Originally published at: THE SIEGE OF SEVASTOPOL, 3.0, OR IS THAT 4.0?
…Well, it’s happening once again, and right before our eyes: the third Siege of Sevastopol (or the fourth, if you’re counting the Soviet recapture of the city in 1944 as the third). The city with its Severnaya Bay is, with Odessa, Batu, and Constanza, one of the most important port cities on the Black Sea,…
7 Likes
Russia is no longer mincing words.
The gloves are off.
1 Like
The goal of destroying the Russian fleet in Crimea is an insanely dangerous obsession.
Some history:
The Treaty of Paris, (1856) ended the Crimean War and The Black Sea was designated a neutral zone. The Black Sea Russian fleet moved to Villefranche on the. Mediterranean.
“This base became essential to them when, in the aftermath of the Crimean War in 1856, the Russian Imperial Navy was deprived of its access to the Mediterranean. The Duke of Savoy then agreed to give Russia a permanent right of call at the Lazaret and the Darse de Villefranche, which would allow the Russian fleet to store food and fuel there. When the county of Nice was attached to France in 1860, Napoleon III confirmed the Russian naval base of Villefranche.”
In 1870 Russia rejected the demilitarization of the Black Sea and began to rebuild its naval fleet.
Surely the well educated officers of NATO know that Russia will pursue a port with Mediterranean access and any successful attack on the Sevastopol would result in horrific retaliation. Even Elon Musk is aware of that risk.
And the Russians would focus on rebuilding and strengthening the port and controlling any area from which an attack could be launched. The sea and air defense of the port must be intense.
If a retired housewife has questioned the goal, it is likely that the Ukrainian people are weighing the risks.
God bless the Ukrainian people and their survival. I suspect there are peace terms that UKR and RUS can both accept.
1 Like
“Beware of Greeks bearing gifts…”
In 1954 Khrushchev, “gave " UKR Soviet Rep. Crimea, as “gift” and a proof of Russia “undying friendship” with the Ukraine.
Yeah… right.
The Butcher of Kiev, well deserved nick name of Khruschev, was only doing a lot of chess moves, when he let Ukraine annexed Crimea.
UPA(Ukraine Patriotic Army) was fighting Soviets well into 1950ties.
On the other side, Ukrainian communists were dominating Soviet politburo, making a lot of demands for Ukrainian SSR. Situation was serious enough, that some decision had to be made, before the whole thing (USSR) would fall apart. By annexing Crimea, Ukraine would gain a lot of Russian living there, and this would change ethnic makeup of UKR-SSR.
That way new representatives to Soviet Duma and politburo could be elected, changing direction towards needs of Russia proper instead of UKR, according to the saying " blood is thicker than water”.
Not to mention that Khrushchev would doge the bullet (save his live probably), since UKR voice demanding his head for atrocities committed by him during UKR Holodomor, would dissipate, with now UKR voice in Duma in lesser majority.
So, when Russia offers you, any land think: ancient Greeks, and say no, thank you but thank you.
Kudos to Lithuania, when Russia in the beginning of the 90ties offered Kaliningrad oblast to them and they politely decline.
Kudos to Poles when recently 2018-19, Putin was expressing his thoughts out loud and saying, that during the fall of Soviets, again in the 90ties, Russia offered Poland couple of current UKR western voivodeship including Polish city of Lwow.
The offer was tempting believe me, since these areas were in Polish hands close to millennium. But Habsburgs, and later Stalin with a help of many UKR nationalists did a lot “cleansing” of Poles, changing the ethnic make-up of that land probably forever. So, Poland also said no, thank you for this “Greek offering.”
The whole thing with Crimea didn’t really start with Khruschev, Stalin plowed the ground way earlier.
“In the 1950s, the population of Crimea — approximately 1.1 million — was roughly 75 percent ethnic Russian and 25 percent Ukrainian. A sizable population of Tatars had lived in Crimea for centuries until May 1944, when they were deported en masse by the Stalinist regime to barren sites in Central Asia, where they were compelled to live for more than four decades and were prohibited from returning to their homeland. Stalin also forcibly deported smaller populations of Armenians, Bulgarians, and Greeks from Crimea, completing the ethnic cleansing of the peninsula. Hence, in 1954, Crimea was more “Russian” than it had been for centuries.”
Cited from:
Why Did Russia Give Away Crimea Sixty Years Ago? | Wilson Center
What a sad horrific history our species has tolerated by a few individuals. How is it possible for a few to rule the many?
3 Likes