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

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

No one really wants this to happen.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

No one really wants this to happen.

I have no doubt, no decent person wants this to happen. I am less certain about the Russian government.

Hope to be very wrong on this one.

Actually, I think the Russians are the least enthusiastic about the idea. They want all of Ukraine in their sphere of influence.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The South... That is another story. Part of that story is a major population change in fairly recent history. You know, Odessa was mostly Jewish not that long ago...

Crimea, of course, is most obvious victim of population change. Stalin kicked out the native Tartars and replaced them with Russians. There are few Ukrainians there, it is true. But there is a non-Ukrainian group there that is vehemently pro-Ukrainian (and, actually, anti-Russian): the Tartars. Throughout the Soviet years they fought to be allowed back - though relatively few made it. As the Soviet Union was breaking up, they came under further pressure in Central Asia where they had been living in exile (there were some nasty pogroms there) - and Ukraine let them back. They may be under 15% of the population in Crimea - but they are the natives. And they will fight to keep their land Ukrainian.

So it sounds like Stalin expels the Tatars and replaces them with Russians. A decade later Khrushchev shifts this Russian population into the Ukrainian SSR. If this were US politics it would look like a classic gerrymander to move a block of favorable residents (Crimean Russians) into a district with less reliable residents (Ukrainians).

Stalin would be a great gerrymanderer had he lived in the U.S.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Re the Crimea situation it ought to be noted Crimea was never a part of Ukraine before the 1950s.

Soviets loved to play with the borders.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

There were no Ukraine before soviet time IIRC, and before 19th century it was  settled  by non Slavic people (Goths and Tatars).

Yeah, because Cossacks, for example, never existed

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Ok, but guvernement of Kiev was not that independent.

I agree Ukraine did not exist as a sovereign state till 1991 (except for a brief and very unstable period after the WWI), but to say there was no Ukraine was really inaccurate.

Re the Crimea situation it ought to be noted Crimea was never a part of Ukraine before the 1950s.

Soviets loved to play with the borders.

Crimea was an Autonomous Soviet Republic before WW II, thus neither part of Russia nor of Ukraine.

Not quite. It was an Autonomous Soviet Republic within the Russian SFRR. If not for the transfer, it would be part of the Russian Federation right now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I disagree. Crimea was part of Russia since the Khanate has been abolished. Compare that to mere 60 years as a part of first Ukrainian SSR, and then independent Ukraine.

I do not advocate Crimea to be annexed back, just saying.