United Marxist Nations wrote:Laerod wrote:The fuck?
Which part?
I'm assuming you mean the last part. Most of the provisional Ukrainian government (and most people in Western Ukraine) don't want the lease of the Sevastopol Naval Base to Russia to continue once the original agreement expires. Russia, finding control of the Black Sea to be vital to its national security, finds such an ultimatum to be unacceptable. Thus, Russia wanted to make sure that, whatever option was chosen in the referendum, they still get their basing rights, because autonomous Crimea (which would still be part of Ukraine) had the ability to make that decision under the 1992 Constitution. Countries do things like that all the time; yeah, they probably shouldn't, but it's fairly normal procedure.
Do you know what was of far greater strategic importance on the world stage?
The Panama Canal. Which the US handed back over to Panama peacefully, as per plans to decolonize and deimperialize the great powers.
The US had strategically important military bases in the Philippines since the Spanish-American War... and handed over control of that to the Philippines. If they want, they can decide not to renew any leases, and the US won't invade them over it.
Responding to potential loss of military bases to a failure to provide good enough terms to the independent sovereign entity controlling the land those bases are on by invading is an act of war. And for two countries at peace with one another, wholly unacceptable.









