You should be aware that repeating the assertion does not prove it. Can you provide evidence that the treaties were forced? — Jabberwock

The evidence: https://books.google.es/books?id=i1C2MHgujb4C&pg=PA194&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

And whether you like it or not, Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine 1957, so formally it has been with Ukraine since that time. — Jabberwock

I think you do not understand how the Soviet Union used to work. Between 1917 and 1991, Ukraine and Russia didn't exist at all. They were the Soviet Union altogether, a single and unique nation. So, Khrushchev didn't give Crimea to Ukraine. I think he shared the management of the Oblast with other authorities far from Moscow. If Ukraine didn't exist until 1991 - or what we understand as Ukraine nowadays... - how was it possible to give a territory to a non-existing nation? It seems illogical to me.

Again, you seem to believe that only Russian conquests count. — Jabberwock

It does count because it is written and signed in the treaties, my mate.
Later that year, the Ottoman Empire signed an agreement with Russia that recognised the loss of Crimea and other territories that had been held by the Khanate. The agreement, signed on 28 December 1783, was negotiated by Russian diplomat Yakov Bulgakov. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_the_Crimean_Khanate_by_the_Russian_Empire

But if they do get interested, they have every right to seize it, is that correct? — Jabberwock

You agree with me, then. Or... you just follow up the basic argument that 'Western countries can claim territories, but Russia doesn't.'

Russians have less claim to it as Turks, and they have less claim to it than Tatars. You basically claim that Catherine's conquest somehow made it Russian forever, while all the other changes are irrelevant. — Jabberwock

The argument that Crimea has always been Russian is often grounded also on the idea that Crimea is ethnically Russian. What that remark seems to forget is that Russians turned out to be
- The ethnic relative majority wrt to the Crimean Tatars only after 1897 (so practically at the beginning of XX century) thanks to massive deportation of Crimean Tatars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tatars#/media/File:Demographics_of_Crimea.png) and parallel re-population of Crimea by Russians (Russification).
- And the absolute ethnic majority only after 1939.

This is how "since forever" Crimea was Russian.

The evidence: https://books.google.es/books?id=i1C2MHgujb4C&pg=PA194&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false — javi2541997

It does not load.

I think you do not understand how the Soviet Union used to work. Between 1917 and 1991, Ukraine and Russia didn't exist at all. They were the Soviet Union altogether, a single and unique nation. So, Khrushchev didn't give Crimea to Ukraine. I think he shared the management of the Oblast with other authorities far from Moscow. If Ukraine didn't exist until 1991 - or what we understand as Ukraine nowadays... - how was it possible to give a territory to a non-existing nation? It seems illogical to me. — javi2541997

I understand perfectly well how the Soviet Union worked - mostly Russians forced other nations under its boot, militarily, like with the Baltics, or by other means, like Holodomor in Ukraine. And no, being in one state does not make them one nation, which even the legislation of the USSR confirmed.

And maybe instead of just thinking, you should consult historical sources, which clearly state something different?

The Presidium of the RSFSR Supreme Soviet with the participation of the executive committees of the Crimean Oblast' and Sevastopol' City Soviet of Workers' Deputies has examined the proposal of the RSFSR Council of Ministers about the transfer of the Crimean Oblast' to the Ukrainian SSR.

Considering the commonality of the economy, the territorial proximity, and the close economic and cultural ties between the Crimean Oblast' and the Ukrainian SSR, and also bearing in mind the agreement of the Presidium of the Ukrainian SSR Supreme Soviet, the Presidium of the RSFSR Supreme Soviet considers it advisable to transfer the Crimean Oblast' to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. — Meeting of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

And the Belovezha Accords, signed by Russia, clearly established that the dissolution of the USSR established new countries within the borders of the former republics. which Russia confirmed with two treaties, as noted above.

It does count because it is written and signed in the treaties, my mate.
Later that year, the Ottoman Empire signed an agreement with Russia that recognised the loss of Crimea and other territories that had been held by the Khanate. The agreement, signed on 28 December 1783, was negotiated by Russian diplomat Yakov Bulgakov. — javi2541997

Oh, so the Budapest Memorandum and the border treaty were 'forced' and they do not count, but the treaty with the Ottoman Empire, signed after the war, does. We should consider only treaties that suit you and ignore all the others, is that correct?

You agree with me, then. Or... you just follow up the basic argument that 'Western countries can claim territories, but Russia doesn't.' — javi2541997

No, the point is I do not agree with you, just like Russians would not agree with you that Germans have the right to Kaliningrad.

And no, being in one state does not make them one nation, which even the legislation of the USSR confirmed. — Jabberwock

The hell, no! You claim that I am not looking into reliable sources, I would say the same regarding you and your arguments...

The Soviet Union was nominally a federal union of fifteen national republics; in practice, both its government and its economy were highly centralized until its final years. It was a one-party state governed by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, with the city of Moscow serving as its capital as well as that of its largest and most populous republic: the Russian SFSR.
Historian Matthew White wrote that it was an open secret that the country's federal structure was 'window dressing' for Russian dominance. For that reason, the people of the USSR were usually called 'Russians', not 'Soviets', since 'everyone knew who really ran the show.

We should consider only treaties that suit you and ignore all the others, is that correct? — Jabberwock

Mate, the point here is not whether the treaties fit me or not. I am showing you evidence of why Crimea belongs to Russia. I was not part of those treaties, but I think it is obvious that Crimea had belonged to Russia for centuries, and it was confirmed both internationally and legally. These facts are not undermined just because, in the Soviet Union, Crimea was managed by Ukranians. When the USSR fell, the Ukrainians proceeded with bad faith and said: 'Hey, if we managed Crimea for only 34 years - in comparison to Russia, which managed it for centuries - then it belongs to our artificial new nation.

No, the point is I do not agree with you, just like Russians would not agree with you that Germans have the right to Kaliningrad. — Jabberwock

Are you referring to Prussia, right? Another vast empire which took some territories as theirs as well. Does The Dollart ring a bell to you? The Netherlands and Germany do not agree on the exact course of the border through the bay.
Let's go and fund The Netherlands because of evil Germany... oh, this is childish.

The hell, no! You claim that I am not looking into reliable sources, I would say the same regarding you and your arguments...

The Soviet Union was nominally a federal union of fifteen national republics; in practice, both its government and its economy were highly centralized until its final years. It was a one-party state governed by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, with the city of Moscow serving as its capital as well as that of its largest and most populous republic: the Russian SFSR.
Historian Matthew White wrote that it was an open secret that the country's federal structure was 'window dressing' for Russian dominance. For that reason, the people of the USSR were usually called 'Russians', not 'Soviets', since 'everyone knew who really ran the show. — javi2541997

But that is exactly what I am writing about: it was never 'one nation', as you claim, it was a federation of republics ruled by Russians, often more like colonies.

Mate, the point here is not whether the treaties fit me or not. I am showing you evidence of why Crimea belongs to Russia. I was not part of those treaties, but I think it is obvious that Crimea had belonged to Russia for centuries, and it was confirmed both internationally and legally. These facts are not undermined just because, in the Soviet Union, Crimea was managed by Ukranians. When the USSR fell, the Ukrainians proceeded with bad faith and said: 'Hey, if we managed Crimea for only 34 years - in comparison to Russia, which managed it for centuries - then it belongs to our artificial new nation. — javi2541997

You are hilarious. Just a moment ago you claimed it 'always' belonged to Russia, because you were blissfully unaware that Russia got it in 1783. Now it is supposedly 'for centuries', which still is rather dubious, given it was 174 years. Then you have claimed that it was given 'under administration', because you were blissfully unaware that it was formally transferred to the Ukrainian SSR. Did those two examples of your argumentation from complete historical ignorance teach you anything? No, because you know better, historical facts notwithstanding.

Yes, Crimea belonged to the tsarist Russia from 1783 to 1919, then it belonged to Russian SFSR, then in 1957 was transferred to the Ukrainian SSR, which was legally confirmed. Then, with the dissolution of the USSR, it remained with Ukraine within the borders of the former republic, according to the Belovezha Accords, which Russia has signed. Then in the Budapest Memorandum and finally in the Russian–Ukrainian Friendship Treaty Russia has solemnly confirmed that Crimea belongs to Ukraine . So it was not something that 'Ukraine said in bad faith', that is what Russia internationally and legally confirmed and which the international community, the UN included, recognizes.

So it was not something that 'Ukraine said in bad faith', that is what Russia internationally and legally confirmed and which the international community, the UN included, recognizes. — Jabberwock

Boris Yeltsein's Russia and not the modern Russia as we know nowadays. This is the point I want to defend at all costs. I doubt that Russia signed those treaties freely and Ukraine is a poor beautiful bunny surrounded by evil. I must admit that I am wrong when I said 'for centuries', but 174 years is a long duration for me. It is true that they transferred the administration to the 'Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic'

Nonetheless, Ukraine didn't exist as a nation yet. The Russians shared the management of Crimea with good faith and when the Soviet Union split apart, the Ukrainians thought that there was a unique opportunity to take Crimea. It is not my problem if you can't see it, but I would use an example: imagine you giving me your house as a lease, but recognising that you are the owner, while I just manage your house. The years pass by, and then I decide to take your home because one day 'you transferred me the possession'

But that is exactly what I am writing about: it was never 'one nation', as you claim, it was a federation of republics ruled by Russians, often more like colonies. — Jabberwock

Don't be dishonest. You never claimed that it was a federation of republics. You stated that Ukraine already existed, which not.
Status: Satellite state of the Russian SFSR (1919–1922); Union Republic of the Soviet Union (1922–1991). Also, the 1977 Soviet Constitution says: Article 75. The territory of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a single entity and comprises the territories of the Union Republics.

Actually the US Constitution does not allow people to have, own, or carry firearms, but people we call gun-nuts insist that it does. Thus it's not the constitution that is crazy, but some people who misread it.

As to the Russian Constitution, the way I'm understanding what you're claiming is that because the Russian Constitution says something, we're all obliged to respect it. Is that it? The fact is (again as I understand it) that in their constitution the Russians are claiming something that is not theirs to claim. The question is really a simple one: Is Ukraine a separate independent country? And we can add, when it became an independent country, did it at any time after that become a not-independent country?

Well, if you have no interest in other countries' views and their security concerns, what situation do you believe you'll end up with other than endless war? — Tzeentch

Perhaps this may stand as an example of the sheer hubristic and vicious insanity of the views of apparently at least some in this thread. Please point out where I have expressed "no interest in other countries views and their security concerns." There's an argument to be made that it is the Russians themselves who have "no interest...". That it is the Russians themselves who choose, have long chosen, to live as enemies in a world that instead wants friends. That it is the Russians themselves who have been their own worst enemy.

As to the Russian Constitution, the way I'm understanding what you're claiming is that because the Russian Constitution says something, we're all obliged to respect it. Is that it? — tim wood

Of course, we have to respect the Constitution of each nation. Some are well done and written, and others don't. I am not claiming that the Russian constitution is perfect, but admitting that I am not anyone to say their law and jurisdiction is rubbish. It is easy to blame them for everything related to injustice and corrupt judges. But can you name one country whose judges and laws work perfectly?

Is Ukraine a separate independent country? — tim wood

There are no separate nor independent countries, mate. You are part of the block of the Western world, the European Union and NATO or you are part of the Russia/China spectrum. It seems that Ukraine decided to be part of the first group, but I wonder what kind of freedom they are looking for.

There's an argument to be made that it is the Russians themselves who have "no interest...". That it is the Russians themselves who choose, have long chosen, to live as enemies in a world that instead wants friends. That it is the Russians themselves who have been their own worst enemy. — tim wood

Well, the Russians have never made a secret of what they believe their security concerns are. It is the West (primarily the US) that has refused dialogue of any sort for as long as this conflict has existed.

With your remarks about the Russian constitution, you seem to imply you don't view these things as matters that should be discussed, but rather taken at face value and dismissed if it doesn't appeal. But correct me if I'm wrong.

It would be awesome if this kind of conflict could be resolved by this kind of discussion. But in the real world, it's settled by bloodshed. When it's over, we'll all know who owns what.

There are no separate nor independent countries, mate. — javi2541997

Illusions, then. But illusions so compelling they become altogether real. Do you deny the existence of the real? With that step you can justify anything. And if as you say,

Of course, we have to respect the Constitution of each nation. — javi2541997

And there are no such things, then you're just writing nonsense.

But it leaves the question, why, exactly, must we respect the Constitution of each nation? Or perhaps by "respect" do you mean fear?

Well, the Russians have never made a secret of what they believe their security concerns are. It is the West (primarily the US) that has refused dialogue of any sort for as long as this conflict has existed. — Tzeentch

Subject to correction, I believe you are mainly correct, excepting only those aspects kept secret. And that expression of concerns has been generally understood to require world domination by force. As to refusing dialogue, that is simply a lie, and the speaker of it either a liar, ignorant, or stupid. Take your pick, combinations allowed.

And that expression of concerns has been generally understood to require world domination by force. — tim wood

The Russians are after world domination by force? You'll have to explain that one.

As to refusing dialogue, that is simply a lie, and the speaker of it either a liar, ignorant, or stupid. Take your pick, combinations allowed. — tim wood

The US has never over the course of some 20+ years veered from its course to do exactly what the Russians were warning them about.

Even diplomatic negotiations like Minsk were used as a tool of conflict.

So yes, I maintain that no (meaningful) dialogue has taken place.

Boris Yeltsein's Russia and not the modern Russia as we know nowadays. This is the point I want to defend at all costs. I doubt that Russia signed those treaties freely and Ukraine is a poor beautiful bunny surrounded by evil. I must admit that I am wrong when I said 'for centuries', but 174 years is a long duration for me. It is true that they transferred the administration to the 'Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic' — javi2541997

So we should ignore treaties from thirty years ago, because Russia has changed, but we should honor the treaties from two hundred years ago, even though the modern Turkey is not the former Ottoman Empire. Which also did not sign the treaty freely, because it has just been beaten in a war. Half of borders in Europe are the result of some war, therefore one of the sides did not accept them freely. Germany did not accept freely the loss of Alzatia, Konigsberg and Breslau, Poland did not accept freely the loss of Lvov, Finland did not accept freely the loss of the Karellian Strait, I go on on this way forever. The British did not accept freely the American Independence and Charles is certainly not George. Does that mean they have a right to demand America back? Somehow you insist only Russia has a right to demand its former lands, because for some reasons treaties do not apply to it.

Nonetheless, Ukraine didn't exist as a nation yet. The Russians shared the management of Crimea with good faith and when the Soviet Union split apart, the Ukrainians thought that there was a unique opportunity to take Crimea. It is not my problem if you can't see it, but I would use an example: imagine you giving me your house as a lease, but recognising that you are the owner, while I just manage your house. The years pass by, and then I decide to take your home because one day 'you transferred me the possession' — javi2541997

Another issue in our discussion is that you lack understanding of even the most basic terms. You confuse 'nation' with 'state', 'state' with 'republic' etc. Ukrainians did not 'take' Crimea. Ukraine was established as acountry at the dissolution of the USSR, according to a joint agreement known as the Belovezha Accords, within the then current borders of the former republics. If the current Ukraine has no right to the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR, then the current Russia has no right to the territory of the fomer Russian SFSR, because they have received their legal status in the exact same way. That is why your analogy is completely false, you simply do not understand the legal framework involved.

This is from the Alma-Ata Protocol (which supplemented the Belovezha Accords):

The activities of the Council of Heads of State and of the Council of Heads of Government are pursued on the basis of mutual recognition of and respect for the state sovereignty and sovereign equality of the member-states of the Agreement, their inalienable right to self-determination, the principles of equality and non- interference in internal affairs, the renunciation of the use of force and the threat of force, territorial integrity and the inviolability of existing borders, and the peaceful settlement of disputes, respect for human rights and liberties, including the rights of national minorities, conscientious fulfillment of obligations and other commonly accepted principles and norms of international law. — The Alma-Ata Protocol

Which part of the 'the renunciation of the use of force and the threat of force, territorial integrity and the inviolability of existing borders' do you not understand?

Don't be dishonest. You never claimed that it was a federation of republics. You stated that Ukraine already existed, which not. — javi2541997

Can you provide the exact quote where I state that?

Why do my arguments make nonsense? For me, the only senseless side of this conflict is Zelensky's selfishness. He is asking for a lot of things, more than the average Ukrainian citizen has ever dreamed of. You claim they deserve to be considered independent of Russia, but paradoxically, they are ready to join another establishment full of rules: NATO. Frankly, we are not talking about Japan or South Korea, Ukraine is very poor, and their system is broken, so they would need the support of the rest of the world endlessly.

On the other hand, we have to respect another nation's constitution, with the aim of getting reciprocal respect. I cannot gain your trust in me if I do not respect your system firstly.

Can you provide the exact quote where I state that? — Jabberwock

I said: I think you do not understand how the Soviet Union used to work. Between 1917 and 1991, Ukraine and Russia didn't exist at all. They were the Soviet Union altogether, a single and unique nation.
You said: I understand perfectly well how the Soviet Union worked - mostly Russians forced other nations under its boot, militarily, like with the Baltics, or by other means, like Holodomor in Ukraine. And no, being in one state does not make them one nation, which even the legislation of the USSR confirmed. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/842651


On the other hand, I personally think that if you want to understand my position, you have to stay away from the Western media more often. I know that there were hundreds of treaties where countries or states lost part of their territory because of losing a war or other issues. Nonetheless, most of those treaties always abused the position of the loser. This was one of the main causes of the ascence of Hitler. Does Alsace-Lorraine ring a bell to you?
When the Soviet Union split apart in different nations, the Western world saw it as a good opportunity to make the Russian position weaker. Divide and you will win, you know. And having Yeltsein as President was a terrible mistake because he didn't have respect for others, making Russia's position like a circus.

The Alma-Ata protocol means nothing to me and to Putin either - as much as the USA regarding international criminal court ha! - If Russia hadn't signed the treaty or protocol, the Western media would say: Oh wow look at them, they are not a democracy and bla, bla. It is obvious that sooner or later this conflict will arise because the Western world never respected the soul of Russia. It is a clear threat to put NATO headquarters closer to Ukraine or even allow this country to join the group. Would you feel safe if Russia put their navy next to your coast?

If Empire Russia never recognised the independence of Latin American countries, why do we have to recognise Ukraine's sovereignty in Crimea? Because the USA goes mad and blocks us financially? By the way, why cannot the Europeans act as neutral countries instead of being enemies of Russia? These are the questions you should wonder about, and stop wondering about Crimea, because it is clear that - at least for those who are not influenced by CNN or BBC - it will be part of Russia. I bet they will remain as part of theirs!

I said: I think you do not understand how the Soviet Union used to work. Between 1917 and 1991, Ukraine and Russia didn't exist at all. They were the Soviet Union altogether, a single and unique nation.
You said: I understand perfectly well how the Soviet Union worked - mostly Russians forced other nations under its boot, militarily, like with the Baltics, or by other means, like Holodomor in Ukraine. And no, being in one state does not make them one nation, which even the legislation of the USSR confirmed. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/842651 — javi2541997

Obviously by that I meant Ukraine as a region, not as a state. And yes, you do not understand what 'nation' is.

On the other hand, I personally think that if you want to understand my position, you have to stay away from the Western media more often. I know that there were hundreds of treaties where countries or states lost part of their territory because of losing a war or other issues. Nonetheless, most of those treaties always abused the position of the loser. This was one of the main causes of the ascence of Hitler. Does Alsace-Lorraine ring a bell to you?
When the Soviet Union split apart in different nations, the Western world saw it as a good opportunity to make the Russian position weaker. Divide and you will win, you know. And having Yeltsein as President was a terrible mistake because he didn't have respect for others, making Russia's position like a circus. — javi2541997

When the Soviet Union fell apart, the citizens of the Russian SFSR decided to establish the Russian Federation within the borders of that republic. How hard is that to understand? The Russia has the borders it has because that were the borders of the SFSR. And it is rather ironic that you claim Yeltsin's election was a mistake, because he had no respect for others. Does Putin have respect for anyone?

The Alma-Ata protocol means nothing to me and to Putin either - as much as the USA regarding international criminal court ha! - If Russia hadn't signed the treaty or protocol, the Western media would say: Oh wow look at them, they are not a democracy and bla, bla. It is obvious that sooner or later this conflict will arise because the Western world never respected the soul of Russia. It is a clear threat to put NATO headquarters closer to Ukraine or even allow this country to join the group. Would you feel safe if Russia put their navy next to your coast? — javi2541997

At least you are honest and drop the false pretense: you do not care about the international treaties, law or decency in general. You believe that Russia should take what it wants by force, if it wants it. Well, fortunately it is not strong enough.

If Empire Russia never recognised the independence of Latin American countries, why do we have to recognise Ukraine's sovereignty in Crimea? Because the USA goes mad and blocks us financially? By the way, why cannot the Europeans act as neutral countries instead of being enemies of Russia? These are the questions you should wonder about, and stop wondering about Crimea, because it is clear that - at least for those who are not influenced by CNN or BBC - it will be part of Russia. I bet they will remain as part of theirs! — javi2541997

If you do not understand why international treaties should be respected, I see no point in further discussion. Europeans are not neutral, because they do not want to be attacked by Russia one day. If Russia is not stopped now, it would have to be stopped some time in the future. And whether Crimea will be part of Russia - well, we will see.

For me, the only senseless side of this conflict is Zelensky's selfishness. He is asking for a lot of things, more than the average Ukrainian citizen has ever dreamed of. — javi2541997

And so? And how, exactly is he selfish? In what does his selfishness inhere?

You claim they deserve to be considered independent of Russia, but paradoxically, they are ready to join another establishment full of rules: NATO. — javi2541997

Deserve to be? What does that mean? They are independent of Russia. Perhaps we need to pause here: is Ukraine independent of Russia, yes or no, what say you? Yes? Or no?

Ukraine is very poor, and their system is broken, so they would need the support of the rest of the world endlessly. — javi2541997

Hmm. If it's broke, who broke it? Who is trying to break it even as we write? Answer! Yours is the language of disingenuity, deflection, denial, misdirection, disinformation, misinformation - hardly a good look for a philosophy forum!

On the other hand, we have to respect another nation's constitution, with the aim of getting reciprocal respect. I cannot gain your trust in me if I do not respect your system firstly. — javi2541997

Do you understand that there is intrinsic merit involved in the consideration of such things? We are under no obligation to respect that which is not entitled to respect. And as the thing in question be disrespectable, we may be under even other obligations.

Seriously, try to make sense, or I shall have to be more lurid in my examples to try to find where your floor, or ground, is.

And there you have it. Perhaps you would defend Ceuta and Melilla, if Morocco tried to use force, but otherwise I guess any effort to "take back Cuba" would sound absolutely crazy for the Spanish.

Yet for Putin, Ukraine (and actually other countries like Kazakhstan) are artificial. And when a neighboring country thinks your country is "artificial", all alarms should go off.

And the claim that Crimea has 'always' been part of Russia is wildly incorrect. 174 years is not 'always', is it? It was much longer under the Khanate and the Ottoman Empire than under Russia. And whether you like it or not, Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine 1957, so formally it has been with Ukraine since that time. — Jabberwock

:100: :up:

We actually should treat Russia as we have treated Western imperial powers: all the territory they gained that hadn't already had the same language or culture (hence we can separate unification of Germany and Italy from their colonial aspirations) especially in the 19th Century ought to be seen as imperialism, and if these territories have gotten independence afterwards, we should talk about decolonization.

But in Russia's case, somehow this decolonization is totally unacceptable. And lands that it has taken as late as the 19th Century are part of the "eternal" Russia!!!

And so? And how, exactly is he selfish? In what does his selfishness inhere? — tim wood

He is selfish because we all have to waste our resources and time on an impossible project. Many people - including you - claims that they could be more developed if they were not part of the Russian presence. Well, this is a lie. Ukraine is far from being a socially responsible country. Come on, dude... They do not even respect gay marriage. Is Russia responsible for this too?

is Ukraine independent of Russia, yes or no, what say you? Yes? Or no? — tim wood

I do not know. What does the White House say?

Yours is the language of disingenuity, deflection, denial, misdirection, disinformation, misinformation - hardly a good look for a philosophy forum! — tim wood

You can flag my posts if you want to, and let the moderators decide. Nonetheless, I am aware that I am speaking the truth when you guys accuse me of being denial and spreading disinformation. What a classic, I already received this kind of commentaries in 'Donald Trump' thread...

We are under no obligation to respect that which is not entitled to respect. And as the thing in question be disrespectable, we may be under even other obligations. — tim wood

Oh really? According to you, we should not respect the Russian constitution because its damn 65th article says that the Russian Federation extends to Sevastopol. Yet, at the same time, our governments promote businesses in countries whose constitutions allow them to hit women, such as Morocco or Qatar. Aren't you tired of this Western hypocrisy?

I see no further conversation if you don't see how those treaties were written to diminish the influence of Russia. Points taken, and thanks for debating with me, but I will not waste more time on someone who is not more neutral and only sees a reliable way: the destruction of Russia. Mate, this will not happen. You guys also tried the same plan in China, and the efforts ended up in nothing. You are obsessed with countries which do not act as they are supposed to do.

I agree, but I personally wonder what would happen if Catalunya gets the independence of us finally. I guess there will be a lot of hypocrisy: If the world considers it reliable for an autonomous region to make its own nation without the back-up of Spaniards, but at the same time denying Russia's sovereignty in Crimea... I will give up politics and diplomacy forever.

Well, yes, the influence of Russia was diminished, because it has been previously increased by wars and occupation. Occupied countries do tend to distance themselves from the occupiers. But the whole Europe was pretty comfortable with trading with Russia even when it has invaded Ukraine in 2014. Nobody wanted its 'destruction'. They stopped being neutral when Russia has attacked Ukraine and started to bomb its cities. Russia is the agressor here, unless you have noticed. So yes, countries are not supposed to attack their neighbors, it is not that hard to understand.

The separation of Catalunya (or Scotland from the UK) are different: it would be if Tatarstan would now want independence from Russia.

And actually we do have already an example of this: Chechnya. Nobody (except muslim extremists) lifted a finger for Chechnya as Chechnya tried to gain independence. Nobody recognized Chechnyan independence either. Not one country dared to cross lines with Russia in this matter. The last time when Barcelona tried to get away from Spain, I don't remember any European country coming forward to recognize them and giving them military assistance.

Hence it really matters the fact that Ukraine is a sovereign country that Russia has recognized. It's really the issue why all the countries have helped Ukraine and not sent the message that they hope that a peaceful solution can be found. Or simply kept silent about the matter. It is really the magic line that has been crossed by Russia now.

Respectfully suggest that this particular conversation be continued over here: Who Owns the Land?

Sure, did not realize there was a separate topic.

Current events in history remind us that throughout history, people have committed the most horrific acts of violence and destruction over control of land / territory.

A & B are in a war with each other. Both A & B claim that they - and they alone - have the right to rule / govern / control a particular piece of real estate.

Is there any legal / moral framework that can be used to resolve these issues in an impartial manner? Or put differently - what are the rules for determining the rightful owner of said property?

Having an enforcement mechanism is a related but separate issue.

Just to be clear - I have no clue how to answer this difficult question.

A & B are in a war with each other. Both A & B claim that they - and they alone - have the right to rule / govern / control a particular piece of real estate. — EricH

This doesn't describe the war in Ukraine, though. Russia doesn't claim any such rights.

Russia doesn't claim any such rights. — Tzeentch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_annexation_of_Donetsk,_Kherson,_Luhansk_and_Zaporizhzhia_oblasts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation