Crimea - what's the best solution?

[DDD]

khanate of the Crimea

khanate of the Crimea (historical state, Ukraine) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

History of Crimea

Crimea (republic, Ukraine) :: History -- Encyclopedia Britannica

For example, but the wikipedia pages also have most of this information, among others.

Interesting indeed. Says Greeks took it from Cimmerians (or rather were under the Greek influence), then Romans took Crimea, then an unsuccessful effort was made by Kievan Rus only in 10th century, then came the Mongolian Godlen Hordes (Tattars), and the Ottoman Empire, whom then fell to Russia in wars in 18-19th century.

Tatars wanted independence of Crimea since 1917, where it became autonomous in 1921. Stalin perished many Tatars among other minorities where the remaining Tatars were moved by force to Siberia and Central Asia. Russians then gave Crimea to Ukraine in 1954 to commemorate a Pereyaslav Agreement according to Britannica.

After Stalin and Kruschchev fell the deported minorities were allowed back except for Tatars. They got back after 1990's when the Soviet Union fell in numbers of 300,000 at 21st century.

It was autonomous during the Soviet Union in 1991 but fell to Ukraine when the Soviet Union collapsed. It is a largely made of Russian civilians there now whom wanted independence from Ukraine since 1994! But Russia and Ukraine made a "Treaty of Friendship" in 1997 when Crimea was left to Ukrainians once more. The rest is known.

This brings new insight as to who has claims in Crimea. Tatars lived longer there but are a minority now. Suppose if they are not discriminated as a minority there the Russians could have it since they are a majority and wanted independence and were autonomous several times in History then.

But I was only differentiating Dardania with Crimea in my original post. Thought Ukrainians were natives like we were. Guess I was wrong.

The Huffington post makes clear distinctions between Crimea and Dardania:

Crimea Is Not Kosovo | David L. Phillips

One of the issues is that there was an international presence to secure the issue of minorities in Dardania. Russia expelled foreign members and it is now left to them to assure the right of Tatar minorities without international observation that they do so.

Who believes that Russians would watch over Tatar and other minorities in Crimea?

 

[DDD]

On another development I saw in my local news that there are some talks of trading recognitions. Yes Crimea did declare independence but that is a worthless piece of paper if other countries do not recognize it.

Currently it is refused to be recognized:

Obama refuses to recognize a Russian Crimea. But is secession illegal? (+video) - CSMonitor.com

Canada says won't recognize Crimea referendum | GlobalPost

But what I saw in my local news is that perhaps recognitions could be traded. I saw Merkel and Putin with a happy face and the narrator of our local news said that: Crimea may be recognized if Russia recognizes Dardania (see signature where Dardania is).

I cannot find such links online today. The best I have is this:

Blic Online | Putin not to recognize Kosovo because of Crimea

So perhaps the best solution to Crimea is to trade recognitions then. What do you say about this? eace

 

[Rogue Valley]

Firstly, the present Crimean (pro-Russian) authorities have not provided enough time for Crimean voters to acquire and digest important information. There are vast differences between aspects of Ukrainian law and Russian law that will negatively impact people and business. About the only population segment that could come out ahead by joining Russia are pensioners. For example, do young men know that military conscription is mandatory in Russia but only voluntary in Ukraine? Do the people understand that they will have far fewer rights under Russian criminal law?

Secondly, communication links between Ukraine and Crimea have been severed. The only television stations allowed to broadcast in Crimea now are Russian. Phone and internet links to Ukraine have also been severed. The entrance to the Crimean peninsula at Armyansk is now controlled by Russian security/military forces and former Berkut police who fled Kiev. Controls on who may enter are very strict. International observers have been turned away and this border area is now laced with minefields. The Crimean parliament building is guarded by Russian forces and only those approved by the new (Russian installed) Prime Minister can enter. Opposition lawmakers are excluded. Ergo - the "free and fair" referendum - is a tightly controlled exercise.

Thirdly, the Crimean referendum set for 16 March 2014 is a "stacked deck". There are two questions on the referendum:

1) Are you in favor of the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a part of the Russian Federation?
2) Are you in favor of restoring the 1992 Constitution and the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?

Although it appears that ticking #2 is a vote to remain allied with Ukraine, this is not the case. The 1992 Constitution (abolished) allowed the Crimean Rada (parliament) to make this decision for the people. In reality then, this is just a convoluted way of voting for option #1 and - although a slightly longer course - results in the same outcome as option #1.

No boxes ticked will be considered a spoiled ballot as will both boxes ticked. Thus, there is no meaningful way that the referendum can fail to achieve a specific outcome.

 

[DDD]

Firstly, the present Crimean (pro-Russian) authorities have not provided enough time for Crimean voters to acquire and digest important information. There are vast differences between aspects of Ukrainian law and Russian law that will negatively impact people and business. About the only population segment that could come out ahead by joining Russia are pensioners. For example, do young men know that military conscription is mandatory in Russia but only voluntary in Ukraine? Do the people understand that they will have far fewer rights under Russian criminal law?

Secondly, communication links between Ukraine and Crimea have been severed. The only television stations allowed to broadcast in Crimea now are Russian. Phone and internet links to Ukraine have also been severed. The entrance to the Crimean peninsula at Armyansk is now controlled by Russian security/military forces and former Berkut police who fled Kiev. Controls on who may enter are very strict. International observers have been turned away and this border area is now laced with minefields. The Crimean parliament building is guarded by Russian forces and only those approved by the new (Russian installed) Prime Minister can enter. Opposition lawmakers are excluded. Ergo - the "free and fair" referendum - is a tightly controlled exercise.

Thirdly, the Crimean referendum set for 16 March 2014 is a "stacked deck". There are two questions on the referendum:

1) Are you in favor of the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a part of the Russian Federation?
2) Are you in favor of restoring the 1992 Constitution and the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?

Although it appears that ticking #2 is a vote to remain allied with Ukraine, this is not the case. The 1992 Constitution (abolished) allowed the Crimean Rada (parliament) to make this decision for the people. In reality then, this is just a convoluted way of voting for option #1 and - although a slightly longer course - results in the same outcome as option #1.

No boxes ticked will be considered a spoiled ballot as will both boxes ticked. Thus, there is no meaningful way that the referendum can fail to achieve a specific outcome.

Wow! Interesting insights! Thanks!

 

[joko104]

With the Crimea occupied by an invading Russian army, talk of an election is absurd. It's like having a vote in France after conquered by the Germans.

There are 2 choices:

1. Do you surrender to the Russian army?

2. Do you refuse to surrender to Russia?

Vote.