard of Native Americans who inhabited the North America?
Crimea was conquered by Russia, not by the Ukraine which didn't even exists as a state at that time, and Russia was busy building cities there and in all of Novorossiya.
"not so peaceful"
Why would it be peaceful? Crimean Khanate was raiding Russia and capturing slaves for centuries. Didn't end well for them.
"Except"
I didn't say it's equivalent, just an example of a treaty outliving its utility for one of the parties.
But you keep talking around it.
You still can't bring yourself to say who these people were. Or what happened to their descendants.