Crimean War Revisted - Ukrainian History Requires Detailed View of How Russia Does Not Come Out Well - Even Nuclear Wise

Submitted by M Tovey (United States), Sep 18, 2022 at 14:23

It never ceases to amaze in some circles how history is filled with examples and lesson plans of faulty and failed desires of destinies of empires and lesser states with complex appetites of individual excesses of power; and after all is said (but not necessarily completed or done), the frailty of humanity is left to be contemplated after so many lives are wasted and treasuries depleted and the survivors are left to try to rebuild, what was learned?
Ultimately, very little when one peruses the libraries of those who are the successors in interest of the peoples that were subjected to the indignities; time and time again, the lessons not learned are revived by errant intellectualistic ideologues who are convinced that a regrouping of ideas (think Pavlovian) might be revived and attempted again to produce the 'perfect societal setting' that can be ruled with the appropriate subjugation of properly programmed populations and all would be well. What is wrong with that, again?
There are indications that Russia once held territorial claims to the Kriim, only to have the Crimean War come to terms with the Russian losses there after four or five years of a war that did not have Russian interests in mind; that the Russian Crown was undermined from both within and in weakened foreign relations that were the hallmark of Europe's total disrespect for monarchies that no longer held the integrity for serving the peoples and protecing the realms from burgeoning rebellions to 'Divinely' governed kingdoms.
For Russia, Nickolas I losses of teh Kriim was the precursor to the rebellion that the Bolsheviks rousted later during World War I and of which it appears the current Russian seeks repatriation of those former Soviet embellishments. He will not suffer losing the Kriim again. It may be said: history repeats itself: but which repeat is in view here? It is here the Kievan Rus comes into history's review and where will it lead?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".