Greetings, I'm new so I hope I'm doing this right. This seems like a pretty well played move in my opinion; what do you think?
I wonder if we're looking at a two-state solution here? Not that I think that it's the best or even a good answer, but Ukraine is so divided right now.
When a geographic region is ethnically homogeneous, the (almost) only representatively legitimate solution is autonomy. Crimea was given autonomy within Ukraine. But I too wonder if a completely separate nation-state will work better for them. The danger there is falling under the thumb of Russia. I wonder if my argument applies to the American South. I also hope this doesn't become about Crimea. The protests aren't about Crimea, they're about illegitimacy. Russia is like America: they have to make sure everything is about them.
Crimea is not an ethnically homogeneous state. There are three significant populations in Crimea: 1. Russians. The majority of Crimea is Russians; they came from Russia and made Crimea their new home (although most Russians don't consider Crimea (or Ukraine, even) as separate countries; according to them, they are still a part of Russia). They are vehemently in favour of Russian rule and are against the recent events that have happened in Ukraine. 2. Ukrainians. For the most part they have pro-Western ideals and are upset about Russian intervention. Crimea is a part (simplifying here) of Ukraine and has been since 1992. By retaining control of Crimea, Ukraine has a pretty strong bargaining chip against Russia. This is the ideal solution for the Ukrainians of Crimea. 3. Crimean Tatars. Tatars are native Crimeans. They are a tiny population of Crimea because of the ethnic cleansing that happened in the 1940s. Most Tatars that were deported died on their way to Central Asia. Due to the small size of the Tatar population, nobody gives them any mind and they are generally ignored while Ukraine and Russia fight over their country. The problem should be easy to see. Crimea "belongs" to Ukraine. Its population is mainly Russian, who wish to be a part of the Russian Federation. It lies in a geographically important spot, mainly for economic and trade reasons. There are countering ideals of pro-Western and pro-Russian people. And the most important part: Ukraine, Crimea and Russia have a history of being very violent locations. All of this baggage exists in this part of the world. But let's not forget about the EU, NATO and the US. There is no easy solution to this.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply there are no minorities in Crimea, or that they shouldn't be represented. All nations have minorities, and all democratic governments need provisions to protect them from oppression. What I meant was that, as you say, "its population is mainly Russian," which is disparate from the rest of Ukraine. Perhaps I should have said, "Geographically distributed demographics ought to be governed separately."
I see what you're saying, but it's too much of a clusterfuck for any sort of sane solution. Many Russians don't see post-Soviet countries as being separate from Russia. There's a similar part of the population that has no desire to assimilate into local populations. What ends up happening is that there are many Russian enclaves all across eastern Europe that want a Russian-friendly home. This is Crimea, Southern and Eastern Ukraine and other post-Soviet countries. As a consequence there is a Russian cultural empire growing in non-Russian countries. So letting the demographics decide the governing body is how the Russian empire spreads across all of eastern Europe and the Middle East. Not great. But as I said, there is no sane solution. My solution is to throw my hands up in the air and hope there won't be any bloodshed.
Well, since Russia is invested in ensuring its access to the Black Sea, I expect there to be at least some discussion of Russia absorbing Crimea. Anyway, Russia is coming very close to violating a treaty signed in 1994, between the UK, USA and Russia, all of which promised to protect Ukraine for giving up its nuclear arsenal.
From all I've learned of Russia (including a class on imperialist Russia in university), a lot of this stems from the idea that, publicly or not, they still consider Ukraine to be a part of russia (as well as most other baltic and eastern countries). Your point on the access to the black sea also rings true to me. Russia Is heavily interested in a "Warm Water" port, and while the balck sea isn't the best option, it's currently the only one they've got. It's also a big reason why they keep messing with the middle-east (not just for the oil). I wasn't aware of the treaty. What happens if they violate it? are there set-out consequences?
I misunderstood the classification. It's actually not a formal treaty, but a diplomatic memorandum. So, if Russia does violate the agreement, which is to respect the sovereignty of Ukraine's borders, then it's illegal according to international law, but there's no real way to enforce the agreement. Since Obama is already saying that there will "be a cost" I imagine that the consequences are still up in the air. Haven't read anything from the UK's PM either, so I guess we'll find out later.
I think it's all a little bit of countries playing chicken at the moment. No one wants to make the first move and get all the blame if things go totally pear-shaped.
That's what I was wondering. Besides Russia wanting to keep the port in Crimea, from what I understand, the majority of the Crimeans are pro-Russia and want to be protected from the nationalists in western Ukraine. I guess the other stake in this is potential shale oil reserves. I need to do some more reading on this angle, but it sounds like western oil companies and even people like George Soros have potential money to make in this whole thing.