Trump explains why were abandoning Crimea to Russia

[iguanaman]

Given your repeatedly stated regret that the USSR utterly crushed the Nazis, claims about “genocide” and “stealing resources” carry no weight.

Russia did what we hoped it would do with OUR resources. My question is when is Russia going to pay us back for those 100's of billions in aid? They were supplied under a lend lease agreement that Stalin never fulfilled.

 

[Tigerace117]

Russia did what we hoped it would do with OUR resources. My question is when is Russia going to pay us back for those billions in aid? They were supplied under a lend lease agreement that Stalin never fulfilled.

The “repayment” was the Soviets utterly crushing the Nazis, much to the West’s despair.

But way to admit any American opposition to the Third Reich was purely mercenary in nature.

 

[iguanaman]

The “repayment” was the Soviets utterly crushing the Nazis, much to the West’s despair.

But way to admit any American opposition to the Third Reich was purely mercenary in nature.

So you don't think Russia owes us anything for that aid? We certainly did not intend it to facilitate Russia to take all of eastern europe for themselves and fulfill the pact that Stalin made with Hitler which gave them those territories as part of the 2 dividing europe between them.

 

[Tigerace117]

So you don't think Russia owes us anything for that aid? We certainly did not intend it to facilitate Russia to take all of eastern europe for themselves,

The Soviets did the vast majority of the work in fighting the Nazis. Without their crushing of the Third Reich, the US wouldn’t have been able to crack Festung Europa to begin with....and would have taken vastly heavier casualties in places like North Africa as well.

The idea that Russia “owes” the US is comical.

 

[slick]

The Tartars are the closest there is to native Crimeans. They have lived there since 800AD. Most Russians in Crimea entered illegally since 2014.

The facts:

If there was no overthrow of the elected government, there would have been no establishment of de facto independent states in Donetsk and Luhansk. Because of the Ukranian Nationalist overthrow of Yanukovich, Berezovsky commander of the Ukrainian Navy defected along with almost the entire Ukraine navy in the Crimea region. Russia didn't fire a single shot to regain control of Crimea.

The head of Ukraine's navy “defected” the Crimea region, pledging allegiance to its pro-Russian leader Sergiy Aksyonov and surrendering
the country's Sevastopol headquarters along with his 16,000 troops! It was just 9 days after Yanukovich fled.
That defection ended forever the Soviet era mistake of gifting Crimea to Ukraine.
What did you expect Russia to do after that amazing incident. Of course Russia
accepted the Ukraine Navy surrendering & Crimea came back where it belonged without a shot being fired.
Ukraine launched a treason case against its head of navy, Denis Berezovsky, after he surrendered his headquarters
at the port of Sevastopol!. How did that work out.

But the opposing takes reveals:
It wasn't a "rebellion" in Crimea. It was a RUSSIAN land grab.

Taking over the Crimean Oblast was not an invasion. Crimea was the home port of the Ukraine Navy & the Ukraine Navy defected.

There was a singular reason for these historic events, self determination:

It was the eternal call of ETHNONATIONALISM that Crimea was called upon & answered.

 

[iguanaman]

The facts:

If there was no overthrow of the elected government, there would have been no establishment of de facto independent states in Donetsk and Luhansk. Because of the Ukranian Nationalist overthrow of Yanukovich, Berezovsky commander of the Ukrainian Navy defected along with almost the entire Ukraine navy in the Crimea region. Russia didn't fire a single shot to regain control of Crimea.

The head of Ukraine's navy “defected” the Crimea region, pledging allegiance to its pro-Russian leader Sergiy Aksyonov and surrendering
the country's Sevastopol headquarters along with his 16,000 troops! It was just 9 days after Yanukovich fled.
That defection ended forever the Soviet era mistake of gifting Crimea to Ukraine.
What did you expect Russia to do after that amazing incident. Of course Russia
accepted the Ukraine Navy surrendering & Crimea came back where it belonged without a shot being fired.
Ukraine launched a treason case against its head of navy, Denis Berezovsky, after he surrendered his headquarters
at the port of Sevastopol!. How did that work out.

But the opposing takes reveals:
It wasn't a "rebellion" in Crimea. It was a RUSSIAN land grab.

Taking over the Crimean Oblast was not an invasion. Crimea was the home port of the Ukraine Navy & the Ukraine Navy defected.

There was a singular reason for these historic events, self determination:

It was the eternal call of ETHNONATIONALISM that Crimea was called upon & answered.

Crimea and Ukraine are geographically linked and Crimea cannot survive without Ukraine's water. Just because Putin paid off some traitors in the Ukraine navy before he sent his soldiers into the the Crimean Govt. offices to take it over does not mean Russia has any rights to it. Most Russian speakers in Ukraine also do not want a Russian invasion and takeover. There was no valid "self-determination" in Crimea either.

With regard to the Russian invocation of the self-determination principle and, more specifically, the remedial secession theory on behalf of the Crimean population, it can be said that no legal ground in the current regime on self-determination can be found for the Russian position for multiple reasons.

Russia violated the jus cogens rule on the prohibition of the use of force, thus rendering unlawful and without any legal effect the declaration of independence and the subsequent incorporation of Crimea to Russia. Moreover, in relation to the remedial secession theory, reference has been made by Russia to the human rights violations suffered by Tatars in Crimea, but it is very doubtful that the alleged violations against the Tatars reached the high threshold commonly accepted by the authors who support this theory. Furthermore, the Tatars situation in Crimea got worst after the annexation, with their displacement in significant numbers and in different areas, and this shows how the Russian argument was created just as a pretext. 12 Russia seems even to propose a particularly extensive interpretation of the remedial secession theory, allowing external armed intervention in order to guarantee it. Finally, Russia has not respected any substantive and procedural obligations connected to the application of the self-determination principle in the case at stake.

https://geopolitique.eu/en/articles/self-determination-of-ukrainian-people-and-russian-aggression/

 

[Tigerace117]

Crimea and Ukraine are geographically linked and Crimea cannot survive without Ukraine's water. Just because Putin paid off some traitors in the Ukraine navy before he sent his soldiers into the the Crimean Govt. offices to take it over does not mean Russia has any rights to it. Most Russian speakers in Ukraine also do not want a Russian invasion and takeover. There was no valid "self-determination" in Crimea either.

With regard to the Russian invocation of the self-determination principle and, more specifically, the remedial secession theory on behalf of the Crimean population, it can be said that no legal ground in the current regime on self-determination can be found for the Russian position for multiple reasons.

Russia violated the jus cogens rule on the prohibition of the use of force, thus rendering unlawful and without any legal effect the declaration of independence and the subsequent incorporation of Crimea to Russia. Moreover, in relation to the remedial secession theory, reference has been made by Russia to the human rights violations suffered by Tatars in Crimea, but it is very doubtful that the alleged violations against the Tatars reached the high threshold commonly accepted by the authors who support this theory. Furthermore, the Tatars situation in Crimea got worst after the annexation, with their displacement in significant numbers and in different areas, and this shows how the Russian argument was created just as a pretext. 12 Russia seems even to propose a particularly extensive interpretation of the remedial secession theory, allowing external armed intervention in order to guarantee it. Finally, Russia has not respected any substantive and procedural obligations connected to the application of the self-determination principle in the case at stake.

https://geopolitique.eu/en/articles/self-determination-of-ukrainian-people-and-russian-aggression/

There has been strong secessionist sentiment in Crimea as long as there’s been an independent Ukraine, so that’s clearly not true.

 

[slick]

Crimea and Ukraine are geographically linked and Crimea cannot survive without Ukraine's water. Just because Putin paid off some traitors in the Ukraine navy before he sent his soldiers into the the Crimean Govt. offices to take it over does not mean Russia has any rights to it. Most Russian speakers in Ukraine also do not want a Russian invasion and takeover. There was no valid "self-determination" in Crimea either.

With regard to the Russian invocation of the self-determination principle and, more specifically, the remedial secession theory on behalf of the Crimean population, it can be said that no legal ground in the current regime on self-determination can be found for the Russian position for multiple reasons.

Russia violated the jus cogens rule on the prohibition of the use of force, thus rendering unlawful and without any legal effect the declaration of independence and the subsequent incorporation of Crimea to Russia. Moreover, in relation to the remedial secession theory, reference has been made by Russia to the human rights violations suffered by Tatars in Crimea, but it is very doubtful that the alleged violations against the Tatars reached the high threshold commonly accepted by the authors who support this theory. Furthermore, the Tatars situation in Crimea got worst after the annexation, with their displacement in significant numbers and in different areas, and this shows how the Russian argument was created just as a pretext. 12 Russia seems even to propose a particularly extensive interpretation of the remedial secession theory, allowing external armed intervention in order to guarantee it. Finally, Russia has not respected any substantive and procedural obligations connected to the application of the self-determination principle in the case at stake.

https://geopolitique.eu/en/articles/self-determination-of-ukrainian-people-and-russian-aggression/

Was this 'flourish' really written with sincerity I find it hard to believe it was:
"Just because Putin paid off some traitors in the Ukraine navy before he sent his soldiers into the the Crimean Govt. offices to take
it over does not mean Russia has any rights to it. Most Russian speakers in Ukraine also do not want a Russian invasion and takeover."

Here's the chronology - On 21 February 2014, Yanukovych fled after the coup for his life to the Donbass from Kiev.
So 8 days later Ukraine lost Crimea. You do realize Berezovsky was only on the job for one day
before he & almost the entire Ukraine Navy defected. Berezovsky was appointed head of the Ukraine fleet
because the previous head of the Ukraine Navy also defected to Russia.. Yeliseyev was acting Commander of the
Ukrainian Navy as the First Deputy Commander. In March 2014, he broke the military oath of the
Ukrainian Armed Forces and sided with the Russian Federation.

The funny thing about that as I recall was that Berezovsky was on the job as Ukraine Naval chief for only one day!
Ukraine authorities gave him the job after the former Ukraine Naval chief also defected to Russia shortly before.

On 2 March 2014, Berezovsky commander of the Ukrainian Navy defected to the new Russian-supported
Crimean authorities and took an "oath of allegiance to the people of Crimea.
Know this, after Berezovsky defected the die was cast! Hint,

The western press I believe called the Russians who came after in after Berezovsky defection - Greenies;
whoever they were or whatever they did they came after the Fate of Crimea was determined!
The Greenies were there for 'Mop up duties' and those 'Mop up duties' were few & far between!

 

[iguanaman]

There has been strong secessionist sentiment in Crimea as long as there’s been an independent Ukraine, so that’s clearly not true.

Crimea was already granted their independence from Ukraine and had their own govt. until Russia threw them out and placed their loyalists there. They did not want to eaten up by Russia.

 

[Tigerace117]

Crimea was already granted their independence from Ukraine and had their own govt. until Russia threw them out and placed their loyalists there. They did not want to eaten up by Russia.

Uh....no, it wasn’t “independent”. It was very much a part of Ukraine.

The minimal resistance to Russia in Crimea over the last decade strongly argues otherwise.

 

[iguanaman]

Uh....no, it wasn’t “independent”. It was very much a part of Ukraine.

The minimal resistance to Russia in Crimea over the last decade strongly argues otherwise.

LOL Crimea was self governing with their own elected officials and Ukraine granted them that in good faith. What they would not do is allow them to become part of Russia. Russia has made Crimea a police State and protests are not allowed.

 

[Tigerace117]

LOL Crimea was self governing with their own elected officials and Ukraine granted them that in good faith. What they would not do is allow them to become part of Russia. Russia has made Crimea a police State and protests are not allowed.

And, as established, they largely weren’t interested in being part of Ukraine, which is why the Russians have faced minimal resistance over the last decade plus.

 

[iguanaman]

And, as established, they largely weren’t interested in being part of Ukraine, which is why the Russians have faced minimal resistance over the last decade plus.

You mean they are under Putin's fist like the rest of Russia. They have no rights and must do what Putin tells them too.

 

[Tigerace117]

You mean they are under Putin's fist like the rest of Russia. They have no rights and must do what Putin tells them too.

They don’t seem to mind being under “Putin’s fist”, as it turns out.

 

[Rogue Valley]

If there was no overthrow of the elected government,

Ysanukovych was removed legally by Parliament (338-0) via the 2004 Ukraine Constitution.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Just to clear up something. Crimea was granted "autonomy" rather than independence. Indeed its name was the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (ARC).

Although autonomous in many ways, Crimea remained an integral part of Ukraine and its constitution was subserviant to the Ukraine constitution.

The constitution of Ukraine specified that any changes in the legal status of Crimea had to be approved in a country-wide Ukraine national referendum.

As with any oblast, Crimea belongs to all the people of Ukraine. Not just those living there.

 

[slick]

Ysanukovych was removed legally by Parliament (338-0) via the 2004 Ukraine Constitution.

That was the day after Yanukovich fled for his life to the Donbass from Kiev so:
What your saying is that he was legally removed by Parliament (338-0) the day after he wisely removed himself from office-

The Ukraine was so divided between east & west that it's surprising to me that it stayed whole
from the early 1990's for 25 years before the Euromaidan split the country

Percentage of support for Russian leaning candidate Yanukovich in
the last election when Ukraine was still whole 2010: This was the last election
the 3 breakaway participated in fully

Eastern Ukraine
Crimea--- 78.25
Donetsk--90.44
Luhansk- 88.96

This election only strongly suggests that east of the Dniper there was overwhelming support for
the country favoring good relation with Russia over good relations with the EU.
The east/west divide is also emphasized by the support for Tymoshenko EU leaning candidate in the far west
In the lands stalin took after WWII where people of Polish, Lithuanian & Galacian ancestry of Ukraine were most prevalent.
The Lviv & Ternopil areas where Ultranationalists gathered.

 

[Roadvirus]

They don’t seem to mind being under “Putin’s fist”, as it turns out.

Really?

Atesh - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Tigerace117]

Really?

Atesh - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A minor insurgent group that has accomplished....pretty much nothing.

 

[iguanaman]

That was the day after Yanukovich fled for his life to the Donbass from Kiev so:
What your saying is that he was legally removed by Parliament (338-0) the day after he wisely removed himself from office-

The Ukraine was so divided between east & west that it's surprising to me that it stayed whole
from the early 1990's for 25 years before the Euromaidan split the country

Percentage of support for Russian leaning candidate Yanukovich in
the last election when Ukraine was still whole 2010: This was the last election
the 3 breakaway participated in fully

Eastern Ukraine
Crimea--- 78.25
Donetsk--90.44
Luhansk- 88.96

This election only strongly suggests that east of the Dniper there was overwhelming support for
the country favoring good relation with Russia over good relations with the EU.
The east/west divide is also emphasized by the support for Tymoshenko EU leaning candidate in the far west
In the lands stalin took after WWII where people of Polish, Lithuanian & Galacian ancestry of Ukraine were most prevalent.
The Lviv & Ternopil areas where Ultranationalists gathered.

Zelensky won in Donetsk and Luhansk overwhelmingly. Being a Russian speaker who supported Ukraine's independence from Russia made him extremely popular there. Yanukovich promised to facilitate Ukraine joining the EU in his election campaign and when the people found out he was lying he was ousted.

 

[slick]

Zelensky won in Donetsk and Luhansk overwhelmingly. Being a Russian speaker who supported Ukraine's independence from Russia made him extremely popular there. Yanukovich promised to facilitate Ukraine joining the EU in his election campaign and when the people found out he was lying he was ousted.

 

[Fledermaus]

The facts:

If there was no overthrow of the elected government, there would have been no establishment of de facto independent states in Donetsk and Luhansk. Because of the Ukranian Nationalist overthrow of Yanukovich, Berezovsky commander of the Ukrainian Navy defected along with almost the entire Ukraine navy in the Crimea region. Russia didn't fire a single shot to regain control of Crimea.

The head of Ukraine's navy “defected” the Crimea region, pledging allegiance to its pro-Russian leader Sergiy Aksyonov and surrendering
the country's Sevastopol headquarters along with his 16,000 troops! It was just 9 days after Yanukovich fled.
That defection ended forever the Soviet era mistake of gifting Crimea to Ukraine.
What did you expect Russia to do after that amazing incident. Of course Russia
accepted the Ukraine Navy surrendering & Crimea came back where it belonged without a shot being fired.
Ukraine launched a treason case against its head of navy, Denis Berezovsky, after he surrendered his headquarters
at the port of Sevastopol!. How did that work out.

But the opposing takes reveals:
It wasn't a "rebellion" in Crimea. It was a RUSSIAN land grab.

Taking over the Crimean Oblast was not an invasion. Crimea was the home port of the Ukraine Navy & the Ukraine Navy defected.

There was a singular reason for these historic events, self determination:

It was the eternal call of ETHNONATIONALISM that Crimea was called upon & answered.

There was no "overthrow of the elected government,"

It was the elected government that kicked Yanukovich out of office after he ran away.

 

[Rogue Valley]

That was the day after Yanukovich fled for his life to the Donbass

Yanukovych fled Kyiv in a helicopter with many millions in embezzled government money. He was a career criminal, as a young man doing two stints in prison for robbery and assault.

Yanukovych fled Ukraine because he had signed documents that very day (21 February 2014, witnessed by the Ambassadors of Germany and France) that called for snap elections before December, an end to his draconian Anti-Protest Laws, and a return to the Constitution of 2004. And at the urging of Putin, Yanukovych had also ordered his riot police (Berkut) to shoot protesters, killing over 100. He would have to answer for his crimes, so he fled. To again demonstrate his treachery, Yanukovych was in Belarus on 24 February 2022, poised to enjoy a short flight to Kyiv after Zelenskyy had been assassinated and the city was under Russian martial law. Things didn't work out as Yanukovych (and Putin) planned. The war goes on and Yanukovych has a 13 year prison sentence waiting for him in Ukraine.

 

[slick]

Yanukovych fled Kyiv in a helicopter with many millions in embezzled government money. He was a career criminal, as a young man doing two stints in prison for robbery and assault.

Yanukovych fled Ukraine because he had signed documents that very day (21 February 2014, witnessed by the Ambassadors of Germany and France) that called for snap elections before December, an end to his draconian Anti-Protest Laws, and a return to the Constitution of 2004. And at the urging of Putin, Yanukovych had also ordered his riot police (Berkut) to shoot protesters, killing over 100. He would have to answer for his crimes, so he fled. To again demonstrate his treachery, Yanukovych was in Belarus on 24 February 2022, poised to enjoy a short flight to Kyiv after Zelenskyy had been assassinated and the city was under Russian martial law. Things didn't work out as Yanukovych (and Putin) planned. The war goes on and Yanukovych has a 13 year prison sentence waiting for him in Ukraine.

So many have tried to inform you but I'll try once again -------

It was Yarosh, backed by Victoria Nuland, who took over as the public leader of the Maidan and rejected the Feb. 21, 2014, deal negotiated by the French, German, and Polish foreign ministers, under which Yanukovich, the democratically-elected president of Ukraine, and opposition political leaders agreed to hold new elections later that year.
A deal was made but Yarosh would have none of it. Without the ultra nationalists influence the coup never would have been successfully concluded!!!!

Thousands stayed in Maidan demanding Yanukovych’s exit, booing the now apologetic opposition leaders for signing the agreement with Yanu. Protesters decried the deal as not enough, some gathering near Parliament, and demanded Yanukovych’s resignation and prosecution. They cheered as an ultranationalist threatened an armed overthrow if Yanukovych wasn’t gone by morning. (That speaker was later elected an MP, where he joined a far-right party and made a habit of physically assaulting his opponents).

“If I was [President Yanukovych], I would try and flee the country,” said one protester in Lviv, where hundreds had gathered in the wake of the deal’s signing. “Otherwise, he’ll end up like [Muammar] Gaddafi or with a life sentence or the electric chair. He will not leave the country alive.”

So Yanukovich fled fearful of his life, first to Karchiv & from there to Russia. You would have done the same thing in that position
anybody would have to save their own neck.

 

[Fledermaus]

So many have tried to inform you but I'll try once again -------

It was Yarosh, backed by Victoria Nuland, who took over as the public leader of the Maidan and rejected the Feb. 21, 2014, deal negotiated by the French, German, and Polish foreign ministers, under which Yanukovich, the democratically-elected president of Ukraine, and opposition political leaders agreed to hold new elections later that year.
A deal was made but Yarosh would have none of it. Without the ultra nationalists influence the coup never would have been successfully concluded!!!!

Thousands stayed in Maidan demanding Yanukovych’s exit, booing the now apologetic opposition leaders for signing the agreement with Yanu. Protesters decried the deal as not enough, some gathering near Parliament, and demanded Yanukovych’s resignation and prosecution. They cheered as an ultranationalist threatened an armed overthrow if Yanukovych wasn’t gone by morning. (That speaker was later elected an MP, where he joined a far-right party and made a habit of physically assaulting his opponents).

“If I was [President Yanukovych], I would try and flee the country,” said one protester in Lviv, where hundreds had gathered in the wake of the deal’s signing. “Otherwise, he’ll end up like [Muammar] Gaddafi or with a life sentence or the electric chair. He will not leave the country alive.”

So Yanukovich fled fearful of his life, first to Karchiv & from there to Russia. You would have done the same thing in that position
anybody would have to save their own neck.

In other words Yanukovich effectively abdicated his post after he had Ukrainians shot down.

He ran away.

Vamoosed.

Left.

Made a run for the border.