"Every oblast in Ukraine, including Crimea, voted for independence. Support ranged from over 95 percent in western Ukraine and the Kiev region to 54 percent in Crimea, where ethnic Russians form a substantial majority of the population..."
On the other hand, 54% voting for joining Ukraine in 1991 is totally compatible with only 40% (or whatever) wanting to remain part of Ukraine in 2014. It's very tricky when these results are in the 35-65% range, because it doesn't take that much change of opinion or passage of time for these things to change back and forth in that range.
Also worth keeping in mind that Russia was deliberately sending Russians to Crimea for years *in order* to swing voter demographics in favor of voting to become part of Russia.
This of course brings up the Northern Ireland problem in the world of self-determination: do people still have self-determination if they were deliberately emplaced there by an imperialist power with the goal of diluting another nationality's control over an area?
My answer to that is "depends when they were emplaced there".
If it was sufficiently recently for it to be reasonable for them to go back, then go back they should; if it wasn't, then they get to stay and keep the territory.
Yes, this means that if you commit a crime for long enough, then you get away with it, but that's true in general, stolen property will eventually belong to your descendants.
I don't think that's right. Before 1991, the USSR was a single state with effectively zero democracy, so voter demographics were a non-issue. And before 1954, Crimea was not even a part of UkrSSR. Russia (or rather, the USSR) was indeed populating Crimea with Russians, but it was for reasons entirely unrelated to voting.
This btw makes any elections in the areas where Russians had control over a useless sham. They really do that, and they also take "refugees" out. It's trivial to send Ukrainian refugees 2000 miles away ('cause that's there they had room) and russians just across the border where they can be brought back in a few hours just before elections. All very legit and above the board.
Putin does not need to move people back and forth for the elections because all Russian-held elections are a sham anyway. You don't need to move voters if you can just move numbers from one column to another.
This is from 1991, though. Of course they might have changed their opinion between then and 2014. Just to be clear, I do not support Russian annexation of Crimea, but bringing up 1991 referendum is not a good argument against it.
This is partly because it wasn't independence from Russia, but independence from the Soviet Union in 1991.
Note that neither referendum in Crimea has been Russia vs Ukraine, in both cases, it has been one of those states against an artificial third option (Soviet Union in 1991, independent Crimea in 2014).
Russia was also declaring independence from the USSR at the same time, so voting to stay in would theoretically have resulted in Crimea becoming the only bit of the USSR.
"Every oblast in Ukraine, including Crimea, voted for independence. Support ranged from over 95 percent in western Ukraine and the Kiev region to 54 percent in Crimea, where ethnic Russians form a substantial majority of the population..."
https://www.csce.gov/sites/helsinkicommission.house.gov/files/120191UkraineReferendum.pdf
On the other hand, 54% voting for joining Ukraine in 1991 is totally compatible with only 40% (or whatever) wanting to remain part of Ukraine in 2014. It's very tricky when these results are in the 35-65% range, because it doesn't take that much change of opinion or passage of time for these things to change back and forth in that range.
Also worth keeping in mind that Russia was deliberately sending Russians to Crimea for years *in order* to swing voter demographics in favor of voting to become part of Russia.
This of course brings up the Northern Ireland problem in the world of self-determination: do people still have self-determination if they were deliberately emplaced there by an imperialist power with the goal of diluting another nationality's control over an area?
See also: Xinjiang and Tibet.
I think you either have to answer yes to that question, or do a lot of ethnic cleansing. I'd prefer to answer yes.
But if the emplacement itself is aggressive enough, it can be a form of ethnic cleansing?
My answer to that is "depends when they were emplaced there".
If it was sufficiently recently for it to be reasonable for them to go back, then go back they should; if it wasn't, then they get to stay and keep the territory.
Yes, this means that if you commit a crime for long enough, then you get away with it, but that's true in general, stolen property will eventually belong to your descendants.
United States?
I don't think that's right. Before 1991, the USSR was a single state with effectively zero democracy, so voter demographics were a non-issue. And before 1954, Crimea was not even a part of UkrSSR. Russia (or rather, the USSR) was indeed populating Crimea with Russians, but it was for reasons entirely unrelated to voting.
This btw makes any elections in the areas where Russians had control over a useless sham. They really do that, and they also take "refugees" out. It's trivial to send Ukrainian refugees 2000 miles away ('cause that's there they had room) and russians just across the border where they can be brought back in a few hours just before elections. All very legit and above the board.
Putin does not need to move people back and forth for the elections because all Russian-held elections are a sham anyway. You don't need to move voters if you can just move numbers from one column to another.
It's still relevant. Until a friend from Moldova clued me in, I used to think elections organized by a trusted third party are a good outcome.
(Moldova had this done to them, extensively. Like pretty much everybody else in URSS)
You might also note that Russian tsars and then Stalin in a more definitive way forcibly moved people out from Crimea.
A 10,000 mob in Kyiv chanting "Lynch a Muscovite" and "He who doesn't jump is a Moscal" surely can change more than 20% pretty fast.
This is from 1991, though. Of course they might have changed their opinion between then and 2014. Just to be clear, I do not support Russian annexation of Crimea, but bringing up 1991 referendum is not a good argument against it.
Russia's takeover of Crimea and far eastern Ukraine in 2014 tipped the political balance in the remaining Ukraine strongly against Russia.
Perhaps Putin should have considered that ...
This is partly because it wasn't independence from Russia, but independence from the Soviet Union in 1991.
Note that neither referendum in Crimea has been Russia vs Ukraine, in both cases, it has been one of those states against an artificial third option (Soviet Union in 1991, independent Crimea in 2014).
Surely if they wanted to be part of Russia they would at the very least want to belong to the union that Russia is part of.
Russia was also declaring independence from the USSR at the same time, so voting to stay in would theoretically have resulted in Crimea becoming the only bit of the USSR.