Obama isn't 500 years old.
Putin's Own Historical Injustice
By Michael Bohm
Among Russians, the most common justification for the annexation of Crimea is that the Kremlin is rectifying a historical injustice...Here is Crimea's history in brief: It had been Russian territory since 1783, when Catherine the Great seized it from the Ottoman Empire....in 1954, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev transferred Crimea to Ukraine as a "gift" to mark the 300th anniversary of Ukraine's union with Russia. But this was a symbolic gesture only, the argument goes....But what about that pesky 1994 Budapest Agreement or the 1997 Treaty of Friendship, both of which were signed by Russia and recognized the territorial integrity of a Ukraine that included Crimea?
<...>
If Putin is committed to reversing all of the historical injustices committed against Russia, why not revoke the Belavezha Accords, signed on Dec. 8, 1991? After all, Yeltsin and the leaders of Ukraine and Belarus had no legal authority to dissolve the Soviet Union...In Tuesday's address, Putin scorned Russia's weakness and inability to defend Crimeans in 1991. "Russia handed over the Crimeans to Ukraine like bags of potatoes," he said. "Russia dropped its head and swallowed the loss … but the people could not come to terms with this historical injustice."
<...>
Putin's provocative position that the Soviet collapse was historically unjust is understandably causing alarm in other Soviet republics. Ukraine is most concerned, of course, but Kazakhstan is also uneasy, where about 30 percent of the population concentrated in Kazakhstan's northern regions on Russia's border are ethnic Russian...What's more, the Kremlin could use the Crimea argument that Kazakhstan is also historically Russian territory. After all, Kazakhstan was a part of the Soviet Union for 70 years. What if Putin wants to rectify the "historical injustice" of having lost Kazakhstan in 1991?...Russia could even go back to the 1918 Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Like the Belavezha Accords, many believe the treaty was forced upon Russia when the country was weakened by World War I. In accordance with the 1918 treaty, Russia had to give the Baltic states to Germany. And to add insult to injury, the treaty forced Russia to recognize the independence of Ukraine. (The Bolsheviks got their revenge four years later, however, when Red Army seized power and installed a puppet government that "voluntarily" joined the Soviet Union in 1922.)
<...>
Putin could also raise the issue of Alaska. Taking full advantage of Russia's weak financial condition after its disastrous loss in the Crimean War of 1853-56, the U.S. bought Alaska for a mere $7.2 million. Adjusted for inflation, that amounts to only $120 million. If Putin corrects this historical injustice by revoking the original purchase agreement, he would surely have the support of many Russians who believe that Alaska rightfully belongs to Russia...reliance on rectifying supposed historical injustices is a slippery one. Take, for example, Crimea itself. Turkey could turn Russia's argument on its head and say Crimea is historically part of its territory.
So could the Crimean Tatars, who lived in large numbers on the peninsula before Josef Stalin deported them in 1944. Don't they have a right to correct their historical injustices as well?
- more -
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/putins-own-historical-injustice/496553.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024697593
= new reply since forum marked as read
