If Russia's claim to Crimea legitamate?

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

I don't see how people can say Russia's annexation of Crimea was illegitimate. If 93% of Crimea wants to be with Russia, why should the government of Ukraine have the right to hold on to them? Isn't the land supposed to belong to the people of the country, not the government?

[ag]

I don't see how people can say Russia's annexation of Crimea was illegitimate. If 93% of Crimea wants to be with Russia, why should the government of Ukraine have the right to hold on to them? Isn't the land supposed to belong to the people of the country, not the government?

Well, you know, 174%  of your family members wants you to move to Bujumbura, but you still have not done so.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What does 'legitimate' even mean in this context? What it was was a military conquest; i.e. historically the usual way that international boundaries have changed, but vaguely frowned on these days.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't see how people can say Russia's annexation of Crimea was illegitimate. If 93% of Crimea wants to be with Russia, why should the government of Ukraine have the right to hold on to them? Isn't the land supposed to belong to the people of the country, not the government?

Well, you know, 174%  of your family members wants you to move to Bujumbura, but you still have not done so.

You are a proud internationalist, your opinion means nothing to me.

Great debating skills you got here.

[2952-0-0]

[Simfan34]

What does 'legitimate' even mean in this context? What it was was a military conquest; i.e. historically the usual way that international boundaries have changed, but vaguely frowned on these days.

If 93% of a country wish to be under another country's rule, should they not have the right? Is the country that keeps them not essentially holding them captive?

Yes, but what if I told you 93% (or 97%, as it was) did not actually vote for such a thing? What if I told the vote was-- gasp-- rigged!

I can completely believe that a majority of Crimeans would have voted to reunify with Russia, which is something all statistical survey can support-- just not by this amount!

[ingemann]

Hitler also build rail roads, motorways, banned smoking near pregnant women, lowered unemployment and successful implemented health policies. Are you suggesting these projects and policies are inherent wrong because the Nazi embraced them? The Sudentenland deal was bad because Hitler use it to annex the rest of Czechia shortly after, not because Sudentenland became German.

As for the question, no the Russian claim to Crimea are not legitimate, because according to international law Crimea is Ukrainian. Of course if we decides to follow international law strictly Kosovo is Serbian.

I personal find this issue hard, because while a majority of people on Crimea want to become Russian in my view, we have no real evidence that it's correct, the referendum was neither free and fair, it was something which happen after the Russian occupation, and moreso Russia would use any compromises to push further.

[TNF]

The people of Crimea have expressed their desire to be part of Russia, and that should be respected, period.

[YL]

Well, the vote in question was in a referendum with no proper electoral register, in the immediate aftermath of an invasion, and with a bizarre team of international observers dominated by charming people like Jobbik.  So, no.

[dead0man]

The people of Crimea may want to be part of Russia, and maybe that could happened in a controlled way, with monitored voting and what have you.



....but the asshats in Crimea and Russia that wanted it went about it the worst possible way, quite clearly LYING the entire freaking time to the world about it and are doing the same thing elsewhere in the country Crimea technically belongs too.  That's bad, so obviously bad, that I don't understand how people can defend it with a straight face.

[ag]

What does 'legitimate' even mean in this context? What it was was a military conquest; i.e. historically the usual way that international boundaries have changed, but vaguely frowned on these days.

If 93% of a country wish to be under another country's rule, should they not have the right? Is the country that keeps them not essentially holding them captive?

And every single Pennsylvanian has expressed a wish to move to Siberia. Why are you still not there?

[ag]

Well, the vote in question was in a referendum with no proper electoral register, in the immediate aftermath of an invasion, and with a bizarre team of international observers dominated by charming people like Jobbik.  So, no.

I should add, that no actual results of the vote count were reported: the few numbers that were made public, most likely, were not based on actually counted the votes.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

It's not. They lost it after they fell in the early 90's fair and square. It's Ukrainian

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I love that people are citing that referendum as valid. I guess Robert Mugabe must be quite popular too, he keeps winning elections!

[Zioneer]

The referendum was rigged, Russian soldiers were sent in DURING THE VOTE, and moreover the Tartars (a significant minority group in Crimea) abstained from voting on it. Thus it is an illegitimate claim.

Now if everything had been done through the proper channels without Russian interference, then yes, it would be legitimate. I think that the Crimeans would easily vote to be part of Russia. But the means by which the referendum was done means that the claim that Crimea is now part of Russia is illegitimate.

[pho]

That's for the Crimean people to determine on their own and they very clearly have. Regardless of what I think about the legitamacy of Russia's claim to Crimea, I support Crimea's right to self-determination.

[PJ]

The people of Crimea have expressed their desire to be part of Russia, and that should be respected, period.

Have a majority of them, though? People in Scotland arguably expressed their desire to be independent by electing the SNP to the Scottish Parliament, yet when a referendum was actually held, a majority voted against. I'd like to see the right of the Crimean people to self-determination respected, but there were so many problems with the referendum that it wasn't really respected in this case.

[dead0man]

I had no idea 1/3rd of this place was pro-Russian.  The few defenders of this position we have posting seem to keep ignoring the posts pointing out that the freaking Russian military invaded the place.  Odd that.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

But the means by which the referendum was done means that the claim that Crimea is now part of Russia is illegitimate.

No, no, the Crimea is very clearly part of Russia now and there's no particular point in denying that (unless you're a diplomat or something). But it was incorporated into the Russian state in a manner that is no longer regarded as entirely proper (even if it was historically just the way things were done), a fact not changed (not one bit) by the hilariously crass rubber stamping via questionable plebiscite.

[The Free North]

Crimea belonged to the Russia SSR until 1954 when Khrushchev gave it to the Ukranian SSR.

[DavidB.]

Yes, it is. The referendum was obviously rigged, and its timing was unfortunate (to say the least), but as much as I think the Scottish people have a right to self-determination and secession, I think that a majority of the Crimeans should have the right to secede and to become a part of Russia. And I think a majority support that.

However, the Russians should stop waging war in East Ukraine.

[Cory]

The people of Crimea have expressed their desire to be part of Russia, and that should be respected, period.

Would you say the same of Austria in 1938?

[dead0man]

Yes, it is. The referendum was obviously rigged, and its timing was unfortunate (to say the least), but as much as I think the Scottish people have a right to self-determination and secession, I think that a majority of the Crimeans should have the right to secede and to become a part of Russia. And I think a majority support that.

Perhaps, but again, Russia/Crimea went about it the WORST possible way.  And LIED about it the entire time.  Not cool.

[ag]

Crimea belonged to the Russia SSR until 1954 when Khrushchev gave it to the Ukranian SSR.

Crimea became ethnically Russian after the Tartars (as well as the Greeks, Bulgarians, etc.) were all deported to Kazakhstan (a huge proportion of them dying in the process), while the Jews, of course, had been killed by the Nazis. It was then repopulated by Russian and other Slavic settlers (many of them military retirees). At the time it was transferred to Ukraine in 1954, the bulk of the population had spent less than 10 years there. The issue was a matter of administrative convenience: as Crimea has no physical connection to Russia, all communications and supplies (including electricity and water) had to go through Ukraine. As an area of new settlement, it was judged to be sufficiently lacking in "ethnicity" of any kind for this to be preferable. Previosly (in the Tsarist empire), Crimea had been part of a larger governorate, that included a big chunk of Ukrainian mainland.

Tartars (Crimean natives) spent decades trying to get back, but were never allowed (unlike, say, the Chechens or the Kalmyk, who had suffered a similar fate). The Crimean Tartar movement for return to Crimea was one of the leading dissident movements in the ex-USSR. People would try to come back and be run out by the police for the crime of being Crimean Tartar in Crimea. A lot of them spent years (in some cases, decades) either under police harassment or in prison camps for asserting their right to live in Crimea. They were not allowed back until the very late 1980s - really, not until the Ukrainian independence. At the time of the Soviet break-up, the anti-Tartar pogroms in Kazakhstan, combined with the welcoming treatment by Ukrainian authorities, accelerated the return. At present Tartars form only about 15% of the population (at least they did at the time of the Russian invasion). They are overwhelmingly pro-Ukrainian (Russians had them deported, Ukrainians welcomed them back), and currently face increasing persecution by the Russian authorities. Tartar leadership (and a non-insignificant number of the rank-and-file) are currently in exile in the mainland Ukraine.

[The Free North]

Crimea belonged to the Russia SSR until 1954 when Khrushchev gave it to the Ukranian SSR.

Crimea became ethnically Russian after the Tartars (as well as the Greeks, Bulgarians, etc.) were all deported to Kazakhstan (a huge proportion of them dying in the process), while the Jews, of course, had been killed by the Nazis. It was then repopulated by Russian and other Slavic settlers (many of them military retirees). At the time it was transferred to Ukraine in 1954, the bulk of the population had spent less than 10 years there. The issue was a matter of administrative convenience: as Crimea has no physical connection to Russia, all communications and supplies (including electricity and water) had to go through Ukraine. As an area of new settlement, it was judged to be sufficiently lacking in "ethnicity" of any kind for this to be preferable. Previosly (in the Tsarist empire), Crimea had been part of a larger governorate, that included a big chunk of Ukrainian mainland.

Tartars (Crimean natives) spent decades trying to get back, but were never allowed (unlike, say, the Chechens or the Kalmyk, who had suffered a similar fate). The Crimean Tartar movement for return to Crimea was one of the leading dissident movements in the ex-USSR. People would try to come back and be run out by the police for the crime of being Crimean Tartar in Crimea. A lot of them spent years (in some cases, decades) either under police harassment or in prison camps for asserting their right to live in Crimea. They were not allowed back until the very late 1980s - really, not until the Ukrainian independence. At the time of the Soviet break-up, the anti-Tartar pogroms in Kazakhstan, combined with the welcoming treatment by Ukrainian authorities, accelerated the return. At present Tartars form only about 15% of the population (at least they did at the time of the Russian invasion). They are overwhelmingly pro-Ukrainian (Russians had them deported, Ukrainians welcomed them back), and currently face increasing persecution by the Russian authorities. Tartar leadership (and a non-insignificant number of the rank-and-file) are currently in exile in the mainland Ukraine.

All good points and I hate to be the one doing this but its spelt 'Tatar' not 'Tartar'.