Why do you rewrite what I wrote? I wrote:
“The principle of territorial integrity is generally accepted as maintaining borders as they were established at the end of WWII.”
Only is your word. My word is ‘generally’.
That is exactly what I wrote.
The principle of territorial integrity is **generally **accepted
So why did you post:
If WWII borders don’t matter, why object to borders being set before WWII?
Why don’t you explain to us exactly what that cite has to do with anything we are discussing here? How does it affect any discussion of the Louisiana Purchase?
And while you’re at it, why don’t you tell us why that cite has any authority other than some link you found on the internet? I can find links that will tell you we are all controlled by Lizard People. Should we accept those links as being any less authoritative than your random cite?
Dude, you need to learn that there is a lot of BS on the internet-- including your posts.
We’ve been over this many times in GQ. Native American societies in North America were agriculturalists, except maybe (and that’s a maybe) in the Pacific North West. Some tribes were forced into a nomadic lifestyle as Europeans forced them out of their agricultural lands, but that was a temporary condition and not indicative of what the pre-conquest situation was. None of those peoples, whatever their lifestyle was, had a voice in deciding whether their traditional lands were incorporated into the US.
The fact is IT DOESN’T MATTER if they were h/gs (which they were not), since they never had the chance to deicide whether to be part of the US or not. Just like the folks in Crimea. If you’re concerned with self-determination, then it doesn’t matter whether you are a hunter gatherer, an pastoralist, an agriculturalist, or an industrialist.
You’re just making up excuses to cheerlead the secession of Crimea, when hundreds of region around the globe have been incorporated into nations the same way-- including many regions of the US.
What I’m saying is, neither Crimea or Ukraine were sovereign states at the end of World War II. With the brief exception of a year or two at the end of World War I, Ukraine wasn’t an independent state in modern history until 1991, and Crimea never was.
I think, ultimately, Ukraine has as much right to Crimea as, say, Russia does to Chechnya, for instance.
I wrote:
I agree, as of 1954 and then in 1991 Crimea was part of Ukraine. Prior to 1954 Crimea’s established borders were not established to be within Ukraine’s established borders as a Soviet Republic. The administrative move giving Crimea to Ukraine took place after WWII in 1954.
What is your point where you find it necessary to bring up your unfounded reference to what you imagine are interesting habits?
I have not argued that Crimea was not part of Ukraine. You have made another error.
I had no reason or need to cheerlead the annexation to Russia itself. I do however cheerlead the fact that it was accomplished mostly peacefully and more peacefully than anyone could believe. And the result is far - putting the questions of territorial integrity aside.
Perhaps you can see that the Dunbas does not have the same things going for it as Crimea did. That is why there will be no annexation if “New Russia” to Russia.
And if someone comes to my house and “peacefully” steals my money, it’s still illegal. As Obama (and the rest of the world except your rogue’s gallery) has noted, we do not recognize that illegal act.
And you hand-wave away the violence and chaos created in the rest of Ukraine, facilitated in part by that illegal act.
And we’re still waiting (not really, because we know you won’t address it) for you to explain what good that cite was you linked to upthread. Shall I post the cite about the lizard people, and if I do, will you agree that it’s true? Anyone can cite anything from some random site on the internet. Haven’t you learned that by now?
Meantime it seems that the rebels in Donetsk suffered a major defeat failing to occupy the airport and losing 100+ of their own with no reported fatalities on Ukrainian government forces side.
And the Sunday NYT has an article documenting a huge dropoff in Crimea tourism in spite of all Putin efforts subsidizing the travel from Russia to Crimea. Apparently Russians don’t really wanna visit. Crimea’s main industry is tourism.
People usually don’t like the vacation in war zones. Not in them or near them.
The problem is that Ukraine depends on Russian tech for so very much. Organizing an election on short notice while being pretty well bankrupt guarantees this sort of thing.
He has to demonstrate that Ukraine exists as a state, I imagine. Under the interim government it looked set to simply disintegrate under Russian pressure.
If I understand it correctly, the fact that Crimea now belongs to Russia means that European tourists need to get a visa in advance whereas previously they didn’t have to. I wonder if that will cause European tourism to Crimea to drop, or whether European tourism has ever been important to Crimea in the first place.
After years living in the magical land of Schengen, having to get a visa to visit a place seems like a pain in the arse to me. Probably enough to make me choose a different destination that is easier to get to.
From the article (don’t have it in front of me, so from memory) something like 70% of tourists were Ukrainians, 15% or so Russians and 12% or so cruise ship passengers. Well, the Ukrainians are obviously not coming anymore, the cruise ships do not stop at Crimea anymore, and the Russians that used to come are all scared off by the unending lying Russian propaganda that portrays Ukraine (through which the trains that bring them to Crimea have to go) as a bloodthirsty Nazi regime.
Interesting, thanks 
I think it was to distract from the previous comparisons to the Kurds and Egypt… ?
Russia has invaded Ukraine… How will the West respond?
Why, by sending the Kurds to Egypt, of course!
re: Terr’s numbers on Tourism in Crimea
That’s about what I saw when I mentioned it a couple months back. However, industry is apparently a bigger section of the Crimean economy though tourism is big enough. Can’t find a %GDP breakdown but page 19 of this PDF shows tourism is far from the biggest employer.
% of employed Crimeans:
Industry = 16.4%
Agriculture= 6.5%
Hotel and Restaurant= 3.0%
http://www.eurasianet.org/node/68265
According to a 2011 study by Kiev-based Razumkov Center, about 70 percent of Crimea’s working population makes at least some money from tourism. About 50-60 percent of working adults depend on tourism for all or a significant portion of their income.
Tourism is more than just hotels and restaurants. Wikipedia lists “tourism and agriculture” as the two largest industries, but that claim is not cited.
Hmm, that’s such a huge disconnect from the employment stats that I find it a little hard to swallow. I mean I understand that people other than the Hotel and Restaurants make money off tourists, but 50-60% DEPEND on it? You can read Russian, right? How did the cite they link to explain that number?
The bit I found in it says:
Which Google translates as
(my bolding) Is it talking about a specific town or region or Crimea as a whole.