I downvoted for the use of the word ‘invading’. ‘Invading’ describes what Russia did to Crimea in 2014, ‘retaking’ would be a better word for this context.
As for self-determination, 54% of Crimieans voted for Ukrainian independence in the 1991 referendum. Since the 2014 invasion, Russia has probably imported so many citizens that the demographics have changed massively and this would skew any future referendum.
I downvoted for the use of the word ‘invading’. ‘Invading’ describes what Russia did to Crimea in 2014, ‘retaking’ would be a better word for this context.
Both words are accurate. You can use whichever one you want.
As for self-determination, 54% of Crimieans voted for Ukrainian independence in the 1991 referendum.
You’re citing this 1991 result for a completely different scenario as if I didn’t just give you evidence on how Crimeans have actually felt on the actual issue at stake since 2014.
Since the 2014 invasion, Russia has probably imported so many citizens that the demographics have changed massively and this would skew any future referendum.
I’m not sure of the practical details, but a referendum might be closed off to recent immigrants.
Speaking of word use, “imported” is definitively incorrect as people choose where to live, they are not inanimate goods. It’s also delegitimizing language that lends itself to ethnic cleansing, although I’m sure you didn’t mean it that way.
I don’t think both words are accurate here. Crimea was illegally annexed, and ‘invasion’ to me means entering another country’s territory.
My fundamental belief here is that the norms on a countries borders should be decided by referendum, and then respected (i.e. not invaded).
The 2014 referendum was one month after Russia invaded Crimea. I wouldn’t trust the results of it (a 96% result to join Russia is implausible), or really any referendum since, while Russia is still in control. So, I would think the latest and most authoritative piece of evidence would be the 1991 referendum.
I think you’re overstating the badness of the word ‘imported’ here, although I accept it’s not usually used for people. My point is that Russia has used various methods to bring immigrants in—I’m reading for example, one-off payments of $30,000, and that up to 1,000,000 people may have emigrated to Crimea since 2014. It seems implausible that that amount of people would move without significant incentives or coercion from Russia, which is a war crime according to the Geneva convention, Article 49 - “the transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”.
I’m not gonna reply further to this thread, it’s an emotional issue for with the suffering the Ukrainian people have, and are experiencing during the war. This also has zero decision relevance to me (and probably most people reading this).
My fundamental belief here is that the norms on a countries borders should be decided by referendum, and then respected (i.e. not invaded).
If you think borders should be decided by referendum then you should endorse a substantive right to having a referendum in the first place. That implies that Crimea should be able to hold a referendum even if Kyiv refuses to allow it.
The 2014 referendum was one month after Russia invaded Crimea. I wouldn’t trust the results of it (a 96% result to join Russia is implausible)
See the link I provided to my other post discussing public opinion in Crimea. The result is plausible when considering that most pro-Ukraine Crimeans boycotted the vote (so true support was ~80%), but more importantly, ignoring Russia’s untrustworthy referendum, polling data shows majority support for annexation. I have no doubt that in 1991 a slim majority of Crimeans wanted Ukraine to leave the USSR, but it’s far from the best evidence we have about how Crimeans in 2014 felt about leaving Ukraine to join Russia.
I downvoted for the use of the word ‘invading’. ‘Invading’ describes what Russia did to Crimea in 2014, ‘retaking’ would be a better word for this context.
As for self-determination, 54% of Crimieans voted for Ukrainian independence in the 1991 referendum. Since the 2014 invasion, Russia has probably imported so many citizens that the demographics have changed massively and this would skew any future referendum.
Both words are accurate. You can use whichever one you want.
You’re citing this 1991 result for a completely different scenario as if I didn’t just give you evidence on how Crimeans have actually felt on the actual issue at stake since 2014.
I’m not sure of the practical details, but a referendum might be closed off to recent immigrants.
Speaking of word use, “imported” is definitively incorrect as people choose where to live, they are not inanimate goods. It’s also delegitimizing language that lends itself to ethnic cleansing, although I’m sure you didn’t mean it that way.
I don’t think both words are accurate here. Crimea was illegally annexed, and ‘invasion’ to me means entering another country’s territory.
My fundamental belief here is that the norms on a countries borders should be decided by referendum, and then respected (i.e. not invaded).
The 2014 referendum was one month after Russia invaded Crimea. I wouldn’t trust the results of it (a 96% result to join Russia is implausible), or really any referendum since, while Russia is still in control. So, I would think the latest and most authoritative piece of evidence would be the 1991 referendum.
I think you’re overstating the badness of the word ‘imported’ here, although I accept it’s not usually used for people. My point is that Russia has used various methods to bring immigrants in—I’m reading for example, one-off payments of $30,000, and that up to 1,000,000 people may have emigrated to Crimea since 2014. It seems implausible that that amount of people would move without significant incentives or coercion from Russia, which is a war crime according to the Geneva convention, Article 49 - “the transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”.
I’m not gonna reply further to this thread, it’s an emotional issue for with the suffering the Ukrainian people have, and are experiencing during the war. This also has zero decision relevance to me (and probably most people reading this).
If you think borders should be decided by referendum then you should endorse a substantive right to having a referendum in the first place. That implies that Crimea should be able to hold a referendum even if Kyiv refuses to allow it.
See the link I provided to my other post discussing public opinion in Crimea. The result is plausible when considering that most pro-Ukraine Crimeans boycotted the vote (so true support was ~80%), but more importantly, ignoring Russia’s untrustworthy referendum, polling data shows majority support for annexation. I have no doubt that in 1991 a slim majority of Crimeans wanted Ukraine to leave the USSR, but it’s far from the best evidence we have about how Crimeans in 2014 felt about leaving Ukraine to join Russia.