5 Reasons Why Leftists Should Defend Russia | New Eastern Outlook

[Tommy_Carcetti]

187. Funny thing.

You present Ukraine within its modern borders as essentially a fatally dysfunctional entity bound to dissolve.

Yet, in the spring of 2014--after Yanukovych flew out of Ukraine and Russia had seized Crimea but before the situation in the East devolved into full-fledged armed conflict (the Ukrainian government was essentially taking a wait and see approach to see whether people who had seized government buildings in the East would back down), there was a Pew poll taken as to whether Ukraine should remain a unified country. 77% of Ukrainians agreed it should. But even more importantly, 70% of Ukrainians living in the East agreed Ukraine should remain a unified country. Which is pretty good, given at the time you had armed groups in the East seizing government buildings and demanding secession/annexation by Russia.

There's no doubt that in Ukraine, since independence in 1991 (and even before independence) there were differences in attitudes and approaches between east and west Ukraine. However, for over 20 years those differences were never so great that it threatened the unified existence of the country. Why all of a sudden in 2014 was Ukraine suddenly doomed to fracture apart? People might say it was because of the February 2014 revolution, but it's not like Ukraine was a stranger to revolution. The country didn't break apart in 2005 after the Orange Revolution. No, the threats to a unified Ukrainian state only seemed to manifest after Russian troops moved into Crimea literally just days after Yanukovych skipped town, and suddenly Crimea was demanding annexation by Russia. And then very shortly thereafter, similar demands by armed men are made in Luhansk and Donetsk. There's a certain "X" factor that I think you are willfully ignoring here.

As to your other points:

Meanwhile, you are busy making dubious claims:

As to Crimea, Russia's historical ties to it are not nearly as long standing as you want to have us believe. Basically Russia could claim less than two and a half centuries of influence on Crimea during which time the region was Russified.

Oh, I see. America has only been a nation for less than 250 years. It got that way by Europeanizing the continent. Therefore, we should apologize and give America back to the Indian Nations.

All I'm saying is that the insinuation that Russia's roots in Crimea date back to ancient times is patently false and that it was only until much later in history that Russia had any significant presence in Crimea. As I said before, neither Russia nor Ukraine have much of a historical claim to Crimea, so neither side can really argue that as a basis to claim that land. That being said, at the time of independence in 1991, Crimea was Ukrainian territory, and Russia agreed by treaty to acknowledge that and not make any attempts to violate Ukrainian sovereignty. That was blatantly ignored by Russia in February and March 2014. You can't dance around Russia's in your face violation of prior agreements as it relates to Crimea.

Another claim:

And Khrushchev's transfer of Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR is pretty much a non-issue, since it was an internal transfer of Soviet land.

I see, when Kruschev did it by dictatorial fiat, it was a non-issue. When the local people decided in a referendum that they didn't agree with the Maidan coup, that is completely unacceptable. More double standard.

It was indeed a non-issue because in 1954 all that happened was an internal shuffling of the Soviet cards, nothing more and nothing less. It would be like if the US were to declare that Michigan's upper peninsula was being transferred to Wisconsin. It's all part of subdivisions of the US. If you knew anything at all about the Soviet Union, Moscow kept a pretty tight leash on all its subjects so whether it was Russian SSR Crimea or Ukrainian SSR Crimea, it was all more or less the same Soviet subjugation, and the transfer was done obviously without the after-acquired knowledge that the USSR would break up decades later. When it ultimately did, treaties were made and Russia was supposed to abide by its word.

I do have to laugh at your characterization of what happened in Crimea in February/March 2014. As if Crimeans just out of the blue and all on their own decided to hold a referendum as to whether or not they wanted to join Russia. No mention whatsoever about the Russian tanks and columns that rolled in and seized government buildings, airports, military bases, and harbors in the immediate run-up to the infamous March 16th vote.

Finally, I see you are still sticking to your position that what happened in February 2014 in Ukraine was the effort of "the neocon warmongers who wholeheartedly funded and supported the Maidan coup" despite a glaring lack of evidence that any such "coup" ever occurred, whether it be sponsored by "neocon warmongers" or not.

Well, if anything, you're consistent.