| Submit your comments on this article |
| Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia |
| Ukraine Defends Seizure Of Yalta Lighthouse |
| 2006-01-14 |
| 13 January 2006 (RFE/RL) -- Ukraine's Foreign Ministry today defended the seizure of a Russian-manned lighthouse at the Yalta commercial port, saying all Crimea's hydrographic navigation facilities were the property of the central government... ...Russia says the lighthouse seizure is a "provocation" that violates bilateral agreements on the stationing of its Black Sea fleet in Crimea. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin said the incident could affect Russian-Ukrainian relations. An aide to the commander-in-chief of the Crimean-based Russian Black Sea Fleet, Captain Igor Dygalo, told the Itar-Tass news agency the logic of the Ukrainian argument is flawed. Dygalo said that under a bilateral agreement, the Yalta lighthouse is part of the Russian Black Sea Fleet's hydrographic navigation systems.... I thought the Ukranian government just collapsed. So who's making this decision? |
| Posted by:Phil |
| #8 Great post, Ukrainian. Informative, but not preachy. Just the facts. Kudos! |
| Posted by: Brett 2006-01-14 19:33 |
| #7 Russia has a good case that the Crimea shouldn't be part of Ukraine That ignores the historic relationship between the Ukraine (literally, "the frontier") and the various centers of power in the Russian empire prior to the Revolution. There are few geographical barriers that might constitute a "natural" boundary for (the) Ukraine. In the early days of the Tsars, after Kiev fell to the Mongols and then the Mongol hegemony began to fade, these lands were only sparsely settled, especially to the south. Some, like my ancestors, were offered Moscow's recognition of their title to large estates in the late 1600s and early 1700s in exchange for settling on the frontier and assuming responsibility for border patrols. My ancestors mostly raised and trained cavalry horses and were militia - the closest thing to a professional military - in that area for many generations. They held their land and titles only in exchange for not only raising and training the horses, but organizing and leading border patrols. Others raised wheat in the fertile black soils. If there are few natural boundaries to Ukraine, it is certainly the case that the Dnieper forms a major thoroughfare through its center. Take a look at a map and see where the Dnieper flows into the Black Sea, and the relationship between the Crimea and the rest of what is currently marked out as Ukraine is clear. The confusion comes, I think because Kiev (and hence the center of the early Kievian, Slavic state) is farther up the river and because *Russia* is based on Moscow - originally a trading post deep in the forest. It rose to power when the grandfather of Ivan Grozny (the Great or the Terrible) struck a deal with the Mongols to enforce tax collection for them. Many upper class Russians married into Mongol families and v.v. and the typical home of Russians echoed the arrangement of Mongol tents, with the women secluded in terem rooms. The southern areas were the home of the horse-tribes, who go back to the Scythians, nearly 2000 years before the Mongol hordes rode through. And yes, it took the Moscovites a long time to have influence there and they deeply hate the idea of giving it up, especially because the Don flows into the Azov sea and if they don't control the Crimea they don't control their access to the Black Sea and out into the Mediterranean. |
| Posted by: Ukrainian by ancestry 2006-01-14 19:10 |
| #6 Russian armies first invaded the Crimea in 1736. Empress Catherine II forced Turkey to recognize the khanate's independence in 1774, and in 1783 she annexed it outright; the annexation was confirmed by the Treaty of Jassy (1792). After the Bolshevik Revolution (1917) an independent Crimean republic was proclaimed; but the region was soon occupied by German forces and then became a refuge for the White Army. In 1921 a Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was created. During World War II, German invaders took the Crimea after an eight-month siege. The republic itself was dissolved (1945) and made into a region of the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic; in 1954 it was transferred to Ukraine. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-01-14 18:06 |
| #5 Russia has a good case that the Crimea shouldn't be part of Ukraine About as good case as Hitler demanding Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia, I'd say. Russia does have a Black Sea coastline but no suitable ports. "We need lebensraum!" I'd say the chances of further escalations are good. Russia is getting more and more aggressive in pursuing its policies, even as Ukraine's independentist movement tries to get on its feet. Escalation seems inevitable, until either Russia's imperialism or Ukraine's independence is crushed. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2006-01-14 17:29 |
| #4 I think it is a big deal and clear escalation/provocation. The Crimea naval facilities are the only ones available for Russia's Black Sea fleet. Russia does have a Black Sea coastline but no suitable ports. The Crimea is historically part of Russia, rather than the Ukraine and got added to the Ukraine (I recall) by Stalin who used to swap territory between Soviet republics on a regular basis. Russia has a good case that the Crimea shouldn't be part of Ukraine and they are, in this case, the loser in the general practice? of freezing national boundaries circa 1945. I'd say the chances of further escalations are good. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-01-14 16:49 |
| #3 Yeah. The government that signed that deal has gotten a no-confidence vote... Who's in charge in Ukraine now? |
| Posted by: Phil 2006-01-14 15:22 |
| #2 from the BBC The latest row comes barely two weeks after Moscow and Kiev resolved a bitter dispute over gas prices after Ukraine was forced to accept higher prices for Russian gas. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-01-14 14:06 |
| #1 all your hydrographic navigation facilities belong to us! Is this a big deal? It seems like it should be? |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-01-14 14:02 |