Can a case be made for a Ukrainian civ for a Europe map?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Heresson
I doubt Russians wouldn't use good soldiers of an adjactent area to fight against Crimea.
You have no proof they did not.

I don't have to, it's you who claim they did.
Anyhow, enjoy your reading.

http://www.nie.com.pl/main.php?dzial=akt&id=4270&zaznacz=

It's piece of Russian propaganda, I guess.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Odin
Serb, under your reasoning Germany and Austria are a single country. Admit it, you are a nationalist idiot who grew up being spoon fed propaganda in school.

And under your reasoning they are different civs?
Untill 1918, Poland was divided between 3 empires, so in accordance with your logic, there was no single Polish civ, but three different Polands, right?

[Heresson]

Serb, You have to prove that Ukrainians did not participate in the conquest of Crimea. According to You Ukraine and Russia were one state, so be consequent and admit You conquered Crimea - together.

And, Serb, the difference is that there were separate Ukrainian and Russian states, and they are today, while there was one Poland, just under occupation of several states

[Serb]

Originally posted by Heresson
Serb, You have to prove that Ukrainians did not participate in the conquest of Crimea. According to You Ukraine and Russia were one state, so be consequent and admit You conquered Crimea - together.

1) Ukraine joined Russia in 1654, not Russia joined Ukraine.
2) Russia fought vs Ottomans for Crimea during almost 100 years, since 1696 up to 1783.
3) It was poorly populated territory and most of the modern ports and cities like Sevastopol, Herson, Novorossiisk, etc. were founded by Russians and were populated/still populated by Russians.
4) Untill 1954, iirc, Crimea was part of Russia. In 1954 Khrushev gave Crimea as a gift to Ukranian SSR.
5) So why the hell it should belong to Ukraine, even if we assume that Ukraine was part of Russia since 1654?

And, Serb, the difference is that there were separate Ukrainian and Russian states, and they are today, while there was one Poland, just under occupation of several states

I see no difference. Ukraine and Russia was a single state from the beggining. They were separated from each other time after time, but Poland was devided three times, iirc, as well.

[Heresson]

Serb,
If You claim Ukraine and Russia are unity, are just two parts of one being, so what's the different Crimea belongs to Ukraine or Russia? you're contradicting yourself

Except for Silesians, no part of Poles feels like a separate nation, and Ukrainians do... No other part of Poland was independant in last several hundred years. And Ukraine was independant for some time, or at least autonomic...

Also, Ukraine didn't just join Russia. Ukrainian uprising was going bad, so they attempted to get help from You by official union - but several years later Cossacs signed union with Poland... (Wyhowski) And later attempted to remain independant by accepting Turkish dominance... (Doroszenko)
Russia had to use force to keep Ukraine dependant - just it was more effective and ruthless than Poland in this matter.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Heresson
Serb,
If You claim Ukraine and Russia are unity, are just two parts of one being, so what's the different Crimea belongs to Ukraine or Russia? you're contradicting yourself

I do not. Russia and Ukraine are not unity now. Now they are separate countries. So, my question remains. Even concidering that they were unity since 1654 up to 1991, why Crimea should belong to Ukraine who obviously did less to have this territory than Russia did? Now Crimea belongs to Ukraine only because Khrushev gave it to Ukranian SSR in 1954, not because it was conquered by Ukranians, not because Ukranians were/are majority of its population, but just because of Khrushev's stupid decision. You do know, that Khrushev was Ukranian, do you?

Except for Silesians, no part of Poles feels like a separate nation, and Ukrainians do... No other part of Poland was independant in last several hundred years. And Ukraine was independant for some time, or at least autonomic...

Also, Ukraine didn't just join Russia. Ukrainian uprising was going bad, so they attempted to get help from You by official union - but several years later Cossacs signed union with Poland... (Wyhowski) And later attempted to remain independant by accepting Turkish dominance... (Doroszenko)
Russia had to use force to keep Ukraine dependant - just it was more effective and ruthless than Poland in this matter.

So what? They are independent for 13 years. Big deal.

p.s. Nobody can be more ruthless than Poland.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Serb

I do not. Russia and Ukraine are not unity now. Now they are separate countries. So, my question remains. Even concidering that they were unity since 1654 up to 1991, why Crimea should belong to Ukraine who obviously did less to have this territory than Russia did? Now Crimea belongs to Ukraine only because Khrushev gave it to Ukranian SSR in 1954, not because it was conquered by Ukranians, not because Ukranians were/are majority of its population, but just because of Khrushev's stupid decision.

If there's no distinction between Ukrainians and Russians, You should not care. If Ukraine and Russia will unite, You shouldn't care even more

You do know, that Khrushev was Ukranian, do you?

I do

p.s. Nobody can be more ruthless than Poland.