You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia
Putin's Orthodox Jihad
2014-12-31
Note to all posters: please double check to be sure that you used the URL specific to the particular article you want us to read, not the website's home page. Often the home page will yield a "Dupe" notification in the hopper, and if the moderators are in a hurry (most of the time) they'll dump it without checking to see whether the article is a repeat or the URL.

Thanking you all for making Rantburg what it is.

-- trailing wife
Posted by:Grunter

#9  Crimea was never ukranin until a drunkard named Nikita Khrotuschev decided it was a good idea to attach it to his beloved Soviet Republic of Ukrania where he had made his carreer (and killed a lot of people). That is all. Historically Crimea could be Russian or Tartar but never Ukranian. I, for one think history should be put aside and a real referendum (not Putin's) take place. This gives a chance to Ukrania. On a historic basis it has none.

Crimea was not ukranian under the Tartars, was not ukranian under the tsars, was not ukranian from Lenin to Stalin and only Khroutschev made it ukranian or more exactly, made it part of an administrative region of the USSR.
Posted by: JFM   2014-12-31 17:17  

#8  #5 > Oh and Russia did not "steal" Crimea.

Can we say the 'unborrowed' it?
Posted by: SteveS   2014-12-31 16:31  

#7  You're wasting your time JFM.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2014-12-31 14:16  

#6  You should. I made a concise summary of the history of Crimea and told why it was not Ukranian so there was no theft. I didn't tell it was Russian. I told its status Russain/Ukranian or independent is something to be determined. If at all possible by that old fashioned method of elections.
Posted by: JFM   2014-12-31 13:57  

#5  > Oh and Russia did not "steal" Crimea.

I stopped reading after I saw this.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2014-12-31 07:58  

#4  Oh and Russia did not "steal" Crimea. At the begininng thre were Tatars or more exactly the Tatars ethnically cleansed or exterminated the local mostly Slavic or Greek element there. THen Russia conquered Crimea and named it New Russia. Cities olsd and new got Greek not Russian names (eg Sebastopol instead of Sebastograd). Later Tatars were deported by Stalin but, unique between all the nationalities with similar fate the Tars were not allowed to return. Later, Krhoutchev, whose career had ever been linked to Crimlea arbitrarily decided to make Crimea part of Ukania. That was not a big issue when it was just a matter of administrative convenience for tregion in the same state to be an autonomous administrative entity, being ruled from Kiev or being ruled from Moscow. It became a big issue when Ukrania separeted from Russia and got Crimea just because it kept its Soviet-era borders. Its only claim over Crimea is because Khrutchev so decided.

So Crimea's fate should be put on the drawing board instead of just repeating the mantra that Crimea is ukranian and Russia stole it.

PS: Probably for demagogic reasons but Russia has allowed the YTatrs to return. Ukania didn't dutring the over 15 years it ruled the region.
Posted by: JFM   2014-12-31 05:53  

#3  So what? Centuries and centuries of being pushed by Islam. Time to push back. Just a bit. Until its domains get reduced to the same extension they had before the birth of Muhammad.
Posted by: JFM   2014-12-31 05:23  

#2  D *** NG IT, its for the Crimea!
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2014-12-31 00:44  

#1  Volodya's an atheist.
Posted by: badanov   2014-12-31 00:18  

00:00