Edit: I took a closer look, and it turns out that you've been posting abusively to HN for quite some time and using the site primarily for battle and flamewar. I've therefore banned this account. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.
--- original comment below ---
I understand that these are passion-activating topics and that a war is being fought over them right now. Still, it's not ok to take HN threads into hellish flamewars, so please don't do this here.
HN is for curious conversation on topics of intellectual interest. That requires thoughtfulness, respect for others, and even a certain playfulness. If you're not in that state about a topic, please don't post on that topic for the time being.
All I can say, dan (and knowing this won't change your action): this wasn't my intent.
You've got some straight-up trolls running around, posting blatantly pernicious nonsense in regard to these topics -- obviously without sincere intent, simply to push buttons.
Mixed with some merely woefully naive and/or highly obstinate folks, posting basically noise (wildly inaccurate narratives about extremely basic historical matters or recent events).
If there is a better strategy or tone to use for countering this kind of negative behavior -- I wish I knew what it was.
In my experience, internet commenters are far too quick to assume that others are pernicious trolls without sincere intent. This is basically a Russell conjugation.
Once you've framed the other that way, it's easy to feel that you no longer need to follow the rules—since if the other person is pernicious and insincere, they should obviously just be annihilated.
This is how we end up in the flamewar situation where we end up having to ban accounts. Since everyone is following this logic, everyone is trying to annihilate the other. From an outside point of view, the interesting thing is how similarly all the parties are behaving, even as they perceive each other as enemies and opposites.
By far the better strategy is to resist this temptation altogether—to look for interpretations of the other as not pernicious or insincere, but rather sincere and legitimate—and then to try to meet them respectfully. This is a massively more effective way to go about it, and also won't get you banned here.
"And how did Russia come to "own" the peninsula again?"
By fighting the Ottoman Empire and their protectorate -- the remains of the Golden Horde known as Crimean Khanate [0]. The last was busy raiding Russia and selling captured slaves to Ottomans [1]. The Golden Horde, in case you don't know, is itself one the remains of the Mongol Empire.
"What happened to its original inhabitants?"
Scythians [2] and Tauri [3] were assimilated by Sarmatians and later were partly destroyed and party assimilated by Goths. Why did you ask?
"Which treaty"
It looks like you are asking in bad faith and already know the answer. When circumstances change treaties become obsolete. Ever heard of Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, for example? [4]
> It looks like you are asking in bad faith and already know the answer. When circumstances change treaties become obsolete. Ever heard of Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, for example? [4]
Sweet so since the Budapest memorandum is out we can start rearming Ukraine with nukes after the war.
I'll bet be the US will never do it. They pushed the Ukraine to disarm for a reason and that reason still stands -- no one wants them selling warheads to the highest bidder.
> I'll bet be the US will never do it. They pushed the Ukraine to disarm for a reason and that reason still stands -- no one wants them selling warheads to the highest bidder.
The reason was to try and stop nuclear proliferation, not whatever made up reason your coming with today.
But Ukraine doesn't need Americas approval to make nuclear weapons they are more than capable of making them themselves.
They should also never sign another treaty with Russia ever, as clearly Russia just makes treaties "obsolete" when it benefits them.
Russia has always been unreliable partner I guess thats why they will only understand force in Ukraine.
Probably because you keep neglecting to mention, for some strange reason, the ethnic group that made up some 90 percent of the population the peninsula at the time of the (not so peaceful) 1783 annexation. Let alone what, specifically, happened to them in the summer of '44.
And how obscenely ridiculous it is, as a result -- to say that the peninsula was "Russian for 200 years" prior to the 1955 transfer.
ABM
Except the US didn't just thumb their noses at, and start violating willy-nilly (like Russia did with the 1994 treaty you are so hesitant to name). Rather - it had an opt-out clause which Bush chose to enact, giving the required 6 months notice.
No more obscenely ridiculous than saying that the US exists for 200 years. Ever heard of Native Americans who inhabited the North America?
Crimea was conquered by Russia, not by the Ukraine which didn't even exists as a state at that time, and Russia was busy building cities there and in all of Novorossiya.
"not so peaceful"
Why would it be peaceful? Crimean Khanate was raiding Russia and capturing slaves for centuries. Didn't end well for them.
"Except"
I didn't say it's equivalent, just an example of a treaty outliving its utility for one of the parties.
Crimean Tatars were deported by Stalin, many died in the process, and in the late 80s they and their descendants returned back to Crimea. It was a case of collective punishment for collaboration with Nazis of some of Crimean Tatars and has been many times officially condemned both in the USSR and Russia just like other acts of collective punishment by Stalin. All of it is well known.
What happened to its original inhabitants?
Which treaty did the RF sign in 1994 pledging to respect existing borders of Ukraine -- including its sovereignty over the Crimea -- for perpetuity?
Tell us more, please.