Do your research on this one it's really not (historically) part of Ukraine and was only given to them by administrative action by Soviet Russia in the late 50s.
Not saying the annexing was the right thing to do, just providing context. At the bare minimum two wrongs don't make a right- if you object to the original annexation you should object to annexing it back by force.
Crimea was a part of Ukraine (in recent years) until annexed by Russia. If you want to provide historical context, it takes away from the current events. Im in total agreement with you in regards to the history. However recent history shows Russia as being the aggressor, and provoking hostilities in this region. Not Ukraine..
No need to do research when the context is not historical but rather current. If you want to be politically correct, The Turks had a share of Ukraine before the Russians did. And it was called Ukraine before it was part of Russia. Only after WW2 did Russia claim Ukraine as part of its own
Not saying anything in regards to whom i support. Peace is ultimately the way to go. With that being said, I support the will of the Ukrainian people to decide what they want as a government, not something forced on them. Not something historical, but what the people want.
I agree, Its tough to drop a one liner on this area of the world as it is forever changing hands... Confusing at best.. My comment was lost in history, as current events have changed the dynamic.
What i meant to say: Russia will be seen as the aggressor as always, regardless of their territory or history. Ukraine may be provoking, but get the media cover.
You mean Russia is on the verge of invading Ukraine... Crimea is an annexed portion of Ukraine that Russia invaded in recent years....
Do your research on this one it's really not (historically) part of Ukraine and was only given to them by administrative action by Soviet Russia in the late 50s.
Not saying the annexing was the right thing to do, just providing context. At the bare minimum two wrongs don't make a right- if you object to the original annexation you should object to annexing it back by force.
Crimea was a part of Ukraine (in recent years) until annexed by Russia. If you want to provide historical context, it takes away from the current events. Im in total agreement with you in regards to the history. However recent history shows Russia as being the aggressor, and provoking hostilities in this region. Not Ukraine..
No need to do research when the context is not historical but rather current. If you want to be politically correct, The Turks had a share of Ukraine before the Russians did. And it was called Ukraine before it was part of Russia. Only after WW2 did Russia claim Ukraine as part of its own
Fair enough even though I disagree on the history.
But even ignoring who has the more credible historical claim to the lineage of crimea.....
Russia was the aggressor before and you didn't support that, yet you support Ukrainian aggression in response? That makes no sense comrade.
Not saying anything in regards to whom i support. Peace is ultimately the way to go. With that being said, I support the will of the Ukrainian people to decide what they want as a government, not something forced on them. Not something historical, but what the people want.
So how can Russia invade Ukraine today by defending a portion of land they have annexed previously? That makes no sense but nice try.
I agree, Its tough to drop a one liner on this area of the world as it is forever changing hands... Confusing at best.. My comment was lost in history, as current events have changed the dynamic.
What i meant to say: Russia will be seen as the aggressor as always, regardless of their territory or history. Ukraine may be provoking, but get the media cover.