3 ms·

I'm no expert in Ukrainian demographics so I won't weigh in too much on that. I will however say this much: what makes the situation of any Russian neighbour d

I'm no expert in Ukrainian demographics so I won't weigh in too much on that. I will however say this much: what makes the situation of any Russian neighbour difficult is the Russian history of forced relocations and genocide, Russian imperialism and irredentism, and their lack of any resemblance of fair elections and referendums. Russian modus operandi is forced russification. So if you move enough ethnic Russians to Crimea so that they have majority over native Tatars, you can simply annex it at will? I definitely understand if there are opinions to both directions on that topic.

pydry 4y ago
>So if you move enough ethnic Russians to Crimea so that they have majority over native Tatars, you can simply annex it at will? If it happened in the 19th century I think so. At some point you have to simply accept that the democraphics changed and the sins of the ancestors arent the sins of the descendants and the descendants are just as deserving of democracy as anyone else. A group of Serbs rather famously didnt subscribe to this view and committed genocide on Bosnians in the 90s to avenge what the ottomans "did to them" in, like, the 1700s. To be consistent with the notion that historical lands belong to historical residents you'd have to cancel democracy and give back the United States to the native americans (or mexicans, even). Do you believe in just handing back the United States to the people whom they genocided when they took it over and letting them rule? I suspect not. I dont. Most people dont. The awkwardness of this double standard on closer inspection underscores the fact that what you espouse here is less of a moral principle and more of a geopolitical gang sign, even though you might not realize it.