The handing over of Crimea from Russia to Ukraine can be summed as nothing less than a great tragedy and bad politics. During Soviet times Russia has already suffered extensive territorial purges and changes due to political gambling of Stalin and others which severed vast areas of land and its Russian population from Russia. This event however was initiated without the conscent of its people and was given away to Ukraine whose territory already mostly consisted to stolen Russian lands especially east of Dnipr river. In my opinion, Crimea and large parts of some former Soviet republics rightfully belong to Russia and it should do its best to make sure that Russians in Crimea are never terrorised by Ukrainian nationalists and to make sure it eventually joins Russia again.

Giving Crimea to Ukraine was unlawful. No referendum was held and no one asked people what they wanted. Khrushchev, acting as a Tsar, keen on satisfying his own ambitions and trying to look more powerful than Stalin, gave away the land his ancestors fought and died for during the Crimean war in 19th century. Of course, Ukrainians don’t remember that. They prefer to accuse Soviet Union (Moscow in other words) of genocide and believe Crimea was and is theirs. That’s it. No way can Russia get it back now. Neither has it tried to. Just an example of what silly yet ambitious politicians can do to history and people.

Crimea is OUR land.... It is Ukraine and it does not matter how many Russians live here. The biggest mistake Russia can make is to try to do the same to Ukraine as they did to Georgia. Say what you want ...enough said on this subject.

The Soviet Union could well afford its gift of the Crimea to Ukraine, seeing as it stole to itself the total territory of three entire countries, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and attempted to permanently extinguish their sovereignty. Even to this day, the Russian Federation keeps a strip of territory along the eastern borders of the Baltics to itself. It offers no justification for that; during the Soviet era, unilaterally and with no documentation or process, it simply re-assigned that part of the territory of the occupied “fraternal Baltic republics” to be part of Russia, and that is the position it still maintains.So if RT remembers anniversary of “the most generous” of Soviet territorial banditry, perhaps it should also remember and run appropriate articles on the anniversaries of some of the less generous expressions of the same syndrome. It will soon be February 24, Estonia’s independence day, which is the anniversary of Estonia’s 1918 Declaration of Independence. It secured its freedom after the subsequent victorious 1918-20 War of Independence against both Germany and Soviet Russia, at the end of which Russia signed the Tartu Peace Treaty in which it declared that it would “voluntarily and for all time relinquish every sovereign right Russia has ever had on the Estonian land and people.” Perhaps RT could provide an article on February 24 in commemoration of this anniversary, contrasting it with Russia's subsequent actions in the Baltics.

Crimea handing over by Khrushev was illegal and should never have happened. The whole Black Sea region never was Ukrainian. Odessa, Belgorod-Dnestrovsky, Nikolaev, Kherson, and Crimea, along the Black Sea coast were cities built by Russians throughout 18-20th centuries. These areas first were Ancient Greek colonies, then were taken over by the Osmanic Empire. Katherine the Great and her successors won these lands and built cities, ports and industry in these desolate locations turning them into paradise. These lands were adjacent to Ukraine territorially and ended up administratively lumped with "Ukraine". No one in those days could concieve that the country called first Russian Empire and then USSR would split into pieces without any consideration for preferences and rights of people living in it.

Marzipan6, I've seen quite a few posts you made. It seems you turn even a discussion of tomatoes to your Baltic states. It becomes really boring. Think of something else/

Chaka, The very next day after Moscow brings closure to its Baltic crimes and drops its ceaseless ongoing criticism of the Baltics from its agenda, I will likewise drop the subject.

Marzipan 6 you write "it simply re-assigned that part of the territory of the occupied “fraternal Baltic republics” to be part of Russia, " Kallingrad was never part of the baltic republics that Stalin took control over, it was part of East Prussia, it was not , at the time territory of the fraternal baltic republics. The justification for Russian sovereignty over Kallingrad is that Germany, having sovereignty over Kallingrad, or Königsberg as they called it, attacked the soviet union. They lost, and signed a treaty, in effect losing Kallingrad. You are completely wrong and misinformed when you say that Russia re-assigned territory of the occupied baltic republics, as Kallingrad was not part of the Baltic republics when Stalin occupied them, if you remember you history correctly, the USSR occupied the Baltics, while Kallingrad remained part of Germany. Anyway, what this has to do with the Article and Crimea, I have no idea, why I responded, was I can't sit still and let someone misinform readers who may be unaware of historical facts.

I love that word "closure". It is so vague and broad, you can fit any definition in there. Putin has said that the massacres under the Soviet Union were criminal. That is not enough to bring "closure" to Soviet crimes, is it. Maybe if Putin took personal responsibility for everything Stalin did? Perhaps if he opened his veins on live TV? I suspect there will be no "closure" until after the next two or three generations are dead and gone, and our children's grandchildren only care because they have to study the Soviet Union in history class. In the meantime, Ukraine and Russia both have to live with Crimea being part of Ukraine. I think they can do that if they are left alone. Life in this world is messy, and we all have to live with what our parents did.

Jsmith, you are a little too quick to condemn my post. Nothing that I wrote in any way pertained to Kaliningrad. Rather, I had reference to facts of which you have apparently no knowledge, and when I pointed these out, you discounted them out of hand and misapplied them to Kaliningrad. In my post I clearly referred to Russia gifting itself with a strip of territory along the eastern borders of the Baltics. This has nothing to do with Kaliningrad; instead, it is a part of the actual territory of the Baltic States which the Soviet Union had recognized as such up to its occupation of those countries prior to 1940, but which it subsequently, without any legality, process or even publicity thereafter simply began calling part of the Russian Federation. In Estonia’s case, this amounted to 5% of the total territory of sovereign Estonia. It seems like it wasn’t enough for Stalin to destroy the sovereignty of the Baltics by forcibly appending them to the Soviet Union; on top of that, he further shaved off a part of the territory of the occupied Baltics and called that not even part of the Soviet Union, but part of Russia. Apparently Russia was not big enough as was. Post-Soviet Russia made itself an accessory to Stalin’s land-grab by simply keeping that territory for itself, without any explanation, justification or even excuse. Subsequently Estonia has formally ceded that territory to Russia and has ratified a border treaty with Russia defining this. But ironically enough, after Russia had also signed that treaty, it then not only refused to ratify it in the Duma, but took a step unprecedented in diplomacy by actually withdrawing the signature that its foreign minister had already put on the treaty. Thus Estonia (and therefore also the EU) does not have an actual border with Russia, merely a line of control.

To MEJanssen – in the context of Soviet crimes against the Baltics, closure would include the following: (1) Russia would declare, through an appropriate spokesperson, that the invasion and occupation of the Baltics was illegal. Thus far Russia claims the very opposite, and repeats Stalin’s lie that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania committed synchronised national suicide by freely and legally joining the Soviet Union, and reviles the Baltics whenever they proclaim the actual facts of their Soviet history. (2) Russia would express regret at the crimes which its nationals under the Soviet flag committed against the Baltics, and would join with the Baltic countries in a ceremony of remembrance and reconciliation. Nothing even vaguely of the sort has ever happened. Every year on June 14, which is the Baltics’ annual day of mourning on the anniversary of the first mass deportation in 1941 of thousands of Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians to Siberian slavery, Baltic countries receive messages of condolance from nations all over the world – but never, never from Russia. (3) Russia and the Baltics would thereafter work together to solve the problems and heal the wounds of occupation. Needless to say, this certainly does not happen now; Russia only criticises, condemns and growls at the Baltics as they seek to heal these wounds, and does whatever it can to hinder their efforts.

marzipan, I doubt that the Georgian Stalin was that concerned with making the RSFSR so mighty and big. He most likely didn't care, as he knew he controlled it all anyway. Georgia was where his heart lay, (if he had one,,,,,)and he was certainly more focused upon appending Georgia and repressing the smaller ethnicities there&forcing them to speak Georgian&use Georgian script. Funny, how Stalin did everything to make Georgia bigger&Khruschev did his bit to make "his" Ukraine bigger, it seems all Georgian or Ukranian Soviet leaders redrew the boundaries to suit their own respective"home republic". If Stalin wanted to append the RSFSR, I do believe he would have took a lot more than 5% of Estonia.... If Estonia is so willing as you say it is to give up this 5% of their land to Russia, and willing to agree on post soviet borders, then one would wonder the need to include reference to the treaty of Tartu........, which I might add was signed before the existence of the Soviet Union, from which Estonia regained independence in 1991. Those actions lay serious doubt to Estonia's willingness to come to a border agreement with the Russian Federation. Latvia were able to come to an agreement with the russian federation.... You are correct when you say I was too quick to condem your post-I was...

@ Marzipan, thank you for the more specific response. I may not agree with everything you say, but it gives me more avenues for research.

Those who say Russia or Soviet Union committed crimes against the BALTIC STATES, let me remind them first of all about the definition of crime. Crime is what Estonia is doing to its Russian population by denying them citizenship or even considering them humans. what kind of crimes are you talking about?? Can't you see how many countries have lived as a federation and prospered, there was no such term as BALTIC STATES until Russia brought CIVILIZATION, Industry, economic progress even if it was centrally planned during Soviet times, and most of all liberation from Nazi Germany. CRIME and genocide is what the west is doing now in Iraq and Afghanistan. Russia did nothing like this instead it brought the kind of progress and intellect from which you still are benefiting and is the basis for your development.

Well honestly I can't seem to find any term which is even close to the territory now called Ukraine in History books. This word came into existence only inside the Russian empire for some people living now in Western Ukraine. Ukraine and Belarus did not even exist as a separate entity until Stalin made a separate republic within USSR from them but instead they were called RUSSIAN EMPIRE together with its central asian territories. Most of Ukraine today is inhibited by Russian speakers and Kiev was the center of Kievan RUS state from where Russians originate. So calling lands east of Dnipr river as Ukrainian lands are very wrong because these are the areas which were foolishly and mindlessly severed away from Russia proper and accidentally left in the possession of a state called Ukraine after the collapse of the USSR.

Slabib, what you write of Estonia dangerously untrue – dangerous because it promotes antagonism on the basis sheer fiction. You write, “Crime is what Estonia is doing to its Russian population by denying them citizenship or even considering them humans.” Since 1991 Estonia has granted citizenship by naturalization to exactly 151,020 people, mostly Russians. That’s an awful lot of new citizens to whom, according to Slabib, citizenship is denied. These people originally had Soviet citizenship. When Soviet occupation ended on 20 August 1991 and the 1939 Republic of Estonia regained freedom, all who had been citizens in 1939 and their descendants (including people of Russian ethnicity) automatically had their citizenship of the Republic of Estonia restored, along with the restoration of the Republic itself. Others who weren’t Estonian citizens retained their Soviet citizenship. Then in December 31 1991 the Soviet Union itself ceased to exist, and along with it, their Soviet citizenship. This was not Estonia’s fault. The government then began actively campaigning for people whose citizenship had thus vanished to take out either Estonian citizenship by naturalization, or the citizenship of some other country of their choice, including of Russia. Since then, 151,020 people have chosen Estonian citizenship by naturalization, 95,741 have chosen to become citizens of the Russian Federation while still freely living in Estonia, and currently 101,041 have not taken out any citizenship, because they have not wanted to. They, too, are free to live in Estonia, and have all the social services available to them as any citizen does. Perhaps Slabib might want to detail for us what crime Estonia has committed against Russians, and in what way it considers them not human. Oh and Slabib, in 1939 Estonia’s standard of living was a little higher than Finland’s, and much, much higher than Russia’s. Far from developing Estonia, by 1991, Russia had utterly ruined it.

To Jsmith: unfortunately some facts are still a little unclear to you. Estonia signed the Tartu Peace Treaty on 2 February 1920 WITH SOVIET RUSSIA; the Russian side signed under instruction from Lenin. To Stalin, that 5% of territory he ripped from Estonia was fairly meaningless, as he had already taken 100% of the country, demolishing its sovereignty and subsuming it in the USSR. That additional 5% was apparently just an expression of vengeful spite for Estonia having fought a victorious War of Liberation 1918-20. Nor was Estonia “so willing” to relinquish that land in border negotiations with Russia after the end of Soviet occupation. Estonia recognised the reality that Russia was not going to change, so it made a major, and internally a very, very painful, concession to Russia. But as has always happened through history, concessions to Russia have never satisfied it, but simply become a stepping-stone for new demands. By the way, I don’t blame you for being hazy on matters Estonian. It is only a small country, for 50 years it had no voice at all and the only official information promulgated about it was the disinformation of its occupier. Only since 1991 has Estonia regained its own voice at home and in the world. Understandably, not everyone has had opportunity yet to clearly hear it, but this is changing.

marzipan I never said that Estonia didn't sign the tartu treaty with Russia under Lenin, or communist Russia. However, as you stated that the treaty was signed in 1920, it's worth adding that the Soviet Union didn't exist until 1922. Therefore, Estonia didn't sign the treaty with Soviet Russia, you can say it signed the treaty with Bolshevik Russia. The Bolsheviks took 100% of Russia and destroyed it's sovereignty post ww1, so Estonia is not the only victim of injustice, nor is it the only country that had a communist regime imposed over it, the same way Estonia invoked article 71 of the soviet constitution to declare their independence, this is the legal basis for their secession, not pre soviet union treaties. the Russian Federation also got it's independence from the soviet union, so therefore, they accepted the boundaries of the soviet union. It seems like Estonia wanted to make it look like they were prepared to make such a "painful" decision, however, it's clear you if you want to sign a border agreement, that means closing all the doors to further territorial claims, which Estonia clearly weren't willing to do. That's the point, Estonis is not willing to give up it's claim here, their actions prove that. Now Russia is being portrayed as the unwilling party here. As regard you saying that all we can know about Estonia is "disinformation from it's occupier" I would disagree with you on that point. it's wrong of you to assume that everybody knows nothing about estonia, only the disinformation it was fed from the occupier, in fact, I would say for people in the west, who supported the baltic countries, to the point of holding their gold in the reserve banks, they would have definitly been led to believe that the policies of their respective governments were correct in their refusal to recognise de jure the soviet authority in the Baltic countries.

Wel Marzipan6, I don't know how did you come up to those figures and population numbers which in my opinion is not accurate. In the Baltic States and especially Estonia, the so called Naturalisation process which is meant for foreigners is implemented on no one except its Russian population. the Russian speaking population who have lived there the entire their lives are forced to go through this unfair process for a Renaturalization. They are given passports called ILLEGAL ALLIENS passport which means they have no state and are living illegally in Estonia. It calls itself an EU country and claims to uphold EU values but the news are filled with images of police and Nationalist elements desecrating WW2 monuments, arresting and deporting Russians and most of all absurdly accusing their neighbor Russia of occupation or crimes. You think in order to please the west and USA, you can turn your back to your neigbour with which you have lived for centuries side by side and will continue to do so in the future. One thing that strikes me about some of these former Soviet Rupublics like Baltic states, Ukraine and Georgia is that they think we can kiss USA's feet and it will save us from all the misory we can fight with our brother next door and develop hostility, but the truth is that USA and the West is Using you all to promote their interest against Russia and east and that when the time comes, it will spit on your face and go away.