4 ms·

Not Ukraine. Crimea could have conceivably voted to leave, if they were given a fair vote -- they were not. As for Eastern Ukraine, there is far smaller Russian

Not Ukraine. Crimea could have conceivably voted to leave, if they were given a fair vote -- they were not. As for Eastern Ukraine, there is far smaller Russian support there and any talks of federalization or referendums is an attempt by the Russian side to repeat the Crimean takeover. The only referendum Russians will allow is another "occupendum", and if Ukraine tried hosting a fair one, Russia would do anything to undermine it, discredit the results and then invade anyways. Russia's goal is to destabilize the country, best course of action is to stand firmly in union, not play Russian games, which everyone seems to lose.

mtrimpe 12y ago
Indeed. East-Ukrainian polls pre-invasion showed roughly 30% supported secession. Crimea was the most interesting since it actually had the legal structure in place for a secession and if a proper referendum had been held it would actually have been a close call. What happened was not actually a proper referendum though; even Russia's own internal sources indicated an actual turnout of only about 35% which is nowhere near enough to qualify for the legal way of seceding from Ukraine.
- guard-of-terra 12y ago
  even Russia's own internal sources indicated an actual turnout of only about 35%[citation needed] For Crimea, this referendum was like the real second coming of Christ for the bible belt of US of A. Would be surprised.
  - mtrimpe 12y ago
    Just like there's more to the US of A than it's bible belt; there's more to Crimea than the ethnic Russians in Sevastopol. Here is an article of the leaked document I was referring to: http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/05/05/putins-human-rights-council-accidentally-posts-real-crimean-election-results-only-15-voted-for-annexation/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/05/05/p... The Forbes article isn't fair in that the polls indicated 55% in favor and a turnout of 30-50%, but it's to be expected that those that voted disproportionately voted in favor so the final tally of 22.5% voting in favor is probably not accurate. It's also important to keep in mind that the current faux-referendum was not about independence but joining Russia. Independence would have gotten much more votes, also from the Tatar population. What most people forget is that the Tatars were forcibly removed from Crimea in a mass deportation/genocide under Stalin and returned to Crimea, their original homeland, after the fall of the Soviet empire. They were understandably wary of accession to Russia, rightfully so since Russia almost immediately barred their main leader from (re-)entering Crimea, and would never have voted in favor of the referendum.
    - guard-of-terra 12y ago
      Interesting article, thanks for the read. http://www.president-sovet.ru/structure/gruppa_po_migratsionnoy_politike/materialy/problemy_zhiteley_kryma.php http://www.president-sovet.ru/structure/gruppa_po_migratsion... "Independence would have gotten much more votes" I doubt this is true. Russians are not accustomised to living in tiny independent states. This is a dream of a few national theorists, to peacefully split Russia into more manageable states with local transparent government, more responsible fiscal policy - but there's not much ground under this idea. There is no "Crimean nation" to build a successful state on. Sadly, most off-block small states won't know what to do with their independence and will be forced to side up with some larger state sooner or later. And tatars are a minority. A significant minority which is at risk of civil war and ethnic cleansings in the suggested independent state. Which they may eventually even win, but I think they seen enough pain already.
      - mtrimpe 12y ago
        I meant that independence, whether just greater autonomy or full independence, would have been able to capture the ethnic Ukrainian and Tatar vote in a way accession to Russia never could. From what I understood Crimea was already very independent so it was already more a matter of degrees either way... You're absolutely right though that independence would have meant becoming dependent on Russian influence in practice (which is what the world expected and why everyone was so shocked by the annexation.)
        guard-of-terra 12y ago
        "independence, whether just greater autonomy or full independence, would have been able to capture the ethnic Ukrainian and Tatar vote" Yes it's possible to vote for greater autonomy, but how to make sure it is granted? Crimea has already voted this greater autonomy in the 90s - and it was promptly ignored by Ukraine. Regarding independence - why would Crimean Ukrainians vote for it? They are content being part of Ukraine. Why would Tatars vote for independence of tiny state where they will still be a minority, maybe even the persecuted minority. Much safer bet is any stable large state. Why would Russians vote for independence? They don't consider themself "Crimeans", rather they consider themself Russians. "which is what the world expected and why everyone was so shocked by the annexation" You see the problem right here. World expects independent puppet states to be created, because that's how it works in the modern world. But this arrangement will be harmful to actual people living in Crimea. And that's what matters here. Also I should remind that the situation in Crimea (and the conflict in Ukraine too) is not purely ethnic; many ethnic Ukrainians are pro-Russian, and some Russians are pro-Ukraine. It's not even ideological divide, rather different views on past and future history of the place.
myth_drannon 12y ago
Cremea voted to be independent of Ukraine in 1991, it was invaded by Ukrainian forces during the referendum and after. I't just that Russia had it's own problems back then and didn't have the ability to deal with local conflicts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_sovereignty_referendum,_1991 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_sovereignty_referendum,...
tim333 12y ago
Ukraine is something of a mess but in principle both sides could treat the ethnically Russian eastern areas a bit like the UK treats Scotland, as semi independent and able to choose if they want to go fully independent or not. In practice both sides seem more set on trying to control the area militarily, unfortunately. Though Putin does seem to be moving that way.
- mtrimpe 12y ago
  The geopolitics in Ukraine are quite different though. Right now they're focusing two things: a) maintaining control over as much territory as possible, given Russia's original goals [1] and the huge importance a land-bridge to Crimea has to Russia (imagine having to ship water, food and oil for 2.5mln people by sea.) b) preventing a Georgia-style frozen conflict, which is Russia's preferred technique of destabilization lately. It seems they have only just given up on b) but they're still working very hard on a). Either way; I doubt there are many parallels with Scotland at this stage of the conflict. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiya http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiya

mtrimpe 12y ago

Indeed. East-Ukrainian polls pre-invasion showed roughly 30% supported secession. Crimea was the most interesting since it actually had the legal structure in place for a secession and if a proper referendum had been held it would actually have been a close call. What happened was not actually a proper referendum though; even Russia's own internal sources indicated an actual turnout of only about 35% which is nowhere near enough to qualify for the legal way of seceding from Ukraine.

guard-of-terra 12y ago
even Russia's own internal sources indicated an actual turnout of only about 35%[citation needed] For Crimea, this referendum was like the real second coming of Christ for the bible belt of US of A. Would be surprised.
- mtrimpe 12y ago
  Just like there's more to the US of A than it's bible belt; there's more to Crimea than the ethnic Russians in Sevastopol. Here is an article of the leaked document I was referring to: http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/05/05/putins-human-rights-council-accidentally-posts-real-crimean-election-results-only-15-voted-for-annexation/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/05/05/p... The Forbes article isn't fair in that the polls indicated 55% in favor and a turnout of 30-50%, but it's to be expected that those that voted disproportionately voted in favor so the final tally of 22.5% voting in favor is probably not accurate. It's also important to keep in mind that the current faux-referendum was not about independence but joining Russia. Independence would have gotten much more votes, also from the Tatar population. What most people forget is that the Tatars were forcibly removed from Crimea in a mass deportation/genocide under Stalin and returned to Crimea, their original homeland, after the fall of the Soviet empire. They were understandably wary of accession to Russia, rightfully so since Russia almost immediately barred their main leader from (re-)entering Crimea, and would never have voted in favor of the referendum.
  - guard-of-terra 12y ago
    Interesting article, thanks for the read. http://www.president-sovet.ru/structure/gruppa_po_migratsionnoy_politike/materialy/problemy_zhiteley_kryma.php http://www.president-sovet.ru/structure/gruppa_po_migratsion... "Independence would have gotten much more votes" I doubt this is true. Russians are not accustomised to living in tiny independent states. This is a dream of a few national theorists, to peacefully split Russia into more manageable states with local transparent government, more responsible fiscal policy - but there's not much ground under this idea. There is no "Crimean nation" to build a successful state on. Sadly, most off-block small states won't know what to do with their independence and will be forced to side up with some larger state sooner or later. And tatars are a minority. A significant minority which is at risk of civil war and ethnic cleansings in the suggested independent state. Which they may eventually even win, but I think they seen enough pain already.
    - mtrimpe 12y ago
      I meant that independence, whether just greater autonomy or full independence, would have been able to capture the ethnic Ukrainian and Tatar vote in a way accession to Russia never could. From what I understood Crimea was already very independent so it was already more a matter of degrees either way... You're absolutely right though that independence would have meant becoming dependent on Russian influence in practice (which is what the world expected and why everyone was so shocked by the annexation.)
      - guard-of-terra 12y ago
        "independence, whether just greater autonomy or full independence, would have been able to capture the ethnic Ukrainian and Tatar vote" Yes it's possible to vote for greater autonomy, but how to make sure it is granted? Crimea has already voted this greater autonomy in the 90s - and it was promptly ignored by Ukraine. Regarding independence - why would Crimean Ukrainians vote for it? They are content being part of Ukraine. Why would Tatars vote for independence of tiny state where they will still be a minority, maybe even the persecuted minority. Much safer bet is any stable large state. Why would Russians vote for independence? They don't consider themself "Crimeans", rather they consider themself Russians. "which is what the world expected and why everyone was so shocked by the annexation" You see the problem right here. World expects independent puppet states to be created, because that's how it works in the modern world. But this arrangement will be harmful to actual people living in Crimea. And that's what matters here. Also I should remind that the situation in Crimea (and the conflict in Ukraine too) is not purely ethnic; many ethnic Ukrainians are pro-Russian, and some Russians are pro-Ukraine. It's not even ideological divide, rather different views on past and future history of the place.

myth_drannon 12y ago

Cremea voted to be independent of Ukraine in 1991, it was invaded by Ukrainian forces during the referendum and after. I't just that Russia had it's own problems back then and didn't have the ability to deal with local conflicts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_sovereignty_referendum,_1991 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_sovereignty_referendum,...

tim333 12y ago

Ukraine is something of a mess but in principle both sides could treat the ethnically Russian eastern areas a bit like the UK treats Scotland, as semi independent and able to choose if they want to go fully independent or not. In practice both sides seem more set on trying to control the area militarily, unfortunately. Though Putin does seem to be moving that way.

mtrimpe 12y ago
The geopolitics in Ukraine are quite different though. Right now they're focusing two things: a) maintaining control over as much territory as possible, given Russia's original goals [1] and the huge importance a land-bridge to Crimea has to Russia (imagine having to ship water, food and oil for 2.5mln people by sea.) b) preventing a Georgia-style frozen conflict, which is Russia's preferred technique of destabilization lately. It seems they have only just given up on b) but they're still working very hard on a). Either way; I doubt there are many parallels with Scotland at this stage of the conflict. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiya http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiya