If Crimea is Not Russia, Why are the Malvinas British?
Weekend Edition March 21-23, 2014
The Big Contradiction
If Crimea is Not Russia, Why are the Malvinas British?
by CESAR CHELALA
Russias recent annexation of Crimea has been strongly condemned by the U.S. and the European Union. Particularly vehement in his opposition has been Britains Prime Minister David Cameron. His reaction begs the question, If Crimea is not Russian, why does he claim that the Malvinas are British?
There are several historical and geopolitical reasons that explain why Russia claims Crimea is Russian. On 19 February 1954, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union issued a decree transferring the Crimean Oblast (province) from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.
This was widely considered a symbolic gesture marking the 300th anniversary of Ukraine becoming a part of the Russian Empire, at the time when Nikita Khrushchev -a Ukrainian native- was the General Secretary of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union. When asked about the present situation, Mikhail Gorbachev, a darling of the West, stated, Earlier Crimea was merged with Ukraine under Soviet laws, to be more exact by the [Communist] party laws, without asking the people, and now the people have decided to correct that mistake. This should be welcomed instead of declaring sanctions.
If the annexation of Crimea was forceful, so was the British annexation of the Falklands.
On Jan. 2, 1833, Captain James Onslow of the brig-sloop HMS Clio reached the Spanish settlement at Port Louis. Onslow requested that the Argentine flag be replaced with the British one, and the Argentine administration was deported to Montevideo.
More:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/21/if-crimea-is-not-russia-why-are-the-malvinas-british/
TBF
(32,102 posts)oil. Without the natural resources the capitalists would not have any interest in either ...