Russia will be forced to shoot down any NATO aircraft that violated the borders of Crimea


An armed conflict between Russia and the NATO bloc can now happen quite realistically and not in some distant future, but in the foreseeable future. The reason for the military clash should be Ukraine, deliberately acting as a provocateur. What have they thought of in Kiev this time?


Crimea is at risk of becoming a "hot spot". If in the Donbass the Kremlin is emphatically distancing itself from the conflict, then it will not be possible to get away from the need to respond to provocations around the peninsula. The root of this geopolitical problem is the internationally unsettled legal status of the peninsula. Unresolved in 2014, this fundamental issue could now come back to haunt in 2021.

Let us recall that seven years ago, after the coup d'etat in Ukraine, centrifugal processes began in this country. The Crimea went to the exit, they tried to follow its example in the Donbass, clearly thought about something similar in Kharkov and other regions of the South-East. As a result, only Crimea and Sevastopol managed to secede from Nezalezhnaya and officially become part of the Russian Federation. Contrary to the opinion of Kiev itself, the collective West and the liberal-minded "progressive" domestic public, the annexation of the peninsula cannot be considered an "annexation". First, a popular referendum was held there, in which the local population was asked two simple and unambiguous questions:

Are you for the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation?

и

Are you for restoring the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea 1992 of the year and for the status of Crimea as part of Ukraine?

Despite the fact that the security of the referendum from possible provocations by armed Ukrainian radicals had to be ensured by the Russian military who were already on the peninsula on the basis of an agreement with Kiev, no one poked the Crimeans with a gun in the back of their heads and did not force them to vote “correctly”. They themselves made their choice between Kiev and Moscow, and they voted the way they wanted: an absolute majority “For” reunification with the Russian Federation. The fact that Crimea was the most pro-Russian region when it was part of the Independence Square is a medical fact that is foolish to question. Further, the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol entered into an agreement with the Russian Federation on the admission to the Russian Federation and the formation of two new subjects. As for the accusations of "annexation", let us look carefully at its definition:

Annexation is the forcible annexation by a state of all or part of the territory of another state unilaterally.

Doesn't add up. Firstly, there was no "forced" annexation, and secondly, official bilateral agreements were concluded with the "attached". Let us assume that some points in the organization and conduct of the referendum can be compromised; nevertheless, it is necessary to take into account the international situation in which it was held, but this does not change the very essence of the issue at all. The overwhelming majority of Crimeans themselves decided to secede from Ukraine and become part of the Russian Federation. Thus, there can be no talk of any kind of "annexation" of Crimea. Greetings to Israel with “his” Golan taken from Syria, whose annexation (without quotes) is not recognized and condemned by the UN Security Council. What we have as a result: in fact and legally, Crimea and Sevastopol have been subjects of the Russian Federation for the seventh year. The rejection of these territories or calls for this are punished in accordance with the updates to the criminal law legislation of the Russian Federation.

The problem is that neither Ukraine, nor the Western countries, and indeed almost no one, has recognized this referendum, rightly fearing problems with the United States. Crimea is still considered Ukrainian there. There is a dangerous legal conflict that can lead to great trouble. More precisely, already brought. Let us recall how in 2018 the Russophobic regime of President Petro Poroshenko decided on a provocation, giving the go-ahead for the so-called “Kerch breakthrough”. Three ships of the Ukrainian Navy, ignoring the warnings of the FSB Border Service, tried to pass through the strait to Mariupol. At the same time, they acted on the assumption that the territorial waters off the coast of Crimea are not Russian, but Ukrainian, completely ignoring the new geopolitical reality. All this led to an extremely unpleasant border incident, where Ukrainian sailors were actually used by their own authorities as bargaining pawns. It was only a miracle that there were no human casualties.

Now, in 2021, after the Democratic Party's return to power in the United States, things could be much more serious. Kiev offered NATO to use the airspace over the peninsula's capital Simferopol for its military purposes as if it were still Ukrainian:

We propose using this part of the airspace for NATO air operations to transport troops, equipment, cargo and the like. We look forward to NATO support in monitoring the air situation along the border with Russia.

Such a proposal cannot be anything other than the most dangerous military provocation. If the leadership of the North Atlantic Alliance turns on the "fool's regime" and tries to use the Simferopol Flight Information Region (FIR) as if it were Ukrainian airspace, NATO aircraft and UAVs will be considered violators of the Russian state border with all the ensuing consequences for them. First, the aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Forces will rise towards the aviation of the western block in order to drive them away in this way. But if they continue to shove ahead, the Crimea air defense system will simply be forced to shoot them down. First, the current might of the Russian army allows it to be done, and secondly, Moscow simply has no other choice. An attempt by some side to question the sovereignty of the Russian Federation over Crimea should be suppressed extremely harshly. Otherwise, we ourselves recognize the "illegality" of the return of the peninsula imposed on us.

Taking into account the dual legal status of the peninsula, in the North Atlantic alliance it may well be considered a "casus belli". The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation will be able to present exactly the same claims to him. These are very dangerous games that Ukraine is frivolously trying to play. The further, the more serious her anti-Russian provocations can be. All this is a direct consequence of the Kremlin's decision in 2014 to return Crimea and Sevastopol, leaving the Russophobic regime in power in Kiev. Alas, but Ukraine quite officially became our enemy, recognizing at the legislative level an "aggressor" and setting directly in the Constitution the goal of joining the anti-Russian military bloc NATO. The price of the issue for Russia will only grow continuously.
147 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Ar-Deko Offline Ar-Deko
    Ar-Deko (Ar-Deko _) 11 February 2021 14: 47
    -14%
    Russia itself asked for problems because of its shameful cowardice. It will get even worse.
    1. Sapsan136 Offline Sapsan136
      Sapsan136 (Sapsan136) 11 February 2021 15: 16
      +3
      If Putin does not start drowning and knocking down violators of the Russian borders, it will be even worse ... But maybe then the army will replace him with someone like Zhirinovsky, someone who is not afraid to give a reasoned order to protect Russia's borders from encroachments! And the elections in the Russian Federation are on the way ... I don't think that the people need a coward at the head of the country and the army ... the people will have their say.
      1. silver169 Offline silver169
        silver169 (Aristarkh Feliksovich) 11 February 2021 15: 55
        -4
        And he (Putin) will never drown or shoot down because of his own pathological cowardice ...
        1. Sapsan136 Offline Sapsan136
          Sapsan136 (Sapsan136) 11 February 2021 16: 08
          +4
          Russia is big, we will find a worthy president. There was Russia before Putin with Gorbachev, Medvedev and Yeltsin, and there will be after them ...
          1. goncharov.62 Offline goncharov.62
            goncharov.62 (Andrei) 11 February 2021 19: 08
            +2
            In this historical situation, I do not see a better candidate than Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. For those who disagree, I propose to wipe themselves off and be silent in a rag.
            1. Sapsan136 Offline Sapsan136
              Sapsan136 (Sapsan136) 11 February 2021 19: 17
              +6
              Don't tell us what to do and we won't tell you where to go. The same Zherinovsky gave the Donbass militia a personal armored car Tiger, together with Luzhkov supported the Russians in Crimea for decades ... And your Putin surrounded himself with dubious personalities, such as Grib, Gref, Chubais and called an icebreaker named after the Ukrainian six Chernomyrdin, for a decade and a half has been engaged in boltology in Minsk, instead of returning Donbass to Russia.
              1. Rum rum Offline Rum rum
                Rum rum (Rum rum) 11 February 2021 21: 03
                -2
                As I read your post, I remember one quote:

                You are like "......."
                On Saturdays, or what?

                Row: Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Medvedev, as worthy?
                And this:

                Russia is big we will find a worthy one

                Find it first, and we'll see.
                1. Sapsan136 Offline Sapsan136
                  Sapsan136 (Sapsan136) 11 February 2021 21: 05
                  +3
                  Rather, as unworthy and Putin's invitation to Gorbachev to Moscow, they do not just disappoint me, they pissed me off, as well as Chubais in the grain positions at the suggestion of your idol Vova.
        2. The comment was deleted.
          1. goncharov.62 Offline goncharov.62
            goncharov.62 (Andrei) 11 February 2021 19: 20
            0
            Minuses - satisfied ... The swamp after the stone is seething ...
      2. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
        Marzhecki (Sergei) 11 February 2021 16: 01
        +5
        Quote: Sapsan136
        If Putin doesn't start drowning and shooting down violators of the Russian borders, it will be even worse ..

        Here I agree, since we are talking about a direct violation of state. borders. This is not at all the same as arranging an electronic warfare attack on a foreign warship in neutral waters.
      3. alex5450 Offline alex5450
        alex5450 (Alex L) 11 February 2021 17: 19
        -3
        "Like Zhirinosvkogo" means a political clown. It is unlikely that the army needs such commanders.
        1. Sapsan136 Offline Sapsan136
          Sapsan136 (Sapsan136) 11 February 2021 18: 18
          +5
          The army does not need cowards and idiots, through whose fault foreigners violate the borders of the Russian Federation with impunity, right up to the landing of their planes on Red Square. It's not a sin to throw stones at such rulers not only with tomatoes.
        2. George W. Bush - medium (George Bush - average) 11 February 2021 18: 26
          -2
          Army - no, but enemies of Russia like Sapsan136 / silver169 / Ar-Deko - yes.
          1. Sapsan136 Offline Sapsan136
            Sapsan136 (Sapsan136) 11 February 2021 19: 41
            +2
            Is it you, with your klikuha, a patriot of the Russian Federation, or devils with dual citizenship and accounts in foreign banks, with kids living in England, the USA and Israel ?! Are you joking !? Dual citizenship is like prostitution, like everywhere and with everyone, but in fact, where the ass is warm, there is the Motherland. So the patriots of you are like a tank from a dung.
      4. papas-57 Offline papas-57
        papas-57 (PAPAS-57) 17 February 2021 19: 25
        -1
        Zhirinovsky is good only when he is not responsible for anything, even for his words.
    2. goncharov.62 Offline goncharov.62
      goncharov.62 (Andrei) 11 February 2021 19: 05
      +4
      Are you saying that you should have smacked these ... earlier? Here I agree.
  2. 123 Offline 123
    123 (123) 11 February 2021 14: 50
    +5
    There will be nothing. NATO will not send its planes to the slaughter, the guts are thin.
    1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 11 February 2021 15: 53
      0
      What about UAVs? For a sample?
      1. 123 Offline 123
        123 (123) 11 February 2021 16: 07
        +3
        What about UAVs? For a sample?

        What prevented them from trying earlier? What is fundamentally changing? Were they waiting for the permission of a faceless Sumerian minister?
        1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
          Marzhecki (Sergei) 11 February 2021 16: 09
          0
          Previously, Republican Trump was in power, who was not interested at all. Now again the democrats, and border conflicts are their topic.
          1. 123 Offline 123
            123 (123) 11 February 2021 16: 11
            +1
            So what? The "Breaker of Economies" was also a democrat, what has fundamentally changed?
            1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
              Marzhecki (Sergei) 11 February 2021 16: 13
              -1
              The breaker was president for a long time, since then a lot of water has flown under the bridge and the international situation has changed a lot. Personally, I fully admit that an American or other NATO UAV can probe the Kremlin's willingness to shoot down everything flying across its borders in Crimea. A drone is not an airplane with a pilot, it is not so sorry for it, it is still riveted.
              1. 123 Offline 123
                123 (123) 11 February 2021 16: 16
                -1
                Anything can be allowed. And what does the status of Crimea have to do with it? How has the situation changed with the lifting of the ban on civil aviation flights?
                1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
                  Marzhecki (Sergei) 11 February 2021 16: 26
                  0
                  Ukraine itself invites NATO military aircraft to use the airspace of Crimea, considering it its own. And NATO also considers him as such. They can also try to send the UAV to see if the Russians will shoot it down or not.
                  1. 123 Offline 123
                    123 (123) 11 February 2021 16: 38
                    +1
                    Ukraine itself invites NATO military aircraft to use the airspace of Crimea, considering it its own.

                    She could just as well invite them to Moscow. Do you think that all that was holding them back was the absence of an invitation from a low-minded official?

                    And NATO also considers him as such.

                    As they say, in words he is Leo Tolstoy, but in deeds ... (sorry, there will be no continuation, they say now it is not accepted to use foul language on the Internet). I mean, they can declare anything they want, but military people are pragmatic, if anything they go into battle. They did not recognize the Baltic states as Soviet either, but they were in no hurry to use the Riga airport.

                    They can also try to send the UAV to see if the Russians will shoot it down or not.

                    Again 25? Entering a new circle? Why haven't they sent it before? What changed?
                    1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
                      Marzhecki (Sergei) 11 February 2021 17: 11
                      -2
                      Quote: 123
                      Ukraine itself invites NATO military aircraft to use the airspace of Crimea, considering it its own.


                      She could just as well invite them to Moscow. Do you think that all that was holding them back was the absence of an invitation from a low-minded official?

                      Can not. According to international law, Moscow is not the territory of Ukraine, but Crimea is (according to Russian law, it is Russian).
                      Damn, I spent an hour and a half describing in detail the essence of a legal conflict so that people would not have stupid questions. And here again, they attribute all sorts of garbage to me ..
                      1. 123 Offline 123
                        123 (123) 11 February 2021 17: 22
                        +1
                        Is international law all that will bother NATO pilots flying to the Crimea or Moscow?
                        The difference is not great. In both cases, the debate will be conducted using anti-aircraft missiles.
                        Imagine yourself in the place of an American pilot .... The commander comes up to you and says - John, tomorrow you are flying to Simferopol. In response, sir, but there is an S-400. ABOUT !!! Don't worry, son, according to international law, Crimea is Ukrainian, and their minister sent us an invitation. smile
                        Is it realistic in your opinion? And what would you think if you were a pilot? How much would international law comfort you?
                      2. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
                        Marzhecki (Sergei) 11 February 2021 17: 23
                        -1
                        Is international law all that will bother NATO pilots flying to the Crimea or Moscow?
                        The difference is not great. In both cases, the debate will be conducted using anti-aircraft missiles.

                        You are substituting concepts. In general, I was talking about something completely different. And not about airplanes, but about the use of UAVs.
                      3. 123 Offline 123
                        123 (123) 11 February 2021 17: 53
                        +2
                        You are substituting concepts. In general, I was talking about something completely different. And not about airplanes, but about the use of UAVs.

                        Provocations from UAVs are possible, but this has nothing to do with the empty chatter of a sniffed minister. This is just another publicly voiced nonsense. A slave who allows the pan to fly over the territory he lost is strong. Moreover, the pan has a real opportunity to get the shafts for the hulk. As a rule, everything happens exactly the opposite. A slave is sent to such events.
                        And yes, it looks like you haven't seen the forest behind the trees of the Sumerian minister's rhetoric.
                        This is the normalization of relations, recognition of the actual state of affairs. Pragmatics and economics have won once again.
                        What do the guys from the clown brigade think about this, no one cares. They can only voice the next nonsense diverting attention from the new "zradoperemogo".
                      4. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
                        Marzhecki (Sergei) 11 February 2021 17: 54
                        -1
                        Quote: 123
                        And yes, it looks like you haven't seen the forest behind the trees of the Sumerian minister's rhetoric.
                        This is the normalization of relations, recognition of the actual state of affairs. Pragmatics and economics have won once again.

                        Did I miss something? request
                      5. 123 Offline 123
                        123 (123) 11 February 2021 18: 11
                        +1
                        Did I miss something?

                        Looks like yes yes

                        "Pay attention to updated EASA safety bulletin in the Simferopol flight information area and the abolition of US Federal Aviation Administration restrictions on flights in the Simferopol FIR

                        https://www.rbc.ru/politics/10/02/2021/6023e3ce9a794763796d7f3d

                        Everything else is informational tinsel, distracting attention. An attempt to put a good face on a bad game.
                      6. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
                        Marzhecki (Sergei) 11 February 2021 18: 17
                        -1
                        I thought something really significant happened while I was leaving the computer. smile
                      7. 123 Offline 123
                        123 (123) 11 February 2021 18: 31
                        0
                        No, you just did not grasp the essence of the event and did not focus on that.
            2. Mish Offline Mish
              Mish (Misha) 12 February 2021 10: 06
              +2
              The pilot can think whatever he wants, but he will follow the order
          2. Rum rum Offline Rum rum
            Rum rum (Rum rum) 11 February 2021 21: 50
            +1
            Yes, the same conflict with Taiwan.
  • Sapsan136 Offline Sapsan136
    Sapsan136 (Sapsan136) 11 February 2021 15: 14
    +4
    It's high time for the Yankees to shoot down and drown. They do not recognize not only Crimea as part of the Russian Federation, but also the Kuriles and the Peter the Great Gulf. It's time for the Russian Federation to announce that it does not recognize Alaska as part of the United States, let's see how the Washington scumbags will like it!
  • amateur Offline amateur
    amateur (Victor) 11 February 2021 15: 29
    0
    The root of this geopolitical problem is the unsettled legal status of the peninsula.


    And it would be nice for Mr. Marzhetsky to remember the existence of

    Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Article 280.1. Public calls for the implementation of actions aimed at violating the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation
    1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 11 February 2021 15: 41
      +1
      Quote: layman
      And it would be nice for Mr. Marzhetsky to remember the existence of
      Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Article 280.1. Public calls for the implementation of actions aimed at violating the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation

      What is this in connection with? Who are you going to teach law?
  • Alexzn Offline Alexzn
    Alexzn (Alexander) 11 February 2021 15: 42
    -4
    Greetings to Israel with “his” Golan taken from Syria, whose annexation (without quotes) is not recognized and condemned by the UN Security Council.

    Let's put aside the nonsense about NATO flights over the Crimea, Crimea is de facto Russian, and another discussion of this is nonsense. But about "hello ...
    To begin with - the annexation of Crimea (recognized as annexation by the UN General Assembly) - in the aforementioned Security Council, 13 countries were defined as annexation, China abstained, and the Russian Federation vetoed. So today the annexation of the Golan is no different in terms of its legal status from the annexation of Crimea. The US disavowed its position on the annexation of the Golan and recognized them as Israeli. In both cases, the Security Council condemned, but the Russian Federation vetoed the Crimea, and the states went even further on the Golan, simply recognized as Israeli.
    In both cases, it is annexation (unilaterally and with the use (threat of use) of force). Both countries applied the law of the strong in order to realize their strategic interests. Yes, in the Russian case, there is also history, and historical justice, and the desire of the population, but all these factors do not cancel the qualifications of the international community.
    1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 11 February 2021 15: 52
      0
      Quote: AlexZN
      Let's put aside the nonsense about NATO flights over the Crimea, Crimea is de facto Russian, and another discussion of this is nonsense. But about "hello ...

      Your feedback is very valuable to us. Thank you for speaking and putting everything on the shelves quickly. laughing

      The US disavowed its position on the annexation of the Golan and recognized them as Israeli.

      Another crime in the piggy bank of many ...
    2. Bulanov Offline Bulanov
      Bulanov (Vladimir) 11 February 2021 16: 18
      +5
      The GDR was annexed by the FRG without any referendums. And no one sounded about the capture of a UN member state by another country.
      1. Serval Offline Serval
        Serval 11 February 2021 16: 49
        -2
        Quote: Bulanov
        The GDR was annexed by the FRG without any referendums.

        Nobody annexed the GDR. The union of 2 countries (one people) into a single state took place.
        And yes, it never occurred to anyone to hold a referendum.

        * and with Czechoslovakia - on the contrary: quietly and peacefully, the country was divided into the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
        1. Mikhail Alekseev (Mikhail Alekseev) 11 February 2021 21: 14
          +2
          According to all international laws, the annexation of the GDR by West Germany took place. They just let her through according to the agreements.
    3. Mikhail Alekseev (Mikhail Alekseev) 11 February 2021 21: 13
      +2
      The UNGA has no legal authority. With the same success, the Uryupinsk court can declare that you are a pedophile))) Only the decision of the UN Security Council has at least some force
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 11 February 2021 15: 51
      -1
      You have chosen your nickname surprisingly well. Have you tried to convict me in general, by attaching an article of the Criminal Code here? In my article somewhere there was a call for the alienation of the territory of Crimea? Well, I’ll ask for a quote.
      And you will clog up the comments, the moderators will calm you down pretty quickly.
  • Gadlei Offline Gadlei
    Gadlei 11 February 2021 16: 17
    +1
    You read and understand how many we have divorced boobies.
  • Powers' pilot U-2 was shot down while flying over Sverdlovsk on May 1, 1960.
    Powers survived, was sentenced by a Soviet court for espionage to 10 years in prison

    From Wikipedia
  • Dmitry S. Offline Dmitry S.
    Dmitry S. (Dmitry Sanin) 11 February 2021 16: 29
    +2
    Someone is not at all friendly with formal logic. Put on your pants. Don't shoot! There is a third law of logic and a fourth. Nefig here to breed sophisms.
  • Alexzn Offline Alexzn
    Alexzn (Alexander) 11 February 2021 16: 30
    -4
    Quote: Bulanov
    The GDR was annexed by the FRG without any referendums. And no one sounded about the capture of a UN member state by another country.

    And why post this nonsense?
    1. Mikhail Alekseev (Mikhail Alekseev) 11 February 2021 21: 17
      +1
      if you do not like this fact, it does not mean that it is a fact. In fact, your Ukraine DOESN'T have internationally recognized borders so far))) Yatsenyuk yours in 2014 tried to unilaterally demarcate - but everyone sent him))) The West supports you politically and on condition that our power in the Kremlin is corrupt, which accepts such conditions ... And in fact, Russia has full rights to declare rights to all lands of Ukraine, declaring you at least separatists)))
    2. Dear sofa expert. 11 February 2021 21: 46
      +3
      Quote: Bulanov
      The GDR was annexed by the FRG without any referendums. And no one sounded about the capture of a UN member state by another country.

      And why post this nonsense?

      But you do not mind your own stupidity, calling Crimea annexed:

      In both cases, it is annexation (unilaterally and with the use (threat of use) of force). Both countries applied the law of the strong in order to realize their strategic interests.

      In fact, of course, there was no annexation of the GDR by West Germany.
      Indeed, by definition, the term Annexation can be used ONLY, AND EXCLUSIVELY (!) In the case of the annexation of the territory by another state IN THE UNILATERAL ORDER, AND IN THE ABSENCE (at least formal) of the BILATERAL AGREEMENT. (An example of classic Annexation is Israel - Golan).

      The Germans were all right with that.

      But for the fact that between the Reunification of Germany and the Reunification of the Crimea with Russia, it is quite possible to draw parallels.

      In both cases, there was a mutual desire of peoples for reunification, and a bilateral agreement was concluded.

      The only significant difference is that the right to reunite the two Germanies was obtained from outside, and through the mediation of the victorious countries (Russia, France, England), and the People of Crimea took this right for themselves, taking advantage of the people's right to self-determination.
      In the case of Crimea, we went even further - by organizing a national referendum in Crimea.

      What kind of annexation is this?
  • gorenina91 Offline gorenina91
    gorenina91 (Irina) 11 February 2021 16: 44
    -3
    - Ukraine has publicly "officially" ... - allowed NATO planes to violate the airspace of Russia (fly over Crimea) ... - Why not earlier ... - not under Trump; not under Obama, etc. and so on ???
    - Yes, because ... a friend of Ukraine ... - Erdogan ... - just brought his Bayraktars and his operators to / from Ukraine to them ...
    - So it is quite possible that provocations and violations of the air borders of Russia will begin ...
    - Everything will be quite serious ... - And Ukraine can really be admitted to NATO already under Biden ... - for "great services" to ... the Americans ... - This is how Zelensky will "crawl into the Erdogans" ...
    1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 11 February 2021 17: 12
      +1
      Quote: gorenina91
      - Yes, because ... a friend of Ukraine ... - Erdogan ... - just brought his Bayraktars and his operators to / from Ukraine to them ...
      - So it is quite possible that provocations and violations of the air borders of Russia will begin ...

      So I'm talking about UAVs ...
      1. gorenina91 Offline gorenina91
        gorenina91 (Irina) 11 February 2021 17: 18
        -1
        So I'm talking about UAVs ...

        - I say one thing ... - and put a minus ... - How can this be possible ??? - And the truth is where ???
        - Oh, I can't see the truth here ... - not there personally I'm looking for her ... - Woe to me unhappy ...
        - Hahah ...
        - Okay ... - my plus ... - for objectivity ...
  • alex5450 Offline alex5450
    alex5450 (Alex L) 11 February 2021 17: 21
    -2
    The United States will be forced to shoot down any Russian military aircraft if it violates the borders of Alaska

    Can we add deep analytics here too? )
  • Alexzn Offline Alexzn
    Alexzn (Alexander) 11 February 2021 18: 05
    -3
    Quote: Marzhetsky
    Quote: 123
    Ukraine itself invites NATO military aircraft to use the airspace of Crimea, considering it its own.


    She could just as well invite them to Moscow. Do you think that all that was holding them back was the absence of an invitation from a low-minded official?

    Can not. According to international law, Moscow is not the territory of Ukraine, but Crimea is (according to Russian law, it is Russian).
    Damn, I spent an hour and a half describing in detail the essence of a legal conflict so that people would not have stupid questions. And here again, they attribute all sorts of garbage to me ..

    There is no collision there! A conflict can be in the dispute between Urundi and Burundi, but when the world power says - mine! ...
    Again, you can remember about Israel. Part of the already occupied Golan Syria "gave" to Lebanon, now he considers them his own. Collision? - It's funny.
    1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 12 February 2021 05: 47
      0
      Better not write about what you don't understand. Only make people laugh.
  • Alexzn Offline Alexzn
    Alexzn (Alexander) 11 February 2021 21: 31
    -4
    Quote: Mikhail Alekseev
    According to all international laws, the annexation of the GDR by West Germany took place. They just let her through according to the agreements.

    Annexation, of course! And the decision on the annexation was signed in ... Moscow. On September 12, in Moscow, the "Agreement on the Final Settlement with regard to Germany" was signed, signed by the heads of the foreign affairs agencies of the FRG, the German Democratic Republic, the USSR, the USA, France and Great Britain. One of the conditions for the unification was the inclusion in the FRG constitution of a provision stating that after 1990 all parts of Germany were unified and the signing of an agreement with Poland on the final recognition of the border between the two states.
    Typical example unilateral and violent accession.
  • Ulysses Online Ulysses
    Ulysses (Alexey) 11 February 2021 23: 05
    +1
    The reason for the military clash should be Ukraine, deliberately acting as a provocateur.

    Where are such conclusions from??
    To play off the Slavs, the "blue dream" of the USA.
    But the states will not fight for Ukraine, it is not worth the tears of an American soldier .. negative
  • Yuri Petrovyich Offline Yuri Petrovyich
    Yuri Petrovyich (Yuri) 12 February 2021 07: 02
    -2
    Crimea to Russia is good. The only thing to remember is that the referendum was held in violation of international norms without the consent of Ukraine, and 92% of those who voted for joining Russia are 3% of those living in Crimea. Otherwise, everything is correct.
  • Alexzn Offline Alexzn
    Alexzn (Alexander) 12 February 2021 08: 50
    0
    Quote: Marzhetsky
    Better not write about what you don't understand. Only make people laugh.

    1. It's irony.
    2. Learn to behave correctly. Authors are not allowed to be rude.
  • Alexzn Offline Alexzn
    Alexzn (Alexander) 12 February 2021 09: 04
    0
    In fact, of course, there was no annexation of the GDR by West Germany.
    Indeed, by definition, the term Annexation can be used ONLY, AND EXCLUSIVELY (!) In the case of the annexation of the territory by another state IN THE UNILATERAL ORDER, AND IN THE ABSENCE (at least formal) of the BILATERAL AGREEMENT. (An example of classic Annexation is Israel - Golan).

    Try to understand before answering.
    So - the annexation of Crimea.
    Unilaterally... Yes, the annexation was carried out unilaterally. The Russian Federation annexed Crimea, which is not a subject of international law and could not be a second party. Crimea was a subject of Ukraine and international law does not recognize any bilateral decisions on Crimea without Ukraine (which it did). All today's decisions are made ON THE FACT of the annexation / annexation.
    With the use (threat of use) force - here it is necessary to explain?
    Let me remind you once again - the UN Security Council, with 13 votes in favor, with China abstaining, recognized the annexation as annexation. Yes, the Russian Federation has vetoed, but this does not negate the international legal assessment of the event.
    1. 123 Offline 123
      123 (123) 12 February 2021 10: 54
      +1
      Let me remind you once again - the UN Security Council, with 13 votes in favor, with China abstaining, recognized the annexation as annexation. Yes, the Russian Federation has vetoed, but this does not negate the international legal assessment of the event.

      So on the Golan it is an endless story, an eternal American veto on the Israeli question.
      As far as I remember, with the "galactic breaker of economies" the only failure was. They deigned to abstain. Or was it not about the Golan? Do not remind?
    2. Dear sofa expert. 12 February 2021 12: 59
      +2
      Try to understand before answering.
      So - the annexation of Crimea ...

      You know, I am really, lazy, to answer your preconceived, and it is not clear how motivated, this time, "conclusions", in my own words, so I will simply give you the arguments of one respected person, an unconditional specialist in this matter. It seemed to me that it would be difficult to say better about the “annexation of Crimea”:

      Reinhard Merkel, professor of philosophy of law and criminal law at the University of Hamburg, believes that the events that took place in Crimea in 2014 do not fall under the definition of “annexation”. This was not a "violent seizure of territories" by Russia, but a "secession" - separation from Ukraine, which happened at the will of the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of the peninsula. Professor Merkel said this in an interview with InfoSperber.

      He evaluates events based on the norms of international law. On the one hand, says a professor at the University of Hamburg, the Crimean authorities violated the Ukrainian constitution by deciding to hold a referendum. However, the laws of another state did not oblige Russia to anything, InoTV quotes Merkel, although the Russian government also violated international law twice, in the first case by allowing its troops to move outside the military base, and in the second - by recognizing the results of the referendum and annexing Crimea.

      The results of the referendum showed the true desire of the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of the peninsula to return to Russia, the expert is convinced. In this regard, it is impossible to call the events that took place in March 2014 an "annexation". According to international law, "annexation" is the violent seizure of the territories of one state by another. This abstract definition leaves room for misinterpretations, one of which formed the basis of the West's accusations against Russia.

      In Crimea, it was not “annexation” that took place, but “secession”, that is, the declaration of state independence, confirmed by the results of the referendum, and separation from Ukraine. A referendum and accession in this case exclude the possibility of "annexation", says Merkel, even if the norms of international law were violated. The difference between “annexation” and “secession” is the same as between the words “take away” and “accept,” the professor explains.

      https://vesti92.ru/news/sevastopol-i-krym-v-zarubezhnykh-smi/merkel-schitaet-chto-v-2014-godu-proizoshla-ne-ann/

      Your references to the "decisions" of the UN Security Council are not consistent, given the initially polar, in terms of political engagement, the composition of this "Security Council".

      PS Learn to finally use the "answer" function. It's more honest in the end.
      1. Alexzn Offline Alexzn
        Alexzn (Alexander) 12 February 2021 13: 26
        -2
        An argument at the "John Smith thinks" level is not serious. This is nothing more than a private opinion. Or by giving you an example of the opinion of John Smith, who thinks differently?
        The argument about the engagement of the Security Council is even more frivolous. China modestly abstained - an unprecedented case. (Australia, Argentina, United Kingdom, Jordan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Nigeria, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, USA, France, Chad, Chile)
        Although ... It doesn't matter, because Richard Merkel said ...
        PS In the academic environment, certain basic conditions of controversy are accepted, I recommend that you familiarize yourself.
        1. Dear sofa expert. 12 February 2021 13: 35
          +2
          An argument at the "John Smith thinks" level is not serious. This is nothing more than a private opinion.

          These are your arguments so far at this level. My "John", at least Lecturer in Philosophy of Law and Criminal Law at the University of Hamburg, Professor Reinhard Merkel.
          First, give an example of your "John", then consider his opinion, as well as personality, in terms of prof. suitability.

          The argument about the engagement of the Security Council is even more frivolous.

          Still as serious.

          PS In the academic environment, certain basic conditions of controversy are accepted, I recommend that you familiarize yourself.

          Well, tell me why this demagogy? Or do not we suck to own?
          1. Alexzn Offline Alexzn
            Alexzn (Alexander) 12 February 2021 15: 02
            -1
            My many years of experience in teaching at the university suggests that an opponent is ready to listen to arguments only if he wants to ...
            About demagoguery.
            The opinion of a third party is given as an argument, provided
            1.the opinion of this person is authoritative on both sides
            2.this person is a recognized authority in the field
            If I write that I reviewed the doctoral dissertation of a future member of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan, will this be an argument? I doubt it. I am not a recognized authority for you.
            Further. Just arguments.
            The countries of the world have agreed that international law will be regulated within the framework of the UN and in accordance with its charter. The supreme body is the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly. Russia recognizes this and is a member of this organization and its body represented by the Security Council. When voting in the UN Security Council, 13 out of fifteen countries, with China abstaining, assessed the event - annexation. RF has blocked the resolution on Crimea. In the case when 2 \ 3 SBs make a decision, but it is blocked by a permanent member, the vote can be taken to the GA. There, in accordance with the charter, the absolute majority of countries again qualifies the event as annexation.
            I understand that the organization in which the Russian Federation is a member and whose rights it recognizes cannot OBLIGATE Russia (as a permanent representative to the UN Security Council) to implement the resolution, but this organization can give a legal assessment, which it did.
            No, of course, the opinion of Mr. Merkel is more important than the UN General Assembly resolution. No question.
            1. Dear sofa expert. 12 February 2021 17: 03
              +3
              My many years of experience teaching at the university suggests .....

              Of course I take off my hat to your experience ... but back to the topic.

              I understand that the organization in which the Russian Federation is a member and whose rights it recognizes cannot OBLIGATE Russia (as a permanent representative to the UN Security Council) to implement the resolution, but this organization can give a legal assessment, which it did.

              Let us leave the “always objective” legal assessment of this (quasi) respected, but maximally (if not purely) politicized, and, in the meantime, politically engaged organization behind the scenes. This is a separate topic.

              Let's go back to the resolution itself.

              As I know:

              According to the resolution, the UN General Assembly confirms the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders and does not recognize the legality of any change in the status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the status of the city of Sevastopol, based on the results of the Crimean referendum held on March 16 2014 year, since this referendum , according to this resolution, has no legal force.

              https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Резолюция_Генеральной_Ассамблеи_ООН_68/262

              That is, the resolution deals with the recognition of the sovereignty and state integrity of Ukraine, and the illegal holding of a referendum by the residents of Crimea, with the resulting violation. in the form of a change in the status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, which, in principle, confirms the opinion of Professor Merkel, who is not recognized by you:

              On the one hand, says a professor at the University of Hamburg, the Crimean authorities violated the Ukrainian constitution by deciding to hold a referendum. However, the laws of another state did not oblige Russia to anything ...

              But are we now talking about "annexation"?

              Yes, Russia used the army, but not for the "forcible seizure of the territories of one state by another", which is an integral part of the definition of "annexation", but only as a guarantor of the peaceful conduct of the referendum, ensuring the people of Crimea, their right to self-determination - one of the basic principles of international law ... So this violation by Russia of the norms of international law is leveled by humane intentions in relation to the people of Crimea. With similar humane intentions, the norms of international law were violated by other member states of the same UN Security Council (Yugoslavia).

              No, of course, the opinion of Mr. Merkel is more important than the UN General Assembly resolution. No question.

              Oh, well, now I'm starting to cry from emotion. No question.)

              Can you tell me why Israel did not participate in the voting on the UN General Assembly resolution A / RES / 68/262 on the territorial integrity of Ukraine?)
              1. Alexzn Offline Alexzn
                Alexzn (Alexander) 12 February 2021 17: 12
                -1
                For selfish interests. I did not want to condemn Russia for the annexation as a country that annexed the Golan. Understanding the ambiguity of what happened (in both cases).
                1. Dear sofa expert. 12 February 2021 17: 52
                  +3
                  Understanding the ambiguity of what happened

                  If I were you, I would start with this, and stop there.
                2. Cyril Offline Cyril
                  Cyril (Kirill) 12 February 2021 18: 22
                  -3
                  I did not want to condemn Russia for the annexation as a country that annexed the Golan. Understanding the ambiguity of what happened (in both cases).

                  There is a fundamental difference between these two situations. The Golan was captured in a war that was unleashed not by Israel, but by Syria. At the time of the "return of Crimea" there was no war between Ukraine and Russia.
              2. Alexzn Offline Alexzn
                Alexzn (Alexander) 12 February 2021 17: 21
                -1
                But are we now talking about "annexation"?

                Yes, Russia used the army, but not for the “forcible seizure of the territories of one state by another,” which is an integral part of the definition of “annexation”, but only as a guarantor of the peaceful conduct of the referendum, providing the people of Crimea with their right to self-determination - one of the basic principles

                Read carefully what you have written ... The Russian army on foreign territory ensures ... violation of the constitution of the country of which Crimea is a part.
                Here Cyril noticed well - according to your logic, the Sudetenland was not annexed by Hitler, they returned to their native harbor, and the Wehrmacht only ensured the right of the Sudeten Germans to self-determination.
                1. Dear sofa expert. 12 February 2021 18: 08
                  +3
                  Read carefully what you have written ... The Russian army on foreign territory provides ...

                  Yes, it happens. There are many such cases in today's international practice. Or do you disagree?)

                  violation of the constitution of the country of which Crimea is a part.

                  The Constitution of Ukraine at that time was violated, first of all, not by Crimea, but by Ukraine itself, due to an anti-constitutional coup d'etat. The Ukrainian parliament also had no right to call elections for a new president, having, legally, acting.

                  Here Cyril noticed well - according to your logic, the Sudetenland was not annexed by Hitler, they returned to their native harbor, and the Wehrmacht only ensured the right of the Sudeten Germans to self-determination.

                  I didn't argue with Cyril about the Sudetenland.
                  This is a separate question, it is necessary to separately understand whether it is possible to draw parallels there at all.
                  In short, this is not our topic now.
                2. Cyril Offline Cyril
                  Cyril (Kirill) 12 February 2021 18: 20
                  -2
                  Here Cyril noticed well - according to your logic, the Sudetenland was not annexed by Hitler, they returned to their native harbor, and the Wehrmacht only ensured the right of the Sudeten Germans to self-determination.

                  It's just that some people think according to the principle "our valiant scouts and their dastardly spies" :)
    3. isofat Offline isofat
      isofat (isofat) 12 February 2021 15: 03
      +3
      Alexzn, stop fooling people. There was no annexation. There was no violent rejection of Crimea. Your proposal to consider that Crimea was unilaterally annexed to Russia is also not true.

      The concept of "annexation" is inapplicable in relation to the Crimean events and serves only for propaganda purposes.
  • Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 12 February 2021 11: 25
    0
    Wah!
    None of them have been violated or shot down, and the commentators already want to remove Putin.
    They want to be more patriotic Zhirik (friend of different Dudayevs there)
  • Alexzn Offline Alexzn
    Alexzn (Alexander) 12 February 2021 11: 39
    -3
    Quote: 123
    Let me remind you once again - the UN Security Council, with 13 votes in favor, with China abstaining, recognized the annexation as annexation. Yes, the Russian Federation has vetoed, but this does not negate the international legal assessment of the event.

    So on the Golan it is an endless story, an eternal American veto on the Israeli question.
    As far as I remember, with the "galactic breaker of economies" the only failure was. They deigned to abstain. Or was it not about the Golan? Do not remind?

    As far as I remember, I did not even try to call the annexation of the Golan a return to my native harbor :)
    The ripper did not vote on the Golan, then the Security Council and the United States did not recognize the annexation. Now, in fact, the United States has recognized, with Crimea, in fact, is already slowly recognizing.
  • Cyril Offline Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 12 February 2021 13: 29
    -5
    First, a popular referendum was held there, in which the local population was asked two simple and unambiguous questions:

    No, Sergei. At first there was a military blockade of the peninsula, Ukrainian military bases, administrative bodies, etc. - and only then a referendum.

    Otherwise, it so happens that the annexation of the Sudetenland cannot be considered an annexation - after all, there, too, a large part of the population (the Germans) was in favor of joining Germany.
    1. Dear sofa expert. 12 February 2021 13: 48
      +3
      No, Sergei. At first there was a military blockade of the peninsula, Ukrainian military bases, administrative bodies, etc. - and only then a referendum.

      Well, yes, they blocked, thereby preventing the Ukrainian military from interfering in the referendum, ensuring the people of Crimea have their right to self-determination - one of the basic principles of international law.
      1. Cyril Offline Cyril
        Cyril (Kirill) 12 February 2021 16: 21
        -3
        ensuring the people of Crimea, their right to self-determination

        First, there is no such people. There is a Russian population of Crimea, and the Russian people have already realized the right to self-determination.

        Secondly, in addition to the right to self-determination, there is also the right to territorial integrity.

        Well, yes, they blocked, thereby preventing the intervention of the Ukrainian military in the referendum

        Well, yes, when the Americans invade Syria to "protect the people of Syria from the illegal tyranny of Assad" - the Americans break all laws, when Russia seizes part of another state in order to "ensure the holding of a referendum" - Russia does everything right :) L - logic.
        1. Dear sofa expert. 12 February 2021 17: 28
          +2
          First, there is no such people. There is a Russian population of Crimea, and the Russian people have already realized the right to self-determination.
          Secondly, in addition to the right to self-determination, there is also the right to territorial integrity.

          Well, first of all, there is such a people, and it consists not only of Russians, but also of Crimean Tatars and other ethnic groups.
          But on the right to self-determination, here it is necessary in more detail.
          The Crimean people, already being part of Ukraine, have repeatedly made attempts to self-determine:

          In November 1990, the question was raised of the restoration of the Crimean ASSR as a subject of the USSR and a participant in the Union Treaty [25]. On January 20, 1991, a referendum was held in the Crimean region to restore the Crimean autonomy. The referendum was attended by 81,37% of Crimeans included in the voting lists. 93,26% of the citizens who took part in the referendum supported the reconstruction of the Crimean ASSR [26].

          On February 12, 1991, the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR adopted the Law "On the restoration of the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic"

          and the second time:

          In May 1992, the Supreme Council of the Republic of Crimea adopted the Act on the Proclamation of State Independence, the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea was approved and a resolution was adopted to hold an all-Crimean referendum on independence on August 2, 1992.

          However:

          In response, the Supreme Soviet of Ukraine issued a resolution that ordered the Supreme Soviet of the Republic of Crimea to abolish the Act on the proclamation of state independence and the conduct of an all-Crimean referendum due to the fact that it contradicts the Constitution of Ukraine. On March 17, 1995, the Supreme Soviet of Ukraine adopted the law “On the abolition of the Constitution and some laws of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea”. In the same year, the law "On the Autonomous Republic of Crimea" was adopted, which changed the status of Crimea from state to administrative-territorial autonomy

          This, in fact, prevented the people of Crimea from using their international right to self-determination.
          1. Cyril Offline Cyril
            Cyril (Kirill) 12 February 2021 18: 03
            -3
            Well, first of all, there is such a people, and it consists not only of Russians, but also of Crimean Tatars and other ethnic groups.

            Again. There is no such thing as "the people of Crimea". The fact of the matter is that there is a population of Crimea, consisting of representatives of different nations. But this population is not a separate ethnic entity, with a separate culture, language and history that are common to them. There are Russian-speaking residents who voted for joining the Russian Federation, but there are also Tatars who, for the most part, did not want this.

            Hence, the "people of Crimea" cannot have the right to self-determination, because there is no such people.

            The term "Crimeans" is just a common name for the population of Crimea. For example, the inhabitants of the city of Kozelsk are called Kozelsk - but this does not mean that they are a separate people. So? So.
            1. isofat Offline isofat
              isofat (isofat) 12 February 2021 18: 12
              +3
              Quote: Cyril
              There is no such thing as "the people of Crimea"

              Cyril, ek you suffered. There is no such thing. There are people, and there is Crimea, but there are no people of Crimea? You have a bad mark on logic!

              PS Cyril, you need to be friends with your head. laughing
              1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                Cyril (Kirill) 12 February 2021 18: 30
                -2
                There is no such thing. There are people, and there is Crimea, but there are no people of Crimea? You have a bad mark on logic!

                First, read what the term "people" means, which subject of international law has the right to self-determination. And only then get in with your "valuable opinion".
                1. isofat Offline isofat
                  isofat (isofat) 12 February 2021 18: 43
                  +1
                  Cyril, for starters, do not poke me.

                  To make sure that the concept "people of Crimea" not only exists, but is also used, type in the search engine - "Yatsenyuk's Appeals to the People of Crimea" (this is for example).

                  You will see a bunch of results from this query, where this concept appears, illiterate. laughing
                  1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                    Cyril (Kirill) 12 February 2021 19: 20
                    -1
                    for starters, don't poke me, the poke hasn't grown.

                    I just answer you in your own tone:

                    Cyril, ek you incurred.

                    And so my "poke" you have long outgrown.

                    To make sure that the concept "people of Crimea" not only exists, but is also used, type in the search engine - "Yatsenyuk's Appeals to the People of Crimea" (this is for example).

                    What do I care about the illiterate use of the concept of "people" by the authors of some videos? As illiterate as you.
            2. Dear sofa expert. 12 February 2021 18: 20
              +2
              Again. There is no such thing as "the people of Crimea". The fact of the matter is that there is a population of Crimea, consisting of representatives of different nations. But this population is not a separate ethnic entity, with a separate culture, language and history, common to them.

              Wrong. There are enough peoples in the world: Americans, Russians, Canadians, Swiss, Belgians, etc. with different ethnic backgrounds, different cultures, different languages, and history.

              The term "Crimeans" is just a common name for the population of Crimea. For example, the inhabitants of the city of Kozelsk are called Kozelsk - but this does not mean that they are a separate people. So? So.

              No, not so.

              Crimea is not Kozelsk.

              Crimea has always been an Autonomous Republic. And only for a short time, in spite of the very people of Crimea - the region of Ukraine.
              And from March 17, 2014, it was again proclaimed the independent Republic of Crimea.
              1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                Cyril (Kirill) 12 February 2021 19: 10
                -2
                There are enough peoples in the world: Americans, Russians, Canadians, Swiss, Belgians, etc. with different ethnic backgrounds, different cultures, different languages, and history.

                First, the listed nations (a political synonym for the concept of "people") have a common history. The nations of the USA, Belgium, Russia, Switzerland, Canada, etc. have been formed for centuries, the representatives of the ethnic groups that make up them have isolated themselves from the "mother" states or peoples. The same Americans were formed from the inhabitants of Britain, France, Germany, etc., who had left their countries, formed their own state, established their own institutions of power, and over time began to perceive themselves not as former Germans, British or French, but as Americans. The same story is with the Swiss, who separated from the German, Italian, French state formations and formed the confederal community of the Swiss. Belgium also went through the process of separation, first from France, then from the Netherlands - as a result, a single state was formed, the people of which are no longer Dutch or French.

                The Russian-speaking population of Crimea did not have such isolation - until 1917 it was part of the Russian people (and the state), then - of the Soviet. If anyone is from Crimea and can claim self-determination, then the Crimean Tatars. Here they are - yes, they are a separate ethnic group, but do not have their own sovereign territory. They could well have declared Crimea their own.

                Secondly, the problem of Crimea is not that Ukraine was chopped off by several million people who consider themselves Russian. The problem is that together with this population, a large piece of territory was taken away. Nobody interfered with the "self-determination" of the Russian population of Crimea - there is a separate state of Russians (Russia), it was possible to pack up their bags and emigrate "to their native harbor."

                If Ukraine had seized Crimea on its own, there would have been no problem, Russia then, it turns out, returned its own. The only problem is that Russia itself gave the territory of Crimea to Ukraine and then confirmed its decision with several agreements - in 1991, 1997 and 2003.

                Total:

                1. There is no such people (nation) as "the people of Crimea". There is a population of Crimea, consisting of Russians, Ukrainians, Tatars, etc., no more.

                2. The territory of Crimea was recognized as Ukrainian by the results of mutual agreements between the two countries. Russia violated this treaty.
                1. isofat Offline isofat
                  isofat (isofat) 12 February 2021 19: 20
                  +1
                  Cyril, I have already proved the inconsistency of your first statement.
                  As for the second, nobody canceled the secession.

                  PS Your statements in paragraph 2 are unfounded (unsubstantiated)
                  1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                    Cyril (Kirill) 12 February 2021 19: 25
                    -3
                    I have already proven your first statement to be invalid.

                    What did you prove to me there? That someone as gifted as you misuses the word "people" in the titles of the videos?

                    As for the second, nobody canceled the secession.

                    In order for there to be secession, Crimea had to secede from Ukraine on its own. Using their power structures, their armed forces, etc.

                    In Crimea, the so-called "secession" came after the territory of the peninsula, its administrative buildings, Ukrainian military bases were captured and blocked by the Russian army.

                    Your statements in paragraph 2 are unfounded (unsubstantiated)

                    It's just that you, apparently, have forgotten how to read and cannot master the reading of the relevant agreements.
                    1. isofat Offline isofat
                      isofat (isofat) 12 February 2021 19: 38
                      0
                      Quote: Cyril
                      It's just that you, apparently, have forgotten how to read and cannot master the reading of the relevant agreements.

                      Do I have to prove your statements for you?

                      PS The concept is the people of Crimea! Lives and flourishes! And you said that there is no such thing. laughing
                      1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                        Cyril (Kirill) 12 February 2021 20: 22
                        -1
                        Do I have to prove your statements for you?

                        Should not. Well, here are these same contracts:

                        1. Belovezhskaya agreement, which confirmed the inviolability of the territory of all parties (Russia, Ukraine and Belarus).

                        2. Treaty on friendship, cooperation and partnership between the Russian Federation and Ukraine - 1997, ratified by the parliaments of both countries.

                        3. the agreement between the Russian Federation and Ukraine on the state border - 2003, ratified by the parliaments of both countries.

                        4. Budepest Memorandum.
                      2. isofat Offline isofat
                        isofat (isofat) 12 February 2021 20: 42
                        +1
                        Cyril, and what should have been done with these pieces of paper when the current president of Ukraine was overthrown?

                        In Ukraine itself, many regions did not support the "new government", and the old one no longer exists. Donetsk and Lugansk, Crimea and other subjects of Ukraine were faced with a choice, the one they elected was overthrown. The disintegration of the country Ukraine began.

                        There is no legitimate government, but there are armed bandits ?!

                        The concept of "annexation" is inapplicable in relation to the Crimean events and serves only for propaganda purposes.

                        The issue on Crimea is closed. hi
                      3. Cyril Offline Cyril
                        Cyril (Kirill) 12 February 2021 20: 57
                        -3
                        and what should have been done with these pieces of paper when the current president of Ukraine was overthrown?

                        Nothing, because the legislative body of Ukraine is the Verkhovna Rada, not the president. Documents are signed between countries, not between presidents.

                        The concept of "annexation" is not applicable to the Crimean events

                        Let's apply. The above has described why.

                        In Ukraine itself, many regions did not support the "new government", and the old one no longer exists.

                        These are internal problems of Ukraine itself, which are not a reason for another state to take away part of its territory from it.

                        The issue on Crimea is closed.

                        Crimea has changed its status 100 times in the last 5 years alone, so there are no guarantees that this will not happen in the near future. There is nothing eternal in history.
                      4. isofat Offline isofat
                        isofat (isofat) 12 February 2021 21: 09
                        0
                        Quote: Cyril
                        There is nothing eternal in history.

                        Cyril, hope and wait!
                      5. Cyril Offline Cyril
                        Cyril (Kirill) 12 February 2021 21: 13
                        -3
                        What can I hope for?

                        In general, I do not care who will control Crimea and which country it will belong to.

                        You just don’t need to make yourself angels and noble knights, hiding behind grandiloquent words about “home harbor” (which itself renounced Crimea 5 times), “self-determination of the people” (which does not exist) and the like.

                        We took advantage of the opportunity to grab a strategically important piece - ok, this is generally the norm.
        2. Dear sofa expert. 12 February 2021 20: 01
          +3
          The Russian-speaking population of Crimea did not have such isolation

          Do you really need this?)
          Crimea has always been an Autonomous Republic.

          Autonomous republic - a form of state (regional, political, national-territorial) autonomy in the USSR and some other states and countries

          In modern post-Soviet countries
          As part of the Flag of Azerbaijan Azerbaijan:
          Flag of Azerbaijan Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic
          As part of the Flag of Georgia Georgia:
          Flag of Abkhazia (GE) .svg Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia
          Flag of Adjara Autonomous Republic of Adjara
          As part of the Flag of Tajikistan Tajikistan:
          Autonomous Republic of Badakhshan (existed from April 11, 1992 - June 27, 1997)
          As part of the Flag of Ukraine Ukraine:
          Flag of Crimea Autonomous Republic of Crimea
          As part of the Flag of Uzbekistan Uzbekistan:
          Flag of Karakalpakstan Karakalpakstan (with some reservations)
          As part of the Flag of Moldova Moldova:
          Flag of Gagauzia Gagauzia (with some reservations)
          In many modern countries, there are administrative-territorial units that have all the characteristics of autonomous republics, but are called differently.

          What do you fence Cyril?)

          Belgium also went through a process of isolation, first from France, then from the Netherlands - as a result, a single state was formed, the people of which are no longer either Dutch or French.

          Yeah, tell the Walloon that he is Belgian, the Bavarian, that he is German, the Tyrolean, that he is Italian, Bascu, that he is Spaniard, At best, they will smile at you out of politeness. And a resident of Northern Ireland, so he generally ... will welcome you if you call him a British. Practice dodging the right hook first. )
          1. Cyril Offline Cyril
            Cyril (Kirill) 12 February 2021 20: 43
            -3
            Crimea has always been an Autonomous Republic.

            I duplicate my answer:

            The Autonomous Republic of Crimea was not "always", but from 1921 to 1945 (under the USSR), and from 1991 to 2014 (as part of Ukraine). In total, before the collapse of the USSR, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea was already for 24 years. Well, straight is the centuries-old history of an independent state, oga.

            Moreover, in 1945, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea was transformed into the Crimean region as part of the first RSFSR (at that moment, somehow, no one cared about the "right of the people to self-determination", right?), And then, from 1954 to 1991 - as part of Ukrainian SSR.

            Yeah, tell the Walloon that he is Belgian, Bavarian, that he is German, Tyrolean, that he is Italian, Bascu, that he is Spaniard, At best, they will smile at you out of politeness. And a resident of Northern Ireland, so he generally ... will welcome you if you call him a British.

            Again 25. Once again - the Russian-speaking residents of Crimea do not consider themselves a separate nation, they consider themselves Russian. This is confirmed by their opinion in opinion polls conducted in Crimea. Accordingly, the right of the Russian-speaking population of Crimea to self-determination has already been realized in the form of Russia.

            I repeat, the problem of Crimea is a problem of alienating someone else's territory, not a problem of "self-determination".

            Is it so hard to understand?

            Secondly, about the peoples you have listed. Let's take what you think is the most radical example:

            The ethnic composition of the population of Northern Ireland is heterogeneous: it is home to about 500 thousand indigenous inhabitants of the island of Ireland - Irish Catholics and about 1 million Anglo-Irish and Scotch-Irish. Most are Protestants who are British in culture and tradition. They are committed to maintaining constitutional ties with the British crown. The rest of the population of Northern Ireland is Catholic and Irish in culture and history.

            The same with the Basques and Bavarians - what percentage of the population of the Basque Country and Bavaria support nationalist and separatist sentiments? So we also have some in Russia who support the idea of ​​"independence of Siberia" - what, now we will assume that ALL Siberians consider themselves a separate nation and want to secede from Russia?

            Thirdly, in the examples you cited of the Bavarians, Basques and Irish Catholics (which in Northern Ireland, I recall, are a minority), these territories were forcibly annexed. With this in mind, yes, to some extent, representatives of these ethnic groups have the right to independence and self-determination.

            But Ukraine did not annex Crimea by force - it was freely "presented" to it by the RSFSR, and then Russia (the successor of the RSFSR) confirmed this gift in several treaties.
      2. Cyril Offline Cyril
        Cyril (Kirill) 12 February 2021 19: 55
        -3
        Crimea is not Kozelsk.

        Crimea always was an Autonomous Republic. And only for a short time, in spite of the very people of Crimea - the region of Ukraine.
        And from March 17, 2014, it was again proclaimed the independent Republic of Crimea.

        The Autonomous Republic of Crimea was not "always", but from 1921 to 1945 (under the USSR), and from 1991 to 2014 (as part of Ukraine). In total, before the collapse of the USSR, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea was already for 24 years. Well, straight is the centuries-old history of an independent state, oga.

        Moreover, in 1945, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea was transformed into the Crimean region as part of the first RSFSR (at that moment, somehow, no one cared about the "right of the people to self-determination", right?), And then, from 1954 to 1991 - as part of Ukrainian SSR.

        So tell about the age-old independence or at least the autonomy of the Crimea, for example, to Isofat. He can't read anyway.
        1. 123 Offline 123
          123 (123) 12 February 2021 22: 14
          0
          So tell about the age-old independence or at least the autonomy of the Crimea, for example, to Isofat. He can't read anyway.

          Kidril, you are "cattle" by leaps and bounds.
  • Dear sofa expert. 12 February 2021 17: 37
    +3
    First, there is no such people. There is a Russian population of Crimea, and the Russian people have already realized the right to self-determination.

    Secondly, in addition to the right to self-determination, there is also the right to territorial integrity.

    If we omit the whole long path of the struggle of the people of Crimea for self-determination from 1992 to 2014, then we can summarize:

    On March 11, the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the Sevastopol City Council adopted the Declaration of Independence.

    and after that:

    On March 16, a referendum was held on the status of Crimea, according to the official results of which the majority of those who voted in favor of joining Russia. On March 17, based on the results of which, the independent Republic of Crimea was unilaterally proclaimed, and on March 18, it signed an agreement with Russia on joining the Russian Federation. On April 11, the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol were included in the list of subjects of the Russian Federation in the Constitution of Russia

    So both chronologically and legally, all the formalities were met.
    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 12 February 2021 18: 17
      -4
      If we omit the whole long path of the struggle of the people of Crimea for self-determination from 1992 to 2014, then we can summarize:

      There is no "struggle of the people of Crimea for self-determination." There is a struggle of the Russian population of Crimea, but they have already realized this right in the form of Russia.

      Therefore, the Supreme Court of Ukraine canceled the results of the first referendum.
      1. Dear sofa expert. 12 February 2021 18: 43
        +3
        There is no "struggle of the people of Crimea for self-determination." There is a struggle of the Russian population of Crimea,

        Open Wikipedia and read it yourself. In some kind of nonsense already "deepen".

        Therefore, the Supreme Court of Ukraine canceled the results of the first referendum.

        The Supreme Court of Ukraine canceled the results of the second referendum of 1992, since you are so fond of accuracy. The first one was in 1991.

        Read, delve into. All in your hands.
        1. Cyril Offline Cyril
          Cyril (Kirill) 12 February 2021 19: 39
          -1
          Open Wikipedia and read it yourself.

          I open Wikipedia. I enter into the search "nation of Crimea" - it gives out articles:

          "The ethnic composition of Crimea"

          "Population of Crimea"

          There is no article "nation of Crimea" in Wikipedia.

          The same is with the concept of "People of Crimea". There is an article "People of Crimea", but there is no article "People of Crimea".

          The Supreme Court of Ukraine canceled the results of the second referendum of 1992, since you are so fond of accuracy. The first one was in 1991.

          Yes, you are right, second. At which the creation of a completely independent Republic of Crimea was proclaimed. The decision of the first referendum, which on the creation of the Crimean autonomy, was recognized and, in general, respected until the very "return of Crimea to its native harbor."
          1. isofat Offline isofat
            isofat (isofat) 12 February 2021 19: 51
            +2
            Quote: Cyril
            There is an article "People of Crimea", but there is no article "People of Crimea".

            You were ashamed to draw a conclusion, you are probably ashamed of saying stupidity. laughing
            1. Cyril Offline Cyril
              Cyril (Kirill) 12 February 2021 19: 58
              -2
              You were ashamed to draw a conclusion.

              Why, I drew a conclusion and voiced it earlier - there is no such thing as "People of Crimea". There is the concept of "peoples of Crimea" (Russians, Ukrainians, Tatars, etc.), which (except for the Tatars) already have their own national state formations (Russia, Ukraine, etc.).

              You were ashamed to draw a conclusion, you are probably ashamed of saying stupidity.

              I am ashamed of only one thing - for you. You are talking nonsense, but I am ashamed of you.
              1. isofat Offline isofat
                isofat (isofat) 12 February 2021 20: 03
                0
                Quote: Cyril
                There is a concept "peoples of Crimea"

                The meaning of the concept of "peoples of Crimea" is the denotation of the concept of "people of Crimea" (multinational). laughing

                PS I have not yet reached the point of insults, unlike you. wassat
                1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                  Cyril (Kirill) 12 February 2021 21: 07
                  -2
                  The meaning of the concept of "peoples of Crimea" is the denotation of the concept of "people of Crimea" (multinational).

                  Once again (I don’t know which one) - there is no such thing as “People of Crimea”. If the individual peoples inhabiting the Crimea. And no, "the peoples of Crimea" is not a denotation of the concept "People of Crimea". Actually, the Russian-speaking population (national majority) of Crimea considers themselves to be Russians, and not some separate nation. And, as I said, the Russians already have their own sovereign state - Russia.
                2. isofat Offline isofat
                  isofat (isofat) 12 February 2021 21: 27
                  +1
                  Quote: Cyril
                  Once again (I don’t know which one) - there is no such thing as "People of Crimea".

                  My friend, even the concept of "Humpbacked Horse" exists, although in our reality there is no such creature. But there is a concept! And we use it, perfectly understanding each other.

                  PS The concept "people" has more than one meaning, several. The most general definition, a people is a historical community of people. You cannot forbid your opponent to use any concept. You can clarify the scope and content of the concept used by him in order to better understand it. In short, arguing about words is stupid. hi
                3. Cyril Offline Cyril
                  Cyril (Kirill) 12 February 2021 21: 43
                  -4
                  My friend, even the concept of "Humpbacked Horse" exists, although in our reality there is no such creature.

                  Concepts that denote non-existent objects or phenomena are called in logic "empty".

                  Ok, let's assume that there is such an empty concept as "the people of Crimea". But there is no place for empty concepts in international relations.

                  And we use it, perfectly understanding each other.

                  So who is stopping you from living in your fictional world and communicating with each other?

                  The concept of "people" has more than one meaning, several. The most general definition, a people is a historical community of people. You cannot forbid your opponent to use any concept. You can clarify the scope and content of the concept he uses in order to better understand it. In short, arguing about words is silly. hi

                  My opponent spoke of the "right of the people of Crimea to self-determination," that is, he used the word "people" either in the political sense, as a synonym for the concept of "nation", or in the ethnographic sense, as a synonym for the concept of "ethnos".

                  And in both these senses there is no concept of "people of Crimea" or "nation of Crimea" - there is no "historical community" of people there. The Russian population considers itself Russians, the Ukrainian - Ukrainians, the Crimean Tatar either by itself, or gravitates towards the Turks.
                4. isofat Offline isofat
                  isofat (isofat) 12 February 2021 22: 31
                  +1
                  Cyril, I'm tired of arguing with you. Here's a video tutorial. We are a multinational people. Social studies, 5th grade. On the example of Russia. If you continue to call the concept "people of Crimea" empty after that, then I am powerless. I do not have video tutorials for DPR, sorry.

        2. isofat Offline isofat
          isofat (isofat) 12 February 2021 20: 11
          +2
          PS Concept as a form of thinking. E.K. Voishvillo.
          (https://bookree.org/reader?file=794109) Online
          Self-educate, I recommend.
          1. Cyril Offline Cyril
            Cyril (Kirill) 12 February 2021 21: 08
            -3
            My logic is all right, you should tighten it up.
        3. 123 Offline 123
          123 (123) 12 February 2021 22: 35
          0
          Why, I drew a conclusion and voiced it earlier - there is no such thing as "People of Crimea". There is the concept of "peoples of Crimea" (Russians, Ukrainians, Tatars, etc.), which (except for the Tatars) already have their own national state formations (Russia, Ukraine, etc.).

          Is this a universal approach or is it Russophobic and discriminatory only for the Russian people? Let's look a little more broadly at the situation, how it works in relation to other peoples.
          Where do you define Karachay-Cherkessia, for example? Do they have people? Do they have the right to self-determination, and if so, how? Karachais separately, Circassians separately? Or will you kindly allow them to exist, following the example of the former Czechoslovakia or Austria-Hungary? What about Northern Ireland? do they have the right to self-determination? And the Kurds?
          1. isofat Offline isofat
            isofat (isofat) 12 February 2021 22: 57
            +1
            123, he's been lost this dispute... Now he pretends that the Crimean issue has not been fully resolved and is trying to sow seeds of doubt, hoping for something.
          2. Cyril Offline Cyril
            Cyril (Kirill) 13 February 2021 12: 36
            -3
            Is this a universal approach or is it Russophobic and discriminatory only for the Russian people suitable?

            Universal.

            Where do you define Karachay-Cherkessia, for example? Do they have people? Do they have the right to self-determination, and if so, how?

            In Karachay-Cherkessia, yes, there are both Karachais and Circassians (and a bunch of other peoples). In theory, each of these ethnic groups can declare their right to self-determination. But due to the small number of these peoples, such single-national states will have no political weight and meaning. Therefore, not being at least in any way a significant political force, they are quite content with the status of a united multinational republic within the Russian Federation.

            What about Northern Ireland? do they have the right to self-determination?

            And I have already cited information on Northern Ireland above, I quote:

            The ethnic composition of the population of Northern Ireland is heterogeneous: it is home to about 500 thousand indigenous inhabitants of the island of Ireland - Irish Catholics and about 1 million Anglo-Irish and Scotch-Irish. Most are Protestants who are British in culture and tradition. They are committed to maintaining constitutional ties with the British crown. The rest of the population of Northern Ireland is Catholic and Irish in culture and history.

            Thus, most of the population is (and considers itself) British, and the rest of the population (Irish Catholics) has the right to self-determination in the form, in fact. independent Ireland.

            And the Kurds?

            And the Kurds have the right to self-determination, of course.

            So there is no discrimination in my words.
          3. 123 Offline 123
            123 (123) 13 February 2021 12: 56
            0
            But due to the small number of these peoples, such single-national states will have no political weight and meaning.

            Will you define this? Where is the number that gives the people the right to independence?

            Therefore, not being at least in any way a significant political force, they are quite content with the status of a united multinational republic within the Russian Federation.

            We are not talking about who is content with what, but about the universality of the approach. Crimeans, if anything, do not claim to be a separate state, but are quite content with being a part of Russia.

            Thus, most of the population is (and considers itself) British, and the rest of the population (Irish Catholics) has the right to self-determination in the form, in fact. independent Ireland.

            Is the opinion of the majority of the population decisive? Then what is the essence of your claims on Crimea? I just replaced the British with the Russians, and the Irish with the Ukrainians, and forgive me, I put "independent" in quotation marks because I strongly doubt it.

            Thus, most of the population is (and considers itself) Russians, while the rest of the population (Ukrainians) have realized the right to self-determination in the form, in fact. "independent" Ukraine.

            And the Kurds have the right to self-determination, of course.

            And do they have the right to secede from Iraq, Turkey, Syria to implement their will?
          4. Cyril Offline Cyril
            Cyril (Kirill) 13 February 2021 13: 27
            -3
            Will you define this?

            This has already been determined by these peoples themselves.

            Will you define this? Where is the number that gives the people the right to independence?

            There is no such size limit. As I said, any people has the right to self-determination and have an independent state. It's just that some peoples understand that they can only survive as part of a larger country. Therefore, they claim maximum autonomy status.

            We are not talking about who is content with what, but about the universality of the approach.

            So it is universal. Set out in the relevant UN regulation.

            The Crimeans, if anything, do not claim a separate state, but are quite content with being a part of Russia.

            Yeah, while taking away a piece of someone else's territory. Do you want to repeat 4 times that the problem of Crimea is in the ownership of its territory, and not of the Russian-speaking population?

            Is the opinion of the majority of the population decisive? Then what is the essence of your claims on Crimea? I just replaced the British with the Russians, and the Irish with the Ukrainians, and forgive me, I put "independent" in quotation marks because I strongly doubt it.

            But Britain did not give the territory of Northern Ireland to Ireland, and then again did not take it back under the pretext of "returning the Northern Irish to their native harbor." This is the fundamental difference between these two situations.

            And do they have the right to secede from Iraq, Turkey, Syria to implement their will?

            Yes, it is quite.
          5. 123 Offline 123
            123 (123) 13 February 2021 13: 55
            0
            This has already been determined by these peoples themselves.

            So we have the first agreed point?
            1) The right of the people (population) to decide their own destiny.

            There is no such size limit. As I said, any people has the right to self-determination and have an independent state. It's just that some peoples understand that they can only survive as part of a larger country. Therefore, they claim maximum autonomy status.

            Have you forgotten what I mean? We are not discussing what they understand and what they claim, but the universality of principles. What do they have the right to do in your opinion?

            Yeah, while taking away a piece of someone else's territory. Do you want to repeat 4 times that the problem of Crimea is in the ownership of its territory, and not of the Russian-speaking population?

            Who has it taken away from? This is their land, they live on it.

            Do you want to repeat 4 times that the problem of Crimea is in the ownership of its territory, and not of the Russian-speaking population?

            Why, I perfectly understood your position. I am trying to understand how universal and fair your approach is. How should the Kurds be in this case? After all, in your opinion, they have the right ...

            But Britain did not give the territory of Northern Ireland to Ireland, and then again did not take it back under the pretext of "returning the Northern Irish to their native harbor." This is the fundamental difference between these two situations.

            And what does it have to do with it? belay We are discussing how decisive is the opinion of the population of a given territory.

            Yes, it is quite.

            Excuse me, could you give a more detailed answer? Kurds, in your opinion, have the right to leave Iraq, Turkey, Syria, together with their land or a suitcase - a railway station - ..... And where should they go? request
          6. Cyril Offline Cyril
            Cyril (Kirill) 13 February 2021 14: 11
            -3
            1) The right of the people (population) to decide their own destiny.

            Nope. Not the population, but the people (in the sense of a nation or ethnos). Population and people are not the same thing.

            Have you forgotten what I mean? We are not discussing what they understand and what they claim, but the universality of principles. What do they have the right to do in your opinion?

            So they (small nations) can apply this universal principle to themselves at any time. If they want to. They just don't want to. It is their choice - to exercise their right to independence or not.

            Who has it taken away from? This is their land, they live on it.

            This territory was part of the state of Ukraine. For example, there are territories in Russia with a predominantly Kazakh population (along the borders with Kazakhstan). If this population suddenly decides to "return to their native harbor" (Kazakhstan) - will you allow them to take with them the lands on which they now live?

            How should the Kurds be in this case? After all, in your opinion, they have the right ...

            So what, am I denying the Kurds the right to self-determination?

            And what does this have to do with it? belay We are discussing how determining the opinion of the population of this territory is.

            Again 25. Once again. The territory of Northern Ireland was ceded to Britain as a result of a mutual agreement between the British and the Irish. Most of the population of Northern Ireland consider themselves British. Therefore Northern Ireland is part of Britain.

            Things are different in Crimea. Russia itself gave this territory to another state (that is, this territory became not Russian), and then unilaterally took it under the pretext of "the right of the people to self-determination", although this right is inapplicable to the population of Crimea, because there is no such separate "people of Crimea" ... There is no such nation, no such ethnos.

            It is because of this fundamental difference (Britain did not give Northern Ireland to another state, and Russia gave Crimea) between these two examples, one cannot make an analogy.

            Excuse me, could you give a more detailed answer? Kurds, in your opinion, have the right to leave Iraq, Turkey, Syria, together with their land or a suitcase - a railway station - ..... And where should they go? request

            Kurds - have the right to create their own national state. I talked about it. What's incomprehensible?
          7. 123 Offline 123
            123 (123) 13 February 2021 14: 47
            +1
            Nope. Not the population, but the people (in the sense of a nation or ethnos). Population and people are not the same thing.

            Do you mean nationality? Do you think that states are defined by ethnicity?
            I remembered an old anecdote .. I suppose it will not be displaced, and I don’t remember literally, but it perfectly explains the essence.

            A company of the Belgian army on the march. Commander's command - Company stop. Valonians to the left, Flemings to the right, disperse A few black soldiers remained in the ranks. The commander is furious - the command did not hear the canals? To which the answer should be - where are we Belgians to go?

            This I mean that there is a concept of a multinational people. There are not so many mono-ethnic states. Or do not you consider the Russians a people? Not all Han Chinese are in China. Do you think they have no rights at all?

            So they (small nations) can apply this universal principle to themselves at any time. If they want to. They just don't want to. It is their choice - to exercise their right to independence or not.

            It's not about whether they want to or not. In my opinion, we have decided that the opinion of people is the main thing. Although you think that they must be of the same nationality. We are discussing the universality of the approach to the problem. Suppose they decided to determine themselves, how should they be? Go out within the existing boundaries and live on, or is it necessary to divide the territory by nationality?

            Again 25. Once again. The territory of Northern Ireland was ceded to Britain as a result of a mutual agreement between the British and the Irish. Most of the population of Northern Ireland consider themselves British. Therefore Northern Ireland is part of Britain.

            Is this a way to get away with the answer? I'm not asking you about how Northern Ireland got into the UK, but about how decisive you think the opinion of the population is. The people of Northern Ireland do not exist, not only the British, but also the Irish live there.

            Things are different in Crimea. Russia itself gave this territory to another state (that is, this territory became not Russian), and then unilaterally took it under the pretext of "the right of the people to self-determination", although this right is inapplicable to the population of Crimea, because there is no such separate "people of Crimea" ... There is no such nation, no such ethnos.

            That is, in the case of Northern Ireland and Crimea, do you think that the opinion of the population means nothing? The main thing is who owns the territory? Then what was this about?

            Most are Protestants who are British in culture and tradition. They are committed to maintaining constitutional ties with the British crown.

            It is because of this fundamental difference (Britain did not give Northern Ireland to another state, and Russia gave Crimea) between these two examples, one cannot make an analogy.

            And now people living in Crimea and Northern Ireland have no right to determine their fate by the fact that they do not have their own separate nationality?
            Republic of Serbian Krajina, what are we going to do with it? Population Serbs, Croats and others.

            Kurds - have the right to create their own national state. I talked about it. What's incomprehensible?

            Of course they did, but you don't answer the question. You are like a child, honestly. What is a very uncomfortable question? Doesn't fit your theory?
            Where do they have the right to form their own nation state? After all, you offer them to leave their own land and liberate the territory.
          8. Cyril Offline Cyril
            Cyril (Kirill) 13 February 2021 15: 14
            -3
            Do you mean nationality? Do you think that states are defined by ethnicity?
            I remembered an old anecdote .. I suppose it will not be displaced, and I don’t remember literally, but it perfectly explains the essence.
            A company of the Belgian army on the march. Commander's command - Company stop. Valonians to the left, Flemings to the right, disperse A few black soldiers remained in the ranks. The commander is furious - the command did not hear the canals? To which the answer should be - where are we Belgians to go?
            This I mean that there is a concept of a multinational people.

            That's right, there is such a concept. Only the Russian multinational people already have their own state - Russia :)

            Is this a way to get away with the answer? I'm not asking you about how Northern Ireland got into the UK, but about how decisive you think the opinion of the population is. The people of Northern Ireland do not exist, not only the British, but also the Irish live there.

            There are two conflicting principles in international law.

            1. The right of the people to self-determination

            2. The right of the state to preserve its integrity.

            The question, however, how to combine them is a matter of compromise.

            In the situation with Northern Ireland, the Irish (a separate people) received their independent territory - Ireland. Then, as a result mutual agreement between Ireland and Britain, the predominantly British territory ceded to Britain as Northern Ireland.

            Thus, both principles are taken into account. The right of the (Irish) people to self-determination and the right of Britain to regard predominantly British territory as their own.

            I repeat - this was achieved as a result of a mutual agreement. I will repeat myself - Britain has never ceded the territory of Northern Ireland to independent Ireland. This is why Ireland today does not claim Northern Ireland and has no legal right to claim. And that is why the IRA, which is fighting for the independence of Northern Ireland, is considered an illegal organization.

            In the situation with the Crimea. Firstly, there is no such separate people - the Crimeans. This is not a nation or an ethnos. Accordingly, a non-existent nation cannot exercise the right to self-determination.

            But there is a Russian-speaking majority in Crimea who consider themselves Russian. Unlike the situation with the Irish at the time of the separation of Crimea from Ukraine, the Russian-speaking majority of Crimea already had its own independent state (Russia) - that is, the right of the Russian-speaking population of Crimea to self-determination had already been realized at that time.

            Therefore, at the time of the separation of Crimea from Ukraine, the dominant factor is the principle of the territorial integrity of the state of Ukraine, which legally belonged to Crimea.

            Of course they did, but you don't answer the question. You are like a child, honestly. What is a very uncomfortable question? Doesn't fit your theory?
            Where do they have the right to form their own nation state? After all, you offer them to leave their own land and liberate the territory.

            No, you don't understand what is written in Russian in white.

            Cite, please, where did I "offer" the Kurds to leave? On the contrary, since the Kurds do not have their own independent state, they have the right to establish it on the lands that they historically inhabit.

            In the case of the Kurds, it is precisely the right to their self-determination that prevails over the right of Turkey to maintain territorial integrity. Because the Kurds do not yet have their own independent state. The Russian-speaking population of Crimea has this state, therefore, they have no right to exercise their right to self-determination by taking away the territory of a foreign state.

            What is incomprehensible in this?
          9. isofat Offline isofat
            isofat (isofat) 13 February 2021 15: 26
            0
            Quote: Cyril
            What is incomprehensible in this?

            It is unclear if you support the position of the author of the article -

            Russia will be forced to shoot down any NATO aircraft that violated the borders of Crimea

            Or do you still not support?

            PS You will not immediately learn to operate with concepts, this is understandable. But your efforts are worthy of respect. I wish you success! On this path of self-improvement! yes
          10. Cyril Offline Cyril
            Cyril (Kirill) 13 February 2021 16: 06
            -3
            You will not immediately learn to operate with concepts, this is understandable.

            I already know how to do it better than you.
          11. isofat Offline isofat
            isofat (isofat) 13 February 2021 17: 01
            0
            Quote: Cyril
            I already know how to do it better than you.

            Cyril, your statement contradicts reality, but since you are just getting acquainted with the science of "Logic", then you are forgiven.

            As an example, I will show how you can prove the existence of the concept "People of Crimea". See ... see? To the people of Crimea!


            I hope that you believe your eyes. The concept "People of Crimea" exists and is used! laughing
      2. 123 Offline 123
        123 (123) 13 February 2021 16: 02
        0
        That's right, there is such a concept. Only the Russian multinational people already have their own state - Russia :)

        Both states are not mono-ethnic. Ukrainians, as well as Russians, are part of the Russian multinational people. What is the essence of the claims? Why can't they move from one state to another? Is this discrimination based on ethnicity?

        There are two conflicting principles in international law.
        1. The right of the people to self-determination
        2. The right of the state to preserve its integrity.
        The question, however, how to combine them is a matter of compromise.

        Quite right. Where do you see a compromise on Crimea?

        I repeat - this was achieved as a result of a mutual agreement. I will repeat myself - Britain has never ceded the territory of Northern Ireland to independent Ireland. This is why Ireland today does not claim Northern Ireland and has no legal right to claim. And that is why the IRA, fighting for the independence of Northern Ireland, is considered an illegal organization.

        You are moving into the plane of interstate relations. We are talking about principles and a unified approach to the right of self-determination. If we follow your logic, let's force Ukraine to recognize Crimea as Russian and that's the end of it. You are okay with outside pressure.

        But there is a Russian-speaking majority in Crimea who consider themselves Russian. Unlike the situation with the Irish at the time of the separation of Crimea from Ukraine, the Russian-speaking majority of Crimea already had its own independent state (Russia) - that is, the right of the Russian-speaking population of Crimea to self-determination had already been realized at that time.

        At the time of the separation of the United States, the British and other come in large numbers also had their own states. Oh, those separatists. And they have the audacity not to recognize Crimea as Russian.

        Therefore, at the time of the separation of Crimea from Ukraine, the dominant factor is the principle of the territorial integrity of the state of Ukraine, which legally belonged to Crimea.

        The Albanians already have their own state, at the time of the separation of Kosovo it already existed. Maybe let's try to solve the problem chronologically, let's start with the return of Kosovo to the Serbs?

        Cite, please, where did I "offer" the Kurds to leave? On the contrary, since the Kurds do not have their own independent state, they have the right to establish it on the lands that they historically inhabit.

        Forgive me, I did not understand your position, I was trying to get an answer for a long time, but by that time you had not voiced your position - you supported the people's right to self-determination by armed means. I have not seen any other peaceful options.

        In the case of the Kurds, it is precisely the right to their self-determination that prevails over the right of Turkey to maintain territorial integrity. Because the Kurds do not yet have their own independent state. The Russian-speaking population of Crimea has this state, therefore, they have no right to exercise their right to self-determination by taking away the territory of a foreign state.
        What is incomprehensible in this?

        A lot of this is not clear because you are not answering the question completely. Kurds also live in Syria, Iraq and beyond. Do they have the right to armed struggle and support from the international community only until the emergence of a Kurdish state in Turkey? And then let them go to their fellow tribesmen?
        And yet, as it was quietly, Karachais and Circassians disappeared from the discussion, they still, in your opinion, have the right to go out and live in a separate state together or in the foreground is the national issue and they must live separately.
        What do you propose to do with Serbian Krajina? They already have their own national education.
      3. Cyril Offline Cyril
        Cyril (Kirill) 13 February 2021 16: 25
        -2
        What is the essence of the claims? Why can't they move from one state to another?

        Who said they didn't? They have every right. But without alienating the territory.

        Where do you see a compromise on Crimea?

        In resolving the issue of belonging at the international level within the framework of the UN, taking into account the views and interests of all parties - including Russia, the population of Crimea and Ukraine.

        You are moving into the plane of interstate relations.

        So this is the plane of interstate relations. We are talking about a territory in dispute between the two countries.

        If you follow your logic, let's force Ukraine to recognize Crimea as Russian, and that's it. You are okay with outside pressure.

        If politically, yes, quite. Why not?

        At the time of the separation of the United States, the British and other come in large numbers also had their own states. Oh, those separatists.

        The American War of Independence was more about economic independence from the Crown rather than ethnicity.

        Well, at that time there were no international laws on territorial integrity, self-determination, etc.

        The world has changed in such a way in more than 200 years.

        The Albanians already have their own state, at the time of the separation of Kosovo it already existed. Maybe let's try to solve the problem chronologically, let's start with the return of Kosovo to the Serbs?

        Try

        And yet, as it was quietly, Karachais and Circassians disappeared from the discussion, they still, in your opinion, have the right to go out and live in a separate state together or in the foreground is the national issue and they must live separately.

        Why did they disappear? I answered about them already.

        What do you propose to do with Serbian Krajina? They already have their own national education.

        Well, that's right. There is Serbia, so there is no Serbian Krajina since 1995 :)
      4. 123 Offline 123
        123 (123) 13 February 2021 17: 24
        0
        Who said they didn't? They have every right. But without alienating the territory.

        Serbian Krajina, Kosovo. Let's start with them. Russia and Crimea are satisfied with everything, if you are against, you can determine yourself individually.

        In resolving the issue of belonging at the international level within the framework of the UN, taking into account the views and interests of all parties - including Russia, the population of Crimea and Ukraine.

        Are you for all the good versus all the bad? laughing How do you see the compromise? What can you agree on? The positions are exactly opposite. Kiev will only be satisfied with the return of Crimea. Are you at the UN going to agree on their transfer to Kiev? Again, like under Khrushchev, like a sack of potatoes? Do you dislike Russians that much?
        And about Kosovo, Serbian Krajina, Catalonia, Taiwan, "Kurdistan" shouldn't the issue be resolved at the international level within the UN, taking into account the views and interests of all parties? This does not work. Any other suggestions?

        So this is the plane of interstate relations. We are talking about a territory in dispute between the two countries.

        We are talking about the right to self-determination and the universality of approaches. You translate into a case study. It is not universal, and self-determination does not always concern interstate relations. Catalonia and Taiwan, which other states are involved besides Spain and China?

        The American War of Independence was more about economic independence from the Crown rather than ethnicity.

        Who cares? According to your theory, there was no right to secession from them.

        Well, at that time there were no international laws on territorial integrity, self-determination, etc.

        True? Just the same laws .. Where can I look at the bottom? Someone performs them? What are the measures for non-fulfillment?

        The world has changed in such a way in more than 200 years.

        It seems not.

        Try

        What do you mean try? And it's all? For some reason, you don’t demand the return of Kosovo to the Serbs, but you speak about the occupied Crimea. Are you still selective about such questions? Doesn't it sound like Russophobia?

        Why did they disappear? I answered about them already.

        You answered that you leave the decision at the discretion of the Karachayevs and the Cherkessians. Not a word about the universal approach. But how has the world changed ... laws appeared ... Where are they? What is written in them on this occasion?

        Well, that's right. There is Serbia, so there is no Serbian Krajina since 1995 :)

        Why are you smiling? Does it make you laugh?
        First, how did it arise at all and where did the "world community" look? She's not in line with your principles.
        Secondly, since the state is formed and the "world" community is not against it. Why didn't anyone bother with his disappearance? It didn't evaporate in the air. It disappeared from the map during the Croatian military operations. This is aggression and occupation of an independent state. Where are the sanctions against Croatia? Is it time to support the armed struggle of the people of Serbian Krajina against the Croatian occupiers? Or can only separate ethnic groups and peoples fight for independence?
  • 123 Offline 123
    123 (123) 12 February 2021 22: 22
    0
    I open Wikipedia. I enter into the search "nation of Crimea" - it gives out articles:

    Collective farm arguments you have negative
    Followed your example and scored "US nation" - the article issues:
    Assassin Nation ("Assassin Nation" - American thriller directed by Sam Levinson)
    Nation Z ("Nation Z" (eng. Z Nation) - American post-apocalyptic television series)
    Neo-Nazism (redirecting from Neo-Nazism to the USA)
    Americans of the USA (Republic of Kenya. He became the first African American president in the history of the USA.)
    List of US criminal gangs
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F
    Quite a curious selection what Do you want to philosophize on this topic? laughing
    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 13 February 2021 12: 43
      -3
      Collective farm arguments you have

      All questions to the Sofa expert - he advised me to contact Wikipedia. I also applied.

      Quite a curious selection of what Don't you want to philosophize on this topic?

      Nope, I do not want to explain to you, like an adult, the principles of the Wikipedia search algorithm.

      Well, yes, in this very Vika there is an article "Americans of the USA", which says:

      US Americans, Americans are citizens, the general population of the US. The inhabitants of the United States are called Americans, but this term has other meanings, implying the inhabitants of almost the entire western hemisphere as a whole. The residents of the United States themselves, according to the established tradition, quite rarely use this ethnonym to designate residents of neighboring, especially Latin American countries.
  • Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 13 February 2021 09: 21
    +2
    Quote: Cyril
    There is no "struggle of the people of Crimea for self-determination." There is a struggle of the Russian population of Crimea, but they have already realized this right in the form of Russia.

    For some reason, the Kosovar Albanians were not prevented from self-determination by the presence of the sovereign state of Albania. Moreover, the Albanians did not even hold a referendum during their unilateral secession from Serbia. And for some reason the USA supported them in this.
    Why are double standards applied to Albanians and Russians of Donbass and Crimea?
    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 13 February 2021 13: 14
      -3
      A counter question - why then does Russia not recognize Kosovo as an independent state?

      There was an important moment in the separation of Kosovo from Serbia - first the Yugoslav, and then the Serbian authorities for many decades pursued a discriminatory policy against the Albanians of Kosovo. In particular, they pursued a policy of suppression and destruction of their spiritual culture, and during the years of the civil war - and a policy of ethnic cleansing.

      This was not the case in Crimea.
  • 123 Offline 123
    123 (123) 12 February 2021 22: 10
    +1
    First, there is no such people. There is a Russian population of Crimea, and the Russian people have already realized the right to self-determination.

    the Russian population of Crimea has reunited with its people, what does not suit you again? And you're still talking about logic.
    But what about Austria? They are practically Germans, and the right to self-determination is in Berlin .... Probably the Anglo-Saxons are probably not worth mentioning, it's time Australia and America are "turned over" to their legal owners.
    You would go to Crimea, explain to people that they have no rights. sad I would love to watch the development of events.

    Secondly, in addition to the right to self-determination, there is also the right to territorial integrity.

    Do not hold a meeting, go restore Yugoslavia, when you finish with the USSR, take on, but don't forget about Czechoslovakia.

    Well, yes, when the Americans invade Syria to "protect the people of Syria from the illegal tyranny of Assad" - the Americans break all laws, when Russia seizes part of another state in order to "ensure the holding of a referendum" - Russia does everything right :) L - logic.

    And the Yugoslav example does not suit you for comparison? How about returning Texas to the Mexicans?
    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 13 February 2021 13: 05
      -3
      the Russian population of Crimea has been reunited with its people, what does not suit you again?

      Once again, for those who cannot read the written words in Russian (that is, for you). The problem of Crimea is not about the self-identification of the population of the peninsula. It could reunite with whoever it wanted and how it wanted. The problem is in the ownership of the territory of the peninsula.

      But what about Austria? They're practically Germans.

      No, Austria as a separate state has been developing since the 12th century AD. It is a separate nation with its own historically formed cultural traditions, institutions of power and other attributes.

      Probably the Anglo-Saxons are not worth mentioning, it's time to "return" Australia and America to their legal owners.

      I have already written about the Australians and Americans - there was a long process of separating these nations from the "mother", the Americans themselves consider themselves to be Americans, not Germans, British, Irish, etc. The same is with the Australians - they consider themselves separate nation, they also had a long period of isolation from Britain.

      The Russian-speaking population of Crimea does not consider itself a separate nation. It considers itself Russian. Is it so hard for you to understand?

      You would have gone to Crimea, explained to people that they have no rights whatsoever sad I would have watched the development of events with pleasure.

      Oh, an "argument" worthy of your 5-year-old thinking level. Probably, in the 90s you also went to Chechnya and explained to the Chechens that they were Russians, right?

      go restore Yugoslavia

      Why restore it? There, just now, all the peoples of the former Yugoslavia have exercised their right to self-determination. It's the same with the USSR and Czechoslovakia.
      1. 123 Offline 123
        123 (123) 13 February 2021 13: 23
        0
        The problem of Crimea is not in the self-identification of the population of the peninsula. It could reunite with whoever it wanted and how it wanted. The problem is in the ownership of the territory of the peninsula.

        Io have want reunification - suitcase - station - Russia? Did I understand you correctly? Where, then, would you order the Kurds to go? smile

        No, Austria as a separate state has been developing since the 12th century AD. It is a separate nation with its own historically formed cultural traditions, institutions of power and other attributes.

        I have already written about the Australians and Americans - there was a long process of separating these nations from the "mother", the Americans themselves consider themselves to be Americans, not Germans, British, Irish, etc. The same is with the Australians - they consider themselves separate nation, they also had a long period of isolation from Britain.

        As written, we have two criteria. Historically formed cultural traditions and attributes of statehood.
        Correct me if you are wrong, but these criteria do not work for Kosovo and the Kurds. request

        The Russian-speaking population of Crimea does not consider itself a separate nation. It considers itself Russian. Is it so hard for you to understand?

        I am glad that you admit it, I do not quite understand why you are denying them the right to reunite with your people.

        Why restore it? There, just now, all the peoples of the former Yugoslavia have exercised their right to self-determination. It's the same with the USSR and Czechoslovakia.

        And do they have the right to join other states or entities like the EU?
        1. Cyril Offline Cyril
          Cyril (Kirill) 13 February 2021 13: 41
          -2
          Io have want reunification - suitcase - station - Russia? Did I understand you correctly?

          Yes, something like.

          Where, then, would you order the Kurds to go?

          Again 25. Do Kurds have their own nation state? Not. Do Russians have their own nation state? Yes. Why draw a silly analogy between them?

          Correct me if you are wrong, but these criteria do not work for Kosovo and the Kurds.

          With regard to Kosovo, yes. And here's the funny thing - Russia does not recognize Kosovo.

          The West did not recognize Kosovo because the Kosovar Albanians consider themselves to be a separate people. This was the only way to somehow protect the Albanian population of Kosovo amid a protracted civil war and ethnic cleansing.

          There was no civil war or ethnic cleansing in Crimea.

          As for the Kurds, why don't they work?

          I am glad that you admit it, I do not quite understand why you are denying them the right to reunite with your people.

          They can reunite with their people according to the principle you voiced earlier. But unilaterally, it is impossible to grab a territory from another state.

          And do they have the right to join other states or entities like the EU?

          Have complete. What?
          1. 123 Offline 123
            123 (123) 13 February 2021 14: 10
            +1
            Again 25. Do Kurds have their own nation state? Not. Do Russians have their own nation state? Yes. Why draw a silly analogy between them?

            Why stupid? We are discussing the universality and fairness of the approach. So how do Kurds realize their right to self-determination?

            With regard to Kosovo, yes. And here's the funny thing - Russia does not recognize Kosovo.

            Quite right, just like the West does not recognize the situation with Crimea. These are exactly the opposite positions. No universality.

            The West did not recognize Kosovo because the Kosovar Albanians consider themselves to be a separate people. This was the only way to somehow protect the Albanian population of Kosovo amid a protracted civil war and ethnic cleansing.
            There was no civil war or ethnic cleansing in Crimea.

            ABOUT!!! Do you think it was necessary to wait a bit for the bombing to begin like in the Donbas? Well, okay, this is the question ... let's not be distracted.
            Is there a new criterion? Mandatory presence of civil war and ethnic cleansing? And how is it in Czechoslovakia? By the way, why does the West insist on Taiwan's independence? Is there ethnic cleansing?

            As for the Kurds, why don't they work?

            Do not understand? How can they create their own state? on ships or in space? You offer them to get out of their own land. These are your words:

            They can reunite with their people according to the principle you voiced earlier. But unilaterally, it is impossible to grab a territory from another state.

            Have complete. What?

            And the fact that Crimea first declared itself independent, and then became part of Russia. Is he worse than the rest?
            1. Cyril Offline Cyril
              Cyril (Kirill) 13 February 2021 14: 31
              -2
              So how do Kurds realize their right to self-determination?

              By forcing their interests in the world community, enlisting the support of influential countries. Europe put pressure on Turkey at one time, thanks to which the Kurds received at least an autonomous territory in Turkey and the right to officially use their language. Full autonomy can be achieved in the same way.

              Well, or to win your independence with arms in hand.

              Quite right, just like the West does not recognize the situation with Crimea. These are exactly the opposite positions. No universality.

              And Kosovo was not formed as a result of the desire of its population to exercise their right to self-determination.

              ABOUT!!! Do you think it was necessary to wait a bit for the bombing to begin like in the Donbas? Well, okay, this is the question ... let's not be distracted.

              In Donbass, they began to bomb because he also wanted to secede. You don’t blame Russia for bombing Chechnya in its time. it is so?

              And how is it in Czechoslovakia?

              As in Czechoslovakia, this is the most optimal case. Two separate nations quietly and peacefully parted into two separate states. Both sides agreed to do this, the division of the territory took place by mutual agreement. And even more so, there was no military occupation of the territory.

              In Crimea, the territorial issue was resolved unilaterally with the military occupation of the territory.

              By the way, why does the West insist on Taiwan's independence? Is there ethnic cleansing?

              The question of Taiwan is not a question of nationality, but a question of which government is more legitimate - PRC or Taiwan. The Taiwanese do not consider themselves a separate nation, they formed their state not on a national basis. And Taiwan was not originally a PRC territory.

              Do not understand? How can they create their own state? on ships or in space? You offer them to get out of their own land. These are your words:

              So the realization by the Kurds of their independent state is not a grabbing of someone else's territory. Since they do not have their own state, they have the right to create an independent state on the territory that they consider to be their (or part of it). This will be within the framework of the right to self-determination.

              The Russian-speaking population ALREADY has its own territory (Russia). This is the fundamental difference between these two examples.

              And the fact that Crimea first declared itself independent, and then became part of Russia. Is he worse than the rest?

              The fact that the "people of Crimea" as a separate nation that has the right to self-determination does not exist. There is a Russian-speaking majority, which already has its own independent state.
              1. 123 Offline 123
                123 (123) 13 February 2021 15: 29
                +1
                By forcing their interests in the world community, enlisting the support of influential countries. Europe put pressure on Turkey at one time, thanks to which the Kurds received at least an autonomous territory in Turkey and the right to officially use their language. Full autonomy can be achieved in the same way.

                Full autonomy ... is it an independent state? Please clarify, we are talking about autonomy within Turkey or autonomy within Turkey.
                That is, you are proposing to put pressure on Turkey (possibly Iraq and Syria) to destroy the territorial integrity of the country? How fair do you think this approach towards Ukraine and what are the boundaries and methods of this pressure? As far as I remember, they are not defined in international law. So states are free to determine them themselves?

                And Kosovo was not formed as a result of the desire of its population to exercise their right to self-determination.

                Quite right, as a result of civil war and direct aggression and foreign intervention. But in your opinion, this is normal. You think that the Kurds can.

                Well, or to win your independence with arms in hand.

                That is, do you consider the conquest of independence and foreign intervention possible? But for this, the population or the majority of the population must have one nationality? By the way, what about Kosovo, do you think it is possible to return it to the Serbs by military means? After all, they already have their own national education, let them go to Albania.

                In Donbass, they began to bomb because he also wanted to secede. You don’t blame Russia for bombing Chechnya in its time. it is so?

                In both cases, we have a civil war. The difference is in the reasons. In Chechnya, two companies should be distinguished. The reason for the first is separatism or the struggle for independence due to the difference in approach (spies). And she actually got it. The reason for the second is direct aggression against Dagestan, that is, against Russia.
                The reason for the civil war in Donbass is that its residents did not support the coup. And it was a punitive operation, they were forced to admit it. There is a difference. A direct analogy with Taiwan suggests itself. These are your words ..

                The question of Taiwan is not a question of nationality, but a question of which government is more legitimate - PRC or Taiwan. The Taiwanese do not consider themselves a separate nation, they formed their state not on a national basis. And Taiwan was not originally a PRC territory.

                Another question is who is more legitimate in Ukraine.

                So the realization by the Kurds of their independent state is not a grabbing of someone else's territory. Since they do not have their own state, they have the right to create an independent state on the territory that they consider to be their (or part of it). This will be within the framework of the right to self-determination.

                That is, they are armed to reclaim their territory from the Turks, declare independence, and from that moment on, the Kurds on the territory of Iraq and Syria no longer have the right to an armed struggle for independence and must go to "Turkish Kurdistan"? Today they are fighters against the Iraqi regimes and are fighting for their own freedom, and the "world community" provides them with worldwide support and puts pressure on Iraq, and tomorrow they are told - you are separatists, no support, go to your Turkish tribesmen?

                The Russian-speaking population ALREADY has its own territory (Russia). This is the fundamental difference between these two examples.

                Let's work together to ensure that the population of Kosovo was removed and Albania? By the way, what about the Catalans and the Basques? Are you for the armed struggle and against the Spanish tyrants suppressing freedom?

                The fact that the "people of Crimea" as a separate nation that has the right to self-determination does not exist. There is a Russian-speaking majority, which already has its own independent state.

                The USA and Australia do not have the right to self-determination, let them get out to England? Or will we wait 200 years and then the current state of affairs in Crimea will become, in your opinion, legitimate? Is it all about time?
                1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                  Cyril (Kirill) 13 February 2021 16: 05
                  -2
                  Full autonomy ... is it an independent state? Please clarify, we are talking about autonomy within Turkey or autonomy within Turkey.

                  You are right, he said inaccurately. I meant complete independence.

                  That is, you are proposing to put pressure on Turkey (possibly Iraq and Syria) to destroy the territorial integrity of the country? How fair do you think this approach towards Ukraine and what are the boundaries and methods of this pressure? As far as I remember, they are not defined in international law. So states are free to determine them themselves?

                  If the Kurds want to become independent so much, then wai not?

                  As for the borders and methods of such pressure in relation to Ukraine, in its case, it is more important to preserve its integrity, because the Russian-speaking population of Crimea and the East already have their own independent country, to which they can return at any time if they want to reunite with it.

                  The reason for the first is separatism or the struggle for independence due to the difference in approach (spies). And she actually got it.

                  She received not complete independence, as far as I remember. Russia continued to consider it its territory and did not recognize it as a completely independent country.

                  The reason for the civil war in Donbass is that its residents did not support the coup. And it was a punitive operation, they were forced to admit it. There is a difference.

                  It's debatable. The motive of "opposition" to the illegitimate authorities very quickly transformed into a motive for the creation of "Novorossiya".

                  A direct analogy with Taiwan suggests itself. These are your words ..

                  Not really, although there are similar points. Taiwanese consider themselves Chinese, and their government is the only legal one throughout China. They regard the CCP as usurpers, and the PRC as an invalid state entity. At least this was the case at the very beginning, when the Republic of Taiwan was formed.

                  In eastern Ukraine, the motive of "Kiev's illegitimacy" is very closely intertwined with the motive "we are not Ukraine" (in the variations "we are part of Russia" or "we are an independent country"). That is, there is separatism on a national basis.

                  That is, they are armed to reclaim their territory from the Turks, declare independence, and from that moment on, the Kurds on the territory of Iraq and Syria no longer have the right to an armed struggle for independence and must go to "Turkish Kurdistan"? Today they are fighters against the Iraqi regimes and are fighting for their own freedom, and the "world community" provides them with worldwide support and puts pressure on Iraq, and tomorrow they are told - you are separatists, no support, go to your Turkish tribesmen?

                  Good question. I think yes. If they form their independent state on the territory of first Turkey, then the fight on the territory of Iraq and Syria will already be illegal.

                  This option is also possible - a one-time struggle on the territory of all three states with the formation of an independent Kurdistan from the territories inhabited by Kurds of all these three countries at once.

                  Let's work together to ensure that the population of Kosovo was removed and Albania?

                  And let’s go back a few decades and tell the government of Yugoslavia, and then Serbia, not to destroy first the Albanian culture, and then the Albanians themselves in Kosovo?

                  By the way, what about the Catalans and the Basques? Are you for the armed struggle and against the Spanish tyrants suppressing freedom?

                  In general, yes, Catalans are entitled to secession, given that 90% who voted in the referendum - per. True, those who voted in the referendum are not the entire population. For the entire population, other figures are:

                  According to surveys conducted in December 2016, 44,9% were in favor of independence, against 45,1%. In early September (a month before the referendum) 47% of Catalans were in favor of secession from Spain and 44,4 were against. According to later polls, 41% of the inhabitants of the autonomous community support the independence of Catalonia, 49% are against it. At the same time voting according to 60% of Catalans, it is not legitimate and cannot have any legal consequences... 80% of Catalans are in favor of holding a referendum on the status of the autonomous community, however most of them believe that it should be agreed with the authorities in Madrid... According to a poll conducted by the sociological service SocioMétrica for the online publication El Español, 50,1% of Catalans were in favor of independence, while 45,7% were against.

                  I specially highlighted 2 key points:

                  1. The population of Catalonia on the issue of independence is divided approximately equally.

                  2. the majority considers the referendum itself illegitimate and that such issues need to be coordinated with Madrid.

                  The USA and Australia do not have the right to self-determination, let them get out to England?

                  Why would? They no longer consider themselves British.

                  Or will we wait 200 years and then the current state of affairs in Crimea will become, in your opinion, legitimate? Is it all about time?

                  It's all about self-identification. When the population of Crimea begins to consider itself a separate people (not Russians, not Ukrainians, not Tatars, etc.), then we can talk about the right to self-determination.
                2. 123 Offline 123
                  123 (123) 13 February 2021 16: 55
                  0
                  As for the borders and methods of such pressure in relation to Ukraine, in its case, it is more important to preserve its integrity, because the Russian-speaking population of Crimea and the East already have their own independent country, to which they can return at any time if they want to reunite with it.

                  What does it mean in her case? The approach must be uniform. Back to Kosovo. We drive everyone out to Albania and return the territory to the Serbs, Serbian Krajina, by the way, Taiwan to China, then we'll talk about Crimea. Or do you think that the Crimeans have fewer disagreements with Kiev than the Taiwanese with Beijing?

                  It's debatable. The motive of "opposition" to the illegitimate authorities very quickly transformed into a motive for the creation of "Novorossiya".

                  Why not? Isn't there a transformation of the "Kiev" side? We started with the European association and "European salaries", ended with the ban on the Russian language and the closure of TV channels. People had a different position, they decided to break them through the knee. This is a natural reaction of rejection.

                  In eastern Ukraine, the motive of "Kiev's illegitimacy" is very closely intertwined with the motive "we are not Ukraine" (in the variations "we are part of Russia" or "we are an independent country"). That is, there is separatism on a national basis.

                  Are they Ukraine? They are Russians, to remind you when and how they got to Ukraine? What other ethnicity? There is no nationalism in Donbass, it is anti-Ukrainian orientation. Isn't this a natural reaction? They want to return them under the authority of Kiev, which means an automatic ban on the use of the native Russian language and Bandera's portraits in government institutions. Do you expect them to drown for the "Ukrainian"?

                  Good question. I think yes. If they form their independent state on the territory of first Turkey, then the fight on the territory of Iraq and Syria will already be illegal.
                  This option is also possible - a one-time struggle on the territory of all three states with the formation of an independent Kurdistan from the territories inhabited by Kurds of all these three countries at once.

                  What a curious approach. Who got up earlier, that and slippers? I'm afraid the Kurds have a slightly different point of view on this issue. If they don't stop the armed struggle, then the "world community" should support Syria and Iraq in suppressing the separatists? What an interesting development. The aircraft of the "coalition" are bombing the Kurds, whom they supported yesterday. When asked why? The answer follows - this is how they achieved independence in Turkey, so get down there. It's their own fault, it was necessary to do everything in sync .... To be honest, I'm shocked by your approach.

                  And let’s go back a few decades and tell the government of Yugoslavia, and then Serbia, not to destroy first the Albanian culture, and then the Albanians themselves in Kosovo?

                  You can do without time travel, right now this is happening in Ukraine in relation to Russians and culture. Well, or if you like to dream, go back to 2014, disperse the Maidan, Yanukovych into place ...
                  In any case, let's not go flat - and they are to blame. we are discussing the principles, the universality of approaches.

                  In general, yes, the Catalans have the right to secede, given that 90% of those who voted in the referendum are in favor. True, those who voted in the referendum are not the entire population. For the entire population, other figures are:

                  Who cares? The people of Catalonia are in favor of secession, you do not want their discrimination and will not deny the right to seek it by any means, including armed? They are not worse than the Kurds. And the opinion of 80% ...

                  80% of Catalans are in favor of holding a referendum on the status of the autonomous community, but most of them believe that it must be agreed with the authorities in Madrid

                  Nor does it contradict this. But Madrid is in no hurry to heed the will of the people, and there is no pressure on it from the "international community". Those who are trying to achieve independence peacefully are imprisoned, if I am not mistaken for 12 years. Where are the sanctions against Spain at least?

                  Why would? They no longer consider themselves British.

                  Donbass and Crimea do not consider themselves Ukrainians. Is it just time?

                  It's all about self-identification. When the population of Crimea begins to consider itself a separate people (not Russians, not Ukrainians, not Tatars, etc.), then we can talk about the right to self-determination.

                  How is it? It is their right to consider themselves to be. you deny them the right to consider themselves Russian? They do not want to live as a separate state, they want to live with their people. As far as I can imagine, the Russian people want this too. In my opinion, anyone who does not agree with the decision of the people can pack a suitcase and "self-determine" on an individual basis.
  • Jacques sekavar Offline Jacques sekavar
    Jacques sekavar (Jacques Sekavar) 12 February 2021 13: 30
    +4
    It is customary all over the world to detain border violators, and in case of resistance, to destroy them and no special warnings about the possible consequences of border violations should be made.
  • Alexzn Offline Alexzn
    Alexzn (Alexander) 12 February 2021 18: 02
    -2
    Quote: Dear couch expert.
    Understanding the ambiguity of what happened

    If I were you, I would start with this, and stop there.

    I started with this, but to stop ... - the truth is more expensive.
    1. Dear sofa expert. 12 February 2021 19: 09
      +4
      Quote: Dear couch expert.
      Understanding the ambiguity of what happened

      If I were you, I would start with this, and stop there.

      I started with this, but to stop ... - the truth is more expensive.

      By no means did I mean “stop” - in the sense of shutting up / stopping.
      Stop - on the key word: "ambiguity".
      The case of the return (I would call it that) of Crimea to Russia is unique. It is a return, not an "annexation".
      The concept of "annexation" has its own clearly defined mandatory attributes that are NOT PRESENT in the case of Crimea.

      The interpretation of the return of Crimea to Russia as "annexation" has exclusively political motivation, and has no legal basis under it.

      Therefore, references to such, today, very strongly politicized, and therefore losing more and more, their objectivity, organizations such as the UN, ECHR, The Hague Tribunal, etc., can no longer be considered as a yardstick of truth and justice.
      1. Cyril Offline Cyril
        Cyril (Kirill) 12 February 2021 19: 46
        -3
        The concept of "annexation" has its own clearly defined mandatory attributes that are NOT PRESENT in the case of Crimea.

        Why then? The blockade of the territory, administrative bodies, Ukrainian military bases of the peninsula by the armed forces of another state is quite a sign.

        First there was a blockade, then a "free referendum".
  • LeftPers Offline LeftPers
    LeftPers (Anton) 14 February 2021 09: 58
    0
    Without cleaning up the Nazi non-state, nicknamed "Ukraino", Crimea will always be exposed to provocations from this very non-state and those like him peddlers of "Western values."
  • Barmaley_2 Offline Barmaley_2
    Barmaley_2 (Barmaley) 20 February 2021 00: 50
    0
    ... which Ukraine is frivolously trying to play.

    - Ukraine hasn't played anything for a long time.