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.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Crimeans were not calling for annexation by Russia. Russia citizens who moved to Crimea during the Soviet Union were calling for it. Try again 15 year old.

It's that supposed to be an argument? They have been living there for the last 70+ years, they are Crimean.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Homosexuals enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals. This so-called 'anti-gay law' only banned public advertising of homosexuality to kids.

You believe it is possible for gay people to enjoy rights equal to heterosexuals in a country which is so homophobic that its government not only believes there is a such thing as "gay propaganda" but also that gay people are directing "gay propaganda" at children and that it is so harmful that it must be illegalized. I don't think you have really thought this through.

 Manchu wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Homosexuals enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals. This so-called 'anti-gay law' only banned public advertising of homosexuality to kids.

You believe it is possible for gay people to enjoy rights equal to heterosexuals in a country which is so homophobic that its government not only believes there is a such thing as "gay propaganda" but also that gay people are directing "gay propaganda" at children and that it is so harmful that it must be illegalized. I don't think you have really thought this through.

In paper yes. In practice no, although the problem is less the government and more the quite large homophobic population.

 Tyran wrote:
They have been living there for the last 70+ years, they are Crimean.

I don't think "Crimean" is an ethnicity, unless you mean Tartars. "Russian" and "Ukranian" are, however. And ethnic Russians have lived there for much longer than 70 years. But it hardly matters. The referendum was bald-faced fraud.

 Tyran wrote:
the problem is less the government and more the quite large homophobic population.

As an American, you can't fool me like that -- I understand how government institutions collude with prejudice to perpetuate it. We actually think and talk about this quite a lot in the US, around the issue of civil rights and racism.

 Manchu wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
They have been living there for the last 70+ years, they are Crimean.

I don't think "Crimean" is an ethnicity, unless you mean Tartars. "Russian" and "Ukranian" are, however. And ethnic Russians have lived there for much longer than 70 years. But it hardly matters. The referendum was bald-faced fraud.

Everyone that has gone to Crimea or has contact with their residents knows that Crimea always was and is very pro-Russia.

The fact that the West has imposed sanctions on Crimea shows that even they know that Crimea willingly joined Russia, otherwise they would be massive douches by sanctioning victims.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
the problem is less the government and more the quite large homophobic population.

As an American, you can't fool me like that -- I understand how government institutions collude with prejudice to perpetuate it. We actually think and talk about this quite a lot in the US, around the issue of civil rights and racism.

The thing is the sheer size of the group, 85% of Russians oppose same sex marriage. As a culture they don't like homosexuals and that is going to be reflected on the government, which is part of the same culture.

 Tyran wrote:
the West has imposed sanctions on Crimea

Could you explain in detail what you mean? A sanction is leveled by a government against natural and legal persons (e.g., states). As far as the West is concerned, Crimea is a region. EDIT: I think I see what you mean, blocking investment in and trade through Crimea. This would I think technically be a sanction against Russia (which in reality controls the region).

 Tyran wrote:
they would be massive douches by sanctioning victims

This requires more focus. Sanctions impact people administrated by a sanctioned government, so in that sense they are "victims" of sanctioning -- but of course the actual issue is that the state is being sanctioned rather than the people. There is another piece of propaganda floating around in certain leftist circles here in the US that we should not levy sanctions, for example against Iran, because it hurts Iranians. But this is a nonsense argument: the point is to contain the sanctioned nation including by undermining its credibility and effectiveness in the eyes of the people over whom it claims authority. To wit, it is supposed to hurt the people. The deeper issue is whether nations should inflict punishments on one another as a matter of diplomacy. But that is line of thought is more than a little precious in a thread about Russia invading the Ukraine and seizing its territory in response to a Ukranian revolution sympathetic to the West.

 Tyran wrote:
The thing is the sheer size of the group, 85% of Russians oppose same sex marriage. As a culture they don't like homosexuals and that is going to be reflected on the government, which is part of the same culture.

Sure, in this country, the government was almost entirely white at a time when white people generally assumed black people were inferior. So we had a racist government and we had racist laws. And even then, people claimed that black people had the same rights and white people, which was just as false as somebody claiming gay people have the same rights as straight people in Russia today.

 Manchu wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
the West has imposed sanctions on Crimea

Could you explain in detail what you mean? A sanction is leveled by a government against natural and legal persons (e.g., states). As far as the West is concerned, Crimea is a region. EDIT: I think I see what you mean, blocking investment in and trade through Crimea. This would I think technically be a sanction against Russia (which in reality controls the region).

 Tyran wrote:
they would be massive douches by sanctioning victims

This requires more focus. Sanctions impact people administrated by a sanctioned government, so in that sense they are "victims" of sanctioning -- but of course the actual issue is that the state is being sanctioned rather than the people. There is another piece of propaganda floating around in certain leftist circles here in the US that we should not levy sanctions, for example against Iran, because it hurts Iranians. But this is a nonsense argument: the point is to contain the sanctioned nation including by undermining its credibility and effectiveness in the eyes of the people over whom it claims authority. To wit, it is supposed to hurt the people. The deeper issue is whether nations should inflict punishments on one another as a matter of diplomacy. But that is line of thought is more than a little precious in a thread about Russia invading the Ukraine and seizing its territory in response to a Ukranian revolution sympathetic to the West.

 Tyran wrote:
The thing is the sheer size of the group, 85% of Russians oppose same sex marriage. As a culture they don't like homosexuals and that is going to be reflected on the government, which is part of the same culture.

Sure, in this country, the government was almost entirely white at a time when white people generally assumed black people were inferior. So we had a racist government and we had racist laws. And even then, people claimed that black people had the same rights and white people, which was just as false as somebody claiming gay people have the same rights as straight people in Russia today.

But then simply sanction Russia, no need to sanction Crimea.

When most of the population isn't pro-gay (at best), then most of the people in the government aren't going to be pro-gay (at best). Yes it doesn't excuse the government, but fixing the government is kinda impossible if you don't fix the society first, which is a low and tedious process.

 Tyran wrote:
But then simply sanction Russia, no need to sanction Crimea.

Crimea is a region. It cannot be the subject of a sanction. The government of Russia is being sanctioned for illegally invading and seizing Crimea. The substance of the sanction is preventing US companies from doing business in the region, which would by default be under Russian auspices and therefore be tantamount to the US ignoring Russia's aggression.

 Manchu wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
But then simply sanction Russia, no need to sanction Crimea.

Crimea is a region. It cannot be the subject of a sanction. The government of Russia is being sanctioned for illegally invading and seizing Crimea. The substance of the sanction is preventing US companies from doing business in the region, which would by default be under Russian auspices and therefore be tantamount to the US ignoring Russia's aggression.

Ok, I understand your point.

So because Russians were sent into Crimea about 70 years ago by the Soviets they are Crimean and deserve to be treated that way? does that mean that Israeli's have the same rights? I mean they've been their for thousands of years and a lot more came back to Israel back in the 40s so ???

 Ghazkuul wrote:
So because Russians were sent into Crimea about 70 years ago by the Soviets they are Crimean and deserve to be treated that way? does that mean that Israeli's have the same rights? I mean they've been their for thousands of years and a lot more came back to Israel back in the 40s so ???

To be fair, while there are parallels, there are also some major differences between these two situations.

Russia, in it's various forms (be it Imperial Russia, the USSR, etc), has also shed a whole lot of blood over Crimea, between the 1850's and 1940's, the peninsula, and the city of Sevastopol in particular, has a somewhat intensely nationalistic symbolism, much the way say, Pearl Harbor or the Alamo do. The Alamo is actually possibly a great parallel, an outpost of a nascent Imperialist power (in a land not indigenous to said power) in the mid 19th century, bravely holding but ultimately falling to foreign foes and serving as something of a lightning rod around which nationalistic ideals formed (only Sevastopol did it again in the 1940's).

 Ghazkuul wrote:
So because Russians were sent into Crimea about 70 years ago by the Soviets they are Crimean and deserve to be treated that way? does that mean that Israeli's have the same rights? I mean they've been their for thousands of years and a lot more came back to Israel back in the 40s so ???

Are you arguing that Israel shouldn't exist? That argument may had validity 70 years ago but not now.

Putin said, Crimea question is closed. So, all your arguings are useless

 Freakazoitt wrote:
Putin said, Crimea question is closed. So, all your arguings are useless

All your peninsula are belong to us.

Sincerely, Putin.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
Putin said, Crimea question is closed. So, all your arguings are useless

I don't think anybody thought an internet discussion thread on a toy soldiers forum was ever going to change anything...


Now, Putin can say whatever he wants, what really makes the discussion closed is that nobody cares to go to war over it. Nobody ever expects Crimea to go back to Ukraine, however, the violation of the Budapest memorandum by the Russian Federation in regards to the territorial sovereignty of Ukraine has put brakes on the dismantling of European armies that had been going on for 20 years, while the decline in oil & gas revenues and cost of absorption of Crimea have been rather painful for the Russian economy.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Crimeans were not calling for annexation by Russia. Russia citizens who moved to Crimea during the Soviet Union were calling for it. Try again 15 year old.

Ah well, it is shown once more that you can't expect most Americans to know anything about history outside of the US of A, so allow me to give you a short lesson:
Crimea, once a Byzantine colony, was conquered by the Russians in the 10th century. In the ancient Greek city of Khersones (the ruins of which are right in the middle of Sevastopol), Vladimir the Great, ruler of Rus' then converted himself and his people to Christianity (which is one of the reasons Sevastopol is such a significant city to Russians). Russian rule over Crimea lasted for 3 centuries (note: that is longer than the entire existence of the US), until ancient Rus' was destroyed in the Mongol invasions of the 13th century. Crimea was conquered by the Mongols and was settled by several Turkic vassal peoples of the Mongols, who would later become the Tatars. The Russian inhabitants were enslaved. After the Mongols were defeated and driven from Russian in the 14th century, the Tatars formed an independent kingdom named the Crimean Khanate. The Tatars were slave traders, and led many raids into Ukraine and southern Russia. The Muscovite Tsardom and the Cossacks waged almost constant war against the Tatars, until 1783 they were conquered by Catherine the Great. The ancient city of Khersones, which had been destroyed by the Mongols, was rebuilt as Sevastopol and settled by Russians (as were most Crimean cities during the Russian empire). During WW2, most Tatars sided with the Nazis, for which Stalin had them deported to Kazakhstan (this shifted the ethnic balance from being about 50% Russian and 50% Tatar to almost exclusively Russian). Crimea remained a part of Russia until it was given to Ukraine in 1954 as a gift by the Soviet leader, Krushchev. (Since both countries were part of the Soviet Union, this did not really made make of a difference at the time.). During this period, many Ukrainians settled in Crimea also. In 1991, Ukraine became independent, which greatly upset most ethnic Russian Crimeans, who have never quite accepted this. (several polls conducted show that a majority of Crimeans considered Crimea to be Russian territory even before the crisis.) They attempted to gain independence or join Russia several times (which was usually solved by the Ukrainian government by giving Crimea more autonomy) before finally being succesful in 2014, with Russian aid.

As you can see, Russia has a history in Crimea that goes back long before the Soviet Union. There was very little settlement of Russians in Crimea in the Soviet period (most immigrants in that period were Ukrainian, and most immigrants in the post-Soviet period were Tatars) Most ethnic Russians in Crimea are descended from people who moved there after Crimea became part of the Russian Empire. Of all ethnic groups in Crimea, the Russians are the oldest. Russians lived in Crimea before Tatars or Ukrainians even existed as a people.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Crimeans were not calling for annexation by Russia. Russia citizens who moved to Crimea during the Soviet Union were calling for it. Try again 15 year old.

Ah well, it is shown once more that you can't expect most Americans to know anything about history outside of the US of A, so allow me to give you a short lesson:
Crimea, once a Byzantine colony, was conquered by the Russians in the 10th century. In the ancient Greek city of Khersones (the ruins of which are right in the middle of Sevastopol), Vladimir the Great, ruler of Rus' then converted himself and his people to Christianity (which is one of the reasons Sevastopol is such a significant city to Russians). Russian rule over Crimea lasted for 3 centuries (note: that is longer than the entire existence of the US), until ancient Rus' was destroyed in the Mongol invasions of the 13th century. Crimea was conquered by the Mongols and was settled by several Turkic vassal peoples of the Mongols, who would later become the Tatars. The Russian inhabitants were enslaved. After the Mongols were defeated and driven from Russian in the 14th century, the Tatars formed an independent kingdom named the Crimean Khanate. The Tatars were slave traders, and led many raids into Ukraine and southern Russia. The Muscovite Tsardom and the Cossacks waged almost constant war against the Tatars, until 1783 they were conquered by Catherine the Great. The ancient city of Khersones, which had been destroyed by the Mongols, was rebuilt as Sevastopol and settled by Russians (as were most Crimean cities during the Russian empire). During WW2, most Tatars sided with the Nazis, for which Stalin had them deported to Kazakhstan (this shifted the ethnic balance from being about 50% Russian and 50% Tatar to almost exclusively Russian). Crimea remained a part of Russia until it was given to Ukraine in 1954 as a gift by the Soviet leader, Krushchev. (Since both countries were part of the Soviet Union, this did not really made make of a difference at the time.). During this period, many Ukrainians settled in Crimea also. In 1991, Ukraine became independent, which greatly upset most ethnic Russian Crimeans, who have never quite accepted this. (several polls conducted show that a majority of Crimeans considered Crimea to be Russian territory even before the crisis.) They attempted to gain independence or join Russia several times (which was usually solved by the Ukrainian government by giving Crimea more autonomy) before finally being succesful in 2014, with Russian aid.

As you can see, Russia has a history in Crimea that goes back long before the Soviet Union. There was very little settlement of Russians in Crimea in the Soviet period (most immigrants in that period were Ukrainian, and most immigrants in the post-Soviet period were Tatars) Most ethnic Russians in Crimea are descended from people who moved there after Crimea became part of the Russian Empire. Of all ethnic groups in Crimea, the Russians are the oldest. Russians lived in Crimea before Tatars or Ukrainians even existed as a people.

So it actually belongs to the Greeks then? If we're playing the "we were there first card". Or the Romans, Goths, Huns and Bulgars. They were all there before anyone vaguely 'Russian' turned up.

Oh and hey let's not forget the part where Crimea was then given to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954, but I guess if they decide to drop communism, and your Union falls apart, that allows you to ignore any of the things that were agreed upon, during that period of time right?

On a completely irrelevant note, finally got past that 500 post mark, it's been a wonderful 5/6 years.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Crimeans were not calling for annexation by Russia. Russia citizens who moved to Crimea during the Soviet Union were calling for it. Try again 15 year old.

Ah well, it is shown once more that you can't expect most Americans to know anything about history outside of the US of A, so allow me to give you a short lesson:
Crimea, once a Byzantine colony, was conquered by the Russians in the 10th century. In the ancient Greek city of Khersones (the ruins of which are right in the middle of Sevastopol), Vladimir the Great, ruler of Rus' then converted himself and his people to Christianity (which is one of the reasons Sevastopol is such a significant city to Russians). Russian rule over Crimea lasted for 3 centuries (note: that is longer than the entire existence of the US), until ancient Rus' was destroyed in the Mongol invasions of the 13th century. Crimea was conquered by the Mongols and was settled by several Turkic vassal peoples of the Mongols, who would later become the Tatars. The Russian inhabitants were enslaved. After the Mongols were defeated and driven from Russian in the 14th century, the Tatars formed an independent kingdom named the Crimean Khanate. The Tatars were slave traders, and led many raids into Ukraine and southern Russia. The Muscovite Tsardom and the Cossacks waged almost constant war against the Tatars, until 1783 they were conquered by Catherine the Great. The ancient city of Khersones, which had been destroyed by the Mongols, was rebuilt as Sevastopol and settled by Russians (as were most Crimean cities during the Russian empire). During WW2, most Tatars sided with the Nazis, for which Stalin had them deported to Kazakhstan (this shifted the ethnic balance from being about 50% Russian and 50% Tatar to almost exclusively Russian). Crimea remained a part of Russia until it was given to Ukraine in 1954 as a gift by the Soviet leader, Krushchev. (Since both countries were part of the Soviet Union, this did not really made make of a difference at the time.). During this period, many Ukrainians settled in Crimea also. In 1991, Ukraine became independent, which greatly upset most ethnic Russian Crimeans, who have never quite accepted this. (several polls conducted show that a majority of Crimeans considered Crimea to be Russian territory even before the crisis.) They attempted to gain independence or join Russia several times (which was usually solved by the Ukrainian government by giving Crimea more autonomy) before finally being succesful in 2014, with Russian aid.

As you can see, Russia has a history in Crimea that goes back long before the Soviet Union. There was very little settlement of Russians in Crimea in the Soviet period (most immigrants in that period were Ukrainian, and most immigrants in the post-Soviet period were Tatars) Most ethnic Russians in Crimea are descended from people who moved there after Crimea became part of the Russian Empire. Of all ethnic groups in Crimea, the Russians are the oldest. Russians lived in Crimea before Tatars or Ukrainians even existed as a people.

So it actually belongs to the Greeks then? If we're playing the "we were there first card". Or the Romans, Goths, Huns and Bulgars. They were all there before anyone vaguely 'Russian' turned up.

Oh and hey let's not forget the part where Crimea was then given to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954, but I guess if they decide to drop communism, and your Union falls apart, that allows you to ignore any of the things that were agreed upon, during that period of time right?

On a completely irrelevant note, finally got past that 500 post mark, it's been a wonderful 5/6 years.

If Greeks, Romans, Goths, Huns or Bulgars still lived in Crimea, that might have been a valid argument.
And while legally, the Russian re-annexation of Crimea is of course illegal since Crimea was legally made part of Ukraine by the 1954 administrative action of the Supreme Soviet and subsequently by the 1992 Crimean constitution (which was forced on the Republic of Crimea by Ukraine), I say that morally, the will of the Crimean people triumphs over the decisions of a dictatorial regime and a constitution agreed upon under threat. (also, the whole principle of annexation and military force tends to kinda trump any laws)
If the legal position should prevail over the will of the people, then the US (and the Netherlands and many other places) would have no right to exist.

Could you please explain to me how a democratically elected president who hadn't been in office more then a handful of months was a dictatorial regime?

I'm thinking that smacks of BS.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Could you please explain to me how a democratically elected president who hadn't been in office more then a handful of months was a dictatorial regime?

I'm thinking that smacks of BS.

The Soviet Union did not have a democratically elected president. The interim-government that got Ukraine into this current mess also was not democratically elected, but that is a different matter. Poroshenko was democratically elected, except by the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts where the vast majority of people was unable to vote due to the war.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

If Greeks, Romans, Goths, Huns or Bulgars still lived in Crimea, that might have been a valid argument.
And while legally, the Russian re-annexation of Crimea is of course illegal since Crimea was legally made part of Ukraine by the 1954 administrative action of the Supreme Soviet and subsequently by the 1992 Crimean constitution (which was forced on the Republic of Crimea by Ukraine), I say that morally, the will of the Crimean people triumphs over the decisions of a dictatorial regime and a constitution agreed upon under threat. (also, the whole principle of annexation and military force tends to kinda trump any laws)
If the legal position should prevail over the will of the people, then the US (and the Netherlands and many other places) would have no right to exist.

So how did the satellite state, threaten the USSR into giving it Crimea? Or did the elected governments in Ukraine from 1991 onwards, threaten Russia into letting them keep it? Or did the peoples of Crimea not want to leave the USSR when it was handed over, and if they did, why did they wait until the vaguely 'anti' Russian government get elected to decide they needed to be up in arms and 'cede' from Ukrainian control.

Secondly, your basically saying that it's okay as long as you win your annexation fights, to take land nowadays? So if I decided to annex Yorkshire for the greater glory of Scotland, that's fine as long as I have the military force to do so, and there's nothing anyone can do legally to stop me, as military force trumps law?

Finally, of course 'we were there first/ we have people of X descent living there' isn't a valid argument. Otherwise Ireland would own large chunks of the world due to the (probably incorrect) assumption that there are more people of known Irish descent living outside of Ireland than in it. Which leads me back to, does Ireland (if it had the military force to do so) get to annex these areas?

The spelling and grammar

I can't speak for the whole world but I can tell you that the USA has about 35 Million people who claim at least partial Irish heritage, which is something like 7 times the population of Ireland. So technically Ireland should invade here first

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I can't speak for the whole world but I can tell you that the USA has about 35 Million people who claim at least partial Irish heritage, which is something like 7 times the population of Ireland. So technically Ireland should invade here first

It could try


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

If Greeks, Romans, Goths, Huns or Bulgars still lived in Crimea, that might have been a valid argument.
And while legally, the Russian re-annexation of Crimea is of course illegal since Crimea was legally made part of Ukraine by the 1954 administrative action of the Supreme Soviet and subsequently by the 1992 Crimean constitution (which was forced on the Republic of Crimea by Ukraine), I say that morally, the will of the Crimean people triumphs over the decisions of a dictatorial regime and a constitution agreed upon under threat. (also, the whole principle of annexation and military force tends to kinda trump any laws)
If the legal position should prevail over the will of the people, then the US (and the Netherlands and many other places) would have no right to exist.

So how did the satellite state, threaten the USSR into giving it Crimea? Or did the elected governments in Ukraine from 1991 onwards, threaten Russia into letting them keep it? Or did the peoples of Crimea not want to leave the USSR when it was handed over, and if they did, why did they wait until the vaguely 'anti' Russian government get elected to decide they needed to be up in arms and 'cede' from Ukrainian control.

Secondly, your basically saying that it's okay as long as you win your annexation fights, to take land nowadays? So if I decided to annex Yorkshire for the greater glory of Scotland, that's fine as long as I have the military force to do so, and there's nothing anyone can do legally to stop me, as military force trumps law?

Finally, of course 'we were there first/ we have people of X descent living there' isn't a valid argument. Otherwise Ireland would own large chunks of the world due to the (probably incorrect) assumption that there are more people of known Irish descent living outside of Ireland than in it. Which leads me back to, does Ireland (if it had the military force to do so) get to annex these areas?

The spelling and grammar

Russia didn't care about annexing Crimea until this whole mess because the previous Ukrainian government was fine with Russia having it's military base there.

And sadly force does trump laws because there isn't an organisation capable of enforcing them, the UN was an attempt to that but it has been practically useless.

NOTE: While it might be difficult, please do not generalize and insult groups based on the actions of an individual.

Thanks!

That's what happens when you give countries ultimate veto power.

http://www.rt.com/news/313416-flying-axe-putin-russia/


there's probably a pun along the lines of " a cut above" or something here.

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.rt.com/news/313416-flying-axe-putin-russia/


there's probably a pun along the lines of " a cut above" or something here.

It will be an excellent weapon for the Spetsnaz:

Now that our axes are of larger and flyings further, the fashist-liberast terrorist will fear us even more!

3000 Ukrainians gathered at parlament. One "Svoboda" or "Ukrops" radical throwed grenade at guards, 15 injured.



No idea what they want again.

IMO thats no less than a terrorist attack.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
3000 Ukrainians gathered at parlament. One "Svoboda" or "Ukrops" radical throwed grenade at guards, 15 injured.



No idea what they want again.

Probably the same things they always want.
The parliament voted about decentralisation of regions. The banderites seem not to want that for some reason. These people just have no place in a democracy.