The New Crimean War - Wall Street Journal
Skagra
The New Crimean War
By ANDERS ASLUND and ADRIAN KARATNYCKY
December 28, 2005
Yesterday, Andrey Illarionov resigned as Vladimir Putin's economic
adviser in opposition to the country's loss of political and economic
freedom. The resignation of Mr. Illarionov, a market reformer, was only
the latest signal that the Russian president is pursuing a new
hard-line policy, both at home and abroad.
Nothing better illustrates Mr. Illarionov's warnings of mega
state-controlled corporations than the bitter dispute that has broken
out between Russian energy giant Gazprom and Ukraine.
To judge by the sensationalist headlines emanating from Moscow and
Kiev, the two countries appear on the verge of war. The bone of
contention is energy -- specifically, how much Kremlin-controlled
Gazprom will charge Ukraine for natural gas in 2006.
Last year, before the Orange Revolution, when Ukraine had a compliant,
less independent and less Europe-oriented government, Russia's terms
were very generous. It asked for just $50 per 1,000 cubic meters (mcm).
For next year, Gazprom suddenly is demanding more than four times as
much -- $220 to $230.
The economic dispute has been fanned by alarmist Russian comments
suggesting that Ukraine's refusal to accept Russia's terms is
"irresponsible" and is putting Russia's delivery of over 100 billion
cubic meters (bcm) of natural gas to Europe (a quarter of the
continent's needs) at risk. Sergei Yastrzhembsky, the Kremlin's envoy
to the European Union, says Ukraine is "blackmailing" the EU and
"holding European consumers hostage." Gazprom officials have spoken in
equally alarmist terms.
With Russia's rhetoric threatening to spin out of control, Ukrainian
Prime Minister Yuri Yekhanurov felt it necessary to assure the EU that
the gas supplies won't be disrupted. And President Viktor Yushchenko,
in an attempt to de-escalate the situation, even agreed that market
forces should eventually determine Ukraine's energy prices. "If Ukraine
really wants to become economically independent, sooner or later we
have to move to market relations for energy and organize our energy
consumption rationally," Mr. Yushchenko said.
However, Ukraine also insists that the current contracts be honored.
And a crucial addendum to a contract between Gazprom and Ukraine's
Naftohaz asserts that in return for the transit of gas via Ukraine
through 2009, Gazprom is to provide during that period "natural gas at
the price of $50 US per 1,000 cubic meters, a price that cannot be
changed by the parties." Gazprom, though, appears determined to
unilaterally abrogate the contract.
Despite Russia's tough tone in current negotiations, Ukraine actually
has little to fear from the long-term introduction of market forces. In
2005, Ukraine imported around 25 bcm of gas from Russia, 38 bcm from
Turkmenistan, and produced 18 bcm itself. For 2006, Turkmenistan has
agreed to increase its natural gas supplies to Ukraine at an
inexpensive $60 per mcm.
Were Ukraine and Russia to scrap current contracts for market prices
that have surged to well over $200 per mcm, Ukraine would be in turn
entitled to charge Russia market prices for the transit of gas over its
territory. That transit charge could go up to about $3 per mcm/100 km
from the current $ 1.09. With Turkmenistan's likely increase of gas
exports, Kiev could reduce its supplies from Gazprom accordingly so
that the transit fees should be enough to cover for Russia's gas
supplies. At worst, Ukraine would end up paying around $1 billion a
year more, or a little over 1% of its GDP.
There is a strong case for both countries to move to market prices.
Barter arrangements and special preferences have for years bred
corruption. During the corrupt '90s, Ukraine may have formally saved a
couple of billion of dollars on gas, but that gain went almost
exclusively to a handful of gas barons.
Transparent market pricing represents the best option, but the issue is
how to get there. Given the large quantities involved and contracts
that keep prices low through 2009, Ukraine asks for a reasonable
transition period to improve its poor energy efficiency, which is three
times worse than that of the U.S.
Still, Russia's move to market prices remains selective and arbitrary.
As Mr. Ilarionov has indicated, politics trumps business. The Russian
government makes sure that Gazprom maintains low prices of $48 per mcm
for Moscow-loyal Belarus while Georgia and Armenia -- two other
ex-Soviet republics with a more independent, pro-Western policy -- are
to pay $110 next year. Indeed, if, as President Putin now insists, all
this is a matter of economics, why has Russia eschewed quiet and
pragmatic negotiations and been so vocal in fanning disagreement? There
are three political reasons.
First, Russia seeks to influence Ukraine's March 2006 parliamentary
elections by suggesting to Ukrainian voters that the current government
in Kiev is economically incompetent and its pro-Western tilt harmful to
consumers.
Second, the Kremlin seeks to discredit Ukraine's "Orange" government
among Russian citizens in order to inoculate its population from the
contagion of democratic revolution.
Third, Russia seeks to drive a wedge between Europe and Ukraine by
painting the Kiev government as reckless and unreliable.
The U.S. and Europe have rightly stayed out of the dispute. But they
should insist that it be resolved according to two principles: strict
adherence to signed agreements and a transition to market prices
without politicization. The U.S. and the EU also should help strengthen
Ukraine's economy and sovereignty over the long term through closer
economic integration and support of programs to promote energy
efficiency.
The real challenge, though, is how the West deals with an increasingly
hard-line Kremlin that is testing how far it can go in using its
newfound energy wealth to promote political ends. This is what makes
the West's stake in the unfolding Russia-Ukraine gas dispute so large.
Mr. Åslund is director of the Russian and Eurasian Program at the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Mr. Karatnycky is founder
of the Orange Circle, a new international nongovernmental institute
working to promote the deepening of reforms in Ukraine.
Trident
turn around and reneg on the agreement to keep Russia's Black Sea fleet
in Crimea until 2015. Throw the bums out next year.
Trident
loco
"Trident" <wyn...@idirect.com> wrote in message
news:1135806427.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Apart from the fact that Crimea is part of Russia given away by crazy
Kruschev
and any democratic vote there(Crimea) would bring it back to at least
Autonomous within Russia..
Any argument saying that the Kruschev transfer was legal is also arguing
that all the SU decisiions were legal ... Can't have ya cake and eat it ...
>
cherni...@hotmail.com
loco wrote:
> "Trident" <wyn...@idirect.com> wrote in message
> news:1135806427.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > I say if Russia choses to reneg on the gas agreement, Ukraine should
> > turn around and reneg on the agreement to keep Russia's Black Sea fleet
> > in Crimea until 2015. Throw the bums out next year.
> >
> > Trident
>
>
> Apart from the fact that Crimea is part of Russia given away by crazy
> Kruschev
> and any democratic vote there(Crimea) would bring it back to at least
> Autonomous within Russia..
...As if those people value democracy. They respect only force...
> Any argument saying that the Kruschev transfer was legal is also arguing
> that all the SU decisiions were legal ... Can't have ya cake and eat it ...
The problem is that legally the legitimate, pre-Mongol rulers of
southern Rus was Galicia. From there every decision became
progressively farther from legitimacy. Deal with it.
BM
loco
> > > I say if Russia choses to reneg on the gas agreement, Ukraine should
> > > turn around and reneg on the agreement to keep Russia's Black Sea
fleet
> > > in Crimea until 2015. Throw the bums out next year.
> > >
> > > Trident
> >
> >
> > Apart from the fact that Crimea is part of Russia given away by crazy
> > Kruschev
> > and any democratic vote there(Crimea) would bring it back to at least
> > Autonomous within Russia..
>
> ...As if those people value democracy. They respect only force...
>
> > Any argument saying that the Kruschev transfer was legal is also arguing
> > that all the SU decisiions were legal ... Can't have ya cake and eat it
...
>
> The problem is that legally the legitimate, pre-Mongol rulers of
> southern Rus was Galicia. From there every decision became
> progressively farther from legitimacy. Deal with it.
>
To take it from the beginning (forgetting the creation myth) i beleive there
was a wooly mammoth that was first to proclaim ownership of crimea when he
went there and ate some grass there and did a big shit declaring his
ownership...
Now back to the reality of who is there now and there right to decide...
cherni...@hotmail.com
Woolly mammoth is about as relevant as Khrushchev's gift. Crimea is
part of Ukraine.
> Now back to the reality of who is there now and there right to decide...
I take it you also support Albanians' right to Kosovo? There are more
of them there, than there as Russians in Crimea. Continuing along
those lines, perhaps you agree that much of southwestern Moscow should
be annexed by Azerbaijan? Who is there now, after all?
BM
loco
The Kosovo thing is similar yes and will probably result in it becoming part
of Albania even though unlike Crimea(part of Russia) it has never been part
of Albania..
The Moscow bit is just silly..
cherni...@hotmail.com
> >
> > > Now back to the reality of who is there now and there right to decide...
> >
> > I take it you also support Albanians' right to Kosovo? There are more
> > of them there, than there as Russians in Crimea. Continuing along
> > those lines, perhaps you agree that much of southwestern Moscow should
> > be annexed by Azerbaijan? Who is there now, after all?
> >
>
> The Kosovo thing is similar yes and will probably result in it becoming part
> of Albania even though unlike Crimea(part of Russia) it has never been part
> of Albania..
Who cares about ever/never when it comes to ancient history (your idea,
not mine). Crimea was part of legitimate Ukrainian government in 1918
(recognized as such by both kaisers I believe), stolen by Bolsheviks
before returned by Khrushchev. The only crime is that parts of Ukraine
(Kuban, southern Kursk oblast, Brest and southern Belorus) continue to
be occupied by foreigners.
BM
loco
>
> > >
> > > > Now back to the reality of who is there now and there right to
decide...
> > >
> > > I take it you also support Albanians' right to Kosovo? There are more
> > > of them there, than there as Russians in Crimea. Continuing along
> > > those lines, perhaps you agree that much of southwestern Moscow should
> > > be annexed by Azerbaijan? Who is there now, after all?
> > >
> >
> > The Kosovo thing is similar yes and will probably result in it becoming
part
> > of Albania even though unlike Crimea(part of Russia) it has never been
part
> > of Albania..
> The Moscow bit is just silly..
> Who cares about ever/never when it comes to ancient history (your idea,
> not mine). Crimea was part of legitimate Ukrainian government in 1918
> (recognized as such by both kaisers I believe), stolen by Bolsheviks
> before returned by Khrushchev. The only crime is that parts of Ukraine
> (Kuban, southern Kursk oblast, Brest and southern Belorus) continue to
> be occupied by foreigners.
>
Rubbish Crimea was never part of Ukraine before Kruzchevs' immoral gift in
1954 , it was either Tatar (they originally invaded it too) , or Russian..
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0857627.html
cherni...@hotmail.com
Parts of Crimea were part of Rus (conquered by Sviatoslav) before the
tatar invasion, therefore part of Ukraine. After the Germans liberated
Ukraine in 1918 Crimea became part of Skoropadsky's governemnt; this
was when the black sea fleet flew the Ukrainian flag for the first
time:
http://www.geocities.com/unavy/UkrainianNavy.html
regards,
BM
loco
>> > http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0857627.html
>
> Parts of Crimea were part of Rus (conquered by Sviatoslav) before the
> tatar invasion, therefore part of Ukraine. After the Germans liberated
> Ukraine in 1918 Crimea became part of Skoropadsky's governemnt; this
> was when the black sea fleet flew the Ukrainian flag for the first
> time:
""After the Germans liberated
> Ukraine in 1918 Crimea""
Thats an amazing thing to proclaim that a place (Crimea) full of Russians
and never historically belong ing to your supposed liberators ..
And nowhere in you link does it mention Crimea being part of Ukraine..
Heres a map for you in Ukrainian too!!
http://sumy.net.ua/?p=1&g=2&o=17
The Black Monk
>
> >> > http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0857627.html
> >
> > Parts of Crimea were part of Rus (conquered by Sviatoslav) before the
> > tatar invasion, therefore part of Ukraine. After the Germans liberated
> > Ukraine in 1918 Crimea became part of Skoropadsky's governemnt; this
> > was when the black sea fleet flew the Ukrainian flag for the first
> > time:
>
> ""After the Germans liberated
> > Ukraine in 1918 Crimea""
>
> Thats an amazing thing to proclaim that a place (Crimea) full of Russians
> and never historically belong ing to your supposed liberators ..
> And nowhere in you link does it mention Crimea being part of Ukraine..
Sorry, I gave you the right website but the wrong specific page.
Here's the right one:
http://www.geocities.com/unavy/aUNRnavy.html
It quite clearly states that Crimea was under the control of the UNR
soon after March 10, 1918; virtually the entire Black Sea Fleet (which
in czarist times had been 75% ethnic Ukrainian) came under control of
the Ukrainian government on April 29, 1918.
> Heres a map for you in Ukrainian too!!
>
> http://sumy.net.ua/?p=1&g=2&o=17
I've got the source for that map in Magosci's Ukraine: A History, which
clearly places Crimea in the category of territory claimed by the
Hetmanate April-December 1918. The guys at the Sumy website that put
up your version of that map may have screwed up...
>From the web site I listed above:
Ukrainian Navy 1917-20
Already prior to Ukraine proclaiming idependence and the Russian
Revolutioin, Ukrainian sailors dominated the Imperial Black Sea Fleet.
Before the Great War Ukrainians composed 75% of the Black Fleet and
dominated in the whole of the Russian Navy. Great importance to
further Ukrainization of the navy gave such cultural organizations
like "Kobzar" which existed in Sevastopol since 1905 and attracted many
high ranking official of Ukrianian background. In 1917 Black Sea
Council was proclaimed in Sevastopol and it was to continue the
Ukrainization. This movement was supported by vice-admiral O. Kolchak,
who admired all Ukrainian crues for their discipline and neatness. By
the end of 1917 almost every ship in the Black Sea Navy had Ukrainian
Council representatives. Similar councils were created for the naval
aviation, which even had its own banner.
Similar plans of Ukrainization were attempted in other Imperial Fleets,
such as the Baltic Fleet.
Ukrainian Marine Revolutionary Headquarters of the Baltic Sea Navy was
created by lefthanant S. Shramchenko, who wanted to raise the Ukrainian
Flag on kreisser "Svitlana" and minesweapers "Ukrainets" and
"Haidamada" and transfer them to the Black Sea. This plan however
failed, due to the outbrake of the Russian Revolution. Similar
Ukrainian councils were also created in Kaspian, Siberian, Amur and
Northern flotilas. Great negotiations were done with the Kuban
Republic according to which Ukraine was to have acces to the Kaspian
Sea.
Ukrainian Navy in UNR 1918
With the proclamation of UNR (Ukrainian Peoples Republic) most of the
ships in the Black Sea Fleet started to raise the Ukrainian flag. One
of the first ones to do so, was the destroyer "Zavydnyi" who on July
1917 raised the first Ukrainian flag. On December 22 Ukrainian General
Secretary of the Navy was created. "Temporary law of UNR fleet" issued
by the Secretary in January 14th, proclaimed all the Russian Black Sea
fleet and Merchant Fleets as the fleet of UNR and all the ships had to
raise the Ukrainian flags. The fleets main purpose was to protect the
Black and Azov Seas coastlines and was completelly sponsored and
equipped by UNR. Vice-Admiral A. Pokrovsky became responsible for the
conduct of the operations. Due to costant threat of the Bolsheviks and
pro-russian forces, the controll of the Navy changed almost each month,
the blue-and-yellow Ukrainian banners would be changed to Red ones,
then to the Black Anarchist (for an instance creating the largest
pirate fleet in the world). UNR decided to put the end of this and in
March 10th 1918 "Hit corps" were created and moved into the Crimea.
Once such vital cities as Melitopol were taken the rest of Crimea was
occupied easily. Great advantage for UNR was that the two largest
dreadnouts "Volia" and "Tsarytsia Kateryna Velyka" raised the Ukrainian
flag and forced the rest of the fleet to obey under their large
cannons. This occured on 29th of April, 1918 and ever since this date
was considered to be the Ukrainian Navy Day.
Besides the Navy, number of marine brigades were dislocated in Ukraine,
such as Baltic Marine Division, located on Danube, Special Marine
Division. Such maritime fortresses as Sevastopol, Ochakiv and the
coastal artillery also raised the Ukrainian Flag.
Ukrainian Navy during Hetmanate 1918
Remarkably 29th of April was also the day when a coup-detat occured
against UNR and Hetmanate (Monarchy) was proclaimed. Hetmanate was the
term used by the cossacks meaning generalship (hetman - haupt man in
ger. - general). Pavlo Skoropadsky was proclaimed to be the hetman and
with the support of the German Armies as his allies became the ruler of
Ukraine. This caused the "Hit Corps" to be recalled from Crimea, which
was overruned by the German trooops. With communications lost with
Kiev, vice-admiral Sablin with some ships retreved to Novorossijsk,
while other ships had changed their flags again to fly the Imperial
Kaisers banner. Only after the communications were re-established, the
navy was handed over to the Hetman. During the reign of hetman
Skoropadsky a lot was done for navy. The newly established Minnistry
of Naval Affeirs developped a series of laws regulating the uniform,
ranks, flags and other symbols. At the same time officers manuals were
being translatted into Ukrainian and other instructions. For the first
time since Ukrainian Idependence names of the ships were changed from
Russian to Ukrainian. Towards November 1918, Hetmanate also received
Mozyrsk (Pinks) flotylla which also used to be in the hands of the
Germans. Because of German losses in the war, they began to withdraw
from Crimea and their place was soon replaced by the ships of Antate.
Since Hetman Ukraine was supporter of the Tripple Alliance, the Antante
considered them as possible enemies they occupied the ships and started
to divide them among themselves as war throphies and transfered some
of the ships to Istambul.
Ukrainian Navy during Directory 1919
The withdrawal of the German armies from Ukraine signaled an all state
rebellion against the hetman. By December 1918 he was overtrown and
replaced by coalition government called Directory (Dyrectoria). When
Directory took over, the supportes of hetman in the navy were replaced
by new cadre, which became wery active. A series of new laws were
passed to regulate the naval affairs. Thus Naval Ministry was reformed
and a Guarmarine school was formed in October 1, 1919. Already by
February 25th "The Navy Bill" stated that the navy was to play a key
role in Ukrainian politics, proposed further construction of new ships
and increace the naval aviation and marine corps. The navy was to be
competed with unfinished cruisers from the docks and included the
Baltic minesweepers, where majority of sailors was of Ukrainian origin.
The Naval Bill also indicates the size of Ukrainian Navy at that time.
In the year 1919 the Ukrainian Navy composed of 800 officers and 12500
sailors. The Bill was also to enforce the reconstruction of coastal
defences and hidrographical probing of the Black Sea. New ships were
constructed in the shipyards and in the construction policy, Directory
tended to continue the policy Kaisers Germany - amasing a large fleet
of superdreadnouts. Even with the ships of Antante in Crimea, the
Naval minister M. Bilynsky still worked on creation of the Southern
Front and recovery of Crimea. A new marine regiment was formed as
well. 1st Hutsylsky Regiment was formed from lumberjacks from Western
Ukraine and those Galicians who served in the Imperial Austro-Hungarian
Navy in the Adriatic. Soon in Kamianets-Podilsky 2nd Marine Regiment
was formed and the third regiment was in the proces of forming, when
the war with the Bolsheviks broke out. Together these three regiments
formed the 1st Marine Division, which engaged with the Bolsheviks
around Kamianets region. Kamianets-Podilsky soon became the permanent
residence of the Directory governement , which was dislocated due to
Bolsheviks capture of Kiev. Kamianets there for became an important
center and a Guardmarine school was opened to produce new cadre for the
Navy.
In 1920 the Naval Ministry also created Dnipro Flotylla, which
patrolled the Dnipro river and even included an armored train
"Chornomorets" to protect the vital supply cities.
Fall of Ukrainian Naval forces
Towards the end of 1921 Ukraine was faced with four fronts. With Poles
in the West, Bolshevika to the East , Antante and Denikin in the South
and Typhys epidemy breaking out, Ukrainian troops became exhaused and
lacked ammunition. The 1st Marine Division participated in First (1920)
and Second (1921) Winter Campains against the Bolsheviks and in their
uneven battle at the Mali Mlynky was mostly destroyed and those who
surrendered were still executed. The ships which Antante took to
Istambul were handed over to Denikins forces. The same ships were
used to evacuate Wrangel's army and latter part of them was left to the
Turks and part taken to Bizetta in Northern Africa, where they became
part of French Navy. The government of UNR put its claims for the
Navy and even appealed to the Council of Nations, but France ignored
the appeals and sold some ships, while others served in the French Navy
until the 50's.
The Mozyr river flotylla was caputred by the Poles and joined the
Polish navy. Througout the 1922 - 1939 the Bolsheviks staged a number
of fake trials against the Ukrainian sailors and many along with some
leading officers were imprisoned or executed. Those who managed to
escape settled in Galicia and in the interwar years would join the
Polish Navy and during the war the German Kriegsmarines.
------------------------------------------------------
Basically this shows that the French are thieves, among other their
other sins.
BM
loco
So your saying that a year or so under a Ukrainian flag in the midst of a
greater war with third party backing (Germany), and not recognised by the
world (the Allies of WW1) ,constitutes any real significance compared to two
hundred years of Russian control over an area of mainly Russians..
If it really so complicated give the Crimeans the plebicite to decide
finally for themselves...
The Black Monk
> >
> > > And nowhere in you link does it mention Crimea being part of Ukraine..
> >
> > Sorry, I gave you the right website but the wrong specific page.
> > Here's the right one:
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/unavy/aUNRnavy.html
> >
> > It quite clearly states that Crimea was under the control of the UNR
> > soon after March 10, 1918; virtually the entire Black Sea Fleet (which
> > in czarist times had been 75% ethnic Ukrainian) came under control of
> > the Ukrainian government on April 29, 1918.
> >
> > > Heres a map for you in Ukrainian too!!
> > >
> > > http://sumy.net.ua/?p=1&g=2&o=17
> >
> > I've got the source for that map in Magosci's Ukraine: A History, which
> > clearly places Crimea in the category of territory claimed by the
> > Hetmanate April-December 1918. The guys at the Sumy website that put
> > up your version of that map may have screwed up...
> >
> > >From the web site I listed above:
> >
...history of Ukrainian Navy 1917-1922 cut...
>
> So your saying that a year or so under a Ukrainian flag in the midst of a
> greater war with third party backing (Germany),
Thanks for conceding that Crimea was, indeed, part of Ukraine prior to
Khrushchev's "gift-giving".
> and not recognised by the world (the Allies of WW1)
Sorry, but Great Powers Germany, Austria-Hungary and their allies did
indeed constitute "the world" in 1918, at the time that Crimea was
officially part of Ukraine.
> constitutes any real significance compared to two
> hundred years of Russian control over an area of mainly Russians..
You're changing arguments here. This is another point entirely. But
if you wish to puruse it, keep in mind that centuries of Ukrainian
struggle against Crimea's tatatrs made eventual Russian rule and
settlelent possible. Also keep in mind that prior to the Revolution
Crimea was not as Russian as it was afterwards. It had significant
Tatar and large Ukrainian population (living in the northern part of
the peninsula). Inded, in 1939 only about 50% of Crimea's population
was ethnic Russian:
http://www.iccrimea.org/population.html
> If it really so complicated give the Crimeans the plebicite to decide
> finally for themselves...
Why not give Chechens plebiscite? Tatars, Bashkirs, etc. Perhaps the
residents of Kurils would want to all become Japanese citizens?
BM
loco
> > >
> > > Sorry, I gave you the right website but the wrong specific page.
> > > Here's the right one:
> > >
> > > http://www.geocities.com/unavy/aUNRnavy.html
> > >
> > > It quite clearly states that Crimea was under the control of the UNR
> > > soon after March 10, 1918; virtually the entire Black Sea Fleet (which
> > > in czarist times had been 75% ethnic Ukrainian) came under control of
> > > the Ukrainian government on April 29, 1918.
> > >
> > > > Heres a map for you in Ukrainian too!!
> > > >
> > > > http://sumy.net.ua/?p=1&g=2&o=17
> > >
> > > I've got the source for that map in Magosci's Ukraine: A History,
which
> > > clearly places Crimea in the category of territory claimed by the
> > > Hetmanate April-December 1918. The guys at the Sumy website that put
> > > up your version of that map may have screwed up...
> > >
> > > >From the web site I listed above:
> > >
>
> ...history of Ukrainian Navy 1917-1922 cut...
>
> >
> > So your saying that a year or so under a Ukrainian flag in the midst of
a
> > greater war with third party backing (Germany),
>
> Thanks for conceding that Crimea was, indeed, part of Ukraine prior to
> Khrushchev's "gift-giving".
I didn't concede anything other than that a Axis Puppet raised it's flag
over someone else's territory ..
>
> > and not recognised by the world (the Allies of WW1)
>
> Sorry, but Great Powers Germany, Austria-Hungary and their allies did
> indeed constitute "the world" in 1918, at the time that Crimea was
> officially part of Ukraine.
I don't think the rest of the world considered the german empire to be
anything much after WW2
>
> > constitutes any real significance compared to two
> > hundred years of Russian control over an area of mainly Russians..
>
> You're changing arguments here. This is another point entirely. But
> if you wish to puruse it, keep in mind that centuries of Ukrainian
> struggle against Crimea's tatatrs made eventual Russian rule and
> settlelent possible. Also keep in mind that prior to the Revolution
> Crimea was not as Russian as it was afterwards. It had significant
> Tatar and large Ukrainian population (living in the northern part of
> the peninsula). Inded, in 1939 only about 50% of Crimea's population
> was ethnic Russian:
>
Well not really the original point i made was that in 1954 the population
was mainly Russian ,here's a link http://www.iccrimea.org/population.html
(thanks)..
And if they would of had a choice, then they in every likelyhood would have
remained in Russia..
So if your saying what Kruzchev did was ok (i believe it was regarded by
most within the USSR as illegal) then everthing else the USSR did was legal
too ( i don't think so)..
This is totally pointing aside the morallity..
>
> > If it really so complicated give the Crimeans the plebicite to decide
> > finally for themselves...
One point not raised here is the fact that if when the Ukraine and Russia
both joined the UN in 1945 they both signed onto respecting each others
boundaries..
So Kruzchevs Gift can be seen as an invasion of one member state by
another..
Kruzchev being a Ukrainian and all..
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
The map is in english
From the S.S.R. era. Note the "Present Ukrainian S.S.R. boundary"
printed in logo area on the bottom left hand corner.
Also since Krym is indicated as being not in Ukraine, the map
is either from pre Khruschev boundary adjustments, or doctored
(however) for propaganda purposes
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
>
> If it really so complicated give the Crimeans the plebicite to decide
> finally for themselves...
>
of that portion of the population which wanted to regain independance
from russia. Perhaps Ukraine should adapt a similar philosophy
wrt the russian cuckoo birds in Krym.
I'm sure that you loco will see the logic of that. :)
--
Rostyk
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
Large portions of the Far East might select to (re)join China.
Lots of Chinese moving in. Whole village at a time :)
Manchuria may go Chinese. ...
yp
The problem is that this will not provide Ukraine with more gas at
reasonable price. And if the Russians pack up and leave, Ukraine will
be left with old rusting ships and a great deal of pollution.
I think that a better idea would be to charge the Russian fleet four
times their originally agreed costs, as the Russians are proposing to
charge Ukraine for their gas. Moreover, establish stringent controls
that the fleet should abide by all agreed conditions, including
cleaning up its pollution and getting rid of decaying vessels.
Yuri
captain.
"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" <urj...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ouatf.77833$k76....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
the text in the word "crimea" does seem to look different than the other
text fonts. if this means doctoring??? who knows?
Mr. X
captain.
"Mr. X" <X...@X.edu> wrote in message news:Yyjtf.43$2j2...@fe11.lga...
> Cap, leave the things that require intelligence to others, OK?
i don't know why you are so jealous of me all of a sudden... wait... is it
because i occupy such a prestigious position on the all time posters list?
yes, it must be that.
Mr. X
"captain." <spammer...@now.net> wrote in message
news:oCntf.25600$OU5.474@clgrps13...
Poor fella,
MTRP doesn't even know what spam is. Carrying on a conversation in a NG is
not spam.
cherni...@hotmail.com
> > ...history of Ukrainian Navy 1917-1922 cut...
> >
> > >
> > > So your saying that a year or so under a Ukrainian flag in the midst of
> a
> > > greater war with third party backing (Germany),
> >
> > Thanks for conceding that Crimea was, indeed, part of Ukraine prior to
> > Khrushchev's "gift-giving".
>
> I didn't concede anything other than that a Axis Puppet raised it's flag
> over someone else's territory ..
There was no Axis in 1918. Sorry, you are historically illiterate.
Don't you know the difference between World War I and II?
> >
> > > and not recognised by the world (the Allies of WW1)
> >
> > Sorry, but Great Powers Germany, Austria-Hungary and their allies did
> > indeed constitute "the world" in 1918, at the time that Crimea was
> > officially part of Ukraine.
>
> I don't think the rest of the world considered the german empire to be
> anything much after WW2
This all occurred during the war, not after. The governments of
Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, Turkey, etc. etc. who recognized
the Ukrainian government were all legitimate by anyone's standards.
> > > constitutes any real significance compared to two
> > > hundred years of Russian control over an area of mainly Russians..
> >
> > You're changing arguments here. This is another point entirely. But
> > if you wish to puruse it, keep in mind that centuries of Ukrainian
> > struggle against Crimea's tatatrs made eventual Russian rule and
> > settlelent possible. Also keep in mind that prior to the Revolution
> > Crimea was not as Russian as it was afterwards. It had significant
> > Tatar and large Ukrainian population (living in the northern part of
> > the peninsula). Inded, in 1939 only about 50% of Crimea's population
> > was ethnic Russian:
> >
>
> Well not really the original point i made was that in 1954 the population
> was mainly Russian ,here's a link http://www.iccrimea.org/population.html
> (thanks)..
You had claimed that Crimea was ethnically/culturally Russian for
almost 200 priors prior to 1954. I showed that this was quite an
exageration. actually, in 1954 it was ethnically.culturally Russian
for only about 9 years, thanks to Stalin's ethnic cleansing of Tatars,
Greeks, etc. after the war.
> And if they would of had a choice, then they in every likelyhood would have
> remained in Russia..
Sure.
> So if your saying what Kruzchev did was ok (i believe it was regarded by
> most within the USSR as illegal) then everthing else the USSR did was legal
> too ( i don't think so)..
The USSR conquering Ukraine, including Crimea, in 1918-1921 was
certainly illegal.
And Khrushchev was an ethnic Russian who lived in Ukraine fro a while,
not Ukrainian. Unless you believe all the residents of modern Crimea
are Ukrainian too.
regards,
BM