Russian or Ukranian?
dont forget that: The transfer of the Crimean Oblast in 1954 was an administrative action of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union which transferred the government of the Crimean Peninsula from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian SSR.
Russian. You don't stand a chance of getting it back so shut the fuck up.
Why do you even care? Better think about your people in Kashmir and how you're gonna deal with those chinks.
It was conquered by Russians and has a Russian majority.
I see no way you could consider it Ukrainian, that is outside of legal norms.
But same legal norms were shat on by several Western states in case of Kosovo, as well as previous cases like breakup of Yugoslavia.
For example Germans rushed to recognize Croatia as an independent state, despite the fact Croatian government didn't control entire territory they claimed.
Now those same states support the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
It's pure hypocrisy, even if it doesn't make Russian action legal.
Anyway the fact Crimea was handed over to Ukrainian SSR by a decree of the government doesn't really mean that Russian annexation is legal.
Russia did recognize Ukraine as a sovereign state in those borders in 90s.
I mean you could argue they did it under duress but that's just weak.
Russian control of Crimea is de facto illegal occupation.
However, speaking from the perspective of "righteousness", Crimea should belong to Russia.
would you support your country's leadership if they started a war over a piece of land in the Black Sea?
Am i the only one who is for the third option.
Ukraine is not even a country but a part of russia going through teenager phase (quite literally)
they dont have a say in anything
Ukrainian
But Crimeans don't want that and Ukrainian government has shown zero desire to grant them any sort of increased autonomy. Same for Donbass.
your country isnt much older than ukraine really
lol sure :^)
the people chose russia
They had their own parlament, it was a mistake.
>Crimeans don't want that
How do you know?
You're talking to rooster non-citizen.
referendum? like 90% voted for russia
Latvians are much older than Ukrainians as a nation though, and they have objective defining characteristics.
Not just that, Ukrainian nation is still a fiction, because large part of their nation isn't really dedicated to this identity. Everything east of Dnepr is dubious.
Ukrainian identity is mostly West Ukrainian (Galician) thing.
How's that Savchenko thing going on, eh?
Your national hero and all?
LOL
Also, do not forget that the people voted in 2014 peacefully in a referendum, in accordance with the United Nations codex of the right to choose your own identity.
Crimea returning to Russia in 2014 you may like it or not like it, whatever, but it was 100% legal and in line with local and international law.
And Russia under a previous agreement with Ukrainan governemnt already were allowed to have military bases there with personnell.
The people are 95% ethnic Russians and want to belong to Russia, and they have all the legal right to choose so.
As of now it is Russian. If a nation cannot defend its borders when a foreign nation lays claim to the land, then the land, after some time, becomes part of the occupying country. It will remain contested as long as there is a war and the previous region holder hasn't recognized the claim.
You aren't really giving any arguments here why should Crimea belong to Ukraine or why is their autonomy a mistake. You're just making statements.
It's pretty obvious, even if you take that referendum with a grain of salt.
I mean, show me some evidence Crimeans like that option more, or that they hate Russian occupation. Show me some resistance, protests or shit. From what I saw they mostly like their new status.
And Putin wont the election again even though every rusnon bitches abouth him.
Also referendum under ocupation loses some of it value.
Right to self-determination doesn't trump the right to territorial integrity.
Regions can't just unilaterally decide to separate, and especially not when they are de facto occupied by foreign troops. I'm speaking from purely legal perspective. This is Russian occupation of Ukrainian territory by international law.
Just like how Kosovo was NATO occupation. Still is.
Idk what are you talking about. Most citizens of Ukraine consider themselves as Ukrainians, even in 2001. the Russians were the majority in 2001 just in Crimea, In Donetsk(city not all oblast`) it was 50/50.
Wait, I'm writing it to fucking montenegro, lol. I even dont know where is placed this shit(or its renamed version of some little country).
Which one is David Hogg?!
Do you really think Putin doesn't enjoy 50+% support in Russia?
I mean you're making bold claims, provide some proof. Even anti-Russian media and foreign polls admit/show that Putin would win in any case and that Crimeans want to live in Russia.
>Right to self-determination doesn't trump the right to territorial integrity.
You are mixing 2 different concepts and obviously are a shillposter.
Regions can decide to separate and become independent, so you are 100% absolutely wrong there, THOUGH it has to be ratified by the president.
Yanukovich, the former democratically elected President in Ukraine ratified the notion of Crimean new status.
Legally the Crimean return to Russia is waterproof. Even if you dont like it politically.
Im not saying it is good or bad, Im just saying it was legal.
Just like how 45% of people here consider themselves "Montenegrins", yet for most of them that identity is shaky, and many are privately Serbs and just declare as Montenegrin for other reasons.
>fucking montenegro
Ukrainian shouldn't really shit on some other country, given how you are literally on the tier of sub-Saharan Africa in most of things.
>Sup Forums user clames that rusnons bitch on Sup Forums about Putin
>A bold clame
>clames what crimeans want and dont want while isnt a crimean
>not a bold clame
U wut?
No I'm not, you just lack any knowledge about international law.
>Yanukovich
Yanukovich couldn't ratify shit though. That's for parliament to decide.
Also, show your fucking flag.
Russian. Go to Crimea, literally to any bar, and ask, try not to get punched tho.
Pretty sure also that like 60% of the Ukrainian population also wants to be part of Russia at the moment
Das right ! My monteniggy :3
It's not a bold claim because I rely on data I saw, polls and such.
Show me some evidence Crimeans don't want to live in Russia.
>You aren't really giving any arguments here why should Crimea belong to Ukraine
Why should I? By international law, Crimea is Ukraine and Russia is an invader.
Tikai liberāliem pedarastiem un politiski-ekonomiskiem analfabētiem nepatīk kā Putins vada
It's Russian and you cant do shit about it so shut the fuck up Tony Blair go get gassed
And I agree with that.
But you have to admit it's hypocritical that USA and others invaded Yugoslavia for example and occupied Kosovo, but are now defending Ukrainian territorial integrity.
I never clamed that they dont want to live in Russia. For i dont know what they want.
I said that "i" am for the third option. Dont have to give you statistics on that one.
While you clame that you base yourself on statistics but dont shove any proof of that.
Ukraine did not recognize the occupation of Kosovo, so there's not reason to care about this.
By same international law Kosovo is a part of Serbia under UN resolution 1244 , but you don't see the Western countries who then selves agreed to that resolution treating it as a part of Serbia. They see it as a independent country. Now while Russian annexation is de facto illegal , nobody really cares about international law , and pretty much everyone knows it's bullshit. Bigger gun diplomacy runs the world.
Saki to krievu anoniem.
> a kid of Russian businessman living with his mom in ''''Montenegro'''' says Ukrainian is not a nation
That is also true.
Okay.
You really have to be retarded to think Monteniggers are Russian Spies
Monteniggers are Serbs Lite, think Croatians but Orthodox, darker and stupider.
They also recognize Kosovo, use Euro and are part of NATO so this guy's probably that 50% of Monteniggers that still call themselves Serbs and not "Montenegrins" like liberal spineless fags do
I didn't say that, I just said that Ukrainian identity isn't really strong in all of present-day Ukraine.
Land belongs to those who can take and hold it.
Still i support the Ukrainians struggle for freedom and their outlook towards white europe away from asiatic russia.
30%. 45% are "Montenegrin" and 20% are Muslim.
I think that Russia will lose in long term perspective.
Earlier I told you about situation in 2001. Now you can see the stats from 2017. Assimilation continues.
I've been there, they are literally Serb highlanders. So hearing from him about Ukrainians not being a nation is pathetic. They at least speak a language different from Russian.
Be sure, it's strong after war. Thanks, Putin.
That can change easily. Point is their identity isn't strong. And realistically, culturally and linguistically they are almost indistinguishable from Russians.
I did not say that Ukrainians don't exist.
I do agree Montegrins are a "fake" nation, but they do exist.
Ukrainians are as "fake" as Montenegrins for that matter. Montenegro existed in various forms far longer than Ukraine.
Montenegro was an independent country while Serbia was still called Belgrade Pashaluk
No they are not "as fake" at least because they have their own language, writers, scientists, even philosophers.
And Montenegro is technically a Serbian province, 600k pop.
Over time, the situation will be even better. No one intends to disturb us, therefore gradually the Ukrainian identity will become stronger and the Ukrainian language will continue to spread to the east.
Arguing about country borders on Balkans is pretty useless. Their cultures are not more different than ones of Northern and Southern Italy.
They have their own language, which in effect is East Slavic influenced by Polish.
>technically
Technically it is not. Ukraine is also "technically" a Polish province. Ukraine literally means "in the borderlands". Borderlands of what, do I have to explain it to you?
Still, I don't deny there's plenty of people who considee themselves Ukrainian, especially in the Western part.
I seriously doubt that. For start, because Ukraine will collapse sooner or later due to your comically corrupt and incompetent government.
As that happens, your current nationalist direction will lose a lot of legitimacy.
Yes, but arguing about Ukraine and Russia is different.
You're just a biased faggot. Montenegro is small and irrelevant but existed far longer than Ukraine.
Why would a Ukrainian shit on us with some superiority complex is beyond me.
>They have their own language, which in effect is East Slavic influenced by Polish.
All languages are "in effect X influenced by Y".
> Ukraine is also "technically" a Polish province. Ukraine literally means "in the borderlands". Borderlands of what, do I have to explain it to you?
Borderlands of Poland and Russia, being constantly overrun by invaders from one of the sides.
So, pretty similar to Balkans, right?
Come on, you just parroting Putin's propaganda. Latin American nations were born in the 1820s. The Ukrainian one was born in the 1910s. That's it, arguing about is it "true" is dumb.
>You're just a biased faggot. Montenegro is small and irrelevant but existed far longer than Ukraine.
Ah, you see? When it's about Montenegro -I'm immediately a biased faggot. But you are trying to say that 40m people are wrong for deciding they are a separate nation and you are an unbiased source of truth.
Crimea is Russian according to Russian law.
The only way it may not become Russian is by war.
So unless you are ready to die in radioactive ashes Crimea is Russian.
And denial of that fact by United Nations and other faggy organisations and countries will not change anything.
Here is a question: does the land belong to the people living on it or to the government? And if latter - if the people living on the land decide to separate themselves from the government - is it in the government's right to evict/dispose of said people to maintain use of the land? If, say, some siberian province that is thousands of miles away from Moscow decides they are done being exploited for the sake of central regions and want to only toil for themselves - all the western countries would be tripping over each other to recognize their independence, and then condemn Russia for deploying troops there and shooting the populace up. I, for one, agree with the Crimean deal simply because i have relatives there, as well as somewhere else in Ukraine. Is it legal - i have no idea, but i see what donbass looks like now with majority russian population and im thankful Crimea didnt have to go through it. I think most people either dont know, dont remember or dont care about the shit that was happening there immediately after the 2014 coup, before they even decided to separate.
But I'm not. I'm denying it only in part. I agree Ukrainian nation exists.
>Ukrainian shouldn't really shit on some other country, given how you are literally on the tier of sub-Saharan Africa in most of things.
Btw this is also wrong. They have probably 80% of economy under the radar.
Travel there and you'll find huge malls, expensive cars everywhere, quality healthcare if you have money, and HUNDREDS of high tech companies outsourcing to rich countries. Parts of many games, including Half-Life, were outsourced to Ukrainian studios.
> Latvians are much older than Ukrainians as a nation though, and they have objective defining characteristics.
What's that then? Ukranians also have them. Come on, travel around your fucking region. It's not that expensive.
That's just bullshit and you know it.
>if you have the money
If you have the money you're good anywhere.
Anyway, are you Chilean or some diaspora?
You haven't been to Ukraine. I traveled through both Ukraine and Montenegro.
Ukraine is 10x more developed just because they are not a few tiny cities in mountains, no offense.
If you want to compare, they are much closer to Argentina: huge inequality, a lot of poverty, but decent development overall because of the better past conditions.
> ARE YOU UKRAINIAN?
No.
I just wondered if you're Chilean, I didn't imply you're Ukrainian, rather some other EE diaspora.
How come you travelled so much?
I think you're forgetting the huge amounts of corruption in Ukraine. People just don't declare parts of their income and offer bribes for people to look the other way.
Ok, sorry.
Freelancing: I work for gringos and can live in other countries.
Even when you take that into account it's still a rather poor country.
Nice. How much Europe did you visit? Any other interesting places?