Does Ukraine have a legitimate claim to Crimea? Can anyone spell it out?

[gringo]

     A few facts about Crimea, which is obviously a central part(the main prize even) of the whole conflict. It is difficult to articulate a coherent case for Crimea to "return" to Ukraine. In truth it has never been part of Ukraine. Since 1783, Crimea has had a Russian port at Sevastopol. Its language, history and culture is Russian. At no time have Crimeans identified as being Ukrainian.
     In 1954 Crimea as part of Russia and the Soviet Union was transferred by then leader, Nikita Krushchev. The whys and wherefores of this question are much discussed in Russia/Crimea and subject of some interesting theories. Until the break up of the Soviet Union, this bureaucratic move of Crimea to Ukraine was of little to no significance.
     Before the dissolution of the USSR, a referendum was held on the question of preserving the Union- the "All Union Referendum";
 https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/71359/.
https://www.rbth.com/articles/2011/03/17/the_first_and_only_national_referendum_in_soviet_history_12297

     The result of the Crimean Republic vote was overwhelming, over 95%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_Union_referendum#:~:text=The%20referendum's%20question%20was%20approved,Union%20Treaty%20a%20day%20later.

    Two months prior to the referendum the Crimean authorities held their own referendum to re-establish the, "Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic" of Crimea. Over 94% on an 81% turnout voted for autonomy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Crimean_sovereignty_referendum

    In 1994 a further referendum was held;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Crimean_referendum

"A three-part referendum was held in Crimea on 27 March 1994 alongside regional and national elections. Voters were asked whether they were in favour of greater autonomy within Ukraine, whether residents should have dual Russian and Ukrainian citizenship, and whether presidential decrees should have the status of laws. All three proposals were approved."

    After the Maidan coup most of the Ukrainian military that was based in Crimea defected to serve the Republic of Crimea;

"MOSCOW, March 4 (RIA Novosti) – More than 5,500 soldiers have defected from Ukraine’s military to serve the autonomous republic of Crimea, the region’s newly appointed leader said.

Sergei Aksyonov, named prime minister last week in a local parliamentary vote, said Tuesday that talks with unit commanders led to the defections of soldiers to join an independent Crimean military.

“Of the 34 Ukrainian military units stationed in Crimea, 23 have defected,” a local government representative told RIA Novosti on Tuesday."

    Full article here;

https://sputnikglobe.com/20140304/5500-Ukrainian-Soldiers-Defect-to-Serve-an-Independent-Crimea-188085607.html

     History, language, culture, ethnicity, the will of the people all point to Crimea being Russian and part of Russia in every way. Since 1991 there have been four referenda, all expressing the same desire.
     Bizarrely the case for Ukrainian sovereignty, unless anyone can add anything, rests entirely on the signature of a "Soviet Dictator"(Krushchev) in 1954 transferring Crimea to Ukraine. Surely the "self appointed" defenders of "democracy" have a better case than that? 

   

[nugnug]

it bbelonged to the tarter orginal so really neather side hs a cliam to it though russia is better than ukrianes

[gringo]

it bbelonged to the tarter orginal so really neather side hs a cliam to it though russia is better than ukrianes

   Russia's claim goes back to 1783. Their is no serious Tatar claim to Crimea. The Crimean population want to be part of Russia. Anyone who believes in self-determination cannot deny the Russian claim. There is no expressed desire to start a "Tatar Republic".
     Are you suggesting it is returned to the Turkic Khaganate? the Ottoman Empire?
     Of course Russia has a claim to Crimea. It is the only legitimate claim that I have come across. I have laid it out and asked for anyone to lay out a comprehensive and coherent claim to Crimea of Ukraine, the Tatars, anyone?
     

[nugnug]

   Russia's claim goes back to 1783. Their is no serious Tatar claim to Crimea. The Crimean population want to be part of Russia. Anyone who believes in self-determination cannot deny the Russian claim. There is no expressed desire to start a "Tatar Republic".
     Are you suggesting it is returned to the Turkic Khaganate? the Ottoman Empire?
     Of course Russia has a claim to Crimea. It is the only legitimate claim that I have come across. I have laid it out and asked for anyone to lay out a comprehensive and coherent claim to Crimea of Ukraine, the Tatars, anyone?
   

the tarters were there  until secound world war when they were expelled by stalin it was majority untill then

in 1763 russia annaxedd it before that the tarters had been there about  700  years and they were still the majority up untill the 1940s

if thats not a  cliam i dont know what is

[gringo]

the tarters were there  until secound world war when they were expelled by stalin it was majority untill then

in 1763 russia annaxedd it before that the tarters had been there about  700  years and they were still the majority up untill the 1940s

if thats not a  cliam i dont know what is

   It isn't a claim in any real sense, nugs. Tatars make up around 15% of the population of Crimea today and are able to speak for themselves. They are part of the population who as a whole have chosen to align with Russia.  How does this "return" of Crimea to the Tatars work?  You would also have to argue for the return of the USA to various indigenous tribes, then Canada. Australia will also have to be returned to the Aborigines. They all have better claims than the Tatars to Crimea. The Tatars themselves were invaders and are by no stretch the original indigenous inhabitants. Why not also argue for the "return" of Gibraltar to Spain?
     Russia have a near 250 year old claim. There is zero doubt that the Crimeans themselves want to be part of Russia. There is also zero doubt that the Ukrainian regime plan to ethnically cleanse and genocide the current population. The Ukrainian regime know that they are not wanted by the population and they would have to subdue them in order to rule.
     Quite how this hypothetical Tatar government gain power is left to the imagination.
     Ukraine's plans have been spelt out by many Official representatives of the Regime. Such as Kyrylo Budanov the Intelligence Chief who recently made the statement below. No secret is made of this intention. The self determination of the Crimeans is what Russia offer. Ukraine openly offer ethnic cleansing and genocide;   

“The majority of the radical pro-Russian population, upon the arrival of Ukrainian units in Crimea through any form of advancement, be it offensive or otherwise, will promptly depart for the Russian Federation via the ferry crossing,” Budanov believes.
    “No one will remain here. They will vacate this territory — they are not suicidal, believe me,” he said.

     It is not open to any other interpretation, Budanov is openly threatening genocide of "pro Russian Crimeans". To be "pro Russian" in A Ukrainian controlled Crimea would be "suicidal". This would also apply to "pro Russian" Tatars, by the way.

   
   
 

[Steve_uk]

The problem with your posts gringo is that they mislead: whether intentionally or inadvertently remains a mystery. The state-wide referendum on March 17, 1991 was boycotted by Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Armenia, Moldova and Georgia.

Why is Russia so frightened of free and fair elections? https://www.coe.int/en/web/kyiv/-/holding-referendums-during-wars-and-military-threats-is-against-european-standards

[gringo]

The problem with your posts gringo is that they mislead: whether intentionally or inadvertently remains a mystery. The state-wide referendum on March 17, 1991 was boycotted by Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Armenia, Moldova and Georgia.

Why is Russia so frightened of free and fair elections? https://www.coe.int/en/web/kyiv/-/holding-referendums-during-wars-and-military-threats-is-against-european-standards

   How was anything I wrote misleading? The articles linked made clear that the referendum was boycotted in those five states. What does that have to do with the Crimean question? The referendum held in 1991 (two in Crimea) as well as the 1994 referendum and the 2014 referendum all have shown consistently that their is no support to be part of Ukraine. Calling my post misleading without elaborating how avoids the bother of answering the simple question posed.
       Can you spell out a legitimate Ukrainian claim to Crimea? Just say no if you can't make the case. I have invited the counter claim. Making false criticism of the case that I have laid out seems to demonstrate the absence of a reasonable positive argument in favour of Ukrainian sovereignty. Prove me wrong.   

[Steve_uk]

   How was anything I wrote misleading? The articles linked made clear that the referendum was boycotted in those five states. What does that have to do with the Crimean question? The referendum held in 1991 (two in Crimea) as well as the 1994 referendum and the 2014 referendum all have shown consistently that their is no support to be part of Ukraine. Calling my post misleading without elaborating how avoids the bother of answering the simple question posed.
       Can you spell out a legitimate Ukrainian claim to Crimea? Just say no if you can't make the case. I have invited the counter claim. Making false criticism of the case that I have laid out seems to demonstrate the absence of a reasonable positive argument in favour of Ukrainian sovereignty. Prove me wrong.

But we don't accept the results of referenda held at gunpoint. The 1991 referendum was held when Ukraine was still part of the Soviet Union. Russia promised to respect Ukraine's borders in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, or have you forgotten that?

[gringo]

But we don't accept the results of referenda held at gunpoint. The 1991 referendum was held when Ukraine was still part of the Soviet Union. Russia promised to respect Ukraine's borders in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, or have you forgotten that?

    Steve, there have been four referenda since 1991. Are you suggesting that all four were held at gun point? This is simply not true and only demonstrates that you cannot lay out a legitimate case for Ukrainian sovereignty over Crimea.
     The 1994 Budapest Memorandum is something that you have often brought up, but beyond the promise to "respect Ukraine's borders", you seem to know little more of its purpose and provisions. It has nothing to do with the Crimean question and was about Nuclear non-proliferation.
     The first vote in Crimea in 1991, prior to the All State Referendum, was organised by the Crimeans. They voted to re-establish the ASSR of Crimea. Over 94%. Are you suggesting that this was held at gunpoint?
     The second vote in 1991, organised by the Soviet Union, was to vote on whether to preserve the Union. This is the vote boycotted by five republics and part of another. (the 3 Baltic states plus Moldova, Armenia, Georgia). Was this held at gunpoint? and what does the boycott of those states have to do with the Crimean Question?
      The third vote was held in 1994, but you seem to believe the Budapest Memorandum is more relevant despite not even addressing Crimea. In the third vote, three questions were asked.
     1) Are you for the restoration of the provision of the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea of 6 May 1992 which determines the regulation of mutual relations between the Republic of Crimea and Ukraine on the basis of a Treaty of Agreements?
     2) Are you for the restoration of the provision of the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea of 6 May 1992 that proclaimed the right of citizens of the Republic of Crimea to dual citizenship?
     3) Are you for conceding the force of laws to the edicts of the president of the Republic of Crimea on questions that are temporarily not regulated by legislation of the Republic of Crimea?
     Again all three measures were overwhelmingly passed. The results in favour were, 79, 83 and 78% in favour of the three measures(rounded up).
     Are you claiming that this referendum was also held "at gunpoint"?

     Finally the 2014 referendum only confirmed what the Crimeans have been saying ever since the initial break from the Soviet Union. Allegations that it is illegitimate and held at gunpoint ignore the fact that it merely re-emphasised what the Crimeans have repeatedly voted for. No gunpoint was required.
      You have yet to articulate a positive case, or even hint at one, for Ukrainian sovereignty over Crimea. There is no evidence whatsoever that Crimeans want to "rejoin" Ukraine. The Ukrainians make no secret that they want the land minus the people. They also are fully aware that their presence and governance is not wanted.
      The preference that you have previously stated for a OSCE overseen referendum is not on offer by the Ukrainians, because they already know what the result will be(same as the other four). The only argument that remains for Ukraine sovereignty over Crimea is that it was transferred arbitrarily in 1954 by then Soviet leader, Nikita Krushchev. This cannot be the the entirety of the case. Crimea is Ukrainian because Krushchev arbitrarily transferred the territory within the borders of the USSR in 1954. That is the only time that Crimea has been "part" of Ukraine. There wasn't then, and has never been a democratic mandate supporting Ukrainian sovereignty.
      You have seen the statements of Kyrylo Budanov. You can easily find statements of a similar ilk by other Ukrainian officials. Ukraine plan to annex, offer no vote(gunpoint or otherwise) and punish or deport all Crimeans who are "pro Russian" or who "collaborated" with the pro Russian authorities. You may believe that you support something other than this, but you don't. Simply wishing doesn't make something so.
      Can you articulate your positive case? and tell us how the Crimeans will be "liberated"?

[gringo]

     Two simple questions for the "Crimea belongs to Ukraine" believers.

1) In what is referred to erroneously as the Russian annexation of Crimea-how many were killed?
2) Is there any scenario whereby Ukraine taking control of Crimea would be equally bloodless? or would it likely be extremely bloody?

     Attempting to take Crimea, against both the will of the Crimeans and Russians is insanely escalatory. Anyone supporting this either has a death wish or they simply haven't really thought it through.

[Steve_uk]

Again you slant the news in your favour. In the 1991 referendum Crimeans voted for autonomy, not to leave Ukraine completely. In 1994 they voted for dual Ukrainian and Russian citizenship, not to secede from Ukraine altogether. The 2014 referendum was illegal and I post no further comment thereon.

[Steve_uk]

     Two simple questions for the "Crimea belongs to Ukraine" believers.

1) In what is referred to erroneously as the Russian annexation of Crimea-how many were killed?
2) Is there any scenario whereby Ukraine taking control of Crimea would be equally bloodless? or would it likely be extremely bloody?

     Attempting to take Crimea, against both the will of the Crimeans and Russians is insanely escalatory. Anyone supporting this either has a death wish or they simply haven't really thought it through.

The problem, even if we accept what you say, is that the titbit of Crimea with its Sevastopol naval base was not sufficient to assuage Putin's paranoia over NATO, and when it became clear post-Yanukovych that Ukraine was heading in a westerly direction they had to find an excuse to invade to hang onto the Crimean booty they seized illegally in the first place.

[gringo]

Again you slant the news in your favour. In the 1991 referendum Crimeans voted for autonomy, not to leave Ukraine completely. In 1994 they voted for dual Ukrainian and Russian citizenship, not to secede from Ukraine altogether. The 2014 referendum was illegal and I post no further comment thereon.

   I'm not "slanting" anything. I have stated unambiguously what each vote was for. The common theme is that the Crimeans do not accept rule from Kiev.
     There were two referenda in 1991, Steve. I made clear earlier the terms of those referenda.
     There is zero evidence of Crimeans accepting rule from Kiev. You know this really. This raises very uncomfortable questions that you shy away from. How would Kiev subdue or deal with the recalcitrant population? They have told us but you don't want to hear.
      It is inconsistent and indefensible to support Ukraine forcing sovereignty onto Crimea.

[Steve_uk]

   I'm not "slanting" anything. I have stated unambiguously what each vote was for. The common theme is that the Crimeans do not accept rule from Kiev.
     There were two referenda in 1991, Steve. I made clear earlier the terms of those referenda.
     There is zero evidence of Crimeans accepting rule from Kiev. You know this really. This raises very uncomfortable questions that you shy away from. How would Kiev subdue or deal with the recalcitrant population? They have told us but you don't want to hear.
      It is inconsistent and indefensible to support Ukraine forcing sovereignty onto Crimea.

If we are mutually nitpicking I might also assert that there has never been a free and fair vote in Crimeans (and I might refer to nugnug's comments here on wondering just exactly who they are) deciding to join the Russia as constituted on 25 December 1991.

[gringo]

The problem, even if we accept what you say, is that the titbit of Crimea with its Sevastopol naval base was not sufficient to assuage Putin's paranoia over NATO, and when it became clear post-Yanukovych that Ukraine was heading in a westerly direction they had to find an excuse to invade to hang onto the Crimean booty they seized illegally in the first place.

   This is simply not true and a ridiculously paranoid false narrative of events in Crimea in 1991. In this "invasion" how much blood was spilled? Why did the majority of the Ukrainian Army based there defect? Describe the "invasion" and "annexation" to me. There has been a Russian base there for 250 years. Ukraine would need to militarily annex Crimea, they are not wanted there. Why do you ignore this most vital of facts, the will of the Crimeans. Disbelieving the repeated stated desire of the Crimeans whilst offering no evidence to support the alternative is incoherent. As is supporting the Ukrainians on the basis of a OSCE overseen referendum that isn't even on offer. Your position makes no sense and ignores inconvenient realities.
     You have made perfectly clear that there is no case for Ukraine sovereignty of Crimea. I have asked you to make the case and you haven't even attempted it. The consequences of the actions that you support are likely catastrophic if they succeeded.