Why Shouldn't Putin Take Over the Crimea?

[bobevenson]

Under the Soviet Union, Crimea was transferred from Russia to Ukraine. The people of Crimea are Russian and identify with Russia. Why should they be forced to be governed by an alien government?

[The Voice of Time]

The problem is not whether Crimea should be under Russia or not, but that Russian militarily invaded Crimea. This unacceptable behaviour. If Russia wanted Crimea, it would have to press for a referendum in a different manner. Then Crimeans can choose, and it can happen more smoothly.

It is said that it's highly likely that the majority would like to end up in Russia because of Russian descent and because Ukraine is a poor country whereas Russia have oil and gas to fuel its economy. However, there's also the problem with those who don't want to end up in Russia, and how many of those there could be in Crimea could problematize the situation, as where are they to go? Most likely to Ukraine, but although nobody is probably bringing up this suggestion, my personal suggestion would've been to split Crimea up into 4 entities that would vote separately, such that if anyone of them has a majority pro-Ukraine that part wouldn't end up on the wrong side.

And the Soviet Union does not equal Russia. Ukraine was also part of the Soviet Union, but doesn't make it Russian.

[bobevenson]

However, the bottom line is that Crimea is basically Russian, was always part of Russia, and should be Russian now. Ukraine would not voluntarily give it up under any condition, so it has to be taken from them in the same way it was given to them, by decree.

[Blaggard]

No the Ukraine was not always part of Russia, nor was the Crimea, Russia has no right to those lands and no reason to be there.

By the logic of the OP Italy should invade the region because it was governed by Rome at one time. It's an autonomous country peopled by non Russians and apart from it being annexed by various empires, Rome, The Ottomans and the Rus' it should remain it's own state. The Russians have overstepped a line, just like they did when they invaded Finland.

I think Putin et al are taking liberties with an old Russian Empire, and trying to do little more than they did after the end of WWII, I personally don't think they have any rights of sovereignty over the land, and probably never should have, but with politics being what it is, what I think or NATO thinks is regarded as beside the point. ; )

The USSR is dead, trying to rebuild that republic is likely only to lead to a world of pain for Russia, and more particularly the Ukraine. Russia it seems needs to learn where its borders are, and probably will. Posturing is of course all part of play ground politics though so I'd watch this space.

Many of the countries constituents may identify themselves as Russian but clearly sovereignty does not reside in the hands of imperialists.

[bobevenson]

No the Ukraine was not always part of Russia, nor was the Crimea, Russia has no right to those lands and no reason to be there.

In modern times, Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, just like Crimea. By the grace of God, the Soviet Union transferred jurisdiction of Crimea from Russia to Ukraine. All Russia is doing now is to take back what was rightfully theirs before the Soviet Union's action. The Crimean people are Russians, and if they were able to vote on it, would elect to become part of Russia again.

[Blaggard]

No the Ukraine was not always part of Russia, nor was the Crimea, Russia has no right to those lands and no reason to be there.

In modern times, Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, just like Crimea. By the grace of God, the Soviet Union transferred jurisdiction of Crimea from Russia to Ukraine. All Russia is doing now is to take back what was rightfully theirs before the Soviet Union's action. The Crimean people are Russians, and if they were able to vote on it, would elect to become part of Russia again.

Then they should do it democratically.

I think voice of time has the right of it.

[The Voice of Time]

Ukraine would not voluntarily give it up under any condition

If it turns out there's a reason to give it up, then Ukraine would eventually. It's hard to rule somebody who doesn't want to be ruled.

However, you don't sneak up on somebody like that. Russia had several ways to press for a referendum, but instead chose the worst kind of way. That's why Putin is an asshole and why the world is basically on Ukraine's side.

[bobevenson]

Putin is merely taking the bull by the horns. There is no way that Ukraine would give up Crimea voluntarily even if the people of Crimea voted for it. Ukraine's ownership of Crimea is only the result of a bureaucratic decision by the Soviet Union, a despotic government whose action was illegitimate to begin with.

[Blaggard]

Putin is merely taking the bull by the horns. There is no way that Ukraine would give up Crimea voluntarily even if the people of Crimea voted for it. Ukraine's ownership of Crimea is only the result of a bureaucratic decision by the Soviet Union, a despotic government whose action was illegitimate to begin with.

He's an asshole Bob, an asshole by any other name is still an asshole.

He's fucked up and fucked up big mate, and it's easy to see...

[uwot]

Reverend Bob, we all know your words come from the very top. Since taking back what is yours is the divine truth, is the word from on high that the Injuns should march on Washington?

[bobevenson]

Reverend Bob, we all know your words come from the very top. Since taking back what is yours is the divine truth, is the word from on high that the Injuns should march on Washington?

The Indians never really had a government, they just occupied a vast amount of land. One thing the federal government should do is abolish the Bureau of Indian Affairs and take away the special privileges to Indians not afforded to other Americans.

[Blaggard]

Reverend Bob, we all know your words come from the very top. Since taking back what is yours is the divine truth, is the word from on high that the Injuns should march on Washington?

The Indians never really had a government, they just occupied a vast amount of land. One thing the federal government should do is abolish the Bureau of Indian Affairs and take away the special privileges to Indians not afforded to other Americans.

So sovereignty is the soul province of a governing body and does not reside in the land owners rights in any way, unless they have a government. it's like there has been no progress in human affairs with you bob, no offence. And what's more should we have the right to displace indigenous populations, remove their human rights, enslave them based on the fact that they did not have a government? Really?

Bob you're living in the wrong century you should of been born in the age of Empires.

[bobevenson]

He's an asshole Bob, an asshole by any other name is still an asshole. He's fucked up and fucked up big mate, and it's easy to see...

You're good at calling people names, but terrible at stating your case.

[Blaggard]

He's an asshole Bob, an asshole by any other name is still an asshole. He's fucked up and fucked up big mate, and it's easy to see...

You're good at calling people names, but terrible at stating your case.

I already stated my case, there's little use repeating it.

[bobevenson]

So sovereignty is the soul province of a governing body and does not reside in the land owners rights in any way, unless they have a government. it's like there has been no progress in human affairs with you bob, no offence. And what's more should we have the right to displace indigenous populations, remove their human rights, enslave them based on the fact that they did not have a government

What do you mean landowners' rights? How did they get their rights? Did they buy the land from somebody, or did they just happen to be born there, and so it was automatically theirs? Get real, my friend.