Merged Russian (genocidal) internal propaganda and goals about Ukraine

[eerok]

Crimea is almost an island, but the BBC wanted to make it look as if it has a strong connection to mainland Ukraine, and so they (apparently) manipulated their image to that end, removing all the water between the peninsula and mainland Ukraine.

Crimea has a strong connection to Ukraine because it's Ukrainian.

Whether the BBC made a map you like the look of or not is beside the point.

 

[Michel H]

Still nowhere near being an island. Such desperate claims seem, desperate.

Did you really look at the BBC picture?

Doesn't it seem strange to you that all the water between Crimea and Ukraine is gone?

If a peninsula is barely attached to the mainland through a very narrow strip of land, than it seems fair to me to say it's "almost" an island, in a geographical sense. This has also consequences for human relations, you can't just go to the mainland by taking a short walk.

 

[pzkpfw]

It's not "gone". There are different colours used there. Look closer. (See also South of Melitopol.)

It's (A) a conspiracy from the BBC, or (B) the map maker just didn't bother tracing all the coastlines when colouring the areas under occupation.

You are the only one picking A.


(Edit: in any case, there is a land connection to the rest of Ukraine, but the Russians had to build a bridge to connect to Russia; so I don't think you are making the point you think you are.)

 

[Michel H]

It's not "gone". There are different colours used there. Look closer. (See also South of Melitopol.)

It's (A) a conspiracy from the BBC, or (B) the map maker just didn't bother tracing all the coastlines when colouring the areas under occupation.

You are the only one picking A.


(Edit: in any case, there is a land connection to the rest of Ukraine, but the Russians had to build a bridge to connect to Russia; so I don't think you are making the point you think you are.)

Yes, there is a land connection to mainland Ukraine, while there is no natural land connection to nearby Russia (there is just a bridge).

But I don't think that's an excuse for removing all the blue water, and replacing it by a kind of dark or bluish red (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62613013). In the present context, this is even a major informational crime, imo, because uninformed people will unmistakably believe there is a long land border between Crimea and mainland Ukraine.

This map was made by the U.S. Institute for the Study of War:

ISW currently operates as a nonprofit organization, supported by contributions from defense contractors[6] including General Dynamics, DynCorp,[7] and previously, Raytheon.[8]

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_the_Study_of_War).

These corporations may have a financial interest in promoting war.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Crimea is almost an island, but the BBC wanted to make it look as if it has a strong connection to mainland Ukraine, and so they (apparently) manipulated their image to that end, removing all the water between the peninsula and mainland Ukraine.

No, they didn't. The water is still marked, if you actually look, but coloured in to indicate that it's currently illegally occupied by Russian forces. But I have to say I'm impressed by how pathetic an argument you're now advancing to justify Russia's crimes; the Crimea is connected by land to Ukraine and not to Russia, but not by as much land as someone who can't be bothered to look carefully at a map might think, so that somehow makes it Russian. It's a new low for you.

Dave

 

[Michel H]

No, they didn't. The water is still marked, if you actually look, but coloured in to indicate that it's currently illegally occupied by Russian forces. But I have to say I'm impressed by how pathetic an argument you're now advancing to justify Russia's crimes; the Crimea is connected by land to Ukraine and not to Russia, but not by as much land as someone who can't be bothered to look carefully at a map might think, so that somehow makes it Russian. It's a new low for you.

Dave

The water is still marked, if you actually look, but coloured in to indicate that it's currently illegally occupied by Russian forces.

There is actually no explanation on the map for the special color (bluish red) used for the water between Crimea and mainland Ukraine.

The color for "occupied" is rose. I also note that the color for the territorial waters near Crimea is blue (not occupied, in spite of the Russian Black Sea fleet?).

An average reader quickly glancing at this map will, in my opinion, often believe than there is a long land border between Crimea and Ukraine. Because of this, this map is, in my opinion, terribly misleading. It would have been easy to start with a correct map, and then add some rose or purple color, while keeping the water blue everywhere (it would have been easy for readers to extrapolate that a blue lake in a occupied area is "occupied" too). Their misleading bluish red may have been a consequence of mixing the rose of occupation with the blue of water (with, perhaps, a perverse intention).

But I have to say I'm impressed by how pathetic an argument you're now advancing to justify Russia's crimes; the Crimea is connected by land to Ukraine and not to Russia, but not by as much land as someone who can't be bothered to look carefully at a map might think, so that somehow makes it Russian.

I am not trying to justify Russia's crimes. The prime reason why Crimea might be considered Russian is that people there voted to join Russia in 2014 (it seems to be a well established fact that Russian speaking Crimea is pro Russian). Then Ukraine and its allies imposed various heavy sanctions on Crimea and Russia (not so gentle).

Using fake maps may be part of a deliberate disinformation campaign by the US and UK. I don't think it's a "new low" to refuse to be naively pro-Ukrainian and/or militaristic.
There can be a middle ground.

 

[gnome]

It's only a "well established fact" if you disregard how the 2014 referendum was not an honest assessment. Repeating a claim doesn't respond to the many arguments made against it.

 

[Lplus]

nvm

 

[Dave Rogers]

I am not trying to justify Russia's crimes..

Rubbish. Everything you have posted in this thread is an attempt to justify post hoc Russia's illegal occupation of the Crimea.

Dave

 

[jimbob]

Meanwhile

Mikhail Ulyanov has since deleted this tweet and complained that it's being misconstrued.

[IMGW=320]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1447&pictureid=13187[/IMGW]

As opposed to his failing to remember which audience he was addressing.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

So, Michael_H, if Ukraine retakes it's territory in the Crimea and then holds a referendum, you'd happily support the results?

 

[Mike!]

So, Michael_H, if Ukraine retakes it's territory in the Crimea and then holds a referendum, you'd happily support the results?

I imagine that'd depend on the results.

 

[eerok]

So, Michael_H, if Ukraine retakes it's territory in the Crimea and then holds a referendum, you'd happily support the results?

I don't think a referendum is necessary. Crimea was Ukrainian in 2014, and Russia's occupation is illegal, so it's still Ukrainian right now. It just remains for the Russian invaders to be evicted.

Still, it's a pertinent question for Michel_H.

 

[arthwollipot]

But I don't think that's an excuse for removing all the blue water, and replacing it by a kind of dark or bluish red

Except that's not what has happened. The colour key is clearly marked below the map. The "Russian Military Control" overlay is transparent. The land is white, so when you overlay the red colour, it appears red. But when you overlay the red colour over the blue of the water, it shows as a bluish red. It is clearly indicating the extent to which the Russian Navy controls the Black Sea. And, as someone else has mentioned, the two inlets south of Melitopol have that same overlay.

No, it is very clear what is happening here, and it takes effort to so egregiously misinterpret the map.

 

[Mike!]

Except that's not what has happened. The colour key is clearly marked below the map. The "Russian Military Control" overlay is transparent. The land is white, so when you overlay the red colour, it appears red. But when you overlay the red colour over the blue of the water, it shows as a bluish red. It is clearly indicating the extent to which the Russian Navy controls the Black Sea. And, as someone else has mentioned, the two inlets south of Melitopol have that same overlay.

No, it is very clear what is happening here, and it takes effort to so egregiously misinterpret the map.

Well nobody can say he's not willing to put in the effort.

 

[dudalb]

Meanwhile

Mikhail Ulyanov has since deleted this tweet and complained that it's being misconstrued.

[IMGW=320]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1447&pictureid=13187[/IMGW]

As opposed to his failing to remember which audience he was addressing.

There will be a final solution to the Ukraine problem.....

God, and Russians wonder why most of the world simply does not trust them.

 

[dudalb]

Rubbish. Everything you have posted in this thread is an attempt to justify post hoc Russia's illegal occupation of the Crimea.

Dave

I Micheall H is not justifing Putin's invasion of the Ukraine, he is doing the best imitation of it I have seen.

 

[Michel H]

So, Michael_H, if Ukraine retakes it's territory in the Crimea and then holds a referendum, you'd happily support the results?

I certainly do not support Ukraine retaking Crimea by using military force and violence, as this would probably imply enormous human suffering and destruction, and I believe Ukraine has already suffered a lot in this war.

Now, let's assume Ukraine has won the battle, and holds a honest referendum right after taking control of Crimea, then I would probably respect Ukraine for such a step.

Note that, during the 2014 referendum, there were Russian soldiers without insignia in Crimea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_(Russo-Ukrainian_War)). Similarly, if Ukraine holds a new referendum, it should make its military presence discreet.

It is of course not necessary to wait for the result of a bloody war (which is actually now mostly in a stalemate) to hold a referendum. It would probably be useful that Zelensky and Putin talk about such things even now.

The problem is that Zelensky seems to be obsessed by the idea of a "great Ukraine" (which would imply keeping Russian-speaking population under Ukrainian rule), which, he (probably wrongly) believes he might be able to achieve by relying on Western military and economic power.

The sad reality, however, is that Ukraine is on its way to become the next Iraq or the next Afghanistan.

 

[Wildy]

Why would Ukraine have to hold a referendum? Crimea was illegally annexed and all that a referendum would do is legitimise the illegal one.

 

[Michel H]

Why would Ukraine have to hold a referendum? Crimea was illegally annexed and all that a referendum would do is legitimise the illegal one.

Why?

In order to bring peace, to end this conflict which is painful to many people, not only in Ukraine and Russia, but also in Western Europe for example (think about energy prices, inflation ...).

It would be nice to decide democratically which regions belongs to which country.

Nothing says that state borders have to be eternal, can never change.

In addition, from a legal point of view, the 1954 transfer of Crimea from Russia to Ukraine has been controversial for a long time:

Controversies surrounding the legality of the transfer remained a sore point in relations between Ukraine and Russia for the first few years after the breakup of the Soviet Union, and in particular in the internal politics of Crimea.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_transfer_of_Crimea).

As far as I know, this transfer wasn't ratified by the parliaments of Russia, Crimea (if any, at the time), and Sevastopol (a large city and port in Crimea which had special status):

There was confusion about the status of Sevastopol and whether it was a part of the transfer as it had a degree of independence from the Crimean Oblast and never formally ratified the transfer

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_transfer_of_Crimea#Aftermath).