Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: An important clarification from Russia Today News. [View all]BlueMTexpat
(15,690 posts)6. Those who doubt RT may wish to note that even the NYT
mentioned the Russia Ukraine Friendship Treaty at the time, although there were different leaders in place then (1997).
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/01/world/setting-past-aside-russia-and-ukraine-sign-friendship-treaty.html
From the NYT link:
The Crimea was ceded to Ukraine as a gift from Russia by Nikita S. Khrushchev in 1954. At the time, the gesture was essentially symbolic since both Russia and the Ukraine were part of the Soviet Union, but it has been a matter of intense dispute and antagonism since 1991, when the Soviet Union fell apart.
The treaty was first written, and nearly signed, two years ago, and it has not been substantially altered since then.
The main points stress political and commercial cooperation between the countries, and it includes a joint statement on the Black Sea Fleet that will permit Russia to operate on Ukrainian territory.
The treaty was first written, and nearly signed, two years ago, and it has not been substantially altered since then.
The main points stress political and commercial cooperation between the countries, and it includes a joint statement on the Black Sea Fleet that will permit Russia to operate on Ukrainian territory.
See also https://archive.org/details/russianukrainian00stew
But little things like treaties or history or FACTS never seem to bother the warmongers who hope to profit from disaster.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
60 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I doubt we will ever know. But we know they have bases, there is a fleet based there,
jtuck004
Mar 2014
#7
Far too often we believe just about anything the faces on our televisions tell us to believe.
another_liberal
Mar 2014
#22
No, but they certainly should not consort and give them executive branch positions
newthinking
Mar 2014
#12
When it gets to the point of justifying a military incursion into a sovereign nation
BainsBane
Mar 2014
#10
Crimea is considered and legally an autonomous region and has it's own parliment
newthinking
Mar 2014
#16
Autonomous regions don't get to invite armed foreign troops to patrol the country
muriel_volestrangler
Mar 2014
#27
The part where the NYT excuses thousands of Russian soldiers taking over
Pretzel_Warrior
Mar 2014
#9
That is the key question. There is no doubt that Russian troops are allowed in Crimea - that's where
pampango
Mar 2014
#20
No. My point is that I'm sure we have the right to protect the base using troops within the base
pampango
Mar 2014
#35
At least someone had the courage to not just unquestioningly fall into line . . .
another_liberal
Mar 2014
#34
Yanukovych 'overthrew' himself. The February 21 agreement with the protesters required him to remain
pampango
Mar 2014
#36
I see that happen all the time ...seeing what has not been said and blathering about it...
L0oniX
Mar 2014
#41
Ex-RT Anchor Liz Wahl: RT 'Not About the Truth, It's About Promoting a Putinist Agenda'
Tx4obama
Mar 2014
#54