If Russia is made to give up Kaliningrad, who should it go to?

[smoltchanov]

With time and increasing role of Crimea as a base for Russian (and then - Soviet) fleet - Russians became to play bigger and bigger role.

...and due to the mass deportation of Tatars by Stalin.

Just a minor detail.

Though there are a few others.

You probably can read Russian. Then - official data:

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%BC#%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5

Only in 1897 Tatars are plurality. In 1926 and 1939 - Russian plurality. Later - Russian majority.(60-70%). Ukranians - no more then 25%. So - my memory serves me well.

[ag]

If there is a constant in Russian politics - it's an absolute desire of 90+% of it's population to hold as much territory as possible, and - even bigger.

And that, irrespective of anything else in this thread, is the main problem with Russia.

Ask US to give back Alaska, and then observe the reaction. In any case - it's a thing that will NOT change next 50 years. And i have little interest in what will be later (partially - because i will NOT be alive then)

Ask Mexicans and Canadians what they would think if Americans still openly wanted to make their country "bigger".

Americans surely want this.

In every American society I have been familiar with, expressing such an opinion would have been considered indecent for the last 50 years at the very least. But, ok, you do not have to go by my word: we can ask the many estadounidenses present here

In fact - both countries were really built on expansionist idea. And, after collapse of Soviet Union, when close to 1/4 of territory was lost (if we compare present Russia with it) - there is rather natural desire "not to lose more" in Russia. Add to this, that Crimea takes a special place in many Russian's hearts, because of circumstances of it becoming part of Ukraine as a result of Khrushchev's decision (my mother, who is 92, remembers that, and, though she is NOT Putin's supporter on most issues, Crimea for her is really "ours"). But i know fery few people here really interested in Donetsk or Luhansk, for example. It's all rather complicated)))

Would you remind me the circumstances under which Crimea became (ethnically) Russian?

Well, after Peter I managed to get it from Turkey it became a mixture of Tatars, Ukranians and Russians. With time and increasing role of Crimea as a base for Russian (and then - Soviet) fleet - Russians became to play bigger and bigger role.

Are you sure you are not suffering from age-related amnesia? Or is it what you learned at a Russian school?

Of course i studied in Russian school. But it's not so difficult to find demographic data about Crimea))))

History is easy to learn as well. But you never bothered. What would Prince Potemkin say?

[smoltchanov]

If there is a constant in Russian politics - it's an absolute desire of 90+% of it's population to hold as much territory as possible, and - even bigger.

And that, irrespective of anything else in this thread, is the main problem with Russia.

Ask US to give back Alaska, and then observe the reaction. In any case - it's a thing that will NOT change next 50 years. And i have little interest in what will be later (partially - because i will NOT be alive then)

Ask Mexicans and Canadians what they would think if Americans still openly wanted to make their country "bigger".

Americans surely want this.

In every American society I have been familiar with, expressing such an opinion would have been considered indecent for the last 50 years at the very least. But, ok, you do not have to go by my word: we can ask the many estadounidenses present here

In fact - both countries were really built on expansionist idea. And, after collapse of Soviet Union, when close to 1/4 of territory was lost (if we compare present Russia with it) - there is rather natural desire "not to lose more" in Russia. Add to this, that Crimea takes a special place in many Russian's hearts, because of circumstances of it becoming part of Ukraine as a result of Khrushchev's decision (my mother, who is 92, remembers that, and, though she is NOT Putin's supporter on most issues, Crimea for her is really "ours"). But i know fery few people here really interested in Donetsk or Luhansk, for example. It's all rather complicated)))

Would you remind me the circumstances under which Crimea became (ethnically) Russian?

Well, after Peter I managed to get it from Turkey it became a mixture of Tatars, Ukranians and Russians. With time and increasing role of Crimea as a base for Russian (and then - Soviet) fleet - Russians became to play bigger and bigger role.

Are you sure you are not suffering from age-related amnesia? Or is it what you learned at a Russian school?

Of course i studied in Russian school. But it's not so difficult to find demographic data about Crimea))))

History is easy to learn as well. But you never bothered. What would Prince Potemkin say?

You begin to remind Proto to me)) And i always had excellent grade in history)))

P.S. Prefer daya from english Wikipedia? Please:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea#Demographics

[ag]

If there is a constant in Russian politics - it's an absolute desire of 90+% of it's population to hold as much territory as possible, and - even bigger.

And that, irrespective of anything else in this thread, is the main problem with Russia.

Ask US to give back Alaska, and then observe the reaction. In any case - it's a thing that will NOT change next 50 years. And i have little interest in what will be later (partially - because i will NOT be alive then)

Ask Mexicans and Canadians what they would think if Americans still openly wanted to make their country "bigger".

Americans surely want this.

In every American society I have been familiar with, expressing such an opinion would have been considered indecent for the last 50 years at the very least. But, ok, you do not have to go by my word: we can ask the many estadounidenses present here

In fact - both countries were really built on expansionist idea. And, after collapse of Soviet Union, when close to 1/4 of territory was lost (if we compare present Russia with it) - there is rather natural desire "not to lose more" in Russia. Add to this, that Crimea takes a special place in many Russian's hearts, because of circumstances of it becoming part of Ukraine as a result of Khrushchev's decision (my mother, who is 92, remembers that, and, though she is NOT Putin's supporter on most issues, Crimea for her is really "ours"). But i know fery few people here really interested in Donetsk or Luhansk, for example. It's all rather complicated)))

Would you remind me the circumstances under which Crimea became (ethnically) Russian?

Well, after Peter I managed to get it from Turkey it became a mixture of Tatars, Ukranians and Russians. With time and increasing role of Crimea as a base for Russian (and then - Soviet) fleet - Russians became to play bigger and bigger role.

Are you sure you are not suffering from age-related amnesia? Or is it what you learned at a Russian school?

Of course i studied in Russian school. But it's not so difficult to find demographic data about Crimea))))

History is easy to learn as well. But you never bothered. What would Prince Potemkin say?

You begin to remind Proto to me)) And i always had excellent grade in history)))

At a Russian school, so that is not saying much.

Now, if you do not mind, please read up on Prince Potemkin of Taurida. That is still not banned in Russia, is it?

[smoltchanov]

If there is a constant in Russian politics - it's an absolute desire of 90+% of it's population to hold as much territory as possible, and - even bigger.

And that, irrespective of anything else in this thread, is the main problem with Russia.

Ask US to give back Alaska, and then observe the reaction. In any case - it's a thing that will NOT change next 50 years. And i have little interest in what will be later (partially - because i will NOT be alive then)

Ask Mexicans and Canadians what they would think if Americans still openly wanted to make their country "bigger".

Americans surely want this.

In every American society I have been familiar with, expressing such an opinion would have been considered indecent for the last 50 years at the very least. But, ok, you do not have to go by my word: we can ask the many estadounidenses present here

In fact - both countries were really built on expansionist idea. And, after collapse of Soviet Union, when close to 1/4 of territory was lost (if we compare present Russia with it) - there is rather natural desire "not to lose more" in Russia. Add to this, that Crimea takes a special place in many Russian's hearts, because of circumstances of it becoming part of Ukraine as a result of Khrushchev's decision (my mother, who is 92, remembers that, and, though she is NOT Putin's supporter on most issues, Crimea for her is really "ours"). But i know fery few people here really interested in Donetsk or Luhansk, for example. It's all rather complicated)))

Would you remind me the circumstances under which Crimea became (ethnically) Russian?

Well, after Peter I managed to get it from Turkey it became a mixture of Tatars, Ukranians and Russians. With time and increasing role of Crimea as a base for Russian (and then - Soviet) fleet - Russians became to play bigger and bigger role.

Are you sure you are not suffering from age-related amnesia? Or is it what you learned at a Russian school?

Of course i studied in Russian school. But it's not so difficult to find demographic data about Crimea))))

History is easy to learn as well. But you never bothered. What would Prince Potemkin say?

You begin to remind Proto to me)) And i always had excellent grade in history)))

At a Russian school, so that is not saying much.

Now, if you do not mind, please read up on Prince Potemkin of Taurida. That is still not banned in Russia, is it?

I read a lot about him. And other Russian politicians and military men, who dealt with Crimea. No one in Russia has an idea of banning it. In fact - in some aspects there is more liberty in Russia then in US))) And less foolishness, like "sexual harrassment" campaigns..

P.S. Russian schools of Soviet period were ideologized, but, besides that, better then 99% of American schools i know)))))

[ag]

If there is a constant in Russian politics - it's an absolute desire of 90+% of it's population to hold as much territory as possible, and - even bigger.

And that, irrespective of anything else in this thread, is the main problem with Russia.

Ask US to give back Alaska, and then observe the reaction. In any case - it's a thing that will NOT change next 50 years. And i have little interest in what will be later (partially - because i will NOT be alive then)

Ask Mexicans and Canadians what they would think if Americans still openly wanted to make their country "bigger".

Americans surely want this.

In every American society I have been familiar with, expressing such an opinion would have been considered indecent for the last 50 years at the very least. But, ok, you do not have to go by my word: we can ask the many estadounidenses present here

In fact - both countries were really built on expansionist idea. And, after collapse of Soviet Union, when close to 1/4 of territory was lost (if we compare present Russia with it) - there is rather natural desire "not to lose more" in Russia. Add to this, that Crimea takes a special place in many Russian's hearts, because of circumstances of it becoming part of Ukraine as a result of Khrushchev's decision (my mother, who is 92, remembers that, and, though she is NOT Putin's supporter on most issues, Crimea for her is really "ours"). But i know fery few people here really interested in Donetsk or Luhansk, for example. It's all rather complicated)))

Would you remind me the circumstances under which Crimea became (ethnically) Russian?

Well, after Peter I managed to get it from Turkey it became a mixture of Tatars, Ukranians and Russians. With time and increasing role of Crimea as a base for Russian (and then - Soviet) fleet - Russians became to play bigger and bigger role.

Are you sure you are not suffering from age-related amnesia? Or is it what you learned at a Russian school?

Of course i studied in Russian school. But it's not so difficult to find demographic data about Crimea))))

History is easy to learn as well. But you never bothered. What would Prince Potemkin say?

You begin to remind Proto to me)) And i always had excellent grade in history)))

At a Russian school, so that is not saying much.

Now, if you do not mind, please read up on Prince Potemkin of Taurida. That is still not banned in Russia, is it?

I read a lot about him. And other Russian politicians and military men, who dealt with Crimea. No one in Russia has an idea of banning it. In fact - in some aspects there is more liberty in Russia then in US))) And less foolishness, like "sexual harrassment" campaigns..

P.S. Russian schools of Soviet period were ideologized, but, besides that, better then 99% of American schools i know)))))

Shoot. You are stubborn in your ignorance. Open the freaking Wikipedia at History of Crimea and stop being ridiculous. I have not been talking about Potemkin randomly, you know.

Everything one has to know about teaching history in Russian schools you've illustrated perfectly. I, of course, did not need the illustration: been there myself.

[smoltchanov]

If there is a constant in Russian politics - it's an absolute desire of 90+% of it's population to hold as much territory as possible, and - even bigger.

And that, irrespective of anything else in this thread, is the main problem with Russia.

Ask US to give back Alaska, and then observe the reaction. In any case - it's a thing that will NOT change next 50 years. And i have little interest in what will be later (partially - because i will NOT be alive then)

Ask Mexicans and Canadians what they would think if Americans still openly wanted to make their country "bigger".

Americans surely want this.

In every American society I have been familiar with, expressing such an opinion would have been considered indecent for the last 50 years at the very least. But, ok, you do not have to go by my word: we can ask the many estadounidenses present here

In fact - both countries were really built on expansionist idea. And, after collapse of Soviet Union, when close to 1/4 of territory was lost (if we compare present Russia with it) - there is rather natural desire "not to lose more" in Russia. Add to this, that Crimea takes a special place in many Russian's hearts, because of circumstances of it becoming part of Ukraine as a result of Khrushchev's decision (my mother, who is 92, remembers that, and, though she is NOT Putin's supporter on most issues, Crimea for her is really "ours"). But i know fery few people here really interested in Donetsk or Luhansk, for example. It's all rather complicated)))

Would you remind me the circumstances under which Crimea became (ethnically) Russian?

Well, after Peter I managed to get it from Turkey it became a mixture of Tatars, Ukranians and Russians. With time and increasing role of Crimea as a base for Russian (and then - Soviet) fleet - Russians became to play bigger and bigger role.

Are you sure you are not suffering from age-related amnesia? Or is it what you learned at a Russian school?

Of course i studied in Russian school. But it's not so difficult to find demographic data about Crimea))))

History is easy to learn as well. But you never bothered. What would Prince Potemkin say?

You begin to remind Proto to me)) And i always had excellent grade in history)))

At a Russian school, so that is not saying much.

Now, if you do not mind, please read up on Prince Potemkin of Taurida. That is still not banned in Russia, is it?

I read a lot about him. And other Russian politicians and military men, who dealt with Crimea. No one in Russia has an idea of banning it. In fact - in some aspects there is more liberty in Russia then in US))) And less foolishness, like "sexual harrassment" campaigns..

P.S. Russian schools of Soviet period were ideologized, but, besides that, better then 99% of American schools i know)))))

Shoot. You are stubborn in your ignorance. Open the freaking Wikipedia at History of Crimea and stop being ridiculous. I have not been talking about Potemkin randomly, you know.

Everything one has to know about teaching history in Russian schools you've illustrated perfectly. I, of course, did not need the illustration: been there myself.

As i said - i was there many times, so i need an illustration even less. Let's end our "discussion" on this. I am absolutely aware about Potemkin's colonization of Crimea, but don't care about what happened 200+ years ago. 50-70 years - another matter.

[ag]

If there is a constant in Russian politics - it's an absolute desire of 90+% of it's population to hold as much territory as possible, and - even bigger.

And that, irrespective of anything else in this thread, is the main problem with Russia.

Ask US to give back Alaska, and then observe the reaction. In any case - it's a thing that will NOT change next 50 years. And i have little interest in what will be later (partially - because i will NOT be alive then)

Ask Mexicans and Canadians what they would think if Americans still openly wanted to make their country "bigger".

Americans surely want this.

In every American society I have been familiar with, expressing such an opinion would have been considered indecent for the last 50 years at the very least. But, ok, you do not have to go by my word: we can ask the many estadounidenses present here

In fact - both countries were really built on expansionist idea. And, after collapse of Soviet Union, when close to 1/4 of territory was lost (if we compare present Russia with it) - there is rather natural desire "not to lose more" in Russia. Add to this, that Crimea takes a special place in many Russian's hearts, because of circumstances of it becoming part of Ukraine as a result of Khrushchev's decision (my mother, who is 92, remembers that, and, though she is NOT Putin's supporter on most issues, Crimea for her is really "ours"). But i know fery few people here really interested in Donetsk or Luhansk, for example. It's all rather complicated)))

Would you remind me the circumstances under which Crimea became (ethnically) Russian?

Well, after Peter I managed to get it from Turkey it became a mixture of Tatars, Ukranians and Russians. With time and increasing role of Crimea as a base for Russian (and then - Soviet) fleet - Russians became to play bigger and bigger role.

Are you sure you are not suffering from age-related amnesia? Or is it what you learned at a Russian school?

Of course i studied in Russian school. But it's not so difficult to find demographic data about Crimea))))

History is easy to learn as well. But you never bothered. What would Prince Potemkin say?

You begin to remind Proto to me)) And i always had excellent grade in history)))

At a Russian school, so that is not saying much.

Now, if you do not mind, please read up on Prince Potemkin of Taurida. That is still not banned in Russia, is it?

I read a lot about him. And other Russian politicians and military men, who dealt with Crimea. No one in Russia has an idea of banning it. In fact - in some aspects there is more liberty in Russia then in US))) And less foolishness, like "sexual harrassment" campaigns..

P.S. Russian schools of Soviet period were ideologized, but, besides that, better then 99% of American schools i know)))))

Shoot. You are stubborn in your ignorance. Open the freaking Wikipedia at History of Crimea and stop being ridiculous. I have not been talking about Potemkin randomly, you know.

Everything one has to know about teaching history in Russian schools you've illustrated perfectly. I, of course, did not need the illustration: been there myself.

As i said - i was there many times, so i need an illustration even less. Let's end our "discussion" on this.

Who conquered Crimea, for Giray Khan's sake?!! Are all the Russian tsas the same to you?

[smoltchanov]

If there is a constant in Russian politics - it's an absolute desire of 90+% of it's population to hold as much territory as possible, and - even bigger.

And that, irrespective of anything else in this thread, is the main problem with Russia.

Ask US to give back Alaska, and then observe the reaction. In any case - it's a thing that will NOT change next 50 years. And i have little interest in what will be later (partially - because i will NOT be alive then)

Ask Mexicans and Canadians what they would think if Americans still openly wanted to make their country "bigger".

Americans surely want this.

In every American society I have been familiar with, expressing such an opinion would have been considered indecent for the last 50 years at the very least. But, ok, you do not have to go by my word: we can ask the many estadounidenses present here

In fact - both countries were really built on expansionist idea. And, after collapse of Soviet Union, when close to 1/4 of territory was lost (if we compare present Russia with it) - there is rather natural desire "not to lose more" in Russia. Add to this, that Crimea takes a special place in many Russian's hearts, because of circumstances of it becoming part of Ukraine as a result of Khrushchev's decision (my mother, who is 92, remembers that, and, though she is NOT Putin's supporter on most issues, Crimea for her is really "ours"). But i know fery few people here really interested in Donetsk or Luhansk, for example. It's all rather complicated)))

Would you remind me the circumstances under which Crimea became (ethnically) Russian?

Well, after Peter I managed to get it from Turkey it became a mixture of Tatars, Ukranians and Russians. With time and increasing role of Crimea as a base for Russian (and then - Soviet) fleet - Russians became to play bigger and bigger role.

Are you sure you are not suffering from age-related amnesia? Or is it what you learned at a Russian school?

Of course i studied in Russian school. But it's not so difficult to find demographic data about Crimea))))

History is easy to learn as well. But you never bothered. What would Prince Potemkin say?

You begin to remind Proto to me)) And i always had excellent grade in history)))

At a Russian school, so that is not saying much.

Now, if you do not mind, please read up on Prince Potemkin of Taurida. That is still not banned in Russia, is it?

I read a lot about him. And other Russian politicians and military men, who dealt with Crimea. No one in Russia has an idea of banning it. In fact - in some aspects there is more liberty in Russia then in US))) And less foolishness, like "sexual harrassment" campaigns..

P.S. Russian schools of Soviet period were ideologized, but, besides that, better then 99% of American schools i know)))))

Shoot. You are stubborn in your ignorance. Open the freaking Wikipedia at History of Crimea and stop being ridiculous. I have not been talking about Potemkin randomly, you know.

Everything one has to know about teaching history in Russian schools you've illustrated perfectly. I, of course, did not need the illustration: been there myself.

As i said - i was there many times, so i need an illustration even less. Let's end our "discussion" on this.

Who conquered Crimea, for Giray Khan's sake?!! Are all the Russian tsas the same to you?

It really doesn't matter who exactly. Peter was mostly interested in sea (and had wars with Turkey, that's why i mentioned it - it was under him that Russian vessels began to swim at Black sea near Crimea) , Ekaterina (i prefer Russian transcription here)  - in land. Yeah, i know, that technically Khanate existed until 1783. What really important to me - that was in 18th century. Since then considerable numbers of Russians lived there and considered Crimea to be their  motherland. In Soviet time - substantially more, then Ukranians and Tatars. So - there was a logic in Crimea being part of Russian Federation, and considerable voluntarism in Khrushchev's decision of 1954. But, as both were parts of Soviet Union - it didn't mattered too much THEN.

As i wrote before - i am well aware about Potemkin's effort to colonize Crimea. So what?

[ag]

If there is a constant in Russian politics - it's an absolute desire of 90+% of it's population to hold as much territory as possible, and - even bigger.

And that, irrespective of anything else in this thread, is the main problem with Russia.

Ask US to give back Alaska, and then observe the reaction. In any case - it's a thing that will NOT change next 50 years. And i have little interest in what will be later (partially - because i will NOT be alive then)

Ask Mexicans and Canadians what they would think if Americans still openly wanted to make their country "bigger".

Americans surely want this.

In every American society I have been familiar with, expressing such an opinion would have been considered indecent for the last 50 years at the very least. But, ok, you do not have to go by my word: we can ask the many estadounidenses present here

In fact - both countries were really built on expansionist idea. And, after collapse of Soviet Union, when close to 1/4 of territory was lost (if we compare present Russia with it) - there is rather natural desire "not to lose more" in Russia. Add to this, that Crimea takes a special place in many Russian's hearts, because of circumstances of it becoming part of Ukraine as a result of Khrushchev's decision (my mother, who is 92, remembers that, and, though she is NOT Putin's supporter on most issues, Crimea for her is really "ours"). But i know fery few people here really interested in Donetsk or Luhansk, for example. It's all rather complicated)))

Would you remind me the circumstances under which Crimea became (ethnically) Russian?

Well, after Peter I managed to get it from Turkey it became a mixture of Tatars, Ukranians and Russians. With time and increasing role of Crimea as a base for Russian (and then - Soviet) fleet - Russians became to play bigger and bigger role.

Are you sure you are not suffering from age-related amnesia? Or is it what you learned at a Russian school?

Of course i studied in Russian school. But it's not so difficult to find demographic data about Crimea))))

History is easy to learn as well. But you never bothered. What would Prince Potemkin say?

You begin to remind Proto to me)) And i always had excellent grade in history)))

At a Russian school, so that is not saying much.

Now, if you do not mind, please read up on Prince Potemkin of Taurida. That is still not banned in Russia, is it?

I read a lot about him. And other Russian politicians and military men, who dealt with Crimea. No one in Russia has an idea of banning it. In fact - in some aspects there is more liberty in Russia then in US))) And less foolishness, like "sexual harrassment" campaigns..

P.S. Russian schools of Soviet period were ideologized, but, besides that, better then 99% of American schools i know)))))

Shoot. You are stubborn in your ignorance. Open the freaking Wikipedia at History of Crimea and stop being ridiculous. I have not been talking about Potemkin randomly, you know.

Everything one has to know about teaching history in Russian schools you've illustrated perfectly. I, of course, did not need the illustration: been there myself.

As i said - i was there many times, so i need an illustration even less. Let's end our "discussion" on this.

Who conquered Crimea, for Giray Khan's sake?!! Are all the Russian tsas the same to you?

It really doesn't matter who exactly. Peter was mostly interested in sea, Ekaterina (i prefer Russian transcription here)  - in land. What really important to me - that was in 18th century. Since then considerable numbers of Russians lived there and considered Crimea to be their  motherland. In Soviet time - substantially more, then Ukranians and Tatars. So - there was a logic in Crimea being part of Russian Federation, and considerable voluntarism in Khrushchev's decision. But, as both were parts of Soviet Union - it didn't mattered too much THEN.

As i wrote before - i am well aware about Potemkin's effort to colonize Crimea. So what?

And what was the Russian port in the area under Peter?

You know shyte about Russian history, as you have so nicely demonstrated here.  I mean, you know more about CAGOP than you know about Crimea.

[smoltchanov]

If there is a constant in Russian politics - it's an absolute desire of 90+% of it's population to hold as much territory as possible, and - even bigger.

And that, irrespective of anything else in this thread, is the main problem with Russia.

Ask US to give back Alaska, and then observe the reaction. In any case - it's a thing that will NOT change next 50 years. And i have little interest in what will be later (partially - because i will NOT be alive then)

Ask Mexicans and Canadians what they would think if Americans still openly wanted to make their country "bigger".

Americans surely want this.

In every American society I have been familiar with, expressing such an opinion would have been considered indecent for the last 50 years at the very least. But, ok, you do not have to go by my word: we can ask the many estadounidenses present here

In fact - both countries were really built on expansionist idea. And, after collapse of Soviet Union, when close to 1/4 of territory was lost (if we compare present Russia with it) - there is rather natural desire "not to lose more" in Russia. Add to this, that Crimea takes a special place in many Russian's hearts, because of circumstances of it becoming part of Ukraine as a result of Khrushchev's decision (my mother, who is 92, remembers that, and, though she is NOT Putin's supporter on most issues, Crimea for her is really "ours"). But i know fery few people here really interested in Donetsk or Luhansk, for example. It's all rather complicated)))

Would you remind me the circumstances under which Crimea became (ethnically) Russian?

Well, after Peter I managed to get it from Turkey it became a mixture of Tatars, Ukranians and Russians. With time and increasing role of Crimea as a base for Russian (and then - Soviet) fleet - Russians became to play bigger and bigger role.

Are you sure you are not suffering from age-related amnesia? Or is it what you learned at a Russian school?

Of course i studied in Russian school. But it's not so difficult to find demographic data about Crimea))))

History is easy to learn as well. But you never bothered. What would Prince Potemkin say?

You begin to remind Proto to me)) And i always had excellent grade in history)))

At a Russian school, so that is not saying much.

Now, if you do not mind, please read up on Prince Potemkin of Taurida. That is still not banned in Russia, is it?

I read a lot about him. And other Russian politicians and military men, who dealt with Crimea. No one in Russia has an idea of banning it. In fact - in some aspects there is more liberty in Russia then in US))) And less foolishness, like "sexual harrassment" campaigns..

P.S. Russian schools of Soviet period were ideologized, but, besides that, better then 99% of American schools i know)))))

Shoot. You are stubborn in your ignorance. Open the freaking Wikipedia at History of Crimea and stop being ridiculous. I have not been talking about Potemkin randomly, you know.

Everything one has to know about teaching history in Russian schools you've illustrated perfectly. I, of course, did not need the illustration: been there myself.

As i said - i was there many times, so i need an illustration even less. Let's end our "discussion" on this.

Who conquered Crimea, for Giray Khan's sake?!! Are all the Russian tsas the same to you?

It really doesn't matter who exactly. Peter was mostly interested in sea, Ekaterina (i prefer Russian transcription here)  - in land. What really important to me - that was in 18th century. Since then considerable numbers of Russians lived there and considered Crimea to be their  motherland. In Soviet time - substantially more, then Ukranians and Tatars. So - there was a logic in Crimea being part of Russian Federation, and considerable voluntarism in Khrushchev's decision. But, as both were parts of Soviet Union - it didn't mattered too much THEN.

As i wrote before - i am well aware about Potemkin's effort to colonize Crimea. So what?

And what was the Russian port in the area under Peter?

You know shyte about Russian history, as you have so nicely demonstrated here.  I mean, you know more about CAGOP than you know about Crimea.

Azov. Naturally, i studied US politics for 45+ years. Not so long - history of Crimea. For almost every Russian the only important thing is - it was under Tatars until 18th century, then became part of Russian Empire, then - Soviet Union (as part of Russian Federation), then was given to Ukranian Soviet Socialist Republic, which was part of USSR too (by Khrushchev) in 1954.

[ag]

For those mystified by the whole discussion. Our dear Russian Patriot here said something like: "when the US got Louisiana from Spain in the 17th century" - enough to understand that he has heard smthg about the actual events, but has very little clue. And instead of saying, as I would do, "shoot, I goofed up, shame on me", he first insisted and than said: "it does not matter".

Such are Russian patriots. And such is their knowledge of Russian history.

[ag]

If there is a constant in Russian politics - it's an absolute desire of 90+% of it's population to hold as much territory as possible, and - even bigger.

And that, irrespective of anything else in this thread, is the main problem with Russia.

Ask US to give back Alaska, and then observe the reaction. In any case - it's a thing that will NOT change next 50 years. And i have little interest in what will be later (partially - because i will NOT be alive then)

Ask Mexicans and Canadians what they would think if Americans still openly wanted to make their country "bigger".

Americans surely want this.

In every American society I have been familiar with, expressing such an opinion would have been considered indecent for the last 50 years at the very least. But, ok, you do not have to go by my word: we can ask the many estadounidenses present here

In fact - both countries were really built on expansionist idea. And, after collapse of Soviet Union, when close to 1/4 of territory was lost (if we compare present Russia with it) - there is rather natural desire "not to lose more" in Russia. Add to this, that Crimea takes a special place in many Russian's hearts, because of circumstances of it becoming part of Ukraine as a result of Khrushchev's decision (my mother, who is 92, remembers that, and, though she is NOT Putin's supporter on most issues, Crimea for her is really "ours"). But i know fery few people here really interested in Donetsk or Luhansk, for example. It's all rather complicated)))

Would you remind me the circumstances under which Crimea became (ethnically) Russian?

Well, after Peter I managed to get it from Turkey it became a mixture of Tatars, Ukranians and Russians. With time and increasing role of Crimea as a base for Russian (and then - Soviet) fleet - Russians became to play bigger and bigger role.

Are you sure you are not suffering from age-related amnesia? Or is it what you learned at a Russian school?

Of course i studied in Russian school. But it's not so difficult to find demographic data about Crimea))))

History is easy to learn as well. But you never bothered. What would Prince Potemkin say?

You begin to remind Proto to me)) And i always had excellent grade in history)))

At a Russian school, so that is not saying much.

Now, if you do not mind, please read up on Prince Potemkin of Taurida. That is still not banned in Russia, is it?

I read a lot about him. And other Russian politicians and military men, who dealt with Crimea. No one in Russia has an idea of banning it. In fact - in some aspects there is more liberty in Russia then in US))) And less foolishness, like "sexual harrassment" campaigns..

P.S. Russian schools of Soviet period were ideologized, but, besides that, better then 99% of American schools i know)))))

Shoot. You are stubborn in your ignorance. Open the freaking Wikipedia at History of Crimea and stop being ridiculous. I have not been talking about Potemkin randomly, you know.

Everything one has to know about teaching history in Russian schools you've illustrated perfectly. I, of course, did not need the illustration: been there myself.

As i said - i was there many times, so i need an illustration even less. Let's end our "discussion" on this.

Who conquered Crimea, for Giray Khan's sake?!! Are all the Russian tsas the same to you?

It really doesn't matter who exactly. Peter was mostly interested in sea, Ekaterina (i prefer Russian transcription here)  - in land. What really important to me - that was in 18th century. Since then considerable numbers of Russians lived there and considered Crimea to be their  motherland. In Soviet time - substantially more, then Ukranians and Tatars. So - there was a logic in Crimea being part of Russian Federation, and considerable voluntarism in Khrushchev's decision. But, as both were parts of Soviet Union - it didn't mattered too much THEN.

As i wrote before - i am well aware about Potemkin's effort to colonize Crimea. So what?

And what was the Russian port in the area under Peter?

You know shyte about Russian history, as you have so nicely demonstrated here.  I mean, you know more about CAGOP than you know about Crimea.

Azov. Naturally, i studied US politics for 45+ years. Not so long - history of Crimea. For almost every Russian the only important thing is - it was under Tatars until 18th century, then became part of Russian Empire, then - Soviet Union (as part of Russian Federation), then was given to Ukranian Soviet Socialist Republic, which was part of USSR too (by Khrushchev) in 1954.

Ok, not Rabinovich, but Chaimovich, and not chess but poker, but ok.

And, now, where did the Tartars go? What happened to them? Mind enlightening us?

[smoltchanov]

For those mystified by the whole discussion. Our dear Russian Patriot here said something like: "when the US got Louisiana from Spain in the 17th century" - enough to understand that he has heard smthg about the actual events, but has very little clue. And instead of saying, as I would do, "shoot, I goofed up, shame on me", he first insisted and than said: "it does not matter".

Such are Russian patriots. And such is their knowledge of Russian history.

Again - you catch fleas. Battles for Crimea began even before Peter I, during Sophia time. They continued during Peter's years and ended under Ekaterina. Yes. i made mistake saying that Crimea was taken by Peter, he was mostly interested in ports and waterways. Again - SO WHAT?

And, yes, i am VERY proud to be a partiot of my contry. Did you expected anything else?

[smoltchanov]

If there is a constant in Russian politics - it's an absolute desire of 90+% of it's population to hold as much territory as possible, and - even bigger.

And that, irrespective of anything else in this thread, is the main problem with Russia.

Ask US to give back Alaska, and then observe the reaction. In any case - it's a thing that will NOT change next 50 years. And i have little interest in what will be later (partially - because i will NOT be alive then)

Ask Mexicans and Canadians what they would think if Americans still openly wanted to make their country "bigger".

Americans surely want this.

In every American society I have been familiar with, expressing such an opinion would have been considered indecent for the last 50 years at the very least. But, ok, you do not have to go by my word: we can ask the many estadounidenses present here

In fact - both countries were really built on expansionist idea. And, after collapse of Soviet Union, when close to 1/4 of territory was lost (if we compare present Russia with it) - there is rather natural desire "not to lose more" in Russia. Add to this, that Crimea takes a special place in many Russian's hearts, because of circumstances of it becoming part of Ukraine as a result of Khrushchev's decision (my mother, who is 92, remembers that, and, though she is NOT Putin's supporter on most issues, Crimea for her is really "ours"). But i know fery few people here really interested in Donetsk or Luhansk, for example. It's all rather complicated)))

Would you remind me the circumstances under which Crimea became (ethnically) Russian?

Well, after Peter I managed to get it from Turkey it became a mixture of Tatars, Ukranians and Russians. With time and increasing role of Crimea as a base for Russian (and then - Soviet) fleet - Russians became to play bigger and bigger role.

Are you sure you are not suffering from age-related amnesia? Or is it what you learned at a Russian school?

Of course i studied in Russian school. But it's not so difficult to find demographic data about Crimea))))

History is easy to learn as well. But you never bothered. What would Prince Potemkin say?

You begin to remind Proto to me)) And i always had excellent grade in history)))

At a Russian school, so that is not saying much.

Now, if you do not mind, please read up on Prince Potemkin of Taurida. That is still not banned in Russia, is it?

I read a lot about him. And other Russian politicians and military men, who dealt with Crimea. No one in Russia has an idea of banning it. In fact - in some aspects there is more liberty in Russia then in US))) And less foolishness, like "sexual harrassment" campaigns..

P.S. Russian schools of Soviet period were ideologized, but, besides that, better then 99% of American schools i know)))))

Shoot. You are stubborn in your ignorance. Open the freaking Wikipedia at History of Crimea and stop being ridiculous. I have not been talking about Potemkin randomly, you know.

Everything one has to know about teaching history in Russian schools you've illustrated perfectly. I, of course, did not need the illustration: been there myself.

As i said - i was there many times, so i need an illustration even less. Let's end our "discussion" on this.

Who conquered Crimea, for Giray Khan's sake?!! Are all the Russian tsas the same to you?

It really doesn't matter who exactly. Peter was mostly interested in sea, Ekaterina (i prefer Russian transcription here)  - in land. What really important to me - that was in 18th century. Since then considerable numbers of Russians lived there and considered Crimea to be their  motherland. In Soviet time - substantially more, then Ukranians and Tatars. So - there was a logic in Crimea being part of Russian Federation, and considerable voluntarism in Khrushchev's decision. But, as both were parts of Soviet Union - it didn't mattered too much THEN.

As i wrote before - i am well aware about Potemkin's effort to colonize Crimea. So what?

And what was the Russian port in the area under Peter?

You know shyte about Russian history, as you have so nicely demonstrated here.  I mean, you know more about CAGOP than you know about Crimea.

Azov. Naturally, i studied US politics for 45+ years. Not so long - history of Crimea. For almost every Russian the only important thing is - it was under Tatars until 18th century, then became part of Russian Empire, then - Soviet Union (as part of Russian Federation), then was given to Ukranian Soviet Socialist Republic, which was part of USSR too (by Khrushchev) in 1954.

Ok, not Rabinovich, but Chaimovich, and not chess but poker, but ok.

And, now, where did the Tartars go? What happened to them? Mind enlightening us?

Expelled (those, who survived) by Stalin. Mostly to Kazahstan. But at that time (after WWII) russians were already close to majority of population. Look at demographic data for 1939 year:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea#Demographics

[ag]

For those mystified by the whole discussion. Our dear Russian Patriot here said something like: "when the US got Louisiana from Spain in the 17th century" - enough to understand that he has heard smthg about the actual events, but has very little clue. And instead of saying, as I would do, "shoot, I goofed up, shame on me", he first insisted and than said: "it does not matter".

Such are Russian patriots. And such is their knowledge of Russian history.

Again - you catch fleas. Battles for Crimea began even before Peter I, during Sophia time. They continued during Peter's years and ended under Ekaterina. Yes. i made mistake saying that Crimea was taken by Peter, he was mostly interested in ports and waterways. Again - SO WHAT?

And, yes, i am VERY proud to be a partiot of my contry. Did you expected anything else?

Oh, battles with Crimea had been going on long before. Like that  time a Giray had Moscow burnt. That is long before the unfortunate Sofia. The one hiding in the Kremlin was tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, if my memory serves me right.

[ag]

Expelled (those, who survived) by Stalin. Mostly to Kazahstan. But at that time (after WWII) russians were already close to majority of population. Look at demographic data for 1939 year:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea#Demographics

Finally, you managed to bring up this minor detail. Unlike the circumstances of the Crimean conquest, of which you, simply, knew nothing (which did not, alas, prevent you from expounding on them), this is something you knew about and chose not to talk about from the beginning. A choice that says a lot about you.

Ah, and, BTW, though I am not going to take issue with Slavic preponderance in Crimea by WWII, you should know that one should not ever be citing the 1939 census results for any purpose, since that census was deliberately faked after the 1937 census had shown many fewer people in the USSR than old Joe had stated there were. Detailed results from 1937 census are not readily available, but there should be enough out there to make your point. But you, once again, chose to bring up fake data in support of your claims. Another interesting choice.

[smoltchanov]

For those mystified by the whole discussion. Our dear Russian Patriot here said something like: "when the US got Louisiana from Spain in the 17th century" - enough to understand that he has heard smthg about the actual events, but has very little clue. And instead of saying, as I would do, "shoot, I goofed up, shame on me", he first insisted and than said: "it does not matter".

Such are Russian patriots. And such is their knowledge of Russian history.

Again - you catch fleas. Battles for Crimea began even before Peter I, during Sophia time. They continued during Peter's years and ended under Ekaterina. Yes. i made mistake saying that Crimea was taken by Peter, he was mostly interested in ports and waterways. Again - SO WHAT?

And, yes, i am VERY proud to be a partiot of my contry. Did you expected anything else?

Oh, battles with Crimea had been going on long before. Like that  time a Giray had Moscow burnt. That is long before the unfortunate Sofia. The one hiding in the Kremlin was tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, if my memory serves me right.

It serves you right. I remembered general flow of events too (and the fact, that Moscow was burnt), but not Giray's name....

[smoltchanov]

Expelled (those, who survived) by Stalin. Mostly to Kazahstan. But at that time (after WWII) russians were already close to majority of population. Look at demographic data for 1939 year:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea#Demographics

Finally, you managed to bring up this minor detail. Unlike the circumstances of the Crimean conquest, of which you, simply, knew nothing (which did not, alas, prevent you from expounding on them), this is something you knew about and chose not to talk about from the beginning. A choice that says a lot about you.

Ah, and, BTW, though I am not going to take issue with Slavic preponderance in Crimea by WWII, you should know that one should not ever be citing the 1939 census results for any purpose, since that census was deliberately faked after the 1937 census had shown many fewer people in the USSR than old Joe had stated there were. Detailed results from 1937 census are not readily available, but there should be enough out there to make your point. But you, once again, chose to bring up fake data in support of your claims. Another interesting choice.

First of all - i knew about Crimean conquest. I simply used a wrong words. Instead of saying "Peter I began active attempts to conquest Crimea, and got some successes, taking Azov and getting an ability to swim over Black sea" i said.. what i said. But it doesn't matter too much as Crimea was part of Russian Empire and then Soviet Union faor almost 200 years at the moment of Khrushchev's decision. So - minor error, no more then that. I even failed to notrice is, because it didn't seemed important to me, and thus - didn't crossed my mind.

Second - every country has pages in it's history it must be ashamed of. We have GULAG. US has slavery, Trail of Tears, Indean wars, and concentration camps for Japanese. Germany - may be the worst concentration camps (in some aspects - worse then GULAG) during WWII. And so on.

Third - i trust english (and russian too) version of Wikipedia. Much more then your conspirological theories. to be honest. Hence i quote them, not you when i need numbers. In any case my final conclusion stands - at the moment of Khrushchev's decisions there were considerably more Russians, then Ukranians or Tatars, in Crimea. So, for almost all Russians Khrushchev's decision was voluntarism, pure and simple. As long as both Russia and Ukraine were parts of Soviet Union, and decisions were made in Moscow, not Kiev and Simferopol, it wasn't so important. But after Soviet Union breakup - an idea of Crimea to suddenly become "foreign" was intolerable for most of Russia citizens. Most of them REALLY wanted it back. Events of Maidan and everything, that happenrd in Ukraine in 2013-2014, gave excellent pretext and chance to realize that desire. Nothing less and nothing more.  Putin had chance and used it. That was really popular decision in Russia (unlike, for example, recent pension reform). Without Maidan and events in Kiev there wouldn't be such chance.  I don't admire it, but it's explainable..

[ag]

For those mystified by the whole discussion. Our dear Russian Patriot here said something like: "when the US got Louisiana from Spain in the 17th century" - enough to understand that he has heard smthg about the actual events, but has very little clue. And instead of saying, as I would do, "shoot, I goofed up, shame on me", he first insisted and than said: "it does not matter".

Such are Russian patriots. And such is their knowledge of Russian history.

Again - you catch fleas. Battles for Crimea began even before Peter I, during Sophia time. They continued during Peter's years and ended under Ekaterina. Yes. i made mistake saying that Crimea was taken by Peter, he was mostly interested in ports and waterways. Again - SO WHAT?

And, yes, i am VERY proud to be a partiot of my contry. Did you expected anything else?

Oh, battles with Crimea had been going on long before. Like that  time a Giray had Moscow burnt. That is long before the unfortunate Sofia. The one hiding in the Kremlin was tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, if my memory serves me right.

It serves you right. I remembered general flow of events too (and the fact, that Moscow was burnt), but not Giray's name....

Hard for me to forget : I actually know some Girays. Those same Girays

[ag]

Third - i trust english (and russian too) version of Wikipedia. Much more then your conspirological theories.

You mean, the 1937 and 1939 censuses? It is not a conspirological theory. It is a well-know fact in the social science community. Every Russian historian/demographer/economist knows this. I could not imagine that anybody is unfamiliar with this fact - it is one of those things that should be known by every educated Russian. If you trust Wikipedia, enjoy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Census_(1937)

(also the Russian page, if you like).

It is widely considered a serious faux pas in research to take seriously the 1939 results without, at least, trying to correct for possible miscount. The moment I see a paper which uses those numbers, I start being very suspicious of anything and everything in its conclusions.  And so is every serious researcher I know. While I never done any related research myself, I believe some 1937 data tables have survived (a friend once mentioned he actually had a copy - his grandfather had been a prominent Soviet demographer, so I was not surprised). Not enough for most serious research purposes (just some summary stats, if I am not mistaken), but should be there at the level of a wikipedia article

[ag]

In any case my final conclusion stands - at the moment of Khrushchev's decisions there were considerably more Russians, then Ukranians or Tatars, in Crimea. So, for almost all Russians Khrushchev's decision was voluntarism, pure and simple.

Ah, horrible, horrible voluntarist Khurshchev. I mean, Stalin, almost literally, invented the Uzbeks, but that is ok, because he killed enough people and because those were, in any case, some "churkas", so who cares what they are called and how they are sorted, but oh Khrushchov mortally wounded the Russian heart by taking the Crimea from it.

If anything, Khrushchov's main crime here was to keep the Tartars in exile. He returned most of the rest, but Crimea was too sweet a spot for the Tartars to have it back. Hence the Crimean Tartar national movement as one of the most important components of the Soviet dissidence and one of the high points of non-violent resistence internationally. Every liberal ex-Soviet cannot forget it. Ukrainian dissidents across the spectrum, from hardcore nationlists to the likes of gen. Grigorenko always knew it and always fought side-by-side  together with the Tartars. But Russians seem never to have noticed. Wonder, why I am so sceptical of Russian liberalism? In my book, it is about as fake as the soveign democracy you are presently enjoying.

[ag]

Second - every country has pages in it's history it must be ashamed of.

And they lynch the Negroes in America

True to form.

[ag]

Please fix that long URL.

Do yours now, please

[smoltchanov]

Second - every country has pages in it's history it must be ashamed of.

And they lynch the Negroes in America

True to form.

Absolutely. They lynched a lot, and it's an established fact.