I appreciate your somehow thoughtful and detailed answer but in order for you to be consistent and your answer complete you need to use the same criterias describing both situations.
Otherwise, someone reading it may think you have an agenda.
I believe you are objective and it is not the case, but would you please try again to remove all doubts?
You said Muslims are persecuted in Crimea but what about Christians in Kosovo? You hint Serbs are a minority in Kosovo (as if it justifies their suffering) but are Muslims a majority in Crimea? Are any mosques burning or cemeteries desecrated in Crimea? What about Kosovo? You said there were Serbian troops trying to keep Kosovo (which was theirs since 1389) but wasn’t there Ukrainian army in Crimea?
It would be also nice for your further analysis if you would evaluate a fact that Crimea was part of Russia since 1783 (while Ukraine was never near a place at the time) and Kosovo a part of Serbia since 1389. Also the facts that Crimea was only declared part of Ukraine by a questionable executive order of Communist dictatorship and that Kosovo wasn’t 90% Albanian as far as before WWII (while Crimea was and still is majority Russian since before American Revolution).
I also like how you are stressing a fact of international recognition of Kosovo as such an important think making the most difference.
Why won’t you call your representatives to make your government recognize Crimea? It would make it as great and funny as Kosovo after all. Or not?
“I appreciate your somehow thoughtful and detailed answer but in order for you to be consistent and your answer complete you need to use the same criterias describing both situations.”
No. I must simply state the historical events as they unfolded. There is no “criteria” other than that. What you apparently want me to do is to NOT use correct history so that I would come to a conclusion you agree with. No. I will stick with the truth. If you don’t like it, you can deal with that on your own or whine or whatever, but I will not deviate from the truth. Period.
“Otherwise, someone reading it may think you have an agenda.”
Oh no, not that! An agenda? How horrible! I do have an agenda: truth. If you think you don’t have an agenda, then you should rethink your screen name.
“I believe you are objective and it is not the case, but would you please try again to remove all doubts?”
No. If you believe I am objective - which is what you just said - then you can have no doubts unless you doubt your own conclusion. A person who doubts his own conclusion but states something as true is either an idiot or a nut. Either way I can’t help you with those problems. If you’re an idiot at this point in your life, you will stay that way. If you’re a nut, I cannot help you. In any case, say what you mean and mean what you say or say nothing at all.
“You said Muslims are persecuted in Crimea but what about Christians in Kosovo?”
1) Your question is based upon a false premise since I never said anything about Muslims in Crimea. I said Tatars. Whether or not the Tatars are Muslims is irrelevant. 2) Your question is not relevant to the issues at hand so I see no point in answering it. If you wish to discuss persecution in Kosovo, start a thread about that.
“You hint Serbs are a minority in Kosovo (as if it justifies their suffering) but are Muslims a majority in Crimea?”
Again, your question is irrelevant. It is also - again - based on a false premise since I clearly labeled the Tatars as a minority in Crimea and I said nothing about Muslims in Crimea. Why would you ask, “are Muslims a majority in Crimea” when I said nothing about Muslims and the only groups of people I mentioned who happen to be Muslim in Crimea - the Tatars - I correctly labeled this way: “Ethnic and religious minorities - especially the Ukrainians and Tatars...”
You seem to be on a desperate and doomed fishing expedition. You’re wasting my time.
“Are any mosques burning or cemeteries desecrated in Crimea?”
Abuse comes in many forms: http://www.newsweek.com/crimean-tatars-fear-increasing-persecution-313111
And since the Russians have already done it in Tatarstan there’s no reason to think Crimea will be spared: http://www.rferl.org/content/Graves_Vandalized_In_Tatarstan/1740775.html
It’s only a matter of time as we see Russians doing this in the Crimea now: http://www.rferl.org/content/crimea-tatars-memorial-vandalized/25233461.html
And the Russians apparently have few qualms about burning Crimean mosques in the recent past either: (2013) http://www.jamestown.org/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=41522&no_cache=1#.VT0kdSFViko
(June, 2014) http://www.loonwatch.com/2014/06/vandals-sets-crimean-mosque-on-fire/
(Nov 2014) http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2014/11/window-on-eurasia-unsolved-fire.html
You really don’t know what you’re talking about do you?
“What about Kosovo? You said there were Serbian troops trying to keep Kosovo (which was theirs since 1389) but wasn’t there Ukrainian army in Crimea?”
Russia said Crimea belonged to Ukraine. Now they say otherwise. They violated their own treaty.
“It would be also nice for your further analysis if you would evaluate a fact that Crimea was part of Russia since 1783 (while Ukraine was never near a place at the time) and Kosovo a part of Serbia since 1389.”
Both points are essentially irrelevant in the present situation. The Russia of 1783 died in 1918. And the “Russia” that replaced it died in 1991. Since then, the newest Russia, said Crimea belonged to Ukraine. The issue was settled according to all parties involved and was guaranteed by treaty.
Kosovo doesn’t belong to Serbia and Serbia is de facto recognizing that fact. All parties involved are peacefully handling the situation as it exists.
“Also the facts that Crimea was only declared part of Ukraine by a questionable executive order of Communist dictatorship and that Kosovo wasn’t 90% Albanian as far as before WWII (while Crimea was and still is majority Russian since before American Revolution).”
All irrelevant. Russia recognized Ukraine’s legal ownership of Crimea as late as 2014.
“I also like how you are stressing a fact of international recognition of Kosovo as such an important think making the most difference.”
It doesn’t make the most difference, but it does show that others have figured out the obvious.
“Why won’t you call your representatives to make your government recognize Crimea?”
Why would I want my representative to recognize an illegal act carried out by an invasion by Russians?
“It would make it as great and funny as Kosovo after all. Or not?”
You really can’t make an argument can you? I feel sorry for you. Everything I said was true. Everything I said still stands. Your whining and irrelevant questions won’t change any of it.
“It would be also nice for your further analysis if you would evaluate a fact that Crimea was part of Russia since 1783”
So what? Estonia was under russian rule even earlier(1721). Does that mean russia has the right to annex it now because it was once part of the russian empire? Maybe the Swedes should invade Estonia because it was once part of their empire? The only thing statements like that prove is that European borders were once constantly changing.