Russian lawmakers seek to nullify Soviet transfer of Crimea to Ukraine
uk.news.yahoo.com
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian lawmakers have submitted a draft bill to the State Duma that would rewrite a chapter of history by nullifying the Soviet decision in 1954 to transfer Crimea from Russia to Ukraine.
The move appears aimed at establishing a legal basis for Russia to argue that Crimea, the Black Sea peninsula which it claims to have annexed from Ukraine in 2014, was never really part of Ukraine to begin with.
The draft, submitted by a lawmaker from each of Russia's two houses of parliament, describes the 1954 handover as arbitrary and illegal because no referendum was held and Soviet authorities had no right to transfer territory from one constituent republic to another without consent.
Does this mean Russia should lose the USSR's permanent seat on the UN security council?
Yep. And it should go to Ukraine.
Lmao. As a firm supporter of Ukraine in this conflict, the sentiment is nice but giving them a permanent seat on the world security council is ridiculous. Neither their economic nor military power warrants that, many much more powerful and influential countries don’t get a permanent seat.
Could be wrong, but I assumed it was a joke
I'm german, we don’t do so well with humor.
To be fair, it's easy to miss sarcasm and dry humour in text. I do it all the time =)
German humour is no laughing matter.
Nice sentiment, but that would be a pretty absurd choice. It would be nice to have a South American or African permanent member, or perhaps India.
Id say give India a few years before deciding. Modi isn't steering them in the best direction as of late.
I suggested them not because I'm a Modi stan but because there's a much stronger case for their geopolitical importance.
The AU just got a seat on the G20, just sayin
Pfft lol
It would be more absurd not to give it to Ukraine
Believe it or not, they still use the .SU top Domain Name. Which they got just before shit inploded in 1991. So just based on that fact they will say ",нет товарищ or no comrade"
On what ground? is there any UN article that will legitimate it?
The USSR's seat was never officially given to Russia - they sort of just kept occupying it and no one told them to stop.
At last somebody who engages intellectually with an answer, although I don't see the truth of it. Do you have any any resources supporting your statement? At least according Article 23 of UN charter, it's stated clearly of the five permanent members.
It's official for the five countries, not given but acquired.
EDIT: I am interested in the real knowledge and fact, and I am never interested in bias and one-sided answer just to support one's view. That not healthy academically.
Sorry, I'm not sure what you're saying or asking here. Is this a question?
please provide references for your earlier statement. I think it is blatantly wrong. Please prove to me otherwise.
The passage you cited is a good start, as it still to this day states that the USSR is a member, and the USSR of course no longer exists. It seems quite unambiguous to me, to the extent that I'm not sure why you believe it supports your argument.
You can read this for more background if you like: https://www.chicagotribune.com/2022/02/28/ian-hurd-read-the-words-as-they-appear-russia-is-not-a-member-of-the-united-nations-security-council/
Because Russia is the sole continuation to USSR according to Alma-Ata Protocol in 1991?
From Just Security and for the subsequent quotes.
And during those days the members didn't want to bring it up because that was the way they wanted it to happened and now suddenly we question their legitimacy because they have turned to be direct threats to us?
and...
Anyway, you can read the whole linked article. It is a good read for those who are interested in geopolitics and the non-bias.
Does any of that contradict my statement which triggered this tangent of yours? I said "The USSR’s seat was never officially given to Russia - they sort of just kept occupying it and no one told them to stop."
These snippets from your citations say the same thing practically verbatim. I'm not sure why you're so bent out of shape about this.
I'm not usually one to call someone else a shill but I think the person you're replying to might be one. You're 100 percent right and they seem hell bent on trying to legitimize Russia for some reason. Even though your comment isn't even that confrontational.
I don't know... Usually shills won't take the time for such long-form content with citations, other than Putin himself with his "it started with the Kievan Rus" diatribe with Tucker Carlson. I'm assuming they just misunderstood what we're talking about.
So they're admitting that without this nullification, Chrimea is part of Ukraine and Russia has no claim to it?
100% correct. This is the shoot first ask questions later variant of stealing land.
Shoot first, make a law retroactively making shooting legal later.
Drop dissenter from a window
Its a bunch of formalizing of what has already been achieved militarily. Hardly the first time a military occupation has shifted a national border. That's the story of 90% of the United States and 70% of the UK.
Soviet borders are arbitrary. Nobody cared as long as they were all part of the union.
No, no, no, no, no.
Not no claim. Just... No legal claim.
They've also made noises about the sale of Alaska to the United States by imperial Russia being illegal. Good luck with that, shitheads.
Trump would give them Alaska if Putin asked...
They can have the Palin family
Idk he might have enough sense to get something out of it. Likely personally, but I don't think even that guy could give it away
Of course, Trump's companies would benefit, same as when they were paid off by the Saudis, but the US wouldn't get anything.
They are really trying to justify stealing that territory from Ukraine
My favorite part is Russia is trying to change legislation that a different country (the USSR) made, which affects a third country (Ukraine). This is some hardcore 'throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks' level of imperialism.
Edit: Fixed some wording.
Yup. It's mental gymnastics at its finest.
Ans the cool part is, none of it matters because they are a one-party dictatorship and what the government/Putin says, goes. Nothing they say inside their own legal system has an iota of weight more than a micrometer past their borders- it exists purely for propaganda and to make it easier to legally disappear any dissenters.
Historically, Russia has never cared much for the written law. They’ll just throw shit at the Western wall until something sticks or until they get what they want by violence and intimidation. Same as they always have.
Any Lords of Sealand want to convince your peers to issue a law that what the USSR did was legal and that, in fact, Crimea was supposed to be interpreted as "everything west of the Urals"? Seems like it would hold about the same amount of water
The draft, submitted by a lawmaker from each of Russia's two houses of parliament, describes the 1954 handover as arbitrary and illegal because no referendum was held and Soviet authorities had no right to transfer territory from one constituent republic to another without consent.
I'm pretty sure that there was no consent when Russia attacked Ukraine in 2022.
So how's it going to be? Is consent necessary or not when determining if land belongs to Russia id or not?
Obviously consent as a concept is a Soviet beta male idea which was eliminated when Russia levelled up to sigma
Even if it was illegal and without consent, any reasonable government would put it to a vote.
They are just straight up fucking idiots.
This is explicitly banned under the No Backsies rule.
So Ukraine should get the Soviet nukes back that they have up, right? Right?
Is this because Ukraine forgot to say “no taksie backsies” when this was originally passed?
It's because Russia had crossed their fingers behind their back while agreeing.
Both of these things are about as strong as some kind of "lawful résolution" during a time if war.
"Oh, we're going to punch you in the face and that lunch money we stole earlier? Billy said you gave it to me."
Are there any other Soviet-era territorial changes that took place under similar conditions, that might threaten the integrity of other former Soviet republics based on this precedent?
The entire countries of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan were autonomous republics within the Russian SFSR for the first ~16 years
This whole things seems fascinating
If you don't mind, could someone take only thirty seconds, or one minute, to give me a little historical background?
I don't know enough about this specific topic to give you more info than Wikipedia could, but:
Thank you.
I'm sure they will also considered illegal taking teritory from China and Japan as there was no referrendum in those places. Right ? I bet they will also compensate whole east block for occupation that took about 4 decates. Right ? I'm sure we can go on.
Pick the one that is economically necessary, Stalingrad.