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.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Tyran wrote:
It would be less a problem with Russia and more with the Western powers. I imagine that they wouldn't like us going in a vacation to a place under sanctions.

Honestly, as a Swede I wouldn't want to be anywhere in Russia right now.

**Wyrmalla**

Tyran wrote:
It would be less a problem with Russia and more with the Western powers. I imagine that they wouldn't like us going in a vacation to a place under sanctions.

I'd hazard not many people are doing border checks in Ukraine these days... If you're caught, and the guards actually care, you either bribe them (as per the Russian standard) or are thrown in a ditch.

The Russians have just dumped their back o' beyond battalions in the area now anyway (I laughed at the TV when I saw them invading Ukraine with BMP-1s and Chechen era armour).

**Tyran**

Well, after a quick investigation there are two ways to get into Crimea. One is through Ukraine, but you will need a special permission.

The other one is through Russia, but that will end with Ukraine considering you an enemy of the state or something.

**Iron_Captain**

Wyrmalla wrote:
Re: Sevastopol

In May 1997, Russia and Ukraine signed the Peace and Friendship Treaty, ruling out Moscow's territorial claims to Ukraine.[18] A separate agreement established the terms of a long-term lease of land, facilities, and resources in Sevastopol and the Crimea by Russia

Transferred to Ukrainian ownership along with the rest of the region. On a state of lease to Russia, which was renewed and extended as per a number of agreements. So realistically if you were to go there you'd think it was Russian, but rather its like saying someone renting out an office block who paints the walls and puts their logo on the front owns the land the building's on.

Crimea is not Ukraine. It was ruled over by Ukraine, but that does not mean it was a part of Ukraine.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vaktathi wrote:

And with little green men walking about with loaded AK-74's and track-suited local enforcers everywhere...and Russian military border controls in place, I don't think any of us will be going there (or would be easily allowed in) any time soon...

No problem. I will get someone to invite you over, so visa won't be a problem. Then you can just get a flight to Moscow and from there to Crimea. The little green men and local militias are long gone, either back home or to Donbass.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How is the implication that I would get assaulted for pointing out that Sevastopol de jure was Ukrainian territory before the annexation to Russia's advantage? That'd seem to imply that Russians are violent thugs; are you a Russophobe?

Well, if you put it in perspective like that, people might just give you an angry glare and go on. But if you say something like "Sevastopol is Ukraine" then you are bound to greatly upset a lot of people. Russians are not violent, but they are a very passionate and emotional people. And Sevastopol is one of the most nationalistic places in Russia.

**Wyrmalla**

Here, let me Google that for you...

"Decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea Province from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR.

Taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic and cultural ties between the Crimea Province and the Ukrainian SSR, the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet decrees:

To approve the joint presentation of the Presidium of the Russian SFSR Supreme Soviet and the Presidium of the Ukrainian SSR Supreme Soviet on the transfer of the Crimea Province from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR."

They actually had to change the law to give Crimea to Ukraine. Youknow, because the Soviet government thought the whole thing was so illegitimate (damn, or is that just the current administration, guess they know better). An a region operated by Ukraine. Ignoring semantics, its part of Ukraine.

**Tyran**

Semantics are important in this issue, Crimea is an autonomous republic, so it is separate from both Russia and Ukraine, regardless of who controls it.

**Wyrmalla**

And in a poll where less than a third of the people living there (including those without citizenship, i.e. "holidaymakers") somehow 96.77% of the region's total population voted to join Russia.

...Because maths works differently in Putin's Russia. And it doesn't matter how few armed men there were at the voting stations. Real people didn't even fill in most of the ballots anyway.

You could create vote on the subject of "do you want free money" and you still wouldn't have 96.77% of the population vote yes... That was the Russian way of sticking the finger up to the world with their invasion.

**Iron_Captain**

Wyrmalla wrote:
Here, let me Google that for you...

"Decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea Province from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR.

Taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic and cultural ties between the Crimea Province and the Ukrainian SSR, the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet decrees:

To approve the joint presentation of the Presidium of the Russian SFSR Supreme Soviet and the Presidium of the Ukrainian SSR Supreme Soviet on the transfer of the Crimea Province from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR."

They actually had to change the law to give Crimea to Ukraine. Youknow, because the Soviet government thought the whole thing was so illegitimate. An a region operated by Ukraine. Ignoring semantics, its part of Ukraine.

Crimea was not a part of Ukraine before that law, and it wasn't afterwards. It can't be changed by what is nothing more than a few empty words on a paper signed by an upstart peasant. It was nothing more than a symbolic gesture of Khrushchov towards his favourite republic, and it shouldn't be seen as more than that it was. Ukraine wasn't even a country back then and the results it had after 1991 were unintended.
And you can't ignore semantics. Semantics are important.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Oh ffs, you're all arguing past each other. And you're both correct.

Clearly, Crimea and in particular Sevastopol is (or was) a part of Ukraine in a technical, legal sense. Laws were passed, and sovereignty is transferred following the proper channels. (Which was arguably a mistake).

But as I understand it, iron captain is arguing that Crimea/Sevesotopol is Russian in an ethnic, cultural and historical sense. Which is also true. You can pass a law to transfer sovereignty, but you can't legislate to magically change the cultural, ethnic and historical identity of a region.

Its like if we transferred Guernsey island and other British channel islands to French sovereignty in a treaty, and passed it through parliament. The island would be French in a legal and technical sense and France would self evidently have sovereignty, but try telling that to its residents who consider themselves British.

Ditto for the Falkland Islands, or Gibraltar, or Spanish Cueta.

**Co'tor Shas**

Well 58.3% ethnicly Russia, according to the 2001 census.

**Wyrmalla**

Moscow had a thing about putting the boot down on minorities once the Soviets took over. They wanted to administrate all of their lands effectively. "Well we can't have some upstart republic getting nationalist ideas. How do we fix that? Why, ship half the people to Siberia and move some ethnically Russian peasants in. What do they care where they live? They're peasants.". Failing that they just formed the states up of parts of the original ethnicity and parts which were Russian.

What's the end result? Any time the people get restless about independence then there's your excuse to say no, or your pool to take your riot beaters from. If we're talking current events Kazakhstan is having the same issue right now as it seeks more autonomy from Russia.

So if the bull claim that Russia's doing its best for its people has any validity at all, they only have that excuse in the first place because they shipped their people there. "Russians feel threatened". ...They're only there in the first place because you put them there so you could shout that when needed. They were annexing land with that reason back in the 40s...

Oh, and to Godwin the thread again, the Nazis did the exact same thing.

**Iron_Captain**

Wyrmalla wrote:
Moscow had a thing about putting the boot down on minorities once the Soviets took over. They wanted to administrate all of their lands effectively. "Well we can't have some upstart republic getting nationalist ideas. How do we fix that? Why, ship half the people to Siberia and move some ethnically Russian peasants in. What do they care where they live? They're peasants.". Failing that they just formed the states up of parts of the original ethnicity and parts which were Russian.

What's the end result? Any time the people get restless about independence then there's your excuse to say no, or your pool to take your riot beaters from. If we're talking current events Kazakhstan is having the same issue right now as it seeks more autonomy from Russia.

So if the bull claim that Russia's doing its best for its people has any validity at all, they only have that excuse in the first place because they shipped their people there. "Russians feel threatened". ...They're only there in the first place because you put them there so you could shout that when needed. They were annexing land with that reason back in the 40s...

Oh, and to Godwin the thread again, the Nazis did the exact same thing.

While the Soviets did at times repress ethnic nationalism (including ethnic Russian nationalism, mind you), they encouraged it at other times. The way you put it is so hyperbolic and black and white it becomes entirely false.

**Tyran**

From what I know, it was great to be an ethnic minority as long as you were a recognized one, otherwise it was hell.

This had the funny effect of small minorities, like the Ossetians, loving the Soviet Union, while larger ethnic groups, like the Georgians, were oppressed.

**Wyrmalla**

Well you can barely count the number of times Russia's gone to war with Georgia in the past 100 years on two hands....

**Iron_Captain**

Wyrmalla wrote:
Well you can barely count the number of times Russia's gone to war with Georgia in the past 100 years on two hands....

That would indeed be impossible, because it happened only thrice. And the Russian involvement in the Georgian Civil War was actually in support of the Georgian government, so you can't really count that. So two. Altough I suppose that if you take one finger from each hand, you could still count it on two hands.

**Yaraton**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

There's this detail where Sevastopol was part of Ukraine. I don't care how illegitimate you feel that was, the fact remains that Crimea was a part of Ukraine, then little green men popped up and now it isn't. Hence "invasion".

Further, a referendum organised and performed so rapidly after a foreign power that has a vested interest in the outcome of said referendum shows up has little to no legitimacy. It's entirely possible that everyone did in fact vote to leave Ukraine, but the reliability of the referendum is suspect at best.

There is this detail where Russian Baltic Fleet Navy base was located in ukraine in Sebastopol thus the Russian troops were legit on it's territory. Furthermore, after the Nazi Junta took over in Kiev, the riot special police unit "Berkut" of ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs from Crimea returned back and blocked the roads leading to Crimea, preventing Nazis coming on the peninsula. "Little green men popped up" only when the ordinary citizens of Crimea blocked the ukranian military bases to prevent arms going into the hands of who knows what. No "Little green man" was arrested or taken prisoner by the ukranian authorities and therefore there is no documented prove that they were Russian servicemen and not some hired guns.

Referendum was held on at that time ukranian territory, by at that time ukranian citizens and it was held according to the UN principle "the right of nations to of self-determination". Crimea, which is populated by mostly ethnic Russians and which territory was annexed by ukraine in 1954 had a right not to be with the rest of so-called "ukraine", it's Nazi government and it's artificial history. People of Crimea made a choice and no one, even you have a right to tell them how to live their lives.

Your lack of knowledge in history, is not an excuse to post brain farts on a constant basis.

**motyak**

Rule 1, remember that it is important

**Yaraton**

Wyrmalla wrote:

If countries could just annex each other for having a portion of the population having Pro-X leanings or being of X-nationality then... We'll I think Britain'll be having half its colonies back. Shame not every country's putting on the Reich like Russia has then when it comes to aggressive expansion (ooh, and extra fun to bring back the whole analogy to Germany annexation of Europe circa 1930-40s. They used the same reasoning the Russians have).

Welcome to NATO bombing and splitting Yugoslavia and occupying Kosovo to held it's referendum of independence.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Yaraton wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:

There's this detail where Sevastopol was part of Ukraine. I don't care how illegitimate you feel that was, the fact remains that Crimea was a part of Ukraine, then little green men popped up and now it isn't. Hence "invasion".

Further, a referendum organised and performed so rapidly after a foreign power that has a vested interest in the outcome of said referendum shows up has little to no legitimacy. It's entirely possible that everyone did in fact vote to leave Ukraine, but the reliability of the referendum is suspect at best.

There is this detail where Russian Baltic Fleet Navy base was located in ukraine in Sebastopol thus the Russian troops were legit on it's territory. Furthermore, after the Nazi Junta took over in Kiev, the riot special police unit "Berkut" of ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs from Crimea returned back and blocked the roads leading to Crimea, preventing Nazis coming on the peninsula. "Little green men popped up" only when the ordinary citizens of Crimea blocked the ukranian military bases to prevent arms going into the hands of who knows what. No "Little green man" was arrested or taken prisoner by the ukranian authorities and therefore there is no documented prove that they were Russian servicemen and not some hired guns.

Referendum was held on at that time ukranian territory, by at that time ukranian citizens and it was held according to the UN principle "the right of nations to of self-determination". Crimea, which is populated by mostly ethnic Russians and which territory was annexed by ukraine in 1954 had a right not to be with the rest of so-called "ukraine", it's Nazi government and it's artificial history. People of Crimea made a choice and no one, even you have a right to tell them how to live their lives.

Your lack of knowledge in history, is not an excuse to post brain farts on a constant basis.

A referendum held so soon after annexation by a power that has a vested interest in its outcome is a joke. It spits on the idea of self-governance and free elections.

If the little green men weren't Russian, who was supplying and paying them? Putin himself has admitted to Russian personnel being involved.

I expect, foolishly perhaps, an apology.

Iron_Captain wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How is the implication that I would get assaulted for pointing out that Sevastopol de jure was Ukrainian territory before the annexation to Russia's advantage? That'd seem to imply that Russians are violent thugs; are you a Russophobe?

Well, if you put it in perspective like that, people might just give you an angry glare and go on. But if you say something like "Sevastopol is Ukraine" then you are bound to greatly upset a lot of people. Russians are not violent, but they are a very passionate and emotional people. And Sevastopol is one of the most nationalistic places in Russia.

I'm sure the average Russian isn't very violent (and I'm not being sarcastic), but it still doesn't exactly speak to Russia's advantage that you're responding to my argument with "In Russia, that'd get you beaten". That's an argumentum ad baculum.

Yaraton wrote:
Wyrmalla wrote:

If countries could just annex each other for having a portion of the population having Pro-X leanings or being of X-nationality then... We'll I think Britain'll be having half its colonies back. Shame not every country's putting on the Reich like Russia has then when it comes to aggressive expansion (ooh, and extra fun to bring back the whole analogy to Germany annexation of Europe circa 1930-40s. They used the same reasoning the Russians have).

Welcome to NATO bombing and splitting Yugoslavia and occupying Kosovo to held it's referendum of independence.

So we're back to Whataboutism? Never mind the fact that there was a genocide going on.

**motyak**

Please don't spam the forum, as frustrated as you are. Answer with actual words or take a break (directed at removed posts/thread in general)

**Vaktathi**

Yaraton wrote:
Wyrmalla wrote:

If countries could just annex each other for having a portion of the population having Pro-X leanings or being of X-nationality then... We'll I think Britain'll be having half its colonies back. Shame not every country's putting on the Reich like Russia has then when it comes to aggressive expansion (ooh, and extra fun to bring back the whole analogy to Germany annexation of Europe circa 1930-40s. They used the same reasoning the Russians have).

Welcome to NATO bombing and splitting Yugoslavia and occupying Kosovo to held it's referendum of independence.

Yugoslavia, as a nation, had been nonexistent for years by the time a single NATO plane ever left the ground, they just hadn't changed the name in Serbia yet. Yugoslavia broke itself up, NATO didnt do it to them.

**konst80hummel**

NATO did however bomb Serbia to aid the Kosovar Albanian separatist cause.

**Iron_Captain**

Wyrmalla wrote:
And in a poll where less than a third of the people living there (including those without citizenship, i.e. "holidaymakers") somehow 96.77% of the region's total population voted to join Russia.

...Because maths works differently in Putin's Russia. And it doesn't matter how few armed men there were at the voting stations. Real people didn't even fill in most of the ballots anyway.

You could create vote on the subject of "do you want free money" and you still wouldn't have 96.77% of the population vote yes... That was the Russian way of sticking the finger up to the world with their invasion.

That is nonsense. It is not uncommon for independence referendums to have such outcomes. For example, in Yugoslavia, the Slovene and Croatian independence referendums had similar numbers (94.8% and 93.2% respectively).

**Vaktathi**

konst80hummel wrote:
NATO did however bomb Serbia to aid the Kosovar Albanian separatist cause.

The Serbs were involved in actively persecuting and displacing albanians in Kosovo, with well documented massacres and deportations on large scales. Kosovo was also something like 85% ethnic Albanian in the early 90's.

Both sides acted like donkey-caves (Albanians and Serbs), but the Serbs went out of their way to poke the bear so many times that the response they got shouldnt have surprised anyone. The Serbs have a history of doing so, sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesnt.

**BaronIveagh**

Yaraton wrote:

There is this detail where Russian Baltic Fleet Navy base was located in ukraine in Sebastopol thus the Russian troops were legit on it's territory.

Let me stop you there. There were also terms to that rental agreement, which were violated. All of Sevastopol, for example, was not leased. And I would say scuttling cruisers in the channel at other Ukrainian navy facilities outside Sevastopol to block them in was hardly the act of a few local thugs.

Further, you point out that there was no military action against it. This was because several top officers of the Ukrainian military in the area were thoroughly corrupt and took a bribe. From Russia. They got to keep their rank and transfer to their Russian equivalent services, with better pay and or promotions (Denis Berezovsky is now deputy commander of the black sea fleet, for example) in exchange for allowing the Russians to do whatever they wanted.

**Freakazoitt**

Today we celebrate 2-year aniversary liberation of Crimea from ukrainian occupation.

**BaronIveagh**

Freakazoitt wrote:
Today we celebrate 2-year aniversary liberation of Crimea from ukrainian occupation.

Except for those relocated to the Ukraine or Siberia.

**djones520**

Freakazoitt wrote:
Today we celebrate 2-year aniversary liberation of Crimea from ukrainian occupation.

Today we mourn the 2-year anniversary of the Russian annexation of Crimea from the Ukraine.

**BaronIveagh**

djones520 wrote:
Freakazoitt wrote:
Today we celebrate 2-year aniversary liberation of Crimea from ukrainian occupation.

Today we mourn the 2-year anniversary of the Russian annexation of Crimea from the Ukraine.

I'd say not everyone is celebrating, Simferopol has suddenly sprouted a vandalism problem:

Posters have popped up all over Moscow's bus stations with a photo of the deceased Stalin and the caption: This One died, so will the current One."

I found this interesting, it's from a group of interviews taken from soldiers and sailors awarded medals 'for the return of Crimea'.

https://meduza.io/en/feature/2015/03/16/i-serve-the-russian-federation

Alexei KarunaI, Mechanic, Black Sea Fleet wrote: I first heard about the plans to annex the Crimea in early February. We were certainly aware of what was happening in Ukraine, because every night all the soldiers went to watch the news in a dedicated room with a TV. This was mandatory by order. At the same time, our military began to enter Crimea actively. They created and organized patrols to prevent a Maidan movement there, because Crimeans were strongly against the new Ukrainian government. Hence the idea to join Russia. It didn’t just come into Putin’s mind; the residents of the Crimea wanted it. We talked a lot with the locals, and I know what I’m talking about. When it comes to Sevastopol, there was a Russian tricolor hanging from every balcony.

On the eve of the referendum, we were warned that the alarm would be raised and we had to be ready. The whole day we sat wearing body armor. Provocations were expected from Ukrainian nationalists and the Crimean Tatars. Some of them were for joining the Russian Federation, or rather, they didn't care whether the future was with the Russians or the Ukrainians. Others wanted Crimea to remain a part of Ukraine. But everything went very quietly, because so many Russian troops were in such a tiny place! The Black Sea fleet had 15,000 people, another 20,000 soldiers were on the ground, plus there were the special forces, located in the city. Any resistance would have been crushed. And no one resisted."

Hey, BTW: I found out why Amnesty didn't back Russia's claims about mass murder etc: seems they pried the information out of their only witness the old fashioned way: a pair of pliers and 16 teeth. He was recently returned to the Ukraine in a prisoner swap.

**Iron_Captain**

Freakazoitt wrote:
Today we celebrate 2-year aniversary liberation of Crimea from ukrainian occupation.

slava!

BaronIveagh wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Freakazoitt wrote:
Today we celebrate 2-year aniversary liberation of Crimea from ukrainian occupation.

Today we mourn the 2-year anniversary of the Russian annexation of Crimea from the Ukraine.

I'd say not everyone is celebrating, Simferopol has suddenly sprouted a vandalism problem:

Indeed it does:

Someone smashed the windows of the mejlis (Tatar parliament), on the same day the Stalin plaque got defaced.

BaronIveagh wrote:Posters have popped up all over Moscow's bus stations with a photo of the deceased Stalin and the caption: This One died, so will the current One."

That is the worst thing about great leaders. We should put Putin in stasis to awaken him again in the future when we have found technology to prolong his life. Then he can be eternal president! At least, until we find a way to resurrect Stalin...

Apparently, the Kurds found a way to do that, we should get into contact with them:

Spoiler: