4 ms·

Indeed. East-Ukrainian polls pre-invasion showed roughly 30% supported secession. Crimea was the most interesting since it actually had the legal structure in

by 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.

by mtrimpe 12y ago

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.