If Russia's claim to Crimea legitamate?

[DavidB.]

Yes, it is. The referendum was obviously rigged, and its timing was unfortunate (to say the least), but as much as I think the Scottish people have a right to self-determination and secession, I think that a majority of the Crimeans should have the right to secede and to become a part of Russia. And I think a majority support that.

Perhaps, but again, Russia/Crimea went about it the WORST possible way.  And LIED about it the entire time.  Not cool.

That's true. The situation has been not cool in general. I would much have preferred this to happen peacefully. Nevertheless, I think the new status-quo has some legitimacy, despite the unfortunate way it has been reached.

This being said, "do you think Western countries should now formally accept the Crimean annexation?" is an entirely different question.

[ag]

Crimea belonged to the Russia SSR until 1954 when Khrushchev gave it to the Ukranian SSR.

Crimea became ethnically Russian after the Tartars (as well as the Greeks, Bulgarians, etc.) were all deported to Kazakhstan (a huge proportion of them dying in the process), while the Jews, of course, had been killed by the Nazis. It was then repopulated by Russian and other Slavic settlers (many of them military retirees). At the time it was transferred to Ukraine in 1954, the bulk of the population had spent less than 10 years there. The issue was a matter of administrative convenience: as Crimea has no physical connection to Russia, all communications and supplies (including electricity and water) had to go through Ukraine. As an area of new settlement, it was judged to be sufficiently lacking in "ethnicity" of any kind for this to be preferable. Previosly (in the Tsarist empire), Crimea had been part of a larger governorate, that included a big chunk of Ukrainian mainland.

Tartars (Crimean natives) spent decades trying to get back, but were never allowed (unlike, say, the Chechens or the Kalmyk, who had suffered a similar fate). The Crimean Tartar movement for return to Crimea was one of the leading dissident movements in the ex-USSR. People would try to come back and be run out by the police for the crime of being Crimean Tartar in Crimea. A lot of them spent years (in some cases, decades) either under police harassment or in prison camps for asserting their right to live in Crimea. They were not allowed back until the very late 1980s - really, not until the Ukrainian independence. At the time of the Soviet break-up, the anti-Tartar pogroms in Kazakhstan, combined with the welcoming treatment by Ukrainian authorities, accelerated the return. At present Tartars form only about 15% of the population (at least they did at the time of the Russian invasion). They are overwhelmingly pro-Ukrainian (Russians had them deported, Ukrainians welcomed them back), and currently face increasing persecution by the Russian authorities. Tartar leadership (and a non-insignificant number of the rank-and-file) are currently in exile in the mainland Ukraine.

All good points and I hate to be the one doing this but its spelt 'Tatar' not 'Tartar'.

Both spellings have precedent. As long as one is being consistent...

[WVdemocrat]

No, it was a land grab. Is this even up for debate? That referendum was clearly rigged, I don't think "stay a part of Ukraine" was even an option. So no, it was not legitimate and it has no place in a modern world.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

No, it was a land grab. Is this even up for debate? That referendum was clearly rigged, I don't think "stay a part of Ukraine" was even an option. So no, it was not legitimate and it has no place in a modern world.

"the west" is always wrong, you see.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Tatar is the usual spelling in English, but Tartar (which is actually the older spelling. And the historical region - when mentioned at all - is always Tartary) is still sometimes used.

[Zioneer]

But the means by which the referendum was done means that the claim that Crimea is now part of Russia is illegitimate.

No, no, the Crimea is very clearly part of Russia now and there's no particular point in denying that (unless you're a diplomat or something). But it was incorporated into the Russian state in a manner that is no longer regarded as entirely proper (even if it was historically just the way things were done), a fact not changed (not one bit) by the hilariously crass rubber stamping via questionable plebiscite.

That's mostly what I meant, yeah. I meant that despite it being part of Russia now and by all indications going to stay that way, it's not legitimately Russian. The tactics are illegal and unethical, even if the end result was plausible.

[Хahar 🤔]

"Legitimacy" is obviously not a meaningful concept.

[DavidB.]

"Legitimacy" is obviously not a meaningful concept.

Why not?

[Torie]

It's always difficult when a minority that is a majority in a part of one nation, wants to join an adjacent nation. Russia precipitated it, but a majority of the populace was no doubt more than happy to go along. Now the issue is what happens to eastern Ukraine with the same issue. Not to make a comparison, but that is the tactic Hitler used to annex the Sudentenland. He was just picking up Germans that were a majority in that part of Czechoslovakia (I think they were a majority, but perhaps not).

[Sol]

If perhaps the referendum had been conducted properly, etc. then perhaps it would have been a reasonable thing for Russia to annex it. But of course that was not what happened.

[Simfan34]

Why do I associate the term "Tartary" with Hell?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

If perhaps the referendum had been conducted properly, etc. then perhaps it would have been a reasonable thing for Russia to annex it. But of course that was not what happened.

Agreed. Their claim is legitimate, but the referendum that sealed the deal was not. No reason for WWIII of course.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Why do I associate the term "Tartary" with Hell?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartarus (assuming you're not being facetious )