3 ms·

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 acce

by 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.
- mtrimpe 12y ago
  I think we're pretty much on the exact same page, just using different interpretations of terminology. I'm not that sure accession was better for Crimea though, since international tourism has all but dried up and after giving it a try this year Russians will be right back in Turkey next year... but that's just debating the finer points of punditry.
  - guard-of-terra 12y ago
    Maybe it wasn't. They will surely have to live thru several hard years, maybe even regret they ever did this. But now this accession has a point. I don't think Crimea had much international tourism. When I checked two years ago, Crimea didn't have single plane or train scheduled from Poland, for example. It had some connections to hubs like Frankfurt, but I doubt many non-ex-USSR people ever considered Crimea. As for Russians, they always were the bulk of visitors. In the summer, trains from Moscow to Crimea departed like every 20 minutes, and you could meet all kinds of Moscow friends on the streets. This year, a lot of railway service were disrupted, understandably. I hope it returns once. I think that mainland Ukrainians will visit Crimea too once the situation stabilizes.

by mtrimpe 12y ago

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.

mtrimpe 12y ago
I think we're pretty much on the exact same page, just using different interpretations of terminology. I'm not that sure accession was better for Crimea though, since international tourism has all but dried up and after giving it a try this year Russians will be right back in Turkey next year... but that's just debating the finer points of punditry.
- guard-of-terra 12y ago
  Maybe it wasn't. They will surely have to live thru several hard years, maybe even regret they ever did this. But now this accession has a point. I don't think Crimea had much international tourism. When I checked two years ago, Crimea didn't have single plane or train scheduled from Poland, for example. It had some connections to hubs like Frankfurt, but I doubt many non-ex-USSR people ever considered Crimea. As for Russians, they always were the bulk of visitors. In the summer, trains from Moscow to Crimea departed like every 20 minutes, and you could meet all kinds of Moscow friends on the streets. This year, a lot of railway service were disrupted, understandably. I hope it returns once. I think that mainland Ukrainians will visit Crimea too once the situation stabilizes.