Is the Crimea in the Ukraine really 100% loyal to Russia. Things are never as tidy as all that. I’d like to know what the people there really think.
I look forward to your feedback
davidmich
"On the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea, ethnic Tatars are delighted about the new authorities, but the majority ethnic Russians are spoiling for a fight. Many of them would like Crimea to secede from Ukraine altogether.
In Crimea, the Tatars were determined to stop a parliamentary debate on secession. Scuffles broke out between the pro-Russian supporters and anti-Russian Tatars."
Crimea is 58% ethnic Russian, 24% Ukrainian, and 12% Tatar. Ethnicity will suggest your political loyalties but not always. First you have to tell us where you heard that it is “100% loyal.”
Crimea is already a self-governing, autonomous region of Ukraine. Most likely, they’d prefer complete independence instead of being yet another province of Russia.
Who can really say? There is not exactly good polling data. That said this NYT bit is interesting albeit only one person’s sayso.
I’d guess the Tatars and the ethnic Ukrainians are pretty close to 100% not loyal to Russia and that a significant minority of the ethnic Russians are as presented in that NYT bit (perhaps not the majority as the author states).
I would suspect that a free and internationally supervised election offereing the option of continued semi-autonomous intergration with the rest of Ukraine vs seccession would see a narrow majority vote for the former rather than the latter, with enough ethnic Rusians joining the Tatar and Ukrainian blocs to put continued integration over … but there is little hope that such a free and clean of interference vote will ever be allowed to occur.
It was Russian from Catherine the Great 'til WW2, so I guess the ties are pretty strong.
Ukraine is like one of those variously flavoured segment pizzas. mmmmm.
And how long were various African regions under British rule? South Africa for over a hundred years. And Ireland for longer. I guess the ties must be pretty strong in both those places too!
Amazingly enough we in the states do not see a diversity of culture and ethnicity unable to stand.
The various African regions were never ethnically British.
The majority of Sub-Saharan countries had independence 1960-1968. North Africa a bit earlier, and some exceptions like Ethiopia in 1944 (also Italian, but they didn’t have much say at the time). Colonization was the late 19th century, 1860+ for most of them. 1795 for parts of South Africa, which I’ll guess is the longest, till 1910, or 1961 if you’re being a tad pedantic.
thelurkinghorror, thank you for the answer even though it was more of a rhetorical question.
Moiser, yes, and so?
The issue is how “loyal” Crimea is to Russia.
One argument is that they are loyal because they are all ethnic Russians. That is first off simply not true. It is not even a vast majority. A fairly narrow majority are and many are ethnically Ukrainian or Tatar. Secondly to believe that shared ethnicity means loyalty to the country of ethnic hertage is not based on any reality. Are Mexican-Americans, or Cuban-Americans, or Canadian-Americans, more loyal to Mexico or Cuba or Canada than to America? If Cuba occupied part of Miami that was highly concentrated Cuban-American would Cuban-Americans be presumed to be loyal to and supportive of Cuba and wanting seccession from the United States?
The next argument was that having been controlled by Russia for a long time would mean strong ties. That is a silly argument as is shown by the fact that many other regions have been controlled by countries without loyalty being the result, sometimes quite the opposite in fact.
The implication was also made that having diversity (different flavored pizza segements) meant no shared identity or unity. The nature of the United States as an easy example is the counterweight to that argument.
I don’t know if the NYT bit that claims a majority of Crimean ethnic Russians are against Russia coming in as Russia has is true or if most of them want seccession. But I do know that presuming the answer based on shared ethnicity or based on having been controlled by Russia for many years historically is not justified.
The OP will have an answer March 16. Should be interesting to see how the people vote.
I am sure a referendum under Russian guns will provide a valid answer.
The should cast their votes under the guns of the government rightfully appointed by the leaders of a violent fascist coup, like we do in the west.
Carl Bernstein, the one from Woodward and Bernstein who wasn’t Woodward, wrote that the NYT, CBS and Time-Life were the CIA’s main voices in the media. Consider the likelihood that this story is the Kuwaiti-incubator-story of our time.
With South Africa it depends on whether you mean Cape Colony or the boer-dominated Union of South Africa. The ties were quite strong, but South Africa severed their’s with the adoption of Apartheid in 1948, and the Rhodesians with their UDI. Britain wasn’t racist enough for them, I suppose. The black colonies had less deep ties.
With Ireland the ties were too deep, which is why we’re still saddled with Northern Ireland to this day, Northern Ireland seeming quite a reasonable analogue for the Crimea in the Ukraine.
Thank you all very much. Very helpful.
davidmich
Not quite correct. From 1910-1961, South Africa was a self-governing dominion of the British Empire. Only in 1961 did South Africa become an independent republic. (for the white citizens at least - blacks got the same shit as before.)
davidmich
And how much faith do you have that the published results represent the actual will of the people who live in Crimea?
Has anyone seen any reports of massive vote fraud in the election?
In terms of loyalty, another type of loyalty hasn’t been mentioned–a huge proportion of the population is loyal to their pocket book–and Russians have a significantly higher standard of living than Ukrainians.
GDP per capita
Russia: $14,037
Ukraine: $3,867
So I expect a lot of Crimeans want to join with Russia for economic reasons.
You mean besides the Russian troops that took over the country and called for the vote?
Flawed questions in the referendum ballots that do not allow for the ‘leave everything as is option’.
Russian troops on the ground
A referendum organised in just two weeks
People with Russian passports being allowed to vote
A team of ‘international observers’ consisting of members of European fascist members.
Yup. It’s a fraud all right
Thought I’d clarify: judging by the reports of journalists on the ground, it seems pretty clear that Crimeans are in favour of becoming part of Russia. That doesn’t make the referendum any less fraudulent though.