Do you not understand English at all? look up “zealously”. Look up “not pushing”. See how one is not the same as the other before you post your next killer “proof”.
So what? If it belongs to Ukraine, it is their prerogative not to renew the lease if they don’t want to.
I don’t necessarily agree with your characterization of the situation, but setting that aside nothing you’ve said shows that, before the current crisis, Russia ever disputed Ukrainian sovereignty over Sevastopol.
Once again, so what? The fact that Ukrainians disagree among themselves over whether to renew the lease proves nothing.
I link to 6-year-old message board posts by people engaging in idle speculation proves nothing. Nothing you have said are posted has responded to my question: What evidence is there that, prior to current crisis the status of Sevastopol was “in dispute?” The fact that Russia believed it had a strategic interest in maintaining a base there doesn’t mean that it disputed Ukrainian sovereignty.
Do you ever read more than just the first line or two?
Did you read the first line or two? This is obviously saying “I don’t think it’s a good idea but it is a good chess move in response to Russian expansionism”. That is not zealous. You understand that right?
No. That is a poor interpretation of my point. Sevastopol has a special status that means it should be mindful even to distant observers that to Russians it is a Russian treasure of historical nationalistic pride.
And this is why in proper context that Sevastopol should be treated by Ukraine as a friend would respect the Russian-ness of that historic port city:
Here’s an historic perspective for those who like to view current events balanced with a deeper historic perspective than what out western media is reporting;
It ends with this:
That is what I meant when I wrote my view that the dispute is now settled. Russians no longer will be negotiatiating or paying rent for a place that was for most of recent history - theirs.
No. What I see is that this was an anti-Russian zealot’s knee jerk response in the immediate aftermath of Georgia’s unjustified massive artillery attack on South Ossetia that led to a justified Russian counter attack.
The zealot did not have the advantage of reading the EU commissioned report that cane out a year later. On the issue of lack of proportionality of the Russian counter attack the EU report’s authors did admit that it is difficult to draw that line.
An excerpt from the following link ((“Under such circumstances, implicitly at least, the Russian Black Sea Fleet would form a part of a hostile military bloc and occupy the same port as the smaller Ukrainian Black Sea Fleet. Could it be evicted physically if the Russian government refuses to remove? While Ukraine remains outside NATO it seems unlikely. It seems equally implausible that the two countries would go to war over the status of the city and its fleet. But time is running out for a solution”))
RUSSIA AND UKRAINE DISPUTE OVER SEVASTOPOL. David Marples. (This article appeared originally in the EDMONTON JOURNAL, 28 June 2008)
You are proving that the extension and terms of the lease were contentious and Ukraine joining NATO would be considered hostile by Russia. Not that Sevastopol’s status was in dispute. Also, as the lease was extended and Ukraine didn’t join NATO both those issues were resolved. So what’s your point?
The essential status of Sevastopol was never meaningfully settled between Ukraine and Russia until last month with the referendum. The lease deals etc did not resolve the issue of whether Sevastopol was controlled by Ukraine in any practical way because the city’s populace have never assimilated into a Ukrainian identity. That issue is no longer in dispute between Ukraine and Russia.
Uhm… Russia took Sevastopol illegally, therefore the status was not meaningfully settled. You seem to have a very weird concept of what the word ‘settled’ means.
By leasing the base from Ukraine, Russia recognised Kiev’s legitimacy over Sevastopol. Just like when you rent a house, you recognise the fact that it belongs to the landlord.
Yes it is. Or do you somehow think that Ukraine magically accepts Sevastopol’s change of hands?
Illegality is a meaningless concept between nations. Sevastopol is part of Russia now and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Nothing you can do to change that fact. Its status is meaningfully settled. Move on. Even most Ukrainians, as far as I can fathom, are ready to accept it as a fact and to move on.
As a matter of principle though, the actually complaint that it was illegal will not be dropped in the foreseeable future either. Sure we can “move on” but you can bet your boots it will figure in people’s figuring for some time to come.
No. The issue can’t be settled when most of the world’s countries do not recognise Sevastopol as part of Russia. International recognition is a key part of the game - just ask Taiwan.
You cannot have an antagonized, isolated Russia forever. It’s just not in your own interest, and for that reason you’ll have to come to terms with the fact eventually. The longer it takes the more of a pain it’ll be. It seems to me the American government doesn’t have a realistic exit strategy, and few of its actions are helpful for the resolve that is going to come eventually.
As for most countries. If you want to go beyond the raw power aspect then it doesn’t really make much sense to go by numbers as if the voice of Luxembourg or the USA carries as much weight as China. And as far as I remember neither China nor India have not voted in favour of any sanctions against Russia. That’s one third of the world population right there. Neither have Indonesia, Brazil or Nigeria. Another good chunk. I’m certain Venezuela and Syria have not. Representatives of a majority of the world’s population just doesn’t appear to have take a firm stand against Russia.
Taiwan and Kosovo don’t appear to have more widespread worldwide recognition than does the Crimea situation. So what? It’s not like we actually give a damn.
Yes. Past actions carries consequences. The same way Kosovo was a big part in the path that led to Crimea and figures strongly in people’s minds at this very time.
I suppose, if you look at the world as Russia vs the West. But the fact is that the Ukraine didn’t bomb Yugoslavia. So there is no straight line here. It’s merely the Russians saying “You fucked with them, so it’s cool if we fuck with these other guys”. So you think it’s perfectly rational for the Ukraine to pay the price for NATO’s actions of almost 20 yrs ago?
The record shows that on 04-12-2014 at 11:08 AM you posted a comment that was out of the context of the discussion that preceded it.
This is what I had in mind when I responded to kurtisokc’s comment:
Russia gives Ukraine cheap gas, $15 billion in loans Dec. 17, 2013, 5:53 p.m. | Ukraine — by Darina Marchak, Katya Gorchinskaya - Kyiv Post
Read More: Russia gives Ukraine cheap gas, $15 billion in loans - Dec. 17, 2013 | KyivPost
At the time when the protestors in Kiev rejected the deal in December 2013, their rejection was not based one iota on Russia terminating the lease for the Navy Base in Sevastopol. But Carnalk goes on and on about the 2010 negotiated deal that was tied to the long term lease deal for the Navy base in Sevastopol.
Here’s the record:
On 04-11-2014 at 02:05 PM **I asked **a general question:
To which on 04-11-2014 at 02:24 PM **Rune responded **quite intelligently:
The next day on 04-12-2014 at 10:40 AM **kurtisokc provided this response **to my general question:
On 04-12-2014 at 11:03 AM **I responded **directly to kurtisokc’s comment:
Then five minutes later on 04-12-2014 at 11:08 AM in a response to me, **Carnalk wrote **:
On 04-12-2014 at 11:22 AM **I precisely explained **to Carnalk what “negotiated rates" (Dec 2014) that I am referring to. Also I provided a Reuters cite (February 24 this year which is prior to the Annexation of Sevastopol):
On 04-12-2014 at 11:38 AM Carnalk wrote:
Why would I give a crap what you had in mind while responding to someone else? I brought up the subject of Russia reneging on the lease based gas rebates. You then proceeded to assert we were talking about another set of rebates. Well guess what? We aren’t.
See your post 2419 right here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17281775&postcount=2419
If you didn’t and don’t give a crap what I had in mind why did you quote what I had in mind on April 12 at 11:08 AM which was your response to what I wrote in response to another poster? Why did you cite my words and then proceed to diverge onto a different issue altogether?
Post 2419 certainly looks like you were trying to challenge what I wrote. Do you not have a challenge to what I wrote a response to kurtisokc?
In the future if you don’t give a crap about what I have in mind when I post something - don’t cite my words and then respond. That’s fair and it certainly would maintain an orderly debate or discussion about this topic.
Here’s the “context”:
You: Pulling these rebates is totally reasonable
Me: What about these other rebates?
You: No, the other ones are reasonable.
I never argued against your point, I asked your opinion on my point - if you don’t want to answer then fine but you just seemed to act like we were arguing about your point. I wasn’t.