And while the US would love ever so much to move in and squash the hell out of Russia, the EU will resort to its usual surrender capitalism.
It’s most unlikely that Ukraine will ever join NATO or that NATO would even let them in. The provocation to Russia would be immense and it’s a safe bet that Putin would intervene militarily if it remotely looked like a possibility. Indeed even in the present crisis the new Ukrainian PM has given assurances that his country has no intention of joining NATO.
One thing puzzles me. Why did Krushchev give Crimea away in the first place? Russia isn’t in the habit of detaching large chunks of territory and making a present of them, especially when the territory is of major strategic importance. Does anybody know?
Oh come on, the last thing Obama wants to do is “move in and squash the hell out of Russia”. He isn’t insane, Russia isn’t Iraq or Afghanistan. There are no good options for the West, that’s the problem.
As always with Soviet policy-making, it’s hard to know for sure. Butthis article has some good points about that decision
Not entirely correct.
Much like most people in the US will say they’re American when traveling abroad, when asked in-country, they will name the state they are from. Some Ukrainians were very much like some Texans - very state/republic proud and didn’t want you to confuse them with native Russians.
As for travel, the 80’s may have been a little more free for travel in-country, but the 70’s were not so. You needed to get permission (documents) to go from Kiev to Moscow (for example). The hotels would ask for your passport and papers, even though you were a Soviet citizen and travelling from Tashkent to Leningrad just to see the Herritage museum. Of course, many people couldn’t afford a hotel so travel wasn’t that much of an issue for most. Traveling in-republic was easier. I did not need documents to travel from Kiev to Crimea on summer vacation.
Additionally, when former Soviet citizens or dissidents were asked abroad where they are from, they would often say “Russia”. It was a matter of expedience because most of the west didn’t know about the various republics. Very few Americans knew the difference between Ukraine or Russia. Telling an American you were from Georgia in broken english would really leave them confused.
So yeah, former Soviets would tell foreigners that they were from “Russia”. In-country, people were much more specific about their domecile. In fact, much like in the UK, your accent and manner of speach would often give you away anyway. Try having a Georgian tell you he is from Russia; it’s much like someone from the deep American south tell you he’s from Maine. Ukrainians would make sure you knew they were ethnically Ukrainian or ethnically Russian living in Ukraine.
After the fall of the RSFSR, people became much more specific about their provenance. And Ukrainians still (AFAIK) identify themselves as ethnically Russian or ethnically Ukrainian. As do many other in the various former republics.
Concise and informative. Thank you, ** Batistuta**.
First of all, travel within a republic was the same as travel inter-republic. No one needed documents to travel to Crimea on summer vacation - whether from Leningrad, Moscow, or Kiev. You did need documents to travel to Leningrad - whether you were from Moscow, Kiev or Tbilisi.
Second - we’re not talking about “pride of the place”. Let me put it this way - Brittania was a province of Roman Empire. It belonged to Rome. Yet I am sure the natives there had “pride of the place”. That has nothing to do with it belonging to Rome. Just like Ukraine belonged to Russia. And yes, you can try to quibble and say “to Soviet Union” but everyone knew that Russia was the one that owned the Soviet Union.
After all - “The unbreakable union of free republics the Great Russia has welded together”.
The sad thing is that all this arguing about whether Soviet Ukraine was ever “part of” Russia isn’t even a hijack. It’s all relevant history, and anywhere in Ukraine, in Crimea, in Russia, you can probably find someone to argue either side.
I’m not talking about pride in the Kiev Dynamos either. I’m saying that even during the existance of the CCCP, people in-country would be pretty specific about identifying themselves are ethnically Russian or ethnically ‘not Russian’. When they left, “from Russia” was just a short cut explantion of their origins for the benefit of their newly adopted friends, neighbours and colleagues. Because the average western host country didn’t know the difference between a Russian, a Ukrainian or a Georgian, etc.
Of course they did. It was in “pyataya grafa” - was pretty hard to miss.
It was a “short cut” because whether you lived in Ukraine or RSFSR or Armenia, you were “from Russia”. Because all those belonged to Russia.
We’re not talking about ethnicity here so I don’t know why you’re mixing that in.
What?! Of course we are! How can we discuss this subject at all without talking about ethnicity?!
Huh? How is the ethnicity makeup of people living in in area relevant to whether it belongs to a particular country or not?
Let’s have you explain this to the former Yugoslavia and Chekoslovakia.
I know you’re working hard to make the case that Crimea is a part of Ukraine for the past 60 years and I agree with you. It has been. Now, geopolitics demands we reconsider this position in the case of Crimea. Frankly, if I was American, I’d be more worried about Putin staking a claim for Alaska next.
Easy? Czechia and Slovakia were part of Czechoslovakia. Do you dispute that? Except in that case there was no dominating part, like there was with Russia owning Ukraine.
Yes, I know.
It is , however, a member of Plan for Peace which was sold to the country in order to get them to turn their nukes over to Russia, instead of retaining ownership of them. If the US falters on that, then it’s really going to have a hard time selling its NATO commitment to the Baltic States and Eastern Europe.Ukraine needs to be a (for want of a better term) line in the sand position which shows Russia that further shenanigans will be met with force and not rhetoric.
Having said that, I’m in the camp of hoping that Russia tries annexing greater portions of Ukraine. It jettisoned the area in 1992 for a reason and if the current government is too stupid or too arrogant to remember why, I hope that the economic damage of reacquiring the territory drives them further into the hole that they are digging for themselves.
While it is sad that people might have to die for this to occur, some lessons have to be learned the hard way.
Now THAT would be the end of the Putin regime.
Putin should worry about not having the military might or the demographics necessary to prevent Chinese incursion into Siberia if he becomes entangled in Ukraine. SInce he’s pissed off the West, there will no one around to help him if/when that occurs.
I’m saying ethnic differences lead to the re-drawing of borders. This is what Russia is very plainly stating and doing to Ukraine in Crimea.
I must misunderstand what you’re saying here. Are you suggesting that because Russia owned Ukraine they are entiteled to the whole of it?
Hey Terr, you said ‘USSR’ and ‘Russia’ were interchangeable. Now that we have established they aren’t regarding ethnicity you are backpedaling.
Huh? No. I am suggesting Russia owned Ukraine. Someone claimed that wasn’t true. That’s all the argument.
They were and you established nothing. And ethnicity has nothing to do with it.