Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Iron_Captain**

Frazzled wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Soviet troops invaded Hungary in the 50s
Soviet troops invaded Czechloslavakia in the 60s
Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan in the 70s
Chenya was conquered by the Czars, then freed then reconquered.
Russians invaded Georgia in 2008
Russians invaded Crimea in 2014.

So what is the purpose of this? Shall we also list all the places the US has invaded (not counting the World Wars)?
That list is a lot longer than the Russian one, and most of those invasions are of highly dubious legality. Can you imagine that the US sounds very hypocritical when accusing others of unlawfully invading and bullying smaller nations around?
Also, Soviet Union ≠ Russian Federation.

False comparison. If all your friends jumped off a cliff would you? Russia developed its empire from conquering other countries. Just because there have been other empires doesn't make them any better. Thats like saying, just because Russia conquered the Baltic states Nazi Germany was ok dokey.

I agree with you here, but the list you posted also has little relevance here. The only previous conflict Russia was involved in which may be relevant is the one in Georgia, which had some similiar circumstances.

**whembly**

Turkey caught in the Russia-Crimea snowstorm

As I am writing this article, Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoğlu is still in Ukraine to discuss the situation in the Crimea region. The persistent political disorder in Kiev following the collapse of President Viktor Yanukovych’s government – and his subsequent flight to Russia – are creating broad repercussions in the Crimean Autonomous Republic. After the Chairman of the Crimean Parliament Volodimir Konstantinov’s statement that they would seek to secede from Ukraine if tensions grew worse, the situation has deteriorated swiftly, including direct Russian military intervention in violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty. In an article in last week’s Russian Pravda, it was noted that if Ukraine was divided, then the status of the Crimean Peninsula – returned to Ukraine in 1954 by Nikita Kruschev, would be open to discussion, and that would include Turkey having a say in the future of Crimea.

Russia gains control over Crimea

The reference to this claim is the “Küçük Kaynarca” (Karlowitz I) signed 230 years ago. As per this agreement, signed by the Russian Tsarina Catherine II on April 19, 1783, the Crimean Peninsula was taken away from the dominion of the Ottomans and handed over to Russia. However, one of the most important provisions of this treaty was the debarment of independence for the Peninsula and outlawing its submission to a third party: Should any such attempt be made, then Crimea would automatically have to be returned to the sovereignty of Turkey.

When Ukraine appeared as an independent nation following the disintegration of the USSR in 1991, Turkey acquired the right to claim the Peninsula back based on the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca; however, this was not brought up by the Turgut Ozal administration of the time. Turkey was content with advocating for the rights of the Tatar minority living on the Crimean Peninsula.

What Turkey needs to do at this point is to make efforts to calm down both parties in order to preserve the unity of Ukraine

Ceylan Ozbudak
That being the case, we may acknowledge that Crimea has always been a particularly indispensable region for Turkey on account of the close relations of the Ottoman State with the Crimean Khanate and the presence of the Crimean Tatars there. In addition, Ukraine is one of the foremost neighbors of Turkey, and in terms of the balance in the Black Sea region, it is important. Just as the name “Crimea” implies the largest Russian naval base at Sevastopol for Russia, the same “Crimea” connotes brotherhood with Turkic Muslims from the Ottoman times. For that reason, both Russia and Turkey have excluded the Autonomous Republic of Crimea from their policies related with Ukraine.

Stalin’s genocide of Crimean Turks

On top of that, for the majority of Turkish people who are well-read in history, the Crimean land has a distinct place when compared with other Turkic Republics, because similar to Hitler’s “holocaust” against the Jews, Stalin carried out atrocities against the Crimean Turks. Stalin’s campaign of forced ethnic cleansing and the relocation of the Crimean Turks is still well-remembered.

The Crimean Tatars and the Noghai were peoples of the Crimean Khanate and amongst the largest groups who emigrated to the Ottoman State and the Republic of Turkey. The settlement of hundreds of thousands of Crimean Tatars and Noghai made dramatic changes in the demography of the Ottoman State and its successor, the Republic of Turkey.

While the Turkish population in Crimea in 1783 was 98 percent, following the Russian invasion this was reduced to 35 percent.
The Crimean People’s Republic, which was founded following the Bolshevik Revolution, was brought to an end with the martyrdom of the president, Numan Celebi Cihan. The “Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic” established in 1921 under the supervision of Moscow did not grant the Crimeans any freedom; the Crimean intellectuals who opposed the propaganda of the Communists against Islam and Turkish identity were deported to Siberia and the Ural mountains (mostly to die in GULAG camps).

The period following WWII was perhaps the most difficult for the Muslim – Turk community in the region. When Crimea was seized by the Russians, the entire Turkish population living in those lands for the last 1,500 years was promptly exiled. By means of a decree issued in 1945 by the Soviet government, the “Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic” was abolished. The Crimean land attained the status of a state which belonged first to Russia, and then under the Kruschev government was transferred to Ukraine.

While a struggle for independence was going on for the Crimean Turks who had been ruthlessly deported from their nation, the homeless Russian population was made to settle in the very same land. The nearly 40 years of exile of the Crimean Turks was partly ended in 1987 when their rally for independence in Red Square turned into a major display of political power. The Soviet regime, unable to resist, subsequently allowed the Crimeans to return to their homeland. While about 20,000 Turks were living in Crimea in 1989, this figure increased to 150,000 by 1991. Today, their population is estimated to be around 300,000 and growing.

Today, the part of Crimea that strives for closer relations with Russia - and even aspires to annexing itself to Russia once full independence is achieved - is comprised of the ethnic Russians who settled in the Crimea post-World War II.

What should Turkey do?

Obviously what Turkey needs to do at this point is to make efforts to calm down both parties in order to preserve the unity of Ukraine and help them find a solution to their disagreements. Despite the obvious advantages for Ukraine in being a part of the European Union, there is no point in being surprised at Russia’s insistence that Ukraine should be part of its Customs Union and planned Eurasian Union.

Under these conditions, what Turkey should do is strive to calm the parties in order to protect the territorial integrity of Ukraine and to help Ukraine remain a state that enjoys fruitful joint relations both with the EU and with Russia by solving their domestic problems through dialogue. It must not be forgotten that Ukraine is very important for Russia in transferring its energy resources to Europe. Turkey and Azerbaijan constitute the basic axis of the South Gas Corridor (SGC). The possibility of Israel getting involved in the energy business and getting connected to the SGC, not to mention Iran’s demand to join this energy axis raises the possibility of Russia cutting off this south passages completely. Let us not also forget that Russia attaches great importance to the Sevastopol naval base and doesn’t want to see it under any strategic threat.

How can Turkey set an example to Ukraine?

Crimea rests at the epicenter of all this and does not have the power to resist, neither economically or sociologically, such strong pressure. Under these conditions Turkey should get involved more deeply and help the region by adopting a policy that embraces all Ukrainians and all the Crimean population.

Just as Turkey has been able to maintain both internal and external balances despite standing in what may well be the biggest intersection in the world, Turkey should lead the way for Ukraine as well. Anatolia sits at the junction of Europe, Asia and Africa, on prolific agricultural lands that are simultaneously poor in energy resources; yet ironically, Turkey is a hub of energy resources, as well as air and sea transportation. Turkey is also a melting pot of various ideologies and hostilities. She is the intersection of the European understanding of modern democracy, the old leftist ideologies of Russia and the Eastern Bloc, Arab nationalism and Islamic denominations. She holds a position that has been able to establish equal relations with Israel and Iran, Russia and the Gulf Countries, and has still been able to peacefully harbor all these factors inside the vastness of the Anatolian Steppes.

When we evaluate all these factors, it would be a grave mistake to expect Turkey to adopt a policy that would harm the territorial integrity of Ukraine by making a claim in Crimea. As I have stated above, Turkey should help create a situation that would preserve Ukraine’s territorial integrity with Crimea, one that would see Ukraine approach the European Union, yet not completely break away from Russia. The situation should also finally help in establishing a solid democracy with the norms of the European Union. We need a new policy approach in Europe with a model which will leave the Twentieth Century’s bi-polar world behind and keep alliances on the back burner. We need neighbors that can act in a more integrated manner by ridding themselves of obsolete worldviews, leftovers from the era of the Cold War. We need mature and wise statesmen who can hold the hands of parties in conflict in order to make them meet in the middle and make peace instead of picking sides or cowering behind barricades at the slightest complication. Turkey has been able to hold on to its moral values and has been able to stand tall and stand strong, even in the perennially restless Middle East, and can thus set an example for Ukraine.

Basically, if Crimea attempts to break away... there is one potential wrinkle in this plan. When Turkey (then the Ottoman Empire) ceded sovereignty of the Crimean peninsula to Russia in the late 18th century, the treaty explicitly stated that Crimea would revert back to Ottoman control if it attempted to become an independent state.

Is this treaty still binding? I can't see Turkey going after this...

**PhantomViper**

Iron_Captain wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:
Lots and lots of nonsense

Could you, pretty please, stop posting nonsense in this thread? Pretty please? I would actually like to follow these news without being constantly bombarded by your Russian propaganda and blatant ignorance of world affairs...
Than maybe you should not read it, if you can't handle divergent opinions. I do not post propaganda, I give my opininion on the situation in Ukraine and react to (sometimes nonsensical) posts by other people here.
Alternatively, you may consider actually posting something useful and contributing to the discussion.

What discussion? You are not having a discussion, you are engaging in the international version of "my daddy can beat your daddy".

And you don't post propaganda yet you are equating the UN involvement in Korea with the Soviet invasion of Hungary? You are comparing the UN intervention in the former Yugoslavia with Czechoslovakia? And pretty much every other example you gave of American "invasions" with the sole exception of Iraq is also garbage.

Stop doing it or go play with the other kids and let the grown ups talk.

**Frazzled**

Iron_Captain wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Soviet troops invaded Hungary in the 50s
Soviet troops invaded Czechloslavakia in the 60s
Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan in the 70s
Chenya was conquered by the Czars, then freed then reconquered.
Russians invaded Georgia in 2008
Russians invaded Crimea in 2014.

So what is the purpose of this? Shall we also list all the places the US has invaded (not counting the World Wars)?
That list is a lot longer than the Russian one, and most of those invasions are of highly dubious legality. Can you imagine that the US sounds very hypocritical when accusing others of unlawfully invading and bullying smaller nations around?
Also, Soviet Union ≠ Russian Federation.

False comparison. If all your friends jumped off a cliff would you? Russia developed its empire from conquering other countries. Just because there have been other empires doesn't make them any better. Thats like saying, just because Russia conquered the Baltic states Nazi Germany was ok dokey.
I agree with you here, but the list you posted also has little relevance here. The only previous conflict Russia was involved in which may be relevant is the one in Georgia, which had some similiar circumstances.

Thats cute.
Russia conquered the territories now comprising Chechnya, and these states:
Ukrainian SSR
Belorussian SSR
Uzbek SSR
Kazakh SSR
Georgian SSR
Azerbaijan SSR
Lithuanian SSR
Moldavian SSR
Latvian SSR
Kirghiz SSR
Tajik SSR
Armenian SSR
Turkmen SSR
Estonian SSR

Automatically Appended Next Post:
To be fair: tribes or nations defeated by the US to get its territory (off top of my head only):

nations of the Iroquois
Huron
Comanche
Cherokee
Lokotah
Dakotah
Apache
Pawnee
Arapaho
Hawaiians
Hopi
Kiowa
Tankawa
Mexico
Seminoles
Spain

**PhantomViper**

whembly wrote:
Basically, if Crimea attempts to break away... there is one potential wrinkle in this plan. When Turkey (then the Ottoman Empire) ceded sovereignty of the Crimean peninsula to Russia in the late 18th century, the treaty explicitly stated that Crimea would revert back to Ottoman control if it attempted to become an independent state.

Is this treaty still binding? I can't see Turkey going after this...

I very much doubt that a treaty made between the Russian Czars and the Ottoman Empire is binding since neither of those nations exist in the modern world. Otherwise, give us back our half of the planet, biatches!

But that article compounds on what a lot of people are saying in this thread, the Russian ex-pats that live in Crimea have exactly 0 rights to demand a Russian annexation of their territory when it comes at the expense of the native Tartar population wishes. Population that is only a minority in the region due to Soviet measures that can be compared to genocide...

**Grey Knight Luke**

Frazzled wrote:
[quote=Frazzled 575622 6621724
Automatically Appended Next Post:
To be fair: tribes or nations defeated by the US to get its territory (off top of my head only):

nations of the Iroquois
Huron
Comanche
Cherokee
Lokotah
Dakotah
Apache
Pawnee
Arapaho
Hawaiians
Hopi
Kiowa
Tankawa
Mexico
Seminoles
Spain

Didn't we invade Cuba? Japan? Korea? Maybe it wasn't specifically for land, but we definitely got it in return

**whembly**

PhantomViper wrote:
whembly wrote:
Basically, if Crimea attempts to break away... there is one potential wrinkle in this plan. When Turkey (then the Ottoman Empire) ceded sovereignty of the Crimean peninsula to Russia in the late 18th century, the treaty explicitly stated that Crimea would revert back to Ottoman control if it attempted to become an independent state.

Is this treaty still binding? I can't see Turkey going after this...

I very much doubt that a treaty made between the Russian Czars and the Ottoman Empire is binding since neither of those nations exist in the modern world. Otherwise, give us back our half of the planet, biatches!

:thumbs nose: come and take it yo!

But that article compounds on what a lot of people are saying in this thread, the Russian ex-pats that live in Crimea have exactly 0 rights to demand a Russian annexation of their territory when it comes at the expense of the native Tartar population wishes. Population that is only a minority in the region due to Soviet measures that can be compared to genocide...

That's what I figured... I just didn't think Turkey had any "modern" interest in the region.

**Iron_Captain**

PhantomViper wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:
Lots and lots of nonsense

Could you, pretty please, stop posting nonsense in this thread? Pretty please? I would actually like to follow these news without being constantly bombarded by your Russian propaganda and blatant ignorance of world affairs...
Than maybe you should not read it, if you can't handle divergent opinions. I do not post propaganda, I give my opininion on the situation in Ukraine and react to (sometimes nonsensical) posts by other people here.
Alternatively, you may consider actually posting something useful and contributing to the discussion.

What discussion? You are not having a discussion, you are engaging in the international version of "my daddy can beat your daddy".

And you don't post propaganda yet you are equating the UN involvement in Korea with the Soviet invasion of Hungary? You are comparing the UN intervention in the former Yugoslavia with Czechoslovakia? And pretty much every other example you gave of American "invasions" with the sole exception of Iraq is also garbage.

Stop doing it or go play with the other kids and let the grown ups talk.

I didn't equate the UN involvement in Korea with the Soviet invasion of Hungary. You are twisting my words.
I posted a list of US invasions without regard to legality or any other involved parties.
It is undeniable that the US indeed did invade Korea. Now instead of posting US propaganda and engaging in age-based discrimination, you could actually adress some of the points people made earlier in this thread.

Frazzled wrote:
Thats cute.
Russia conquered the territories now comprising Chechnya, and these states:
list of Soviet Republics
Automatically Appended Next Post:
To be fair: tribes or nations defeated by the US to get its territory (off top of my head only):
List of native American tribes and Spain

I still don't get the point of it. Russia did not become the largest country in the world by being peaceful. Russia started out as a single city on the shores of Lake Ilmen, everything else is conquered. That is the way nations grow, and it is the same for the US. I still fail to see how this list of past invasions has any relevance to the present situation in Ukraine.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:
But that article compounds on what a lot of people are saying in this thread, the Russian ex-pats that live in Crimea have exactly 0 rights to demand a Russian annexation of their territory when it comes at the expense of the native Tartar population wishes. Population that is only a minority in the region due to Soviet measures that can be compared to genocide...

Land belongs to the people who live there in the present, not to the people who lived there in the past.
Otherwise Turkey should return all its land to Greece, because the Greeks are the 'native population' in Anatolia that was ethnically cleansed by the Turks.

**Allod**

whembly wrote:
Turkey caught in the Russia-Crimea snowstorm

What a giant load of...

*looks at source*

Ohhh, I see.

Seriously though: Right of self-determination trumps treaties, at least in theory. And I'd rather not have Erdogan involved if it can be helped at all - the guy is just as bad as Putin.

**Frazzled**

Grey Knight Luke wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
[quote=Frazzled 575622 6621724
Automatically Appended Next Post:
To be fair: tribes or nations defeated by the US to get its territory (off top of my head only):

nations of the Iroquois
Huron
Comanche
Cherokee
Lokotah
Dakotah
Apache
Pawnee
Arapaho
Hawaiians
Hopi
Kiowa
Tankawa
Mexico
Seminoles
Spain

Didn't we invade Cuba? Japan? Korea? Maybe it wasn't specifically for land, but we definitely got it in return

Cuba. We invaded the Spanish posession of Cuba. Then we freed Cuba.
Japan. We didn't have to invade Japan, thank God. We didn't keep Japan.
Korea. We invaded North Korea as a flanking operation on their army which had invaded South Korea. We didn't keep either Korea.

**whembly**

Allod wrote:
whembly wrote:
Turkey caught in the Russia-Crimea snowstorm

What a giant load of...

*looks at source*

Ohhh, I see.

Yup.

Even the article expressed doubt.

Just thought it was interesting.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
Russia is an empire.

No it isn't. The Soviet Union was an empire, but Russia is no more an empire than the US is.

**easysauce**

On the RT reporter quitting

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Russia is an empire.

No it isn't. The Soviet Union was an empire, but Russia is no more an empire than the US is.

Er it is. With the exception of the Muscovy region, its all conquered territory.

**PhantomViper**

Frazzled wrote:
dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Russia is an empire.

No it isn't. The Soviet Union was an empire, but Russia is no more an empire than the US is.

Er it is. With the exception of the Muscovy region, its all conquered territory.

If you go by that logic then so is the US... except it would be the British Empire since they that started the whole "conquering North America" business...

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
Soviet troops invaded Hungary in the 50s

That was in the 40's, a result of WWII.

Frazzled wrote:

Soviet troops invaded Czechloslavakia in the 60s

Also in the 40's. Also a result of WWII.

If your point is that the Soviet Union built its empire by conquest, then the obvious reply is "no gak" because all empires are, ultimately, built by conquest. Russia, however, is not an empire and is not empire building.

PhantomViper wrote:

If you go by that logic then so is the US... except it would be the British Empire since they that started the whole "conquering North America" business...

It would be the British Empire, and then the American Empire.

**Frazzled**

PhantomViper wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Russia is an empire.

No it isn't. The Soviet Union was an empire, but Russia is no more an empire than the US is.

Er it is. With the exception of the Muscovy region, its all conquered territory.

If you go by that logic then so is the US... except it would be the British Empire since they that started the whole "conquering North America" business...

Ok, we are in agreement. I'm not going to wordsmith as it doesn't mean gak to the people we wacked to get the land from.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Soviet troops invaded Hungary in the 50s

That was in the 40's, a result of WWII.

Frazzled wrote:

Soviet troops invaded Czechloslavakia in the 60s

Also in the 40's. Also a result of WWII.

Check your facts again. Both countries had Soviet troops enter and put down democratic efforts POST WWII.

If your point is that the Soviet Union built its empire by conquest, then the obvious reply is "no gak" because all empires are, ultimately, built by conquest. Russia, however, is not an empire and is not empire building.

Its an empire. You saying its not doesn't mean gak to the people they killed to get the land. There's never been anything peacable about Russia since they threw off the yoke of the Golden Horde.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:

Check your facts again. Both countries had Soviet troops enter and put down democratic efforts POST WWII.

In both cases Soviet troops entered during, or immediately after WWII.

Frazzled wrote:

Its an empire. You saying its not doesn't mean gak to the people they killed to get the land. There's never been anything peacable about Russia since they threw off the yoke of the Golden Horde.

So, you agree that the USA is also an empire? And Texas as well?

**whembly**

Why is being an "empire" a bad thing?

**Easy E**

In the 50"s and 60"s Hungary and Czechoslovakia (sp) were seperate coutnries int eh Eastern Bloc in the Soviets sphere of inlouence. When things got a bit too radical and the Hungarian and Czechoslovakian version of Socialism was not approved by the Soveit Union, they rolle din the tanks.

It was an invasion since both countries were technically seperate political entities from the USSR.

**Seaward**

dogma wrote:
In both cases Soviet troops entered during, or immediately after WWII.

Uh, no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czechoslovakia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956

**Frazzled**

whembly wrote:
Why is being an "empire" a bad thing?

Didn't say it was (ok giving up most of the world after WWII was a mistake I'll grant you), just throwing water on the strange argument that Russia is some sort of peacenik nation historically. You don't get that big by being peaceful.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Easy E wrote:
In the 50"s and 60"s Hungary and Czechoslovakia (sp) were seperate coutnries int eh Eastern Bloc in the Soviets sphere of inlouence. When things got a bit too radical and the Hungarian and Czechoslovakian version of Socialism was not approved by the Soveit Union, they rolle din the tanks.

It was an invasion since both countries were technically seperate political entities from the USSR.

Exactly. Really cool black and white film of Hungarians throwing molotov cocktails onto Soviet tanks from three or four stories up.

**dogma**

Easy E wrote:

It was an invasion since both countries were technically seperate political entities from the USSR.

In both cases there was a preexisting, Soviet military presence. Is it an invasion when soldiers from another state are already in your territory?

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Easy E wrote:

It was an invasion since both countries were technically seperate political entities from the USSR.

In both cases there was a preexisting, Soviet military presence. Is it an invasion when soldiers from another state are already in your territory?

When your tanks are trying to crush their government you betcha.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:

When your tanks are trying to crush their government you betcha.

That doesn't make it an invasion. At worst tank crushing (assuming it actually happened) renders the military in question oppressive in the same way any use of force would.

**Seaward**

dogma wrote:
That doesn't make it an invasion. At worst tank crushing renders the military in question oppressive in the same way any use of force would.

History agrees they were both invasions.

History also agrees they did not occur in the '40s.

Are you just trying to save face here or something?

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

When your tanks are trying to crush their government you betcha.

That doesn't make it an invasion. At worst tank crushing renders the military in question oppressive in the same way any use of force would.

Don't be daft boy and play your mindless word games somewhere else.

Foreign country. Foreign troops. Taking out your government. Killing your people.

Soviets invaded and put down governments of a bent they didn't like in Hungary, Czechloslovakia, and Afghanistan.

**dogma**

Seaward wrote:

History agrees they were both invasions.

By "history" you mean "lot's of people".

I do not agree that they were invasions. I'm not sure what they were.

**Seaward**

dogma wrote:
Seaward wrote:

History agrees they were both invasions.

By "history" you mean "lot's of people".

I do not agree that they were invasions. I'm not sure what they were.

Or when, it seems.

Anyway, I suppose we'll just have the conversation around you.

**Frazzled**

We'll just have to risk it.
"Back at the Hall of Justice, Aquaman makes sandwiches."