The United States themselves give Alaska to Russia

Hello ATS!

In the information space of Russia, the topic of the fact that the Treaty on the Cession of Russian Territories in North America has not yet been finalized is very popular. It all started with the fact that the head of the Border Service of the FSB of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Kulishov, recalled that Russia and the United States still do not have a legally formalized state border. And this situation is connected with the peculiarities of the convention on the cession of Alaska.

I want to remind you, dear ATS-ers, in 1867 the government of the Russian Emperor Alexander II signed an agreement with the government of the United States, according to which they ceded Russian possessions in northwestern America. The new border between the two countries was defined at an equal distance between the islands of Ratmanov and Kruzenshtern. These islands are located in the Bering Strait and are located at a distance of less than 4 km from each other.

The midpoint between them was chosen as the starting point for drawing a straight line to the north, along the Bering Sea, and to the south, along the Chukchi Sea. This line was defined as the Russian-American border. Thus, the middle point between the islands of Ratmanov and Krusenstern became the starting point for establishing the border of the two countries.

However, no map of the new borders was attached to the treaty. It simply wasn't made up. The text of the agreement did not indicate which particular cartographic projection should be used to establish midpoints, to draw straight lines on the map. In cartography, there are two types of projections - Mercator and conformal. Depending on their application, the boundary line on the map can differ significantly.

Therefore, it remains unclear where exactly the boundary should be drawn. And until it is determined, the contract on the cession of Alaska cannot be considered fully formalized. An agreement on the cession of territories is considered fully formalized only after the establishment of new interstate borders.

So far, the border line has not been approved. You will ask why? Russians believe that the fault of the United States. For centuries, the United States made no secret of its plans for the future, namely, to appropriate part of the Russian Far East. Therefore, they were in no hurry to establish the border.

In 1990, Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze (the future president of Georgia, who tried to sell off the territories of the USSR) and US Secretary of State James Baker finally signed an agreement on the state border. This treaty divided the maritime space in the Bering and Chukchi Seas. The agreement had an unequal character, since assumed significant concessions from the USSR.

By law, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea assigned to the USSR a sea area stretching 200 nautical miles (370.4 km) from its coast. Shevardnadze wanted to give the United States part of this water area with an area of ​​77.7 thousand km². He almost gave away a territory comparable to the territory of the Czech Republic or Austria. This concession could deprive Russia of deposits of 200 million tons of oil and 200 billion m³ of gas, as well as the ability to annually catch 500 thousand tons of fish and crabs.

For this reason, first the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and then the Russian parliament refused to ratify the unfavorable agreement. They did not allow the treaty to come into legal force.

In the 1990s, Washington had the opportunity to put pressure on Moscow and push through an agreement that was beneficial to it. However, he did not. The United States continued to claim the territory of the Far East, and the agreement on the state border provided for the rejection of these claims.

Continued below...

Well, as a "control shot", in 1999 the Alaska Parliament adopted a resolution in which it refused to recognize the border established by Shevardnadze and Baker. Quote from the resolution:

"The proposed treaty shall be annulled and new negotiations shall be held with the participation of the State of Alaska, and the terms of the new agreement relating to the territory, sovereignty or property of the State of Alaska shall be accepted only with the consent of that state."

Naturally, this could not have happened without instructions from the US Federal Government. The point was to formally present territorial claims to Russia. The 1999 resolution openly stated that the Russian islands off the coast of Chukotka and Kamchatka "historically belong" to Alaska.

And then territorial appetites played a cruel joke on the United States. As always, let down by greed. The fact is that the state sovereignty is prescribed in the constitution of Alaska and the sovereignty of the Alaskan nation is proclaimed. Only that nation has the right to dispose of the state's natural resources. They have been declared public property. Given these facts, the resolution of the Alaska Parliament created a new legal situation.

This means that the federal government does not have the right to issue an addition to the 1867 convention, which it also signed. Then it will turn out that the federal government has ceased to be a party to the agreement on the cession of Alaska. This means that the contract itself can be recognized as invalid.

This is the legal situation.

Thank you.

map or it didn't happen.

a reply to: RussianTroll

a reply to: RussianTroll

US legal system is a little corrupt, good luck
Guessing the Russian legal system is a little corrupt as well, oligarchs and politicians will fleece the people who need the resources and everyone gets screwed

a reply to: RussianTroll


A bridge too far.

Haven't you got enough on your plate?

a reply to: 19Bones79

Not really, few months back RT was alleging Russia would take and occupy Northern California, the Island of Hawaii, as well as Alaska.

Im not quite sure what he is smoking, but its apt to be rather potent stuff.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: 19Bones79

Not really, few months back RT was alleging Russia would take and occupy Northern California, the Island of Hawaii, as well as Alaska.

And I'm the last king of Scotland.

Alaska Purchase
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Following the end of the American Civil War, U.S. Secretary of State William Seward entered into negotiations with Russian minister Eduard de Stoeckl for the purchase of Alaska. Seward and Stoeckl agreed to a treaty on March 30, 1867, and the treaty was ratified by the United States Senate by a wide margin.

I realize it is the "end thing" to try and rewrite history in these modern times.. China seems to be a champion of the "rewrite" as I read not long ago how they had their eyes on Vladivostok as part of its territory...

Vladivostok used to be a part of China. They claim it was Qing’s Manchurian homeland but was annexed by the Russian empire in 1860 after China was defeated by the British and the French during the Second Opium war.

The history of Vladivostok (literally ‘Ruler of the East’) is from 1860 when Russia built a military harbor. But the city was Haishenwai as Chinese land, before Russia annexed it via unequal Treaty of Beijing.”

tfipost.com...

So how far back you want to go ? At least the USA paid for Alaska and the Russians too the money so it would appear the deal was done... Not so much with Vladivostok..

IMO China will use you until your usefulness does not outweigh their conquest and expansionist needs; just saying... If you are not Han Chinese you ain't much... just ask any of the minorities that still reside in China .

a reply to: 19Bones79

Good movie as well, better than this gibberish.

a reply to: andy06shake

Don't forget his various claims that Russia would also be nuking the UK, carrying out terrorist attacks on the UK and also invading the UK.
His credibility is at an all time low.....
He just likes to stir the hornets nest and wind people up....it doesn't work very well but sometimes I choose to humour the guy because I can't help but like him despite him peddling so much utter bollocks in the last two or three months.

I'd suggest he should be more concerned about matters closer to home; rumours have it that its only a matter of time before the Chinese Dragon swoops on Russian Manchuria and other areas it is keen to (re)gain control over.

a reply to: Freeborn

Strange way to release stress but if it works for him I'm not one to steal the jam out his Doughnut nether as he is harmless enough with at least a modicum of entertainment value to be had now and again.

Thinks im a "Nazi" all the same.

Russia sold Alaska because they were strapped for cash and Alaska at that time was a territory they couldn't exploit for resources or defend. Much like the remaining 4/5ths of Ukraine today.

This is a common Russian negotiation tactic to bring up any and all past grievances and disputes real or imagined.

this article from the Grunge is an excellent synopsis I wonder RT's thoughts.

www.grunge.com...

Russia had problems internationally, too, and it got especially bad in the 1850s when Russia clashed with France, Turkey, and Britain in the Crimean War, which was really about religious differences and control of access to religious places in the Holy Land. What exactly did that have to do with Alaska? Well, during the conflict, the opposition controlled all of the sea routes, and the Russians were very rightly afraid that they would be cut off completely from their North American territory. 

According to History, the Crimean War raged for three years and by the end of it, Russia had lost 500,000 troops and its economy was in ruins. It began to fear that its possession of Alaska made it vulnerable — it was clearly unable to afford to send supplies to the colonists anymore, and it wouldn't be able to defend them against an attack, either. Russia needed a military presence along the Pacific coast, but given the state of things after the Crimean War, it just wasn't something they could afford to do. And Britain and the Unites States were already showing signs of infringing on Russian territory — their whaling ships frequented the waters controlled by the Russian-American Company, creating a unique new problem. Parting with Alaska was starting to sound like a pretty good idea.

SO WHY DIDN'T THEY JUST SELL ALASKA TO CANADA?

It seems it like it would make a certain amount of logical sense to sell your unwanted piece of property to the people who own the land adjacent to your unwanted piece of property. In the case of Alaska, that adjacent border stretched 1,538 miles, so it kind of seems like a no-brainer. Unfortunately, though, it wasn't that simple — it's not like Russia could just go round to Justin Trudeau's house and strike up a deal over poutine and a Yukon Jack. No, because at the time, there was no Justin Trudeau and Canada wasn't even Canada.

According to How Stuff Works, during the late 1850s, when Russia seriously began to ponder this idea, Canada was basically still Britain. And you already know how Russia felt about Britain so soon after Britain kicked its fur-clad butt during the Crimean War. 

There were regrets, though. The sale of Alaska to the United States included an area called the Alaska Panhandle, which was a narrow coastal region rich in fish with no established border. Four years after the purchase, Canada was all, "Hey, we need to know where that border is," and America was all "No, that would cost too much," and then the Klondike gold rush happened and Canada was all, "Hey, we really need to know where that border is." And then it degraded into an argument about the definition of "coastline." The dispute was eventually settled by a tribunal.



Read More: www.grunge.com...

The article goes further to Russian needs, concerns, and motives contemporaneous to the times.

On the other hand, during the 1850s, just after the Crimean War, Russia was actually pretty friendly with the United States. That's kind of hard to believe, right? Well, it wasn't because the two governments were especially chummy or anything, it was because American newspapers mostly came out in support of Russia during the Crimean War. America even sent weapons and supplies to Russian troops, so Russia figured that America, in general, was probably going to be friendlier to the Russian cause than it was to Britain's cause. After all, Britain had suffered two defeats at the hands of America in the past century, and some of those old animosities still lingered. And the fact that Britain was still doing the whole imperialism thing was another strike against it — both Russia and America saw British imperialism as a not-very-good-thing to have on the world stage.

So as far as potential allies were concerned, Britain was pretty much out, and America was maybe kind of sort of in. So the decision to sell Alaska to America was as much a strategic one as it was a financial one. Also, it was fun for the Russians to mess with the Brits. "From the Russian point of view, the deal made a lot of sense," historian Susan Smith-Peter told the New York Times. "They could irritate Britain, and they could have a closer relationship with the United States."

Read More: www.grunge.com...

a reply to: RussianTroll

Let’s do a little history test. Did the USSR jointly invade Poland at the start of WWII in conjunction with Nazi Germany…

At a press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on May 10, 2015, Putin defended the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, claiming that the Soviet Union was being left to face Hitler’s Germany by itself. Russia’s culture minister Vladimir Medinsky called the pact a "colossal achievement of Stalin’s diplomacy."

Then on September 20, 2015, Russia’s ambassador to Venezuela Vladimir Zayemsky claimed that the Soviet Union did not invade Poland on Sept 17, 1939 and that it was in fact Poland, not the USSR, that collaborated with Nazi Germany. He wrote that “the alleged invasion by Soviet forces of Poland in 1939 is a lie” and went on to claim that although Poland was the first victim of WWII, it tried to be “Hitler’s faithful ally” in the period before the War. “It was Warsaw’s pro-fascist stand which made a treaty of cooperation between the USSR, Czechoslovakia and France impossible”, he alleged. The same offensive attempts to rewrite history were presented by Russia’s ambassador to Poland Sergey Andreyev a few days later, speaking on Polish television.

khpg.org...

Please forgive if I don’t give a damn about the Russian propaganda you vomit…..

Russia should come and take it with their world class military.

Article by Vladimir Putin ”The 25th APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting in Danang: Together Towards Prosperity and Harmonious Development“

November 8, 2017 21:00

....................
For Russia, the development of our Far East is a national priority for the 21st century.
....................

en.kremlin.ru...


So you can sleep well.

We will come for Alaska in the 22nd century.

a reply to: turretless

Well that's a bit apathetic.

What's up, can Vladimir not get his skates on?

originally posted by: andy06shake
Well that's a bit apathetic.

What's up, can Vladimir not get his skates on?

It's going to take that long to get the T-14 ready and the Soviet Smokeski carrier back in action.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: turretless

Well that's a bit apathetic.

People sitting on their small warm European lands cannot imagine what a labor feat must be accomplished in order to develop the vast northern lands of Russia. I think only Canadians can imagine this because they are in similar conditions.

Therefore, there is nothing "apathetic" here.

a reply to: turretless

More than 60% of Russia is underlain by permafrost turretless half of the place is near enough uninhabitable, good luck making it all warm and cozy.

As to Canada well about 80% of its land is uninhabited, with most Canadians living in a handful of large cities.

Either way i don't see Russia acquiring Alaska anytime soon, certainly not by force.

If in doubt well Ukraine is about 70 miles distant and you cant take that.