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:


UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has made an interesting statement on Ukraine, which, for some reason, was overlooked by the Ukrainian media. That’s according to the Ukrainian Choice news portal. The United Nations Security Council has, for the umpteenth time, considered the Ukrainian issue, and experts made a rather unexpected conclusion. 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.
Content from External 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:


The UN also came to a similarly clear position. It passed a resolution that "affirms commitment to the sovereignty, political independence, unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders."

Where this becomes a problem is that, according to a statement from UN Secretary General Ban ki-Moon, Ukraine is missing borders.
Content from External Source
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
1997 boundary delimitation treaty with Belarus remains unratified due to unresolved financial claims, stalling demarcation and reducing border security; delimitation of land boundary with Russia is complete with preparations for demarcation underway; the dispute over the boundary between Russia and Ukraine through the Kerch Strait and Sea of Azov remains unresolved despite a December 2003 framework agreement and ongoing expert-level discussions; Moldova and Ukraine operate joint customs posts to monitor transit of people and commodities through Moldova's break-away Transnistria Region, which remains under the auspices of an Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe-mandated peacekeeping mission comprised of Moldovan, Transnistrian, Russian, and Ukrainian troops; the ICJ ruled largely in favor of Romania in its dispute submitted in 2004 over Ukrainian-administered Zmiyinyy/Serpilor (Snake) Island and Black Sea maritime boundary delimitation; Romania opposes Ukraine's reopening of a navigation canal from the Danube border through Ukraine to the Black Sea
Content from External Source
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

Kievan Rus'
The establishment of the first East Slavic states in the 9th century coincided with the arrival of Varangians, the traders, warriors and settlers from the Baltic Sea region. Primarily they were Vikings of Scandinavian origin, who ventured along the waterways extending from the eastern Baltic to the Black and Caspian Seas.[38] According to the Primary Chronicle, a Varangian from Rus' people, named Rurik, was elected ruler of Novgorod in 862. In 882 his successor Oleg ventured south and conquered Kiev,[39] which had been previously paying tribute to the Khazars, founding Kievan Rus'. Oleg, Rurik's son Igor and Igor's son Sviatoslav subsequently subdued all local East Slavic tribes to Kievan rule, destroyed the Khazar khaganate and launched several military expeditions to Byzantium and Persia.

In the 10th to 11th centuries Kievan Rus' became one of the largest and most prosperous states in Europe.[40] The reigns of Vladimir the Great (980–1015) and his son Yaroslav the Wise (1019–1054) constitute the Golden Age of Kiev, which saw the acceptance of Orthodox Christianity from Byzantium and the creation of the first East Slavic written legal code, the Russkaya Pravda.
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donetsk-Krivoy_Rog_Soviet_Republic



The Donetsk–Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic (Russian: Донецко-Криворожская советская республика) was a self-declared Soviet republic of the Russian SFSR founded on 12 February 1918 and sought independence from Ukraine. On 29 March 1918 it became a republic within Ukraine until the last was fully occupied by the German forces in support of the Central Rada.

The Donetsk–Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic claimed the territories south of the neighbouring Ukrainian People's Republic, which included the Donbass, Kharkov, Yekaterinoslav, and part of the Kherson Governorates. Another territory claimed was part of the Don Voisko Oblast.[2] In the beginning, the republic's capital was the city of Kharkiv, but later with the retreat of the Red Guard it was moved to Luhansk. The Soviet government of Russia supported it as the existence of the state set an anarchy in the region.[clarification needed] The newly created government challenged the authority of the General Secretariat of Ukraine and the People's Secretariat. Some of the commissars held positions of secretaries in another Bolshevik government in Ukraine, the People's Secretariat.

The Republic was disbanded at the 2nd All-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets on 20 March 1918 when was announced the independence of the Soviet Ukraine. It failed to achieve recognition, either internationally or by the Russian SFSR and in accordance with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was abolished.
Content from External Source
 

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:

Eurasia is the combined continental landmass of Europe and Asia,[1][2][3] with the term being a portmanteau of its two constituents. Located primarily in the Northern and Eastern Hemispheres, it is bordered by the Atlantic Ocean on the west, the Pacific Ocean to the east, the Arctic Ocean on the north, and by Africa, the Mediterranean Sea, the Pacific Ocean and theIndian Ocean to the south.[4] The division between Europe and Asia as two different continents is a historical and cultural construct, with no clear physical separation between them; thus, in some parts of the world, Eurasia is considered the largest of five or six continents.
Content from External Source
 

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
On February 19, 1954 the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union issued a decree transferring the Crimean Oblast from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian SSR. According to the Soviet Constitution (article 18), the borders of a republic within the Soviet Union cannot be re-drawn without the agreement of the republic in question. The transfer was approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union; however, according to article 33 of the constitution, the Presidium did not have the authority to do so. The constitutional change (articles 22 and 23) to accommodate the transfer was made several days after the decree issued by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet.

There are claims that the move was illegal as there was a requirement for a referendum which was never carried out and that the Supreme Soviet was inquorate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_transfer_of_Crimea
Content from External Source
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
Novorossiya: Historical term denoting an area north of the Black Sea which was conquered by the Russian Empire at the end of the 18th century.

When it was taken from the Ottomans, the region was sparsely populated and home to several ethnic groups, of which the most numerous were Romanians and Ruthenians (Ukrainians).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiya
Content from External Source
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:
Top