Would eastern and western Ukraine be better off going their separate ways?

[Californiadreaming]

That way, the west can comfortably join the EU, and the east can become the Democratic Republic of Putinistan or whatever.

Would Russia actually have enough money to modernize East Ukraine, though? After all, both East Ukraine and West Ukraine currently (and unfortunately) appear to be dirt-poor!

[Californiadreaming]

Ukraine, like many of the former Soviet republics, was an artificial construct of the USSR. The Crimea and Black Sea coast was not historically Ukrainian, but instead shifted from Tatar to Russian in the late 18th century. Note that much of modern Ukraine was for a long time under Polish rule, and only became whole to the west after WWII.



The coast was attached to Ukraine for administrative purposes when Ukraine became part of the USSR. When the USSR collapsed the existing pieces of the union became independent countries, even when there was no historical basis for many of those states with those borders. The language map below shows the percent native Ukrainian speakers and is indicative of the historical Ukraine.

I would like to point out that present-day southern Ukraine's population was Ukrainian-majority even back in 1897, though:



Thus, it's certainly not like Ukraine had no legitimate claim to southern Ukraine.

[Californiadreaming]

The idea that more borders could solve problems has already too often proven fatal in European history. Ireland, former Yugoslavia (especially Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo), also Czechoslovakia with the Sudeten Germans, are only a few points in case to demonstrate that each new border tends to bring forward the next minority-majority issue, just on a reduced geographical scale. You can then continue territorial split-ups ad infinite, or solve the issue once and for all through ethnic cleansing. Neither is a particular good solution to me.

So, do you think that the Soviet Union should have remained intact but reformed itself? After all, there would have been less national borders in Europe in such a scenario.

[Californiadreaming]

The defense of the current borders seems to ignore the much more important geopolitical reality. Russia conquered the Crimea to gain access to the Black Sea. They built their southern naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea. Until the Russian Revolution no one would have thought of Crimea as part of Ukraine and even today there are few Ukrainians there. When the USSR collapsed Ukraine inherited Crimea through its USSR administrative borders, borders that had only existed for about 80 years.

Actually, the Ukrainian SSR only acquired Crimea in 1954.

[Californiadreaming]

Russia will lease the base indefinitely. Every Ukrainian government, regardless of orientation, will allow them to do it. Why wouldn't they? They're all White Christians. Half of Ukraine speaks the same language. There is no reason for these countries to be locked in enmity. Sure, they might shake their fists at each other once in a while but anyone with the political savvy to make it to the top of Ukrainian politics knows they have to live and let live.

For the record, many Ukrainians appear to be hostile to Russian encroachment and domination. Indeed, even under the ostensibly pro-Russian Yanukovych, Ukraine's parliament (Rada) only renewed Russia's lease on Sevastopol by 10 votes.

[Californiadreaming]

The defense of the current borders seems to ignore the much more important geopolitical reality. Russia conquered the Crimea to gain access to the Black Sea. They built their southern naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea. Until the Russian Revolution no one would have thought of Crimea as part of Ukraine and even today there are few Ukrainians there. When the USSR collapsed Ukraine inherited Crimea through its USSR administrative borders, borders that had only existed for about 80 years.

This particular border is much younger than that; the Crimea was only transferred to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954.

Barely 10 years after the native population of Crimea had been expelled by Stalin.

Crimea's population was already almost half ethnic Russian back in 1939, though. Indeed, the Crimean Tatars were only deported in 1944--five years after the 1939 Soviet Census was conducted.

[Californiadreaming]

The neoliberals will win out - Ukraine will join the EU and NATO within the next few years.

Actually, it will certainly take much more than several years for either of these two things to actually occur. Indeed, it would probably be a huge burden for the E.U. to incorporate Ukraine within the next few years.

[Californiadreaming]

Time for another map: These are the "yes" votes on the 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum, which obviously implied separation from Russia:


Even Crimea voted 54% "yes" vs. 42% "no" (and that was at a time when most of the Tartars hadn't returned yet).
Can we please once and for all stop with the myth of Crimea just having become part of Ukraine, and against their will being separated from Russia, by some historical accident back in 1954.

I would like to point out that a rump USSR could have theoretically survived even without Ukraine, though. Thus, this referendum should be viewed as being a Ukrainian separation from the USSR rather than as a Ukrainian separation from Russia.

Plus, the situation in what is now Russia was still perceived as being very unpredictable in late 1991. Indeed, my own parents left the Soviet Union several days before it collapsed in 1991 and told me on numerous occasions that, when they left, they were very concerned that there would eventually be another coup in what is now Russia. In contrast to this, the current political situation in Russia appears to be very stable.

[Californiadreaming]

Indeed, if I was a pro-Russian Ukrainian voter in late 1991, I would have certainly still voted to have Ukraine secede from the USSR. After all, back in late 1991, I would have very likely perceived living under a democratizing former Communist Ukrainian elite (led by Leonid Kravchuk) as being better than continuing to live in the Soviet Union and thus putting myself and the rest of the Ukrainian people at risk if another coup attempt will occur in the USSR.

[Californiadreaming]

That was 23 years ago. It's possible that even with the Tatars that Crimea would want to separate.

Yes, I agree. The current will of the people on Crimea (to the extent circumstances allow for a representative assessment of their will, which I have some doubts about) needs to be respected. But a lot of the discussion is about historical claims, and in this respect, a referendum 23 years ago is more significant that political decisions taken in Moscow between 1921 and 1954.

Agreed. However, given the circumstances in late 1991 (specifically the possibility that a rump USSR will continue to exist even without Ukraine and the fear of another (eventual) coup attempt in the USSR--as my parents themselves have told me on numerous occasions), I certainly think that a new sovereignty referendum in Crimea is warranted.

[Californiadreaming]

That was 23 years ago. It's possible that even with the Tatars that Crimea would want to separate.

Completely agreed. Indeed, the December 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum occurred in very unique circumstances and represented a significant shift from the March 1991 referendum in Ukraine, where a majority of Ukrainian voters outside of Galicia and Kiev (Kyiv) voted to remain within the Soviet Union:



Thus, given the changed political and economic circumstances since December 1991, I certainly think that a new sovereignty referendum in Crimea is both warranted and desirable.

[Californiadreaming]

I insist: where do we put the frontier?

According to ethnic Russians? According to Russian-speakers? According to political preferences?

I presume the idea would be to follow the fairly obvious line on the election maps, separating Crimea plus the oblasts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhia, Kherson, Mykolaiv and Odessa.  But would that really be any sort of coherent state?  Even on election results it isn't as clean a divide as it looks at first glance.

How about holding referendums in all of these areas instead and then drawing the borders based on the results of these referendums (just like, say, in Schleswig in 1920 or in Upper Silesia in 1921)?