U.S. Legal Theory on Ukraine's Dibs Tribes

Since President Obama has said that Russia is on the wrong side of history in regard to the Ukraine it is incumbent upon the apprentices of wisdom to understand what he meant by that. Minerva-the wise old owl of historical legend takes flights of fancy around the Ukraine and without a chip implant it’s difficult to track the right and wrong course.
 
The Ukraine is the Russian homeland. They expanded north and east to Moscow along the rivers. So o.k. possession is 9/10ths of the law and the post cold war Dibs Tribe has a claim to all of it with the support of the U.S. Government aligned with the principles of the Plutocrat tribe of which Rush Limbaugh and Barrack Obama are members and aspiring members. Like the Perfects of  Cathars adapted to the evil side of the choice they are examples for the rest of us on right and wrongness in expanding  post-Soviet Dibs tribal lands.
 

Yet until 1918 when Trotsky and Lenin gave up the Ukraine to Germany in order to have peace and a little freedom to consolidate Soviet development the Ukraine was Russian for most of history. When the Treaty of Versailles was made later in 1918 the Soviet Union was given back the Eastern half of the Ukraine and the Dibs tribe took only the western half. That was the situation until Adolph Hitler’s Nazis invaded and conquered all of the Ukraine during the Second World War. Then the Russians with Soviet leaders that were themselves something of an illegal government the United States had sent troops to fight during the Russian Civil war defeated the Nazis and took the Ukraine back . The Dibs tribe was smoldering.
 

When the Soviet Union expired at last in 1991 there was no government. In theory while the new post-Soviet government was starting up there should have been a conservatorship on the lands of the former Soviet Union able to adjudicate with merit territorial claims. At any rate the Ukraine declared independence yet if there had been a Russian government strong enough to defend its right to the Ukraine obviously they would not have acquiesced in that choice. Freedom of choice politically speaking means being able to disagree with the Dibs tribe and even the U.S. Government now and then.
 

So the legal theory of the U.S. administration is that no part of the Ukraine has a right to revolt from the Dibs tribe that can be purchased for the Plutocracy. The end of revolutionary history occurs when the Dibs have Perfected global financial networking for the 1% The Crimea has no right of independence much less would the Russian Federation have a right to assert its historical possession of the Ukraine or even the western half although the last fair and impartial international body that adjudicated that dispute recognized that Russia in any form-even the losing Soviet side, had a right to the eastern half of the Ukraine.

 

The right side of history would seem to be that the eastern side of the Ukraine is Russian and the western half for pragmatic reason belongs to the Dibs tribe. The Obama administration has different values of right and wrong than most people however, as we have experienced in the U.S.A.