OAUTemitayo:
Sometimes I just laugh at you people following western media on Russia internal issues.
You are the most misled people I have ever seen.
1. Crimea has always been Russian.....Fact
2. It was Nikita Khrushchev an ethnic Ukrainian who gifted Crimea to Ukraine as a gift when he was the Soviet Leader. .....Fact
3. Over 90% of Crimeans are ethnic Russians...... Fact
4. When former Ukrainian leader was forced out of power by rioting protesters, the first thing the new regime did was to cancel the use of Russia as a language in schools, offices and all line of public administration ( Just tell me how Ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea will be happy with such?)
5. Crimeans rejected such and with the aid of Russian supported insurgents seized the critical assets in Crimea
6. They first declared Independence (Against your assumption that Russia seized their land)
7. They conducted a referendum on whether to join Russia or not
8. Over 90% voted to join r
Russia ( Of course Crimean Tatars voted against, it's not unexpected, majority must have their way while minority have their say)
9. Russia accepted their reintegration back to where they have always belong in their heart.
10. As for the part he visited, it was Sevastopol.

On 27 February masked Russian troops without insignia, took over the Supreme Council (parliament) of Crimea, and captured strategic sites across Crimea, which led to the installation of the pro-Russian Aksyonov government in Crimea and the declaration of Crimea's independence.

Ukraine considers the annexation to be a violation of international law and agreements by Russia, including Agreement on Establishing the Commonwealth of Independent States in 1991, Helsinki Accords, Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1994 and Treaty on friendship, cooperation and partnership between the Russian Federation and Ukraine.

The event was condemned by many world leaders as an illegal annexation of Ukrainian territory, in violation of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, signed by Russia. It led to the other members of the then G8 suspending Russia from the group, then introducing the first round of sanctions against the country. The United Nations General Assembly also rejected the vote and annexation, adopting a non-binding resolution affirming the "territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognised borders". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation

jstbeinhonest:
Biafra is none of my business, but I could not but notice that most of the Igbo posters on this thread were really unintelligible.

You guys better start reading good books rather than casting expletives everywhere.

kingzizzy:
As I said before, Ojukwu was in a very good position to have won the war. Ojukwu had the support, manpower and the Oil. Had Ojukwu been able to export Oil and buy arms, food and other supplies, there is no magic that Nigeria could have done to win the war. The reason Ojukwu lost was the Naval blockade enforced by British Warships. In 1967, the Nigerian Navy was still in its infancy, It was just roughly 10 years old. Nigeria had no warship or even the technical know how even operate one. Nigeria did not acquire any Warship untill the 80's. Even now, Nigeria has no carriers and less than 5 Standard Warships. Warships cost hudreds of millions of Dollars. So when you say that Biafra was the weaker side, I laugh. The massive military support Nigeria got from Britain and Russia is what won the war for Nigeria.

Nigerian Navy on the Eve of the Nigerian Civil War

Before the Nigerian Civil War, the Nigerian Navy had acquired a considerable number of platforms either by new construction or by transfer of old ships from the United States, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Germany, and France.

Nigeria’s only frigate, NNS Nigeria, was constructed in the Netherlands in 1965. Many ships owned by the Nigerian Navy originally belonged to either a European nation or the United States. Nigeria, with its ambition of developing a sea-going naval force, had refrained from acquiring only older vessels, but rather followed a pattern of buying newly constructed ships from the naval dockyards of Europe and the United States.

Foreign technical expertise was readily provided by the British before the Nigerian Civil War, and the Russians during the war, covering planning and execution of maintenance activities.....

Before the first shot was fired during the Nigerian Civil War, the Nigerian Navy had already been called to duty. The Navy was ordered to carry out a blockade of Port Harcourt and the Bonny littoral space, thereby denying the Biafra Republic free access to and use of their harbours. The blockade was introduced by the Federal military government to stop ships from anchoring at the two Biafra ports....

During this period, the ships were few and unsophisticated and, apart from this, they were refitted abroad. However, second level maintenance was properly planned and executed by well-trained technical personnel using maintenance facilities and spares provided. As expected, maintenance and availability of ships throughout this period under foreign technical management was good as evident in the successful use of the vessels to prosecute assigned tasks in the Nigerian Civil War...

During the civil war, NNS Ogoja led all nine coastal operations from Lagos to the coastal areas of Biafra. There was NNS Nigeria (a frigate) which was the flagship; it was too big for such coastal waters as the entrance from Port Harcourt to Bonny. It would have been too risky to assign NNS Nigeria for such coastal operations within the Nigerian waterways; as such, it was used as a guide up to the fairway buoy in the entrance of Bonny.

The ships that took part in the coastal operations in Bonny were: NNS Nigeria, the flagship under the command of Captain Soroh; NNS Penelope, under the command of Commander James Rawe, which was the Nigerian Navy scout ship; NNS Lokoja, a landing ship, under the command of Lt. Cdr. A. Joe; NNS Ogoja was under the command of Lt. Cdr. Akin Aduwo; NNS Benin was under the command of Lt. Fingesi; NNS Enugu was under the command of Lt. A. Abdullahi; MV Bode Thomas was under the command of Captain Laniyan, Merchant Ship and Logistic Ship, Nigerian Port Authority; MV King Jaja was a Merchant Ship and Logistic Ship belonging to the Nigerian Port Authority.

The Navy’s assignment was to liberate Port Harcourt, Calabar, Warri, and other coastal states. NNS Ogoja functioned in an assault capacity followed by NNS Lokoja carrying the troops and their ordinance for a landing, later described as one of the best operational assignments by any of the navies in the world.....

At the Bonny jetty, the landing went on without hitches for the Nigerian troops. Unfortunately, Biafra naval forces on NNS Ibadan, a vessel seized at the Calabar naval base immediately after the declaration of Biafra, had sighted the Nigerian troops landing ashore. A few kilometres from Bonny and Peterside, the town opposite Bonny, the first battle to control the sea began. The Nigerian Navy through NNS Ogoja was able to incapacitate the seized ship now owned by Biafra. The Biafra commanding officer beached the ship at Boiler Point and escaped with his surviving men into the mangrove swamp.

With the neutralisation of NNS Ibadan, the Biafra Navy was no longer a threat to the Nigerian Navy. The Biafra forces however attacked Bonny again after sending aircraft to bomb the ships on patrol in Bonny and the oil tank farms. The Nigerian Navy was able to safeguard this oil terminal and the aircraft were repelled by naval ships through its Anti Air Warfare(AAW) ammunitions, without causing any damage to them....
http://www.ijnhonline.org/2016/11/17/nature-and-impact-of-involvement-of-the-navy-in-the-nigerian-civil-war-1967-1970/

TheCabal:
You know this how ?

shukuokukobambi:


Honestly, I've not seeing a worse group of gullible and ignorant folks like those guys. How can any rational human believe the following lies if not for sheer stupidity?

Buy Biafra passport with 10,000 Nigerian naira to fly to USA from Lagos

Trump has promised to give independence to Biafra

Putin had promised to bomb Nigeria in retaliation for ipob deaths

80 countries have given recognition to Biafra and host their embassies

Buhari died since February and plastic surgery was done on another person to impersonate him

They still haven't realised that until their lawmakers raise the issue at the NASS, all those hungry miscreants chanting Biafra and getting shot on the streets will keep dying in vain. If only they can really get serious

Its a good thing no Christian cleric preaches suicide bombings. It'll have been easy to Manipulate them. If you doubt, check the cult of personality around the newest messiah they just got

laudate:


Misled? In what sense? It is sad that you have just quoted facts, but have not placed them in the proper context.

Crimea, Ukraine, Russia and other EU countries are located in Europe. If I needed to get news about any of these countries, would it not make sense to tune in to the likes of CNN International, BBC, Skynews etc.? Would I be seeking for news about these countries from NTA or VOA? Especially when they do not have reporters on ground in these countries, and when they lack a media bureau in those places?

I do not speak Russian, so surfing a Russian news channel would not help. Are you trying to say that you have never checked the Western media for news about Western nations? So what do you mean by 'misled?'

First of all, Crimea is populated by a mix of different nationalities, not just Russians. Both Ukraine and Crimea (when it was formerly under Ukraine) used to be part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.), before the soviet bloc broke up in 1991, into about 12 different independent Soviet republics. Russians are said to make up 58.3% of the Crimean population, followed by Ukrainians which make up 24.3% percent, then the indigenous Crimean Tatars which are now over 12% (but used to be 34%). Other ethnic groups are Belarusians, other Tatars and Armenians. So to say 90% of Crimeans are Russians, is wrong.

According to historical records, Crimea was part of old Russia in 1783, but was then transferred to Ukraine in 1954. Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev was a politician who led the Soviet Union during part of the Cold War. Khrushchev saw the transfer as a way of fortifying and perpetuating Soviet control over Ukraine.

Yes, Crimean legislature and the local government of Sevastopol (which were both subdivisions of Ukraine), had declared their independence in March 2014. But that was prior to Russia's annexation of the land. After this declaration they then opted to join Russia, through a referendum.

But then, the Ukrainian government, United States, European Union, and several other nations stated that "any referendum held by the local government of Crimea without the express authority of Ukraine is unconstitutional and illegitimate." It was also stated that Crimean authorities do not possess the legal jurisdiction to conduct it. How can a referendum be held by a district or a state within a country, without the express approval of that country's govt authorities? You sef, check am nah. For example, when Scotland held its referendum, was it done behind the back of the UK prime minister, or enacted without the approval or support of the UK authorities?

Even the advisory body of the Council of Europe, composed of independent experts in the field of constitutional law faulted the referendum. It declared that the referendum was illegal under both Ukrainian and Crimean Constitutions, and violated international standards and norms, because self-determination was to be enacted within the framework of the existing borders, and not as an external self-determination through secession. Moreover, any referendum on the status of a territory should have been preceded by serious negotiations among all stakeholders, and that such negotiations did not take place.

Just before Crimea declared independence, there was unrest in Ukraine as well as parts of Crimea which led to a military intervention by Russia in Crimea. It took place in the aftermath of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution and was part of wider unrest across southern and eastern Ukraine.



Now, I do not dispute the fact that your friend visited Crimea or Sevastopol. But I doubt if he sampled the opinions of a wide range of Crimeans drawn from different ethnic groups. If he spoke to the Russian citizens resident in the city, he would get a response that would be quite different from those held by the Crimean Tartars or those of other ethnic groups in Crimea, based on recent events that have taken place there.

There have been many reports of legitimately-owned assets of Crimean citizens and Ukrainian businessmen being seized by the state authorities in Crimea, after independence was declared and the entire territory was annexed by Russia. Are you saying those reports are false? Are you implying that those who have had their assets seized, are happy with the turn of events? Would such people not be disenchanted with the pro-Russian regime in power?

tooth4tooth:


The bolded is hilarious

OAUTemitayo:

The United States and Europe held that any referendum without the express approval of Ukraine is illegal?
What nonsense!
When America, Europe and NATO in general backed Kosovo forces to secede from Serbia did they seek approval from the Serbian government?
He'll no!.
Instead they launched airstrikes against Serbian military.
The people of Crimea didn't give Krushev the authority to transfer them to Ukraine so that argument holds no water.
And your 58% assumption is wrong.
I keep telling you to stop believing thrash told by BBC about Russia, it's junk.

According to the (2001 census), the ethnic makeup of Crimea's population consists of the following self-reported groups: Russians:1.18 million (58.3%), Ukrainians: 492,200 (24.3%), Crimean Tatars: 243,400 (12.0%), Belarusians: 29,200 (1.4%), other Tatars: 11,000 (0.5%), Armenians: 8,700 (0.4%). This combines the figures for the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, listing groups of more than 5,000 individuals. "Autonomous Republic of Crimea". 2001 Ukrainian Census. Retrieved 2014-03-24.; "Sevastopol". 2001 Ukrainian Census. Retrieved 2014-03-24 . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea#cite_note-5

laudate:


You call it ... nonsense??! Haba! Did you even read about the reasons they gave for disagreeing with the referendum? No, you just jumped in here to call it 'nonsense.' Anyway, since you have refused to free your mind and reason logically, who am I to disagree with you?

Nobody said that the people of Crimea gave Krushev the authority to transfer them to Ukraine. So where on earth did you get that idea from? Certainly, not from my post.

And the 58% population of Crimean citizens, who are cited as being Russians were not given by me. It was from a census conducted in Crimea in 2001.

laudate:


Ojukwu had....what? Which manpower and which oil? The same oil that he could not get any royalties from? The same oil that Shell agreed to remit its' proceeds to the Federal Govt?

You claim that Ojukwu lost the war because of the naval blockade. NO!! That was not the only reason. He lost the war due to his shortsightedness, megalomaniac tendencies, poor military strategies, failure to properly strategize and anticipate his opponents actions, failure to accept advice from well-meaning individuals within and outside his enclave, failure to distinguish between propaganda and reality, failure to recover from the currency changes carried out by the Nigerian govt during the war, failure to provide independent sources of food for his teeming Biafran population, inability to replenish weaponry and expended arms etc.

Just for the records, your theory about Nigeria lacking naval ships, is not totally accurate. They had a few ships which were retrofitted with weapons.

kingzizzy:
The above you posted was when Ojukwu was still Military Governor of the Eastern Region and still under Nigeria. What I meant about Ojukwu controlling the Oil was after he declared Biafra

kingzizzy:
What you posted about Nigerias Naval strenght and their ability to enforce a blockade is laughable. Another Lagos/Ibadan media concoction. The Nigerian Navy was just roughly 10 years old when the war began in 1967. Im sure they had some gun boats, rafts maybe even some small vessels. But they had no Warships to enforce a Naval blockade, not even close. To enforce a Naval blockade, one woould need Warship almost as large as the oceanliners that deliver and take goods. Gun boats cant do that.

British Warships blockaded Biafra, Russian Airplanes flown by Epyptian pilots gave Nigeria air superiority.

International intervention won the war for Nigeria. Nigeria has never won any war where they were not militarily supported by at least 2 nations. Had the international community stayed clear of the Nigerian/Biafran affair, their wiuld be no country called Nigeria today

laudate:


Bros, you have made some valid points, but please kindly let us keep things civil. The purpose of this thread is to give the pro-Biafra advocates some food for thought, and make them undergo a process of introspection. Anger and harsh words may derail that objective. Daalu zi!

jpphilips:


Thing is this; you can not reason logically with people who lack access to the store of objective reasoning, there are very few people here I talk to nicely because at least they have proved to be humans, most of these pro Igbos are majorly hawkers and spare parts dealers, in real life, i have no real ideological platform with them why should the internet be any different?

tinsel:

This is not senseless post. I am an Igbo man, and when I lie down and think of massive Igbo investments all over Nigeria and what will happen, I am gripped with fear. When I lie down and and think of massive exodus of Igbo's from Nigeria to biafra states I am gripped with fear.
During Abiola episode, I slept on road for two full days travelling from Lagos to Onitsha because of the exodus of the Igbos.
People doing this are children not beyond 20 years and people that has nothing to lose. They never owned anything in there whole life.
please we need to take it easy.

jpphilips:


The pro Biafra agitators are yet to realize that majority of folks with divergent views on Biafra here are Igbos, they take solace in branding them Yorubas, i just laugh at their misplaced identity. An Okada rider in a remote village in Abakiliki wants to decide the national fate of an Igbo who owns companies and interests world over, I feel sorry for most of those lvnatics, forgive my language I am not nice to !d!ots

kingzizzy:


Sorry bro but most Igbos dont share your sentiments. The war was forced on Ojukwu. It was far more incumbent on Gowon as head of state to prevent war than for Ojukwu.

Ojukwu was faced with two options. Bow down and accept Nothern domination like Awolowo and Yorubas did or rise up and fight for your sovereignty and freedom. Now which option did you expect an Igbo man like Ojukwu to choose?

kingzizzy:


Well, to be fair, IPOB are struggling to be finally rid of you Nigerians anyway

dyydxx:


apart from that the igbo elites would never leave there fate with Nmandi kanu. I have followed with keen interest the discussions between you and kingzizzy and the other extremely delusional pro biafra agitators. The level of ignorance is appalling and the fact that they revel in illusions and assumptions just make it tragically comical when you consider there are human lives involved. This exponential foolishness is on a scale that is disturbing and one wonders conditions that lead to this kind of thinking. it's just super sad.

deomelo:



No entity can force war on you, it's up to you to fight or be strategic by accessing your options, pros and cons, advantages and disadvantages and your odds. Why not wait till you are well prepared, well supplied and strong to boldly confront your enemy?


Going to war to war without tools to fight with, no food for your people to eat, no medicine to treat the injured with, no moral and material support by friends outside your borders is pure stupidity, recklessness, idiocy, foolishness and mental incompetence.


The new clown don't even have 1 AK 47 or 1 single truck load of food to sustain any friction or event.


Going to war based on sentiments and emotions is nothing but death wish.

dyydxx:


only Ojukwu 2.0 will make you see reason

In any case be man enough not to disguise as a woman and escape to Ivory Coast when you castles in the air all collapse with stark reality facing you. At least, since you are hell bent on towing ojukwu's path it's only smart you outdo him in courage and wait for your waterloo in stride

Personally, I do not believe that the Nigerian Governmebt will embark on some mass deportation exercise of Igbos when Biafra comes. I say this for the following reasons.

1) Biafra is most likely to be multi-ethnic:- Contrary to what some people may think Biafra may not be comprised of just Igbos. It is most likely to be multi-ethnic which means that any sort of deportation will have to take that into consideration.

2) The laws of Nigeria is that anyone born in Nigeria automatically becomes a Nigerian citizen regardless of where their parents come from. I know many Igbos who were born outside Igbo land in places like Lagos, Abuja, Kaduna etc. These Igbos cannot be deported because they are entitled to both Nigerian citizenship and dual citizenship.

3) Although Nigeria can insisit that all Igbos return to Biafra, doing so will damage Nigeria internationally

kingzizzy:


Hmmmmmm...... so you Nigerians are ready to go to war a second time in other to be with us?

kingzizzy:

If it was us, we would never go to war to be with you Nigerians as we dont think you people are important.

You should go and learn Nigerian history before saying these things.

The important thing here is that Ojukwu and Gowon had an agreement called the Aburi agreement. Gowon broke this agreement and Ojukwu declared Biafra. Gowon then declared war and sent troops to the East.

Is it while Nigerian troop are coming down to the East that Ojukwu waiting for 'perfect time' to fight? Ojukwu simply had to give it all he had and that is what he did for three years. Ojukwu never went to war, Nigeria brought war to Ojukwu.

laudate:


Point of correction. Nigerians only own less than half of the existing marginal oil fields. More than half of the oil blocks owned by Nigerians, are not even in production. The bulk of oil exploration and production (especially in deepwater) is controlled by the multinationals. Kindly crosscheck your facts.

kingzizzy:


You need to brush up on your Nigerian history. All the things you said in the above happend after the war already started except that of Awolowo who visited Ojukwu before Ojukwu declared Biafra. In that visit, Awolowo publicly said that if Igbo leave Nigeria, Yorubas would do the same. When Ojukwu seceded, insread of Awolowo to rally the Yoruba nation and fighting for their sovereignty, Awolowo as the typical 2 faced Nigerian politician he was accepted political position and started saluting Gowon who was young enough to be his son.

Ojukwu did everything he could to avoid war. [b]He went to Ghana and signed the Aburi agreement so that there would be peace, Gowon broke the agreement. Ojukwu offered Gowon referendum so that there would no war, Gowon said it must be 'one Nigeria'. Gowon then declared war and invaded Biafra. [/b]Ojukwu never went to war, war came Ojukwu. All Ojukwu did was fight to defend his people.

[quote author=laudate post=57133103]

And you need to let go of your propaganda. Unfortunately, this thread's objective is NOT the civil war, so I do not want to derail it. What Awolowo said was that "if the Igbo were allowed to secede or were pushed out, the Yorubas would be left with no option but to follow suit." The question is: were the Igbo allowed to secede or were they pushed out? NO. In fact, Gowon initiated a police action to compel Ojukwu to drop his secession plans and remain within Nigeria. Awolowo also begged this same Ojukwu to give him notice and rescind his stand on secession, because the South-west was still occupied by Northern soldiers.

As for the Aburi accord, a decree was enacted which would have given Ojukwu 80% of his demands that were made at Aburi. He rejected it because he was hell-bent on going to war. A wise man would have accepted that offer, and gone back to the negotiating table to ask for more. Just like Israel did, under Ben Gurion.

Ojukwu instigated the war by declaring secession. Even after it started, he was given options from several quarters to put an end to it. He refused. Only to turn round and abandon his people on the battlefield.

dyydxx:


The most unfortunate part of your claptrap is that you genuinely believe this your concoctions. it's only experience that will teach you guys. As Ag President Osinbajo rightly said only fools refuse to learn from history and need experience to learn what wise people see from afar.



Does this your statement even make any iota of sense. Anyway I would say this, when you have strong convictions on the direction a country should take and you have two unyielding divergent views, only a civil war would settle issues. I will remind you of the American Civil War where the late great Abraham Lincoln thought it was better to nip slavery in the bud and let it die a natural death rather than expand it into the New territories, the Southern Confederates vehemently disagreed and opted to unilaterally declare secession by taking over American Federal Government Assets, Abraham Lincoln would not yield and the rest is history

So sit back, relax and let the whole thing play out and to the victor goes the spoils.

kingzizzy:


Its quite unfortunate that Nigerians believe in going to war to preserve a mere British colonial contraption which they call their country. In more civilised countries, the question of unity is decided in referendum, not the battlefield.

Dont use the American civil war in relation to the Nigerian civil war. The American civil war was about ending slavery, the Nigerian civil was about propagating slavery. No wonder IPOB still agitate for freedom to this day

kingzizzy:


As I said before, Ojukwu was in a very good position to have won the war. Ojukwu had the support, manpower and the Oil. Had Ojukwu been able to export Oil and buy arms, food and other supplies, there is no magic that Nigeria could have done to win the war. The reason Ojukwu lost was the Naval blockade enforced by British Warships. In 1967, the Nigerian Navy was still in its infancy, It was just roughly 10 years old. Nigeria had no warship or even the technical know how even operate one. Nigeria did not acquire any Warship untill the 80's. Even now, Nigeria has no carriers and less than 5 Standard Warships. Warships cost hudreds of millions of Dollars. So when you say that Biafra was the weaker side, I laugh. The massive military support Nigeria got from Britain and Russia is what won the war for Nigeria.