Ukraine far right Svoboda attack TV chief and force to resign

Summerwind said:

There's nothing in his post that addresses my remarks.

Click to expand...

Summerwind said:

I'm not reading past the first paragraph.

Click to expand...

Hmmmmmmm.

jmotivator said:

Hmmmmmmm.

Click to expand...

Whatever you think dude, you can waste your time with folks determined to waylay the point you're making, I choose not to. And by all appearances in the past year, I see exactly ZERO evidence that I should be anything like you. Thank you very much. Now do you have a point in the thread or are you trying to derail it by discussing me? There are a couple of really meaty discussions about the awfulness of Summerwind in the Dungeon, I suggest you head down there if you're determined to focus on me and not the topic.

Summerwind said:

Whatever you think dude, you can waste your time with folks determined to waylay the point you're making, I choose not to. And by all appearances in the past year, I see exactly ZERO evidence that I should be anything like you. Thank you very much. Now do you have a point in the thread or are you trying to derail it by discussing me? There are a couple of really meaty discussions about the awfulness of Summerwind in the Dungeon, I suggest you head down there if you're determined to focus on me and not the topic.

Click to expand...

I'm not reading past the first sentence. Get over yourself. Either show courtesy and respond to the entirety of a persons post if you feel compelled to respond or get used to having most of your effort ignored. To open a response to a person by stating you haven't read what they wrote and then go on to comment on what little you did read anyway is ignorant, dishonest and rude.

jmotivator said:

Mubarak and Gaddafi were elected as well, were you sorry to see them go?

Click to expand...

From what I've read here, it was mostly posters on the right who were sorry to see them go.

This is ludicrous. The "Russian Speaking Ukrainians" associate with a Russian thug who poisons reporters, jails musicians, invades his neighbors in the name of ethnic protection, and kills Ukrainian soldiers. How about you take a half second to actually look at this rationally? How about you look at the history of Russian rule over Ukraine and open your eyes to who really has reason for concern. The only reason there is a Russian majority in Eastern Ukraine is because the Soviets murdered the Ukrainians there.

The Russian Speaking Eastern Ukraine is just lucky that the Western Ukrainians are actually civilized and haven't paralleled the PLO in militant demands for their land back. The most the Western regions can muster in that direction is a few asshats who took over a TV station.

Click to expand...

The Russians in Ukraine were concerned about these "few asshats" getting into government and cleansing them from Ukraine. Which is pretty close to what you're advocating. The Soviets mostly murdered anybody regardless of ethnicity, and there are pockets of Russians all over the former USSR. My daughter's old gymnastics coach was a Russian from Kazakhstan (who's husband coached the USSR national team for a time). Their daughter in law, who does a lot of the business end there is a Russian from Ukraine. I almost wish I could hear her thoughts about this.

At any rate, Crimea was never really populated by Ukrainians. Tatars, yes, and after them mostly Russians. It was only part of Ukraine because of Kruschev, and at the time transferring it to the Ukrainian SSR wasn't a big deal because everybody assumed that the USSR was permanent.

jmotivator said:

It's funny how the corrupt Russian lapdog Ukrainian government kills protesters, Russia invades and has now killed one Ukrainian soldier in the name of protecting "ethnic Russians" and you seem most concerned by the Ukrainian far right group who so far has only invaded a TV station.

Click to expand...

Well, since you put it that way. lol The far right rising so quickly and gaining seats in Ukraine parliament is a cause for concern by many EU countries who also have far right extemists gaining public popularity. The US has been aware of far right nationalism since the Orange revolution. They know all about Svoboda and Right Sector....and so does Putin. Putin is more concerned about far right because Russia has a bitter history with nazi's and Svoboda are Nazi sympathizers. So when the far right took over the government...Putin didn't hestitate to move to protect Russia's interests...the Black Sea Fleet Naval Base in Crimea and surrounding ethnic russian population. But to do that he had to block off Crimea in order to keep Svoboda and Right Sector thugs from sabotaging the gas and electric terminals at the borders and terrorizing the population on the peninsula. I would like to think the US would do the same for it's naval base(s) and ex pat population abroad if they were threatened by nazis. So how can I judge Russia for doing what I hope US would do?

Russia and US used to be allies against the Nazi's....maybe they will again someday.

jmotivator said:

Mubarak and Gaddafi were elected as well, were you sorry to see them go?

Click to expand...

Those were not real democratic elections. The Ukraine elections might not have been perfect (but then again, where is it perfect) but they were no where near as undemocratic as the elections of Gadaffi or Mubarak.

jmotivator said:

This is ludicrous. The "Russian Speaking Ukrainians" associate with a Russian thug who poisons reporters, jails musicians, invades his neighbors in the name of ethnic protection, and kills Ukrainian soldiers. How about you take a half second to actually look at this rationally? How about you look at the history of Russian rule over Ukraine and open your eyes to who really has reason for concern. The only reason there is a Russian majority in Eastern Ukraine is because the Soviets murdered the Ukrainians there.

The Russian Speaking Eastern Ukraine is just lucky that the Western Ukrainians are actually civilized and haven't paralleled the PLO in militant demands for their land back. The most the Western regions can muster in that direction is a few asshats who took over a TV station.

Click to expand...

The Russian speaking majority on the Crimea chooses to belong to Russia rather than a country it has little or no feeling/connection with. This area has no history with the Ukraine and has for a long time not wanted to be part of the Ukraine. They are fighting for their freedom, just like other people have done.

I know the history of the USSR but the USSR is dead and buried. Stalin is dead and gone and we are also not talking about the Eastern Ukraine but the Crimea.

rocket88 said:

From what I've read here, it was mostly posters on the right who were sorry to see them go.



The Russians in Ukraine were concerned about these "few asshats" getting into government and cleansing them from Ukraine. Which is pretty close to what you're advocating. The Soviets mostly murdered anybody regardless of ethnicity, and there are pockets of Russians all over the former USSR. My daughter's old gymnastics coach was a Russian from Kazakhstan (who's husband coached the USSR national team for a time). Their daughter in law, who does a lot of the business end there is a Russian from Ukraine. I almost wish I could hear her thoughts about this.

Click to expand...

Russia has changed since the collapse of the USSR. People have a lot more freedom now, at least more than they are used to. However, Ukraine is still living in the past and in constant state of flux from having been a tug of war border state between Europe and Russia for over a hundred years. Ukraine means border. Where we in the US and now even Russia try to put our tainted history behind us...Ukraine is still living in theirs.

At any rate, Crimea was never really populated by Ukrainians. Tatars, yes, and after them mostly Russians. It was only part of Ukraine because of Kruschev, and at the time transferring it to the Ukrainian SSR wasn't a big deal because everybody assumed that the USSR was permanent.

Click to expand...

And too, when USSR collapsed everything happened so fast that many countries didn't know what to do...some wanted independence and some didn't and some didn't know what they wanted. It was under the chaos and uncertainty of the Soviet break up that Crimea ended up being attached to Ukraine and they shouldn't have been.

Moot said:

Russia has changed since the collapse of the USSR. People have a lot more freedom now, at least more than they are used to. However, Ukraine is still living in the past and in constant state of flux from having been a tug of war border state between Europe and Russia for over a hundred years. Ukraine means border. Where we in the US and now even Russia try to put our tainted history behind us...Ukraine is still living in theirs.

And too, when USSR collapsed everything happened so fast that many countries didn't know what to do...some wanted independence and some didn't and some didn't know what they wanted. It was under the chaos and uncertainty of the Soviet break up that Crimea ended up being attached to Ukraine and they shouldn't have been.

Click to expand...

Some things have changed, some haven't. Depends on where in Russia you are.

But check your timeline. Crimea became part of Ukraine long before the end of the USSR. When the USSR collapsed, nobody really thought about what the borders should have looked like. All the republics just became independent as they were. It was probably too chaotic to sit and negotiate, and Yeltsin never would have thought to ask for Crimea. But Crimea, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh...all of these things have been simmering for at least the last 25 years.

Rainman05 said:

I don't think you have a complete understanding on what was happening there.
Yanukovych, under his watch, had over 37bil dollars "misplaced", by which I mean stolen, by him and his cronies. The total economy of Ukraine is around 170-180bil dollars. Ok? And then, he accepted a 15bil $ bribe from Russia to turn down the treaty for trade with the EU. That's not him going to Russia, that's him being bought by Russia and selling out his country.

Secondly, he got elected due to massive fraud and there are numerous other inconsistencies. If such an election, as the one in 2010, would happen in any western country, you'd be outraged. It'll be unacceptable as a democratic standard. So you saying he was "elected democraticaly" is a slap in the face to anything that is fair and democratic elections because if it had happened in your country, you'd be pulling out your pitchfork.

I'm sorry, I don't see how that is something desirable in an elected representative. So of course the people rioted against that and he got deposed.
The first thing the interim govt did is set elections in may. that's not the action of a corrupt administration.

Svoboda is a ukrainian nationalist group and is now part of the administration, yes, but they're a very minor partner. This make-shift alliance of convenience for the interim govt has to hold until election day in Ukraine or else the country will be plunged into chaos again. It's not an optimum scenario but the alternative is to put power back in the hands of the people who supported Yanukovych, of the former ruling regime. Maybe have a few dozen more ukrainian killed by snipers in the streets.

This is the real world. Political crises have consequences especially in less developed nations that are trying to escape the scars of communism.

If you don't understand that world, as clearly many don't, don't be a wise-ass. I think this isn't the first time I'm telling you about how the 2010 election went down in Ukraine and why stating the things you do is bollocks. And this isn't me making **** up, it's what actually happened. Look it up, ukraine 2010 elections.

Click to expand...

Yes Rainman, you're right in all those points.

But consider the fact that the US has lost a lot of it's morale.
Trying to bring the democracy with far right gangs, trying to overthrow a dictator with Al-Qaeda, with drones etc etc. made the US look so different of what it was used to be. And not only in the eyes of the skeptics but even among their friends.
Germany does not see US as it used to be.
UK does not take anymore risks for US.

We were used to see the US as the police of the world and we were all happy with that. During last 20 years, all the world didn't care a lot which country US bombed or attacked. It was fine for everyone.
I notice this even in my country. We used to be very very closed with US.
Lately, our relationships are so cold.
You know why?
We are tired of US Ambassadors who've been here. We are tired of those puppies drawing red lines to our governments, we are tired on interfering in our internal business.
US no longer see their allies as an ally.
You can't find me a good example of a healthy relationship of US with their allies or ex-allies lately, during Obama's administration.
We as simple people have seen so tiny parts of US spying issue with Germany. But who knows what else Russia has transmitted to US's allies.
If US has lost anything of it's morale, it came by itself not by any other part of the world or Snowden.

It is not so easy to judge Russia about Crimea now.

Summerwind said:

I'm not reading past the first paragraph. Bush lost hells more than that in Iraq and Afghanistan corruption, we didn't oust Bush or either of our stooges in those countries. So don't try to turn this into some righteous bunch of bull crap.

Sorry, but the parliament did not oust Yanukovych, so regardless of any fraud or otherwise, his overthrow was illegitimate.

Click to expand...

Of course you didn't read once you realized you didn't like what it said.

Coin said:

Yes Rainman, you're right in all those points.

But consider the fact that the US has lost a lot of it's morale.
Trying to bring the democracy with far right gangs, trying to overthrow a dictator with Al-Qaeda, with drones etc etc. made the US look so different of what it was used to be. And not only in the eyes of the skeptics but even among their friends.
Germany does not see US as it used to be.
UK does not take anymore risks for US.

We were used to see the US as the police of the world and we were all happy with that. During last 20 years, all the world didn't care a lot which country US bombed or attacked. It was fine for everyone.
I notice this even in my country. We used to be very very closed with US.
Lately, our relationships are so cold.
You know why?
We are tired of US Ambassadors who've been here. We are tired of those puppies drawing red lines to our governments, we are tired on interfering in our internal business.
US no longer see their allies as an ally.
You can't find me a good example of a healthy relationship of US with their allies or ex-allies lately, during Obama's administration.
We as simple people have seen so tiny parts of US spying issue with Germany. But who knows what else Russia has transmitted to US's allies.
If US has lost anything of it's morale, it came by itself not by any other part of the world or Snowden.

It is not so easy to judge Russia about Crimea now.

Click to expand...

Since Germany has never backed up the USA on anything, why the hell should we give a **** what Germany thinks? Germany's history is of being a huge pain the ass to the USA.

rocket88 said:

Some things have changed, some haven't. Depends on where in Russia you are.

But check your timeline. Crimea became part of Ukraine long before the end of the USSR. When the USSR collapsed, nobody really thought about what the borders should have looked like. All the republics just became independent as they were. It was probably too chaotic to sit and negotiate, and Yeltsin never would have thought to ask for Crimea. But Crimea, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh...all of these things have been simmering for at least the last 25 years.

Click to expand...

Time for Russia to kill more non-white Russians. It's a problem too, because so far Russia doesn't succeed in killing ALL of them, and those not killed act pissy creating "chaos" by virtue of existing. Maybe this time Russia will get genocide and subjugation right and finish the job. An all-white world is a perfect world, correct? Send all the others somewhere else or kill them, whichever.

So far, Putin said that this time against non-white Russians in Crimea he is only going to send those people (who actually are the indigenous people) elsewhere.

Time for some more Tartar Muslim ass-kicking!!!

Worked for Hitler and Germany. For all practical purposes Jews were eradicated from Western Europe permanently. So those of you praising Putin's saving "ethnic Russians" might be right that success is potentially possible.

There is a logic to his reasoning. If everyone of African-American dissent was sent elsewhere, then there would be no black-white problem in the USA.

Personally, I don't agree with doing that - but it appears many if not most on this forum do.

jmotivator said:

It's funny how the corrupt Russian lapdog Ukrainian government kills protesters, Russia invades and has now killed one Ukrainian soldier in the name of protecting "ethnic Russians" and you seem most concerned by the Ukrainian far right group who so far has only invaded a TV station.

Click to expand...

It's my understanding they were also "protecting" banks, pharmacies, technology stores, and other hide value locations by carting off wares for safekeeping in their shared flats and warehouses. *winks*

In all seriousness, though, I am not really concerned for either side. It is their fight, and the struggle must be theirs. I see it is to our national interest as Americans to not support a regime change that came by force, especially when national elections in Ukraine were only a year away. Then, when one section of the nation of Ukraine decides they do not like that violent overthrow against the democratically elected government, and decide to hold a referendum for the people to vote on, in the desire to not stay with the union of Ukraine, we are asked not to support the outcome. As Americans, we either give full support to liberty, freedom, and the democratic process, or we don't. The United States government can ask us to support more actions that are against what we have always said that we believe in as a nation, but the time has come when more and more Americans simply don't believe in doing it because our leaders have lost our trust when it comes to doing what is best for us.

Furthermore, I think it is funny that Estonia went to the streets as a nation in a "singing" revolution to drive out the Soviets. Yet, violence was the way the far right and neo-Nazis of the uprising in Ukraine decided to influence the change amongst the demonstrators there. In the end, when it comes to expanding the EU and NATO, are either really what we can count on in the maintenance of liberty around the world? Just some thoughts.

Moot said:

And too, when USSR collapsed everything happened so fast that many countries didn't know what to do...some wanted independence and some didn't and some didn't know what they wanted. It was under the chaos and uncertainty of the Soviet break up that Crimea ended up being attached to Ukraine and they shouldn't have been.

Click to expand...

Factually incorrect.

Crimea was given as a "gift" to Ukraine on 24 February 1954 by Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev ostensibly to mark the 300th anniversary of Ukraine's merger with the Russian empire.

The transfer was reported in Pravda...

"Decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring Crimea Province from the Russian Republic to the Ukraine Republic, taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic ties between Crimea Province and the Ukraine Republic, and approving the joint presentation of the Presidium of the Russian Republic Supreme Soviet and the Presidium of the Ukraine Republic Supreme Soviet on the transfer of Crimea Province from the Russian Republic to the Ukraine Republic."

Click to expand...

Official reason notwithstanding, no one knows precisely why Khrushchev decided to do this. His wife Nina was Ukrainian and it could have been a form of repayment for the millions of Ukrainians murdered by Stalin during the Holodomor. Almost two years later to the day on 25 February 1956, Khrushchev delivered his "Secret Speech" denunciation of Stalin at the Communist Party's Twentieth Congress in Moscow. What Khrushchev never imagined or anticipated, was the dissolution of the USSR less than forty years later.

At the time of the dissolution of the USSR, the only items Russia wanted from Ukraine were its nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory (the Budapest Memorandum) and a lease for the Black Sea Fleet port at Sevastopol (granted). At the time, Crimea was a financial sinkhole that Russia didn't want. As Putin is about to discover, Crimea remains a financial sinkhole and Ukraine is better off economically without it.

Rainman05 said:

I don't think you have a complete understanding on what was happening there.
Yanukovych, under his watch, had over 37bil dollars "misplaced", by which I mean stolen, by him and his cronies. The total economy of Ukraine is around 170-180bil dollars. Ok? And then, he accepted a 15bil $ bribe from Russia to turn down the treaty for trade with the EU. That's not him going to Russia, that's him being bought by Russia and selling out his country.

Click to expand...

I don't think you fully understand. $37 billion wasn't misplaced. It's actually all accounted for but people are confused on what "embezzlement" is or isn't.

1) There is only a clear case of embezzlement of $3 to $5 billion a year. So total of $9 - $15 billion.. That's small beans. The other "money" missing is actually pretty standard things that happens.

2) Overpaying on competitive bidding for 2012 Euro construction which accounted for $10 billion but was spent to build rail lines, roads and stadiums for the event. This is common place when holding a big event like Euros, World Cup or even the Olympics. Athens lost $14 billion on the 2004 games. London will have to wait until 2021 when the 2012 event will be profitable for them (their bid budget went from $4-5 billion to $16-$20 billion). Ukraine/Poland should have never hosted the Euros but again, this wasn't Yanukvych fault. It was Viktor Yushcheno and Yulia Tymoscheno.

3) Naftogaz bought natural gas cheaply from Russia.. at something like $300 per 1000 cubic meters when the price on the market was closer $400 at that time. Naftogaz sold it the people basically at cost. But it was losing money and was in fact bankrupt for year under the watchful eye of Yulia Tymoshenko. Hell, last year alone it lost close to $2 billion.

So "misplacing" money could actually be just as simple as overpaying and running a deficit in a state run business.

And Yanukovych didn't take $15 billion bribe from Russia to nix the European deal. Rather the European deal was a ****ty deal. EU was offering pennies on the dollar and offering IMF restrictions on Ukraine like it did on Spain, Ireland and Greece who took a bailout. Ukraine would have been force to cut it's national budget by a large amount and all those people on the street would have had to pay at market rate prices for natural gas.

Russia offered money and cheap natural gas for no strings.

What deal would you have taken?

Rainman05 said:

Secondly, he got elected due to massive fraud and there are numerous other inconsistencies. If such an election, as the one in 2010, would happen in any western country, you'd be outraged. It'll be unacceptable as a democratic standard. So you saying he was "elected democraticaly" is a slap in the face to anything that is fair and democratic elections because if it had happened in your country, you'd be pulling out your pitchfork.

Click to expand...

Eh? Applying American standards to Eastern Europe? That's a fallacy right there. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe called it a fair election.

So a flat out lie.. by you again.

Rainman05 said:

I'm sorry, I don't see how that is something desirable in an elected representative. So of course the people rioted against that and he got deposed.
The first thing the interim govt did is set elections in may. that's not the action of a corrupt administration.

Click to expand...

You are just full of lies. The election in May was set by a deal agreed to by Yanukovych on Feb 21st.

Rainman05 said:

Svoboda is a ukrainian nationalist group and is now part of the administration, yes, but they're a very minor partner. This make-shift alliance of convenience for the interim govt has to hold until election day in Ukraine or else the country will be plunged into chaos again. It's not an optimum scenario but the alternative is to put power back in the hands of the people who supported Yanukovych, of the former ruling regime. Maybe have a few dozen more ukrainian killed by snipers in the streets.

Click to expand...

Svoboda is the BNP of Ukraine. But don't down play them as "very minor" partner. They are a huge partner. So much so it was Svoboda who were the main force of the Euro Maidan protests in relation to violence and organizing "resistance". Svoboda is also in a coalition with Fatherland (Batkivshchyna) and UDAR. Those 3 hold half the seats in Ukrainian Parliament. And Arseniy Yatsenyuk comes from Fatherland party. So Right off the bat.. right wingers already own the Parliament in Ukraine.

Those Snipers that killed people on both sides weren't part of the Government. This is a fact.

Rainman05 said:

This is the real world. Political crises have consequences especially in less developed nations that are trying to escape the scars of communism.

If you don't understand that world, as clearly many don't, don't be a wise-ass. I think this isn't the first time I'm telling you about how the 2010 election went down in Ukraine and why stating the things you do is bollocks. And this isn't me making **** up, it's what actually happened. Look it up, ukraine 2010 elections.

Click to expand...

Yep, this is the real world. Where people bull**** and lie to hold to their view point that they have absolutely no ****ing clue about and think they know something. Case in point.. You.. I've proven you to be a liar in this response by facts. Facts you can't accept because it doesn't fit your ill-informed views.

In the real world all political leaders are bought and paid for even before we vote for them. In the case of Ukraine the interim government official are just as crooked at the previous government and those elected in May will be just a corrupt. The "political prisoner" the EU, US and the "protesters" in Ukraine were all bent out of shape about (you know Yulia Tymoshenko). Tymoshenko just as corrupt as Yanukovych. But the difference is.. Tymoshenko's bitch is the EU and NATO. So her mistakes are overlooked.

That's how the real world looks and works..

To any interested (fluency in Ukrainian and Russian required), documents (many incriminating) found in the lavish presidential compound of Viktor Yanukovych at Mezhihirya are being scanned and archived online.

YanukovychLeaks National Project

joko104 said:

Time for Russia to kill more non-white Russians. It's a problem too, because so far Russia doesn't succeed in killing ALL of them, and those not killed act pissy creating "chaos" by virtue of existing. Maybe this time Russia will get genocide and subjugation right and finish the job. An all-white world is a perfect world, correct? Send all the others somewhere else or kill them, whichever.

So far, Putin said that this time against non-white Russians in Crimea he is only going to send those people (who actually are the indigenous people) elsewhere.

Time for some more Tartar Muslim ass-kicking!!!

Worked for Hitler and Germany. For all practical purposes Jews were eradicated from Western Europe permanently. So those of you praising Putin's saving "ethnic Russians" might be right that success is potentially possible.

There is a logic to his reasoning. If everyone of African-American dissent was sent elsewhere, then there would be no black-white problem in the USA.

Personally, I don't agree with doing that - but it appears many if not most on this forum do.

Click to expand...

The indigenous Tatars of the Crimea were kicked out long before Putin. They only started coming back after the collapse of the USSR. Do you have any idea how many different ethnicities live in the Russian Federation? Russia's record on indigenous people is better than ours over history.

Back before Ivan the Terrible, the Tatars held power over the Russians, and actually even the Tatars aren't "indigenous." They came from Mongolia and killed the people that lived there when they arrived.

joko104 said:

Since Germany has never backed up the USA on anything, why the hell should we give a **** what Germany thinks? Germany's history is of being a huge pain the ass to the USA.

Click to expand...

Why?

You may state that for EU but I think Germany didn't gave such a huge pain to US.

Simpleχity;1063057442 said:

Factually incorrect.

Crimea was given as a "gift" to Ukraine on 24 February 1954 by Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev ostensibly to mark the 300th anniversary of Ukraine's merger with the Russian empire. The transfer was reported in Pravda...

Click to expand...

If Ukraine was part of the Russia empire then techncally Russia gifted Crimea to itself. Apparently, the gift was largely symbolic.

(btw, good post, Simplexity)

Official reason notwithstanding, no one knows precisely why Khrushchev decided to do this. His wife Nina was Ukrainian and it could have been a form of repayment for the millions of Ukrainians murdered by Stalin during the Holodomor. Almost two years later to the day on 25 February 1956, Khrushchev delivered his "Secret Speech" denunciation of Stalin at the Communist Party's Twentieth Congress in Moscow. What Khrushchev never imagined or anticipated, was the dissolution of the USSR less than forty years later.

Click to expand...

Thats pretty much what I've read, too. Do you think Khrushchev would have gifted a Russian territory to Ukraine if he thought it wouldn't belong to Russia anymore? I don't.

At the time of the dissolution of the USSR, the only items Russia wanted from Ukraine were its nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory (the Budapest Memorandum) and a lease for the Black Sea Fleet port at Sevastopol (granted). At the time, Crimea was a financial sinkhole that Russia didn't want. As Putin is about to discover, Crimea remains a financial sinkhole and Ukraine is better off economically without it.

Click to expand...

I suspect that Crimea was a financial sinkhole when Kruschev gifted it to Ukraine as well. But there is another possiblity for the 'gifting' of Ukraine and that involved the building of a canal and the transfering of administration responsiblities for the canal in Crimea over to Ukraine....

"....Since the canal passes mostly through Ukrainian territory, then the rest of it should, along with the whole of Crimea, pass from the supervision of Moscow to that of Kiev.

My father Nikita Khrushchev who headed the leadership of the Soviet Union, agreed with this argument, especially that an anniversary was approaching:

In February 1954, it was 300 years since Ukraine joined Russia. It was said - it was done. The Higher Council of the Russian Federation decided to pass Crimea over to Ukraine. In this way, Crimea came under the jurisdiction of Kiev, but just formally. In fact, it remained part of the Soviet Union and was our common holiday destination. ....

Click to expand...

Crimea: Whose land is this? Part 1



At the time of the USSR dissolution in 1991, Russia was having a constitional crisis...

1993 Russian constitutional crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a coup attempt against the USSR...

1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a war of laws between Yeltsin and Russia parliment and USSR...

War of Laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and finally a secret meeting behind Gorbachev's back to dissolve the USSR ....

In early December 1991, Ukraine voted for independence from the Soviet Union. A week later, on 8 December, Yeltsin met Ukrainian president Leonid Kravchuk and the leader of Belarus, Stanislav Shushkevich, in Belovezhskaya Pushcha. In the Belavezha Accords, the three presidents announced the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the formation of a voluntary Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in its place. According to Gorbachev, Yeltsin kept the plans of the Belovezhskaya meeting in strict secrecy and the main goal of the dissolution of the Soviet Union was to get rid of Gorbachev, who by that time had started to recover his position after the events of August. Gorbachev has also accused Yeltsin of violating the people's will expressed in the referendum in which the majority voted to keep the Soviet Union united....

Click to expand...

Boris Yeltsin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How Ukraine's fate was decided by a hunting lodge

Belavezha Accords - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


As president of the Soviet Union, why wasn't Gorbechev at the Belavezha Accord that decided not only the fate of the USSR but Crimea as well?

As president of Russia, did Yeltsin have the authority to dissove the soviet union?


The official document proclaiming the dissolution of the USSR appears to missing...

Document proclaiming death of Soviet Union missing - Telegraph

Simpleχity;1063057630 said:

To any interested (fluency in Ukrainian and Russian required), documents (many incriminating) found in the lavish presidential compound of Viktor Yanukovych at Mezhihirya are being scanned and archived online.

YanukovychLeaks National Project

Click to expand...

Do you speak fluent Ukrainian and Russian?

Peter King said:

These are the kinds of criminals the people from the Crimea want to be free from. I guess these are the same kinds of idiots who advised/forced the new "government" (because it was hardly a democratic process by which it got created) to ban Russian as a language in the Ukraine.

Click to expand...

Those who are ethnic white Russians in Crimea want to be free of Tartar Muslims so they can take their land and property.