Ukraine has no real borders?

MikeC

Closed Account
I'm looking for "the debunk" on this.

Various sites around the conspiracy-sphere are repeating a statement that Ban Ki Moon has said that Ukraine has no "real" borders because the current "borders" are "just" the administrative divisions of the USSR....as if that somehow stops them being country borders now.

Voice of Russia seems to be the source:




There is no quote in it as to the date and time it was made, and no direct quote.

A typical site that has picked it up is this, which includes the following quote:

I can find no such statement by Ban Ki Moon - lots of other stuff is quoted, but not this rather critical piece of information - nor does it say where or when the supposed statement was made. I cannot find it in his website speeches either.[/ex]
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
CIA World factbook says:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/up.html
It seems a border is where the two countries say it is, and here the Ukraine has not formally signed treaties with some neighbors.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Yeah - lots of places have border disputes - but it's not quite the same thing as "having no borders".

To me it looks like more of the Russian propaganda we've seen - stating something that suits them for internal consumption and not caring much at all about the rest of ht world.
 
Last edited:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Yeah - lots of places have border disputes - but it's not quite the same thing as "having no borders".

To me it looks like more of the Russian propaganda we've seen - stating something that suits them for internal consumption and not caring much at all about the rest of ht world.

"It turned out that Ukraine has no official boundaries. Since the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991, Kiev hasn’t demarked its borders. Nor has it registered at the United Nations the demarcation of its borders as a sovereign state."
, is hardly the same as saying
the same thing as "having no borders".
is it?

But yes... propaganda evidentially will rear its head from many sources :rolleyes:
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
Seems this would have to be more a debunking of whether the guy actually said it rather than than the legitimacy of what he said.
 

moderateGOP

Active Member
I agree - I still can't find an actual source.

The source is Russia's propaganda network! It's funny that the same CT's who think the UN is controlling the world for evil purposes are supporting their position on this one and only issue.
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
The source is Russia's propaganda network! It's funny that the same CT's who think the UN is controlling the world for evil purposes are supporting their position on this one and only issue.

Some people see it as the better of 2 evils and like to support the under-dog.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Some people see it as the better of 2 evils and like to support the under-dog.

Dunno that Russia is the under-dog vs Ukraine - even with "sanctions" - IMO it is more anti-USA among the CT's - it is almost axiomatic for them that if the US Govt supports something then they oppose it.
 

Syrez

Member
To me it looks like more of the Russian propaganda we've seen - stating something that suits them for internal consumption and not caring much at all about the rest of the world.
The Voice of Russia emphasises a Russian perspective, as befits its name. It is a relatively well respected institution with a long broadcasting history in its various forms. Its broadcasts are not merely for 'internal consumption', as you have stated, and its mandate is precisely to care about the rest of the world because it is the rest of the world that is and has always been its target audience, over medium and short waves.
 
Last edited:

MikeC

Closed Account
A long history of BS does not equate to being well respected - as far as I am concerned Russian state propaganda is now worse than in the days of Pravda - it is deliberately and maliciously inaccurate.

Certainly it is trying to persuade others that Russia good, Ukraine bad - but it is clumsy, exaggerated, inaccurate and appeals only to those not actually interested in any other side.
 

Syrez

Member
Some people see it as the better of 2 evils and like to support the under-dog.
The merits of public service broadcasting seem to be lost on many contributors here. Of course, these merits are not lost on Europeans, Asians and Africans. It is interesting to note the increasingly expressed cognitive association here and elsewhere between the words 'propaganda' and 'Russia' (with the public service component acting as the 'go to' default rationale). The endemic corporate news prefix "state owned" when referring to Russian public service broadcasting is quite deliberate and manipulative.
 
Last edited:

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
You have managed to be personally offensive twice, in two replies. Thank you for your opinions, nonetheless. I shall consider them.
There is no indication of being personally offensive. He just disagrees with you.
 

Syrez

Member
No indication, I take your point. My wife is a journalist for Voice of Russia, has integrity, takes her job seriously, doesn't espouse bullshit. The previous comment concerned the bible, my specific view of its cornerstones. Was told in reply:
Your comparison of the 2 as if they are the only optoins is, IMO, typical of hte closed mindedness engendered by the circular belief that the bible is the word of god therefore everything in the bible is true because it is the word of god.

For some reason my view of what the bible (specifically) can be compressed into was a cue to tell me I had a typical closed minded circular belief etc. (above). I had not expressed a belief. I expressed a description of what it is. The "only option" when expressing a view of what the bible's cornerstones are, is to describe the bible's cornerstones, not Buddha's, or anyone else's.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
The merits of public service broadcasting seem to be lost on many contributors here. Of course, these merits are not lost on Europeans, Asians and Africans. It is interesting to note the increasingly expressed cognitive association here and elsewhere between the words 'propaganda' and 'Russia' (with the public service component acting as the 'go to' default rationale). The endemic corporate news prefix "state owned" when referring to Russian public service broadcasting is quite deliberate and manipulative.

I am completely familiar with the merits of an independant public broadcasting system - I live in New Zealand, where we have such a system alongside an extensive private broadcast system - both TV and Radio - the former broadcast and cable/satellite.

As far as I know Russia is systematically closing down any independant broadcasters- including removing any independance from state broadcasters so they now solely reflect the government "line".
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Interesting. I am not familiar with that particular news source, mostly see links to "Russia Today" (RT), which seems to be extremely government-controlled bias.

Voice of Russia is the Russian Govt's foreign broadcast service - it used to be Radio Moscow, which was the USSR's official international broadcast service. In 2013 it merged with RIA Novosti o form "Russia Today" - if you know about RT.com then it is the same thing as VOR - they have the same editorial control - Margarita Simonyan. She was editor in chief of RT, appointed at the age of 25 in 2005. She has repeatedly said that the Russian Govt does not control the editorial content - but as you have observed already there seems no inclination on RT's part to do anything except accept what is provided for them.

Much like Voice of America during the 60's and 70's it is there to put a positive spin on whatever the Government says it should. VOA in the mid 1970's had a change of charter to become "accurate, objective and comprehensive" - VOA may or may not have ever achieved those ends, but VOR never pretended to even aim for them - Somoyan has repeatedly stated she is only trying to convey a Russian "perspective".
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
Yeah your not going to win the free market vs government using that method. Russia's propaganda channels are blatantly government backed!

Win an argument? I just clarifying something you dont seem to know. Why some people support Russia even though they are essentially anti-government types.
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
A long history of BS does not equate to being well respected - as far as I am concerned Russian state propaganda is now worse than in the days of Pravda - it is deliberately and maliciously inaccurate.

Certainly it is trying to persuade others that Russia good, Ukraine bad - but it is clumsy, exaggerated, inaccurate and appeals only to those not actually interested in any other side.

All 3 sides are doing the same thing isnt it when it comes to trying to make the other players look bad. Ie, USA, Russia and Ukraine.

I dont have a stake in that battle except that it kinda irlks me when people dont seem to realise they are all as bad as each other when it comes to propaganda and using force against people.
 

moderateGOP

Active Member
Win an argument? I just clarifying something you dont seem to know. Why some people support Russia even though they are essentially anti-government types.

I wasn't talking about you, just in general the CTs tend to be anti-government while supporting RT at the same time!!!o_O
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Please stick to the topic in the OP. New topics in new thread.

Any more off-topic discussion will be deleted.
 

Syrez

Member
Interesting. I am not familiar with that particular news source, mostly see links to "Russia Today" (RT), which seems to be extremely government-controlled bias.
I see, it certainly doesn't have the reach RT has over the internet, which is obviously far more extensive than any other news agency in the world. Quite a modest outfit, in fact, but despite the anti-Russian rhetoric, it is demonstrably reasonably balanced, at least in so far as the European perspective is concerned, as you can see here:

http://voiceofrussia.com/uk/
http://voiceofrussia.com/

I will see if I can find the source for this particular question concerning the UN Secretary General's comments but a link to the source article was not provided by the original poster. I trust it to be an authentic quote as it is from a legitimate news agency.

More broadly, the affable Dr. Paul Craig Roberts (Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan administration and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal) gives a reasonable account of the fluid nature of Ukraine's boundaries, historically, in the first three or four minutes of discussion with Stefan Molyneaux of Free Domain Radio. Irrespective of any views regarding Stefan, it's quite a good summary, covering the 'Russification' of Ukraine in the Soviet era.

Essentially Dr Robert's outlines how Ukraine was substantially smaller as a nation prior to the existence of the Soviet Union; Kharkov, Crimea and other areas of what was at that time Russia, being given over to the Soviet Ukraine, one would suppose, to maintain Moscow's cultural influence within it. As he says, when doing so they were not anticipating an artificially enlarged Ukraine would one day become a post-Soviet sovereign state in its own right. First few minutes:
 
Last edited:

MikeC

Closed Account
There was no "Russia" to which the Donets basin belonged to prior to the Soviet Union - prior to 1917 the Tsarist Empire was split into a couple of dozen "Governates" -



Saying the Don Basin and Crimea were part of "Russia" before the USSR is nonsense.
 

CapnPegleg

Member
Who wrote it was part Of Russia prior to being part of the USSR?


Essentially Dr Robert's outlines how Ukraine was substantially smaller as a nation prior to the existence of the Soviet Union; Kharkov, Crimea and other areas of what was at that time Russia, being given over to the Soviet Ukraine, one would suppose, to maintain Moscow's cultural influence within it.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia#Early_periods

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donetsk-Krivoy_Rog_Soviet_Republic



 

Syrez

Member
Who wrote it was part Of Russia prior to being part of the USSR?
I did! I was so flabbergasted by the response, terse and aggressive yet again, and this time, with blatant disinformation, that I couldn't reply. I notice it went completely unchallenged.
 
Last edited:

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Which is the blatant disinformation in the following?
There was no "Russia" to which the Donets basin belonged to prior to the Soviet Union - prior to 1917 the Tsarist Empire was split into a couple of dozen "Governates" -
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
I did! I was so flabbergasted by the response, terse and aggressive yet again, and this time, with blatant disinformation, that I couldn't reply. I notice it went completely unchallenged.

Forgive me for being a bit ignorant here @Syrez, but my Russian History is a bit rusty prior to USSR being formed after the last Czar fell, or was deposed, or removed (all depending on how you see it).. at what point in time was area in question a part of Russia.. and are we talking about the USSR, or are we talking about prior to that when the monarchy still ruled?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I did! I was so flabbergasted by the response, terse and aggressive yet again, and this time, with blatant disinformation, that I couldn't reply. I notice it went completely unchallenged.

And good to see you realised that it can't be.

Now can we get past the Muscovite (sic) propaganda and find out where the idea from the original post came from? I still can't find anything from Ban Ki Moon that might have been the source - so IMO it is looking like an outright fabrication - a deliberate lie by a state organ of the Russian Federation.

FYI territories claimed by the short lived Ukrainian Republic (1917-1920) include the Donets Basin and also the Kuban and Crimea - the Soviets themselves mad Kharkov the capital of "The Soviets of Ukraine" prior to formally establishing the Ukrainian SSR.

However the UkSSR always included the Don Basin - and even more of that area besides - it was NEVER part of the Russian SSR
 

Trailspotter

Senior Member.
However the UkSSR always included the Don Basin - and even more of that area besides - it was NEVER part of the Russian SSR

This is plainly incorrect. The river Don is one of major rivers of (the european part of) Russia. I do know this for sure, as I grew up on its shores.
The tribute of Don, Seversky Donets, passes through the eastern Ukraine. The area around it, known as Donbass or Donets Coal Basin, was one of the major industrial centres of Russian Empire and Soviet Union and spreads across the border between Russia and Ukraine. In fact, the eastern part of Donbass was never part of Ukraine.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
I don't follow this. If the Ukraine is the green bit, how is the river in Russia? What does the 'european part' of Russia mean, is that Russia or not?
 

Trailspotter

Senior Member.
I don't follow this. If the Ukraine is the green bit, how is the river in Russia? What does the 'european part' of Russia mean, is that Russia or not?

The river in the map is not Don but Dnieper. Don is not shown in this map, it flows into Azov Sea east of the green bit.
I added 'european part' in brackets to discount russian rivers in Siberia, several of which are much longer than the longest european river Volga.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I added 'european part' in brackets to discount russian rivers in Siberia, several of which are much longer than the longest european river Volga.

And to clarify the geography there, although most Russians (77%) live in Europe, most of Russia (75% by land mass) is in Asia, not Europe. Europe is not really a continent, and as Wikipedia puts it:

 

Syrez

Member
There was no "Russia" to which the Donets basin belonged to prior to the Soviet Union - prior to 1917 the Tsarist Empire was split into a couple of dozen "Governates"
What is your point? It lacked clarity, or rather, hyphenating "Russia" does not make a context any clearer for me, unfortunately.
Saying the Don Basin [was] part of "Russia" before the USSR is nonsense.
The Don Basin was in Russia before the USSR. The Don Basin still is in Russia. The Don Basin has not been anything other than a part of Russia since the Mongol invasion, and it was part of Russia before that too.

Edit: I see you have now retracted this part of your statement and apologised to someone else after stating I was talking nonsense for stating Don Basin was in Russia - when not only did I not state this, but it was largely irrelevant.

Crimea was never a part of any political entity you could call Ukraine at any point from antiquity (that I know of) until, as already stated, the Soviet Union placed the wider area within the local authority of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. This was under Nikita Khrushchev, in 1954.

It seems this was actually unconstitutional at the time it was decreed:
632px-The_transfer_of_Crimea.jpg
So we have established Ukraine has had a to some extent questionable political authority over Crimea, in a localised Soviet sense, beginning no earlier than 1954 and from the disintegration of the Soviet Union, in a sovereign sense, up until this year.
Saying Crimea [was] part of "Russia" before the USSR is nonsense.
The Crimean Khanate was annexed by Russia from the Ottomans in 1762 under Katherine the Great and remained Russian until the aforementioned decree by Nikita Khrushchev, in 1954.
Crimean_Khanate_1600.gif
The area of the Crimean Khanate (Ottoman) that lies outside the Crimean peninsula, spanning the northern coast of the Black Sea, approximates to what then became known, in a locally administrative sense, as Novo Russiya (New Russia).
New_Russia_on_territory_of_Ukraine.png
Ukraine means "outskirts". Ukrainians are Ruthenians. Ruthenian means Russian. As a previous poster demonstrated, Russian national identity begins in Kiev, which is noteworthy in itself. In any case, though the entire Crimean Khanate was annexed by Russia in 1762, I presume it is only the peninsula currently under international dispute that you refer to when referencing Crimea. I must sleep. We can pick the rest up next time.

Perhaps you could find your source from Ukrainian Choice?
Which is the blatant disinformation in the following?
All of it.
Ottoman.jpg
 
Last edited:

MikeC

Closed Account
no - I didn't find my sources from Ukraine choice - although I do think Ukraine should have free choice.

"New Russia" is, by definition, not Russia, and yes of course Ukraine, etc were al part of the "Russian Empire" - just like Poland was.

However the OP is not about the history of Crimea - which is reasonably well understood - it is about whether or not Ukraine has any borders at all.

Your attempt to change the topic is typical of Russian apologists.

I note also that your comment about there being a requirement for a referendum and the Presidium being inquorate are straight from the wiki article on the change - but no source is given - perhaps you can actually provide some evidence for that claim in another thread.
 

Syrez

Member
no - I didn't find my sources from Ukraine choice - although I do think Ukraine should have free choice.
I said perhaps you can find your source from Ukrainian Choice, I didn't ask if you found your source there as you had already stated your sources as 'conspiracy-sphere' and surmised their source was Voice of Russia (but you didn't link to Voice of Russia). The Voice of Russia says Ukrainian Choice are their source. I was simply trying to help. You think Ukrainians should have a choice, thanks for your opinion. I had not offered an opinion, and have not at any stage, as previously stated.

"New Russia" is, by definition, not Russia, and yes of course Ukraine, etc were al part of the "Russian Empire" - just like Poland was.
Russia is empire and has been since before, I don't know, the Romanovs or beyond. A people, a language, an empire.
However the OP is not about the history of Crimea - which is reasonably well understood. it is about whether or not Ukraine has any borders at all.
Its history is evidently disputed and I would surmise generally not very well understood. Now, that is my opinion.
Your attempt to change the topic is typical of Russian apologists.
No it is not. I have not offered any opinion on the situation there and I will not be offering one. I have not acted in an apologist manner for any party. Again you presume to understand my view and then segue into generalisations and preconceived notions of typical behavioural traits. I had no idea Russian apologists - whatever they are - are prone to changing subjects, but I have not changed the subject at all. You said I was talking nonsense and that Crimea was not previously part of Russia, I simply demonstrated that it was. The same applies to the other areas. I suggested you chase Ukrainian Choice for the source of your query as that is indicated as the source by the Voice of Russia. Pretty simple really. Or ring the UN press office.

I note also that your comment about there being a requirement for a referendum and the Presidium being inquorate are straight from the wiki article on the change - but no source is given - perhaps you can actually provide some evidence for that claim in another thread.
It was not my comment. There is a source given on the Wikipedia page, [5]:

http://english.pravda.ru/history/19-02-2009/107129-ussr_crimea_ukraine-0/

However, I have not read it in entirety to know of its veracity but I'd be more than happy to and have no point to prove either way.
 
Last edited:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Queue Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs (Ukraine Serial Killers), Real? or Internet Hoax? General Discussion 12
S Claim: Russian radar would have picked up MH17 missile Flight MH17 15
Pythagoras Drones shot down in Turkey and Ukraine, Russian or not? General Discussion 20
william wiley Does Damage to MH17 indicate or exclude a Particular Buk Launch Location? Flight MH17 662
TEEJ Bellingcat Analysis of Satellite Imagery Used In Russian Claims Against Ukraine Flight MH17 104
Gary Cook Claim - 'Nuke reportedly detonates in Ukraine'. Conspiracy Theories 37
D RF humaid convoy to Donbass unloaded weapons and ammo 30th Nov 2014 General Discussion 0
M Debunked: this photo shows a Ukraine Mig-29 shot down MH17 Flight MH17 66
M Claim: Malaysian experts were shot at by Ukraine SU-25 and by GRAD Flight MH17 10
M Claim: MH17 was shot down by separatists using BUK stolen from Ukraine army Flight MH17 32
Juha MH17 Hypotheses Flight MH17 159
MikeC Claim BUK launcher trucked out of Ukraine Flight MH17 296
C MH17 Malaysian 777 Carrying 295 People Shot Down Over Ukraine Flight MH17 410
Mick West Solar Tube Shaped UFO over Korosten, Ukraine [CGI by Kaschuba brothers] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 28
SabreSaint Need Debunking: Blackwater Deployed To Ukraine? Conspiracy Theories 37
Arugula Claim: Only 6% of COVID deaths are "real" - the rest died due to comorbidities Coronavirus COVID-19 11
Jesse3959 Being seen from space - methods to demonstrate that sats are real and provide live video? Flat Earth 6
Mick West Are the Navy UFOs "Real," or just in the Low Information Zone? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 31
Stefan Leahu How atmospheric tunelling and refraction really look like in real life. Flat Earth 0
Stefan Leahu A real-life 2D curvature analogy and a few thoughts regarding scale Flat Earth 2
Mick West How to test if Satellites are real Flat Earth 2
derwoodii Claim Melania Trump has a double, will the real 1st lady please stand up Conspiracy Theories 11
Mick West How to Prove Satellite Images are Real - Ground Truth Flat Earth 16
MikeG Debunked: Air Force Verifies Chemtrails are Real Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Sandor Szekely Lake Balaton Laser experiment to determine the curvature of the Earth, if any. Flat Earth 1027
Jonathan Evans "The Real Venus" Shimmering circle of light Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 20
Georgie G Debunked: SpaceX Rocket Crash Landing Anomalies General Discussion 21
MikeC Aircraft weight and balance in the real world Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Trailspotter Fake photo with real looking EXIF Data Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 9
Leifer Erin Brokovich does not believe in chemtrails. Contrails and Chemtrails 64
J Latoya Ammons - A Real Life Demonic Possession? General Discussion 91
scombrid Is any crisis real? Yes, even the mall attacks in Kenya were fake. Conspiracy Theories 6
Cairenn Fake on line journals with Real names Practical Debunking 0
dan theman Gallbladder Flush Real or Fake Health and Quackery 13
Alchemist Real Life Wolverine? UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
S Is the Saphonian bladeless wind turbine for real or a scam? Science and Pseudoscience 40
FreiZeitGeist FB: Airline Pilots Who Believe that Chemtrails are Real Contrails and Chemtrails 28
Mick West Real Names Site Feedback & News 30
sunyatajon If Chemtrails were real, they would affect the perpetrators Contrails and Chemtrails 24
JRBids Real Photo? Contrails and Chemtrails 1
TheCorruptOnes Chemtrails are Real Contrails and Chemtrails 18
George B When is some concept Real, a Conspiracy or Fantasy? Conspiracy Theories 48
Spongebob Introducing The Real Charlie Veitch... People Debunked 2
George B Solar Maximum Doom. Hype or real? HAARP 17
Juror No. 8 Obama kills Osama: What if real reporters were allowed White House press passes? General Discussion 0
U INDENIABLE PROOF chemtrails is real Contrails and Chemtrails 66
Farganne Anyone care to apply REAL science to explain THIS? Part II Science and Pseudoscience 6
Farganne Anyone care to apply REAL science to explain THIS? Science and Pseudoscience 16
Bunkerbuster I think chemtrails are real breaking news Contrails and Chemtrails 234
PCWilliams Video: Are Chemtrails Real? Contrails and Chemtrails 13
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top