First, we must look at how Crimea even became a part of the USSR, to begin with. The peninsula has actually passed through many hands during history, including Kievan Rus, the Mongols, the Crimean Tartars, the Ottoman Empire, and eventually at the end of the 18th century, the Russian Empire. As such, Crimea has not always been a territory of either Ukraine or Russia, though both have a history intertwined in part with the peninsula. However, by the period of the USSR, Russia had possessed Crimea for a notable amount of time and generally considered the territory to be undeniably and unquestionably Russian. Nevertheless, the situation shifted even before Ukraine obtained the peninsula, as the USSR leadership decided to grant Crimea the status of an autonomous soviet socialist republic in 1921. This would remain the case until 1945
During the same timeframe of the.50s, Ukraine received the Snakes Island from Romania (not part of the Soviet Union), and the southern still is today. of Moldova in the same time, Transdnistria was taken from SSR Ukraine and attached to the Eastern part of SSR Moldova, where it stilll
This certainly hasn’t helped anything. Mistake to give Crimea to Russian province of Ukraine (Soviet province in this time period) Something in the past can effect the world of today.
The earlier published documents, and materials that have emerged more recently make clear that the transfer of Crimea from the RSFSR to the UkrSSR was carried out in accordance with the 1936 Soviet constitution, which in Article 18 stipulated that “the territory of a Union Republic may not be altered without its consent.” The proceedings of the USSR Supreme Soviet Presidium meeting indicate that both the RSFSR and the UkrSSR had given their consent via their republic parliaments.
One of the officials present at the 19 February session, Otto Kuusinen, even boasted that “only in our country [the USSR] is it possible that issues of the utmost importance such as the territorial transfer of individual oblasts to a particular republic can be decided without any difficulties.” One might argue that the process in 1954 would have been a lot better if it had been complicated and difficult, but no matter how one judges the expeditiousness of the territorial reconfiguration, the main point to stress here is that it is incorrect to say (as some Russian commentators and government officials recently have) that Crimea was transferred unconstitutionally or illegally. The legal system in the Soviet Union was mostly a fiction, but the transfer did occur in accordance with the rules in effect at the time.
Moreover, regardless of how the transfer was carried out, the Russian Federation expressly accepted Ukraine’s 1991 borders both in the December 1991 Belovezhskaya Pushcha accords (the agreements that precipitated and codified the dissolution of the Soviet Union) and in the December 1994 Budapest Memorandum that finalized Ukraine’s status as a non-nuclear weapons state.
RUSSIA’S INVASION OF UKRAINE in 2014 VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW: 1. The Geneva Convention. 2. Charter of the United Nations 3. The Helsinki Accords 4. The Charter of the OSCE 5. Budapest Memorandum of 1994 6. Two Russia, Ukraine friendship treaties 7. International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination 8. European Court of Human Rights
THE LEGAL FACTS WHY CRIMEA BELONGS TO UKRAINE .
The earlier published documents, and materials that have emerged more recently make clear that the transfer of Crimea from the RSFSR to the UkrSSR was carried out in accordance with the 1936 Soviet constitution, which in Article 18 stipulated that “the territory of a Union Republic may not be altered without its consent.” The proceedings of the USSR Supreme Soviet Presidium meeting indicate that both the RSFSR and the UkrSSR had given their consent via their republic parliaments.
One of the officials present at the 19 February session, Otto Kuusinen, even boasted that “only in our country [the USSR] is it possible that issues of the utmost importance such as the territorial transfer of individual oblasts to a particular republic can be decided without any difficulties.” One might argue that the process in 1954 would have been a lot better if it had been complicated and difficult, but no matter how one judges the expeditiousness of the territorial reconfiguration, the main point to stress here is that it is incorrect to say (as some Russian commentators and government officials recently have) that Crimea was transferred unconstitutionally or illegally. The legal system in the Soviet Union was mostly a fiction, but the transfer did occur in accordance with the rules in effect at the time.
Moreover, regardless of how the transfer was carried out, the Russian Federation expressly accepted Ukraine’s 1991 borders both in the December 1991 Belovezhskaya Pushcha accords (the agreements that precipitated and codified the dissolution of the Soviet Union) and in the December 1994 Budapest Memorandum that finalized Ukraine’s status as a non-nuclear weapons state.
Crimea is Not Historically ‘Ours,’ Russian Historian Says in ‘Vedomosti’
The underlying premise of Vladimir Putin’s seizure of Crimea is false: Crimea has not been part of Russia from time immemorial. Instead, it has had a complex history, one in which Russia’s role has been remarkably brief. As a result, it is important that the future of the peninsula be decided by the people of Crimea itself rather than by Moscow. That logic, widely recognized by many but unfortunately not by all in the West, has now been presented by Andrey Zubov in today’s “Vedomosti” newspaper in an article entitled “Is Crimea Ours? Just How Weighty are the Arguments that Crimea Historically Belongs to Russia”
Zubov, who was a professor at Moscow State Institute for International Relations (MGIMO) until he lost his position there because of his pro-Ukrainian positions, uses this article to lay out for Russian readers just how tendentious and wrong are the Kremlin’s arguments at a time when few in that country or elsewhere are willing to challenge them. The beginning of the tragedy that is Russia’s current one in Ukraine was Ukraine which Moscow seized on the basis of Vladimir Putin’s claim that “Crimea always was and again has become Russian,” a claim that many have accepted without challenge and without reflecting that absorbing the lands of others “never will occur quietly and peacefully.” If Crimea was “always” Russian as Putin insists, such an “injustice should have been corrected,” Zubov says, but it should have been done via referendum without the introduction of Russian military force as in the case of Scotland in Great Britain or Catalonia in Spain.
That is not what happened because Crimea wasn’t. And if it had been true that there was a genocide of ethnic Russians there, then United Nations rules about the right of peoples to self-determination under threat of disappearance might have been applied, the Moscow historian says. “But there was no genocide in Crimea while it was part of Ukraine.”
That has forced the Russian side to rely on three other arguments: that “Crimea was always Russian,” that “Crimea has been covered with Russian blood in many wars,” and that “Crimea was handed over to Ukraine illegally.” All of those, Zubov argues, collapse upon even the most superficial examination.
In antiquity and the medieval period, the Crimean peninsula was controlled by many states and populated by many peoples. Russia and Russians weren’t among them because neither a Russian state nor a Russian nation existed, the Russian historian points out. It only became part of the Russian world in April 1783 when it was seized in a bloody war. As a result of that occupation, the population of the peninsula declined by a factor of five, and many of the Muslims who remained were forcibly converted to Christianity. Indeed, Zubov says, until the 1930s, many Muslims urged their children to protect Christian cemeteries there because their own ancestors had been buried in them. Over the course of the century of Russian rule from Catherine II to Alexander II, about 900,000 Muslims left Crimea. In their place arrived Christians from the Ottoman Empire – Greeks, Bulgarians and Armenians and Germans from Russia, Germany and Austro-Hungary, Zubov continues.
As a result, the share of Tatars in the Crimean population fell dramatically: from 87.6 percent in 1795 to 35.6 percent in 1897 and to 19.4 percent in 1939.
But even if Crimea was absorbed by the Russian Empire, one must keep in mind, Zubov says, that “the Russian Empire of the 17th to 19th centuries and present-day Russia are not one and the same state.” The former included many peoples, “and present-day Russia can hardly pretend to any lands only on the basis that sometime they were part of the Romanov empire.”
The Bolsheviks rejected the notion that they were the successors of the Russian Empire.
They insisted that “they were building a new state of workers and peasants,” and once in power, “they changed the borders among these states many times,” taking land from one and giving it to another, including the transfer of Crimea from the RSFSR to Ukraine in 1954. But what is important, Zubov argues, is this: “however conditional [these administrative borders] were in the USSR, after the disintegration of the USSR, they were confirmed by international agreements” and by the declarations of the countries which emerged, including the Russian Federation.
As far as time of control is concerned, the Ottoman Empire controlled Crimea for three centuries, the Russian Empire for 134 years, the RSFSR and the Russian Federation which has declared itself that entity’s successor 34 years, and “the Ukrainian SSR and present-day Ukraine 60 years (from 1954 to 2014).”
Moreover, the Russian historian points out, during the Soviet period, “a multitude of crimes were committed against the indigenous Crimean Tatar and all other peoples of the peninsula including Russians.” Some 60,000 died in battles at the end of the Russian Civil War, and another 80,000 died in the succeeding famine.
Collectivization and forced deportation had an additional and horrific impact. In August 1941, 63,000 Germans were expelled, in January-February 1942 700 Italians, and in 1944, 191,000
Crimean Tatars, 15,040 Greeks, 12,242 Bulgarians, 9600 Armenians, and 3650 Turks and Persians were deported. Many died in the process.
That reduced the population of Crimea by two-thirds, Zubov says, and the places left vacant were then filled by Soviet war veterans, NKVD officers, and political workers. As a result, “the composition of the population of Crimea was dramatically changed.” Only in the 1980s did
the Crimean Tatars have a chance to begin to return. “And now,” Zubov concludes, “’Crimea is ours,’” a declaration that not only is without historical justification but one that has led to the horrific war in Ukraine and the international isolation of Russia. “Is there a way out? Yes,” he says.” But that will requires giving up claims to this land and returning the question of its fate to the people who live there.
RUSSIA GETS TO TAKE LAND IS NOT ACCEPTABLE !! Nobody wants to be a "buffer country". The whole concept is demeaning to an independent nation. NO nation wants to have a little bit of freedom and self-determination like a type of 2nd class country; that is not right, and Russia has no right to demand or bully Ukrainians or Ukraine to accept to be some sort of lap dog on a leash 2nd class country, that indirectly will serving the kremlins geopolitical agenda, and so Kremlin, the RuZZians and Putin can feel better about themselves …
All the Eastern European countries has more or less joined NATO because they was scared of Russia and want make sure they will stay independent, (and the same goes for the EU financial independence ) Nobody forced Eastern European countries to join , NATO or the EU all of them came running and begging and knocking on the door of NATO and EU by themselves, asking and begging to be let into The EU and NATO !!
Russia invading Ukriane back 2014 and Georgia back in 2008 and now all out war with Ukraine from 2022++ just showed, why it was and still is a good idea for those Eastern European countries to join NATO, and the EU because if they didn't they might just have got invaded as well .
During Soviet times those Eastern countries where nothing but quasi Russia puppet states and where totally exploited by Russia under under its heel and boot. If those eastern European countries didn't join NATO then they couldn't have guaranteed their own future continuous independence from Russia by themselves . Nato did nothing wrong, the only mistake was Ukraine not joining NATO to ensure their independence !!!
The former satellite states like Poland,Romania,Czech Republic and The Baltic states, Slovakia ect ect was running to and knocking at the front door of EU and NATO begging to come inn and thats the truth !! . If Russia was not such a asshole country and stoped constantly bulling neighboring countries maybe other neighboring countries will not need to join NATO and by more open and welcoming to Russia ..
Moscow is ONLY 480 km to Latvia and 150 km from St, Petersburg and via Estonia so the argument that NATO will get closer to Moscow if Ukraine joins NATO is BSthere is 800 km from Kyiv to Moscow ..
On a side side note ; Election under a gun with tanks and thugs standing over the voting boxes is not an election it can not be a free and legal election…Referendums vía gun point isn't a referendum, it's racketeering. Something that Russia knows oh so very well how to do. YOU CAN VOTE AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN It will never be legal as long as Russian army is there and as lone as it is an illegal gov. put there by an occupying force
It might be useful to recap some of the reason why Russia is now an outcast :
Russian interference in numerous elections and referendums in EU countries over the last decade; Russia's active disinformation campaigns across the EU;
Russian-based cyber attacks targeting numerous EU countries;
Provocative Russian military flights in and around EU and NATO airspace;
Russia's interference with GPS navigation systems in Scandinavia;
Russia's continued deployment of "peacekeepers" in Moldova despite that country's repeated requests that Russian troops be replaced with UN peacekeepers;
Russia's 2008 war against Georgia and its continued occupation of some 20 percent of Georgian territory;
Russia's 2014 annexation of Ukraine's Crimea region;
Russia's intense involvement in the war in eastern Ukraine, which the ICC in November 2016 ruled "an international armed conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation";
Russia's obstructionism in implementation of the Minsk agreements to end the Ukraine conflict;
Russia's role in acts of terrorism in the 2014 downing of a passenger airliner (Malaysia Airlines MH17) over Ukraine that killed 298 people;
Russia's poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in London in 2006;
Russia's attempted assassination of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal in Salisbury in 2018;
among lots of other things to much to even list up ..
NONE OF THIS ABOVE WAS SOMETHING THE EU , THE USA OR EVEN NATO, FORCED OR TRICKED RUSSIA INTO DOING !!!
So in-fact ANY NATO country members navy and or air force is within their full right to sail and be within the Black Sea, as non of the Black Sea Nations (That have a real and legal int. recognized cost-line not like Russia ) have any problem with NATO ships being in their waters and even the non NATO members like Ukraine and Georgia, even more so then the NATO nations, want and are begging for more NATO ships to come and be in the BLACK SEA !
(NATO nations of the black sea are in-fact real black sea nations not like Russia stealing land then claiming to be the owner of that land and sea )
Coastline length to the black see by country/ Country Coastline length (km)
AND ON A SIDE NOTE : NATO is already 500 km from Moscow via Latvia and 150 km from St, Petersburg via Estonia so the argument that NATO will get closer to Moscow if Ukraine joins NATO is BS there is 800 km from Kyiv to Moscow ..
And her is a thought .. if every neighbor you have is running to begging NATO to let them join NATO is it becouse you are such a nice and good neighbor?
Or is it because you act like a bully and are aggressive and invade your neighbor lands sending in troops and tanks Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, Poland 1980 Moldova 1990-91, Georgia 2008, East Ukraine and Crimea 2014 ++ All of Ukraine 2022+++
Russia eat eat eats their victims and blames it victim's for eating them …
Maybe if you act in a more nicer way, then your neighbors will liked you more and maybe your neighbors in your neighborhood will want to be around you as well ..
It was given simply because they could do so, for free. This is something that is difficult for capitalist to understand. Also fresh water to peninsula goes from Ukraine side. Crimea is the autonomous republic and back in 1991 should have been a referendum to stay with Ukraine or go back to Russia, but never happened. This is why Russia took it and Ukraine wants it back.
from 1991 to 2014 , Crimea did not develop … nothing was built . the factories are abandoned and collapsed . Since 2014 , Russia has built hospitals and roads .. kindergartens and schools .. updated communication networks and sewerage system … absolutely completely restore the Crimea . and now there are 3 official languages in Crimea , and in Ukraine there was only Ukrainian .
In 1991 a referendum was held in Crimea. 92% voted to stay with Ukraine……because they thought it was a better, more free future than being with Russia…….how right they were. But that changed in 2013 when Russians living in Crimea noticed that Putin owned 1/2 the large vessels in Sevastapol harbour and thought it would be a good idea to go with him and his corruption.
I don't think that fondness or guilt are convincing reasons to be attributed to a Soviet leader. More probably, Khrushchev saw Ukraine and Russia as indefectibly tied in the same political entity, USSR, with little difference to be made managing both population, as he himself experimented as local representative of soviet power. So joining Crimea to Ukraine solved a lot of complication, when managing the waterways, the road net, the armed forces, and so on. At the peak of USSR, none of the soviet leaders could have imagined something like an independent, even hostile Ukraine. Same for the Donbass, which experimented a massive industrial development and Russian workers settlement under Stalin, yet nobody considered transferring this strategical region from Eastern Ukraine into southern Russia, in case the two countries would separate.
It was surely a conspiracy to deprive Russia from Vital black sea ports in Crimea. Khruschev must have been a traitor along with others like Gorbachev who planned to dissolve USSR, thus creating a Russia without Crimea.
The Conspiracy started with Lenin (A JEW) who first created the Ukraine republic without any practical reason. Perhaps because Khazarian/Ashkenazi Jews wanted Ukraine to be their homeland instead of Palestine.
Crimea is no more Russian than Ukrainian, it belongs to the Tatars who were for the most part, expelled by Stalin. However, at least when the USSR fell, Ukrainians granted Crimea autonomy, allowed its own parliament and even encouraged Crimean Tatars who had been exiled to return, which is much more than the Russians did or have done since its illegal annexation….
crimea (and other territories) where a part of ukraine from 1917-1920, when ukraine was annexted by russia and crimea and other territories were stolen from ukraine. so crimea was part of ukraine, before it becomes part of russian ssr.
Not only do the civilians of Crimea vote in the referendum to become part of Russia, As you explained historically the Russians owned Crimea first. This further proves the point that this isn’t a “Russian annexation” but rather a liberation! The westerners don’t get to sit in our living room and set their own rules about who Crimea belongs to, We know that Crimea belongs to us and we will treat it like our homeland!
💥did Chrushch receive in return the votes of ukr commies and consolidated his power, HE was responsible for "the Stalin's" CRIMES as the 1st secretary in UA🇦🇺⚖️🇵🇱
it was owned by kyiv first well before moscovy existed and then many years later changed their name to russia in order to claim they were part of kyiv empire.
the russians killed and deported all the original residents to siberia so that makes it part of russia? it's like they take orphan children from ukraine to russia because they are orphans except they killed the parents . guy breaks into your house kills the parents now gets to adopt the children?
wtf? I need to do drugs and watch this again. and maybe it will make sense. or maybe I need to get drugs. but maybe not. at the end of the day who knows. or maybe definitely probably. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
the tsars were germanic as napoleon bourbon wettin caesars and lacedemon. soviet power supreme. eugenocide due. ka fvey dclxvi. address root causation. k pg au immediately. dredgeline harder
Make ukrain Russian again 🤘🇷🇺
During the same timeframe of the.50s, Ukraine received the Snakes Island from Romania (not part of the Soviet Union), and the southern still is today. of Moldova in the same time, Transdnistria was taken from SSR Ukraine and attached to the Eastern part of SSR Moldova, where it stilll
This certainly hasn’t helped anything.
Mistake to give Crimea to Russian province of Ukraine (Soviet province in this time period)
Something in the past can effect the world of today.
THE LEGAL FACTS WHY CRIMEA BELONGS TO UKRAINE .
The earlier published documents, and materials that have emerged more recently make clear that the transfer of Crimea from the RSFSR to the UkrSSR was carried out in accordance with the 1936 Soviet constitution, which in Article 18 stipulated that “the territory of a Union Republic may not be altered without its consent.” The proceedings of the USSR Supreme Soviet Presidium meeting indicate that both the RSFSR and the UkrSSR had given their consent via their republic parliaments.
One of the officials present at the 19 February session, Otto Kuusinen, even boasted that “only in our country [the USSR] is it possible that issues of the utmost importance such as the territorial transfer of individual oblasts to a particular republic can be decided without any difficulties.” One might argue that the process in 1954 would have been a lot better if it had been complicated and difficult, but no matter how one judges the expeditiousness of the territorial reconfiguration, the main point to stress here is that it is incorrect to say (as some Russian commentators and government officials recently have) that Crimea was transferred unconstitutionally or illegally. The legal system in the Soviet Union was mostly a fiction, but the transfer did occur in accordance with the rules in effect at the time.
Moreover, regardless of how the transfer was carried out, the Russian Federation expressly accepted Ukraine’s 1991 borders both in the December 1991 Belovezhskaya Pushcha accords (the agreements that precipitated and codified the dissolution of the Soviet Union) and in the December 1994 Budapest Memorandum that finalized Ukraine’s status as a non-nuclear weapons state.
RUSSIA’S INVASION OF UKRAINE in 2014 VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW:
1. The Geneva Convention.
2. Charter of the United Nations
3. The Helsinki Accords
4. The Charter of the OSCE
5. Budapest Memorandum of 1994
6. Two Russia, Ukraine friendship treaties
7. International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination
8. European Court of Human Rights
THE LEGAL FACTS WHY CRIMEA BELONGS TO UKRAINE .
The earlier published documents, and materials that have emerged more recently make clear that the transfer of Crimea from the RSFSR to the UkrSSR was carried out in accordance with the 1936 Soviet constitution, which in Article 18 stipulated that “the territory of a Union Republic may not be altered without its consent.” The proceedings of the USSR Supreme Soviet Presidium meeting indicate that both the RSFSR and the UkrSSR had given their consent via their republic parliaments.
One of the officials present at the 19 February session, Otto Kuusinen, even boasted that “only in our country [the USSR] is it possible that issues of the utmost importance such as the territorial transfer of individual oblasts to a particular republic can be decided without any difficulties.” One might argue that the process in 1954 would have been a lot better if it had been complicated and difficult, but no matter how one judges the expeditiousness of the territorial reconfiguration, the main point to stress here is that it is incorrect to say (as some Russian commentators and government officials recently have) that Crimea was transferred unconstitutionally or illegally. The legal system in the Soviet Union was mostly a fiction, but the transfer did occur in accordance with the rules in effect at the time.
Moreover, regardless of how the transfer was carried out, the Russian Federation expressly accepted Ukraine’s 1991 borders both in the December 1991 Belovezhskaya Pushcha accords (the agreements that precipitated and codified the dissolution of the Soviet Union) and in the December 1994 Budapest Memorandum that finalized Ukraine’s status as a non-nuclear weapons state.
Crimea is Not Historically ‘Ours,’ Russian Historian Says in ‘Vedomosti’
The underlying premise of Vladimir Putin’s seizure of Crimea is false: Crimea has not been part of Russia from time immemorial. Instead, it has had a complex history, one in which Russia’s role has been remarkably brief. As a result, it is important that the future of the peninsula be decided by the people of Crimea itself rather than by Moscow.
That logic, widely recognized by many but unfortunately not by all in the West, has now been presented by Andrey Zubov in today’s “Vedomosti” newspaper in an article entitled “Is Crimea Ours? Just How Weighty are the Arguments that Crimea Historically Belongs to Russia”
Zubov, who was a professor at Moscow State Institute for International Relations (MGIMO) until he lost his position there because of his pro-Ukrainian positions, uses this article to lay out for Russian readers just how tendentious and wrong are the Kremlin’s arguments at a time when few in that country or elsewhere are willing to challenge them.
The beginning of the tragedy that is Russia’s current one in Ukraine was Ukraine which Moscow seized on the basis of Vladimir Putin’s claim that “Crimea always was and again has become Russian,” a claim that many have accepted without challenge and without reflecting that absorbing the lands of others “never will occur quietly and peacefully.”
If Crimea was “always” Russian as Putin insists, such an “injustice should have been corrected,” Zubov says, but it should have been done via referendum without the introduction of Russian military force as in the case of Scotland in Great Britain or Catalonia in Spain.
That is not what happened because Crimea wasn’t.
And if it had been true that there was a genocide of ethnic Russians there, then United Nations rules about the right of peoples to self-determination under threat of disappearance might have been applied, the Moscow historian says. “But there was no genocide in Crimea while it was part of Ukraine.”
That has forced the Russian side to rely on three other arguments: that “Crimea was always Russian,” that “Crimea has been covered with Russian blood in many wars,” and that “Crimea was handed over to Ukraine illegally.” All of those, Zubov argues, collapse upon even the most superficial examination.
In antiquity and the medieval period, the Crimean peninsula was controlled by many states and populated by many peoples. Russia and Russians weren’t among them because neither a Russian state nor a Russian nation existed, the Russian historian points out. It only became part of the Russian world in April 1783 when it was seized in a bloody war.
As a result of that occupation, the population of the peninsula declined by a factor of five, and many of the Muslims who remained were forcibly converted to Christianity. Indeed, Zubov says, until the 1930s, many Muslims urged their children to protect Christian cemeteries there because their own ancestors had been buried in them.
Over the course of the century of Russian rule from Catherine II to Alexander II, about 900,000 Muslims left Crimea. In their place arrived Christians from the Ottoman Empire – Greeks, Bulgarians and Armenians and Germans from Russia, Germany and Austro-Hungary, Zubov continues.
As a result, the share of Tatars in the Crimean population fell dramatically: from 87.6 percent in 1795 to 35.6 percent in 1897 and to 19.4 percent in 1939.
But even if Crimea was absorbed by the Russian Empire, one must keep in mind, Zubov says, that “the Russian Empire of the 17th to 19th centuries and present-day Russia are not one and the same state.” The former included many peoples, “and present-day Russia can hardly pretend to any lands only on the basis that sometime they were part of the Romanov empire.”
The Bolsheviks rejected the notion that they were the successors of the Russian Empire.
They insisted that “they were building a new state of workers and peasants,” and once in power, “they changed the borders among these states many times,” taking land from one and giving it to another, including the transfer of Crimea from the RSFSR to Ukraine in 1954.
But what is important, Zubov argues, is this: “however conditional [these administrative borders] were in the USSR, after the disintegration of the USSR, they were confirmed by international agreements” and by the declarations of the countries which emerged, including the Russian Federation.
As far as time of control is concerned, the Ottoman Empire controlled Crimea for three centuries, the Russian Empire for 134 years, the RSFSR and the Russian Federation which has declared itself that entity’s successor 34 years, and “the Ukrainian SSR and present-day Ukraine 60 years (from 1954 to 2014).”
Moreover, the Russian historian points out, during the Soviet period, “a multitude of crimes were committed against the indigenous Crimean Tatar and all other peoples of the peninsula including Russians.” Some 60,000 died in battles at the end of the Russian Civil War, and another 80,000 died in the succeeding famine.
Collectivization and forced deportation had an additional and horrific impact. In August 1941, 63,000 Germans were expelled, in January-February 1942 700 Italians, and in 1944, 191,000
Crimean Tatars, 15,040 Greeks, 12,242 Bulgarians, 9600 Armenians, and 3650 Turks and Persians were deported. Many died in the process.
That reduced the population of Crimea by two-thirds, Zubov says, and the places left vacant were then filled by Soviet war veterans, NKVD officers, and political workers. As a result, “the composition of the population of Crimea was dramatically changed.” Only in the 1980s did
the Crimean Tatars have a chance to begin to return.
“And now,” Zubov concludes, “’Crimea is ours,’” a declaration that not only is without historical justification but one that has led to the horrific war in Ukraine and the international isolation of Russia. “Is there a way out? Yes,” he says.” But that will requires giving up claims to this land and returning the question of its fate to the people who live there.
RUSSIA GETS TO TAKE LAND IS NOT ACCEPTABLE !! Nobody wants to be a "buffer country". The whole concept is demeaning to an independent nation. NO nation wants to have a little bit of freedom and self-determination like a type of 2nd class country; that is not right, and Russia has no right to demand or bully Ukrainians or Ukraine to accept to be some sort of lap dog on a leash 2nd class country, that indirectly will serving the kremlins geopolitical agenda, and so Kremlin, the RuZZians and Putin can feel better about themselves …
All the Eastern European countries has more or less joined NATO because they was scared of Russia and want make sure they will stay independent, (and the same goes for the EU financial independence ) Nobody forced Eastern European countries to join , NATO or the EU all of them came running and begging and knocking on the door of NATO and EU by themselves, asking and begging to be let into The EU and NATO !!
Russia invading Ukriane back 2014 and Georgia back in 2008 and now all out war with Ukraine from 2022++ just showed, why it was and still is a good idea for those Eastern European countries to join NATO, and the EU because if they didn't they might just have got invaded as well .
During Soviet times those Eastern countries where nothing but quasi Russia puppet states and where totally exploited by Russia under under its heel and boot. If those eastern European countries didn't join NATO then they couldn't have guaranteed their own future continuous independence from Russia by themselves . Nato did nothing wrong, the only mistake was Ukraine not joining NATO to ensure their independence !!!
The former satellite states like Poland,Romania,Czech Republic and The Baltic states, Slovakia ect ect was running to and knocking at the front door of EU and NATO begging to come inn and thats the truth !! . If Russia was not such a asshole country and stoped constantly bulling neighboring countries maybe other neighboring countries will not need to join NATO and by more open and welcoming to Russia ..
Moscow is ONLY 480 km to Latvia and 150 km from St, Petersburg and via Estonia so the argument that NATO will get closer to Moscow if Ukraine joins NATO is BSthere is 800 km from Kyiv to Moscow ..
On a side side note ; Election under a gun with tanks and thugs standing over the voting boxes is not an election it can not be a free and legal election…Referendums vía gun point isn't a referendum, it's racketeering. Something that Russia knows oh so very well how to do. YOU CAN VOTE AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN It will never be legal as long as Russian army is there and as lone as it is an illegal gov. put there by an occupying force
It might be useful to recap some of the reason why Russia is now an outcast :
Russian interference in numerous elections and referendums in EU countries over the last decade; Russia's active disinformation campaigns across the EU;
Russian-based cyber attacks targeting numerous EU countries;
Provocative Russian military flights in and around EU and NATO airspace;
Russia's interference with GPS navigation systems in Scandinavia;
Russia's continued deployment of "peacekeepers" in Moldova despite that country's repeated requests that Russian troops be replaced with UN peacekeepers;
Russia's 2008 war against Georgia and its continued occupation of some 20 percent of Georgian territory;
Russia's 2014 annexation of Ukraine's Crimea region;
Russia's intense involvement in the war in eastern Ukraine, which the ICC in November 2016 ruled "an international armed conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation";
Russia's obstructionism in implementation of the Minsk agreements to end the Ukraine conflict;
Russia's role in acts of terrorism in the 2014 downing of a passenger airliner (Malaysia Airlines MH17) over Ukraine that killed 298 people;
Russia's poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in London in 2006;
Russia's attempted assassination of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal in Salisbury in 2018;
among lots of other things to much to even list up ..
NONE OF THIS ABOVE WAS SOMETHING THE EU , THE USA OR EVEN NATO, FORCED OR TRICKED RUSSIA INTO DOING !!!
The Black Sea countries are many!! And Then Black Sea does not belong to Russia that’s a myth !!
Bulgaria, (NATO )
Romania (NATO)
Turkey (NATO)
Ukraine (NATO partner )
Georgia (NATO partner)
So in-fact ANY NATO country members navy and or air force is within their full right to sail and be within the Black Sea, as non of the Black Sea Nations (That have a real and legal int. recognized cost-line not like Russia ) have any problem with NATO ships being in their waters and even the non NATO members like Ukraine and Georgia, even more so then the NATO nations, want and are begging for more NATO ships to come and be in the BLACK SEA !
(NATO nations of the black sea are in-fact real black sea nations not like Russia stealing land then claiming to be the owner of that land and sea )
Coastline length to the black see by country/ Country Coastline length (km)
Turkey 1,329km (NATO)
Ukraine 2,782km (NATO partner )
Bulgaria 354km (NATO)
Georgia 310km (NATO partner )
Romania 225km (NATO)
AND ON A SIDE NOTE : NATO is already 500 km from Moscow via Latvia and 150 km from St, Petersburg via Estonia so the argument that NATO will get closer to Moscow if Ukraine joins NATO is BS there is 800 km from Kyiv to Moscow ..
And her is a thought .. if every neighbor you have is running to begging NATO to let them join NATO is it becouse you are such a nice and good neighbor?
Or is it because you act like a bully and are aggressive and invade your neighbor lands sending in troops and tanks
Hungary 1956,
Czechoslovakia 1968,
Poland 1980
Moldova 1990-91,
Georgia 2008,
East Ukraine and Crimea 2014 ++
All of Ukraine 2022+++
Russia eat eat eats their victims and blames it victim's for eating them …
Maybe if you act in a more nicer way, then your neighbors will liked you more and maybe your neighbors in your neighborhood will want to be around you as well ..
was Starlin a Georgiana from Gori. NOT Russian
return Crimea*
It was given simply because they could do so, for free. This is something that is difficult for capitalist to understand. Also fresh water to peninsula goes from Ukraine side. Crimea is the autonomous republic and back in 1991 should have been a referendum to stay with Ukraine or go back to Russia, but never happened. This is why Russia took it and Ukraine wants it back.
from 1991 to 2014 , Crimea did not develop … nothing was built . the factories are abandoned and collapsed . Since 2014 , Russia has built hospitals and roads .. kindergartens and schools ..
updated communication networks and sewerage system … absolutely completely restore the Crimea .
and now there are 3 official languages in Crimea , and in Ukraine there was only Ukrainian .
In 1991 a referendum was held in Crimea. 92% voted to stay with Ukraine……because they thought it was a better, more free future than being with Russia…….how right they were. But that changed in 2013 when Russians living in Crimea noticed that Putin owned 1/2 the large vessels in Sevastapol harbour and thought it would be a good idea to go with him and his corruption.
Joseph Stalin Putin……
They knew then that there would be a war now. Illuminati.
All of this is irrelevant. The Budapest Memorandum makes Crimea part of Ukraine. End of story.
The ‘Khrushchev’s mistake’ narrative is just Russian propaganda used to justify genocide.
Crimerian?
I don't think that fondness or guilt are convincing reasons to be attributed to a Soviet leader.
More probably, Khrushchev saw Ukraine and Russia as indefectibly tied in the same political entity, USSR, with little difference to be made managing both population, as he himself experimented as local representative of soviet power.
So joining Crimea to Ukraine solved a lot of complication, when managing the waterways, the road net, the armed forces, and so on.
At the peak of USSR, none of the soviet leaders could have imagined something like an independent, even hostile Ukraine.
Same for the Donbass, which experimented a massive industrial development and Russian workers settlement under Stalin, yet nobody considered transferring this strategical region from Eastern Ukraine into southern Russia, in case the two countries would separate.
It was surely a conspiracy to deprive Russia from Vital black sea ports in Crimea. Khruschev must have been a traitor along with others like Gorbachev who planned to dissolve USSR, thus creating a Russia without Crimea.
The Conspiracy started with Lenin (A JEW) who first created the Ukraine republic without any practical reason. Perhaps because Khazarian/Ashkenazi Jews wanted Ukraine to be their homeland instead of Palestine.
Crimea is no more Russian than Ukrainian, it belongs to the Tatars who were for the most part, expelled by Stalin. However, at least when the USSR fell, Ukrainians granted Crimea autonomy, allowed its own parliament and even encouraged Crimean Tatars who had been exiled to return, which is much more than the Russians did or have done since its illegal annexation….
Maps from 1912 shows the whole Russian area around black sea belonging to Ukraine. It all depends on when.
crimea (and other territories) where a part of ukraine from 1917-1920, when ukraine was annexted by russia and crimea and other territories were stolen from ukraine. so crimea was part of ukraine, before it becomes part of russian ssr.
I thought the Crimea was Turkish.
Not only do the civilians of Crimea vote in the referendum to become part of Russia, As you explained historically the Russians owned Crimea first. This further proves the point that this isn’t a “Russian annexation” but rather a liberation! The westerners don’t get to sit in our living room and set their own rules about who Crimea belongs to, We know that Crimea belongs to us and we will treat it like our homeland!
Nikita Hruschov vose Ukrahine 🤭👍🙄🙄.
💥did the Tatars collaborated with Hitler and killed the Soviet resistence?🇦🇺⚖️🇵🇱
💥did Chrushch receive in return the votes of ukr commies and consolidated his power, HE was responsible for "the Stalin's" CRIMES as the 1st secretary in UA🇦🇺⚖️🇵🇱
it was owned by kyiv first well before moscovy existed and then many years later changed their name to russia in order to claim they were part of kyiv empire.
this little maneuver cost many lives
the russians killed and deported all the original residents to siberia so that makes it part of russia? it's like they take orphan children from ukraine to russia because they are orphans except they killed the parents . guy breaks into your house kills the parents now gets to adopt the children?
Kruschev was a communist Jew!
He didn't Ukraine is a state created by Russia 1917 its not a nation ! Its land made up of Poland and Russia ..
It was a symbolic gift, since it was one country, it also had a practical, administrative side, easier and more direct management.
Any weak man will stay with a strong woman.
wtf? I need to do drugs and watch this again. and maybe it will make sense. or maybe I need to get drugs. but maybe not. at the end of the day who knows. or maybe definitely probably. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Exactly how tito gave istria to croatia, despite them being the losers in the war
the tsars were germanic as napoleon bourbon wettin caesars and lacedemon. soviet power supreme. eugenocide due. ka fvey dclxvi. address root causation. k pg au immediately. dredgeline harder
Chruschtsch-O-v, not Chruschtsch-E-v!
They sure where bloody WRONG
Great Podcast. Quick & Simple. Thanks.