Crimea is almost exclusively ethnic Russian. This [1] is from the 2013 Wiki page on Ukrainian demographics. The annexation polls in Crimea from 2014 were not fabricated or coerced, and their results were subsequently validated by numerous Western polling agencies, including Gallup [2].
That's the entire question of this war (and the one entirely absent from Western media). After the Russian leaning government in Ukraine was overthrown in 2014, those heavily Russian territories declared their independence, starting a civil war. Numerous efforts were made to resolve this were made (the Minsk accords), but went nowhere. Russia blamed Ukraine, Ukraine blamed Russia.
So who gets to decide the fate of a people within an area? The people within that area, or the government with historic claims to the land of the area? That's not a rhetorical question because the traditional answer has always been the latter - generally changed only by war or collapse.
But I think it's an important and fundamental one that must eventually be answered on a global scale if we ever want a peaceful world. At what scale does the right to self determination and rule begin? Obviously a household shouldn't be able to declare itself independent, but a city? County? State? Region?
Crimea has become almost exclusively Russian less than one hundred years ago.
Like in many other regions of the Soviet Union, that was done by force, i.e. by deporting or murdering the native inhabitants.
After bringing Russian colonists in all those regions, the Soviet Union frequently did not need to spend any money for them, because the Russian colonists have been installed directly in the houses vacated by their former owners, who were forced to leave almost all their belongings behind.
So when now the Russians from such territories recently colonized by the Soviet Union complain that the natives do not love them, or that they are discriminated, or that some country wants to maintain control over the colonized territory, while they want to unite with the Empire which gave them the land and houses stolen from others, there is no wonder that such Russian desires are hard to accept for the neighbors of Russia.
Thank you for saying this. Not to derail the conversation bThisut for people who deny something like this happens, is still ongoing in Tibet where the Chinese have or soon will outnumber Tibeteans.
People blast America all the time for its handling of natives in the past, but China typically gets a free pass in the present even though it's policy is no where near that of America's while being much worse.
My point wasn’t that. It was Hawaiins are Americans. Tibetans are Chinese. They are both ethnic minorities within a broader country. While you can look at this in a negative light Hawaiian and Tibetan culture gets diluted by the bigger Anglo and Han influences (respectively) you can also see it provides benefits geographical/economical mobility that was previously not possible. While freedom of movement is not quite the same in China (because of houkou) as it is in the US there are still huge economical opportunities for Tibetans in the SERs of China (Shenzhen, Shanghai, Tianjin). There are huge educational benefits in Beijing, Wuhan, Guangzhou.
Yes the invasion of Tibet was terrible (as was the annexation of Tibet from China before that), and the destruction of Tibetan culture is perhaps even worse, the same can be said for all cultures that have fallen under the guns/germs/steel civilisations. Saying China or the US is bad is kind of missing the point… it would have happened anyway.
Your comment is certainly true, but I think quite misleading to anybody who might not know the history here. The group you're referencing at the Crimean Tatars, a Turkic ethnic group, that were exiled under Stalin - with no relation to Ukraine or Ukrainians.
Today more Tatars live in Crimea than before the exile. Well, at least in modern history, if we go back to times of the Ottoman Empire, things get much more complex. And Russia remains the home of the majority of Tatars today, where they remain a large ethnic minority.
It's an important issue and certainly ironic, but not a direct factor in the current conflict.
You are right that those evacuated from Crimea were not Ukrainians.
This is also true for other regions that belong now to Ukraine, where other nationalities, for example Romanians or Poles or Slovaks, were the prior inhabitants, before being deported or killed and replaced with Russian colonists.
However my point was not about the prior inhabitants, but about the current Russian inhabitants, who protest that nobody should do to them much less than their grandfathers did two generations ago to the natives, by robbing them at gun point of everything they possessed.
Unlike other people, like the Germans, who have paid heavy reparations to their victims, and who have presented solemn apologies for the acts of their ancestors, the Russians have never acknowledged any wrong doing.
To whom Crimea should belong administratively is debatable, but Russia does not have any more rights than Ukraine.
For the neighbors of Russia, a Russian-occupied Crimea or any other regions of Ukraine that remain occupied by Russia are a danger, because there is no sign that Russia will ever stop from its policy of territorial expansion that has been carried on successfully for centuries, with only 2 setbacks, when Russia, after WWI and after 1990 has granted the right of auto-determination to its larger parts, and it was very surprised when everybody opted out.
After WWI, Russia has succeeded to reconquer back in a short time some of the defectors, and after WWII it recovered not only all the lost territories but it gained many more others, plus the vassal countries that were nominally independent but in fact were open for pillage in unbalanced economic relationships.
While all the other European countries appear to have abandoned a long time ago the medieval ideas that the best way for prosperity is to use war against the neighbors and occupy their lands, the Russian dictators remain addicted to such methods, so they remain a danger for all the neighbors of Russia.
This is a thoughtful comment that shouldn't be grayed (as it is at the time of my reading).
But it doesn't answer gp. Whatever an enlightened political philosophy debate might yield, Russia annexed Crimea by force at a time when it was not theirs. Full stop.
However good Russia's case was or however much a majority of the inhabitants wanted control to change, control was ultimately changed via unjustified means that should be rejected by the international community.
The proof of Russia's lack of genuine interest in the will of those people is how quickly it came in to start shooting. You don't resolve national break-ups in weeks or months (see, for example, the dissolution of Czechoslovakia).
Has Russia not been illegally Ukraine, trying to steal it's territory, and trying to destroy its culture since 2014?