Just a tiny speck of what Ukrainians think about Russia conquering Crimea:

[DetlefK]

To make it very short: A colleague of mine knows several Eastern Europeans, among them an older couple of Ukrainians.
They told him that while the loss of Crimea is a blow to the national pride of Ukraine, the europe-minded Ukrainians aren't that sorry about loosing it: The Crimea always had a special place in Ukraine, it always was considered more russian than ukrainian. For the europe-minded Ukrainians, getting rid of the Crimea means getting rid of its Russia-friendly populace and that allows them to move the rest of Ukraine closer to Europe.


Ukrainian elections were always close: 50% for the party tending to the West, 50% for the party tending towards Russia. With Crimea gone, the elections in May might be more like 55:45.

[CFLDem]

1. So to summarize

it's kind of like we would feel if we ceded the red states away.

[CBGLuthier]

2. To quote the late, great Tonto, "What You Mean We, White Man?"

Or as others have put it, "When you say 'we', do you have a mouse in your pocket?"

Hint, I live in a so-called red state. the reddest of them all in fact.

[brush]

3. Cool visualization, quite on the mark. nt

[reformist2]

4. More like how the red states would feel if the blue states seceded, but basically same diff.

[MNBrewer]

8. Lol

[Tommy_Carcetti]

5. The problem with Crimea was that the earth was already salted via Russification.

Let's get this straight--Russia's claim that Crimea is part and parcel with Russia proper is bullshit.

Crimea's Russian identity came only because of an intense campaign of Russification by the Russia and the Soviet Union, which included actively expelling non-Russians from the land.

That being said, once the scourge was there, it was pretty much there to stay, to the detriment of ethnic Tatars and Ukrainians living in Crimea before Russification. The only remedy would have been to deport thousands upon thousands of ethnic Russians who had put down roots in the area over the decades, and I don't think Ukraine had either the means or the true desire to do so.

Ideally, given its geographic isolation from the rest of Russia yet its apparent desire to remain apart from Ukraine, Crimea would best be served as being an independent nation. Knowing Vladimir Putin, though, I don't think he would ever, ever let that happen though.

[JustAnotherGen]

6. Good point TC

" . . . came only because of an intense campaign of Russification by the Russia and the Soviet Union, which included actively expelling non-Russians from the land."

[former9thward]

7. Alternative history abounds.

Crimea has been part of Russia for hundreds of years. If anything was a product of Stalin it was Ukraine. Take a look at a map of Ukraine before 1917. It was a small country. Soviet dictators Lenin, Stalin and the Ukrainian Khrushchev all added massive land to Ukraine. There were no ethnic Ukrainian living there before "Russification" as you call it. Yes the Tatars were there. They used Crimea as their slave trading headquarters.

Until the late 18th century, Crimean Tatars maintained a massive slave trade with the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East. About 2 million slaves from Russia and Ukraine were sold over the period 1500–1700. Tatars were known for frequent, at some periods almost annual, devastating raids on the Slavic peoples to the north. In 1769 a last major Tatar raid, which took place during the Russo-Turkish War, saw the capture of 20,000 slaves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea

[Tommy_Carcetti]

9. "If anything was a product of Stalin it was Ukraine."

Yes, Stalin created Ukraine.

That's why he instituted policies responsible for starving millions of ethnic Ukrainians to death, and deported hundreds of thousands more (including members of my own family) to Siberia and other remote regions. And then had Russians brought into Ukraine and barred the Ukrainian language and aspects of Ukrainian culture. Because he wanted to create Ukraine, of course!

And portions of western Ukraine that weren't under Russian/Soviet control at the beginning of the USSR--those were never Ukrainian either. I mean, it's not like people in those areas spoke Ukrainian, or had Ukrainian religions, or identified with Ukrainian culture. Not at all!

Jeez a whiz, do you know how fucking stupid you sound?

[former9thward]

10. If your family was Ukrainian you would think you would know some history.

Of the five additions to Ukrainian territory four occurred by Stalin. One by the Ukrainian born dictator Khrushchev. So now who is stupid?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

11. Do you honestly think Stalin did any of that for the benefit of the Ukrainian people?

Knowing who Stalin was and what he did?

People in Western Ukraine (where my family was from) always identified as culturally Ukrainian going back centuries to the days of the Kievan Rus. (Those areas considered themselves Ukrainian far, far earlier than Crimeans ever considered themselves Russian). When that area was controlled by the Austrio-Hungarian empire, that Ukrainian identity was freely encouraged without significant persecution. (Less so when it was controlled by Russian Poland).

So Stalin came in and formally added on western Ukraine to the Ukrainian S.S.R. And then he proceeded to persecute the Ukrainian people in that region (as well as the rest of the Ukrainian SSR), deporting many (like some members of my family) or causing others to flee for their lives (like my mother's immediate family).

Stalin did none of that for the benefit of the Ukrainian people. You're a bloody fool if you tell yourself that was the case.

[former9thward]

12. Please do a cut and paste and show where I said Stalin was to benefit Ukraine.

It is however history no matter whose benefited. Although giving Crimea to Ukraine by the Ukrainian born dictator Khrushchev was certainly to benefit Ukraine. He had no right to do that. I am well aware of Stalin and the forced starvation. I have a friend who is originally from Lviv and his grandfather was a victim of the starvation in 1932.

I believe in self determination. I truly believe most people in Crimea favored unification with Russia. Most rational people operate in their economic self interest. By joining Russia the people of Crimea will see their pensions tripled, the minimum wage will increase and the retirement age will drop to the Russian 60 for men and 55 for women (something we could use in the U.S.). Things are far more complicated than the posts here make them.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

13. Your insinuation that Ukraine as we now know it was a creation of Stalin....

...was insulting, whether you intended it as such or not.

And whether or not ethnic Russians living in Crimea view it in their economic best interests to join Russia, it does not change the fact that Russian influence in Crimea only dates back 200-250 years, while others have a much longer and lasting existence in that area. Thus rendering bogus Russia's claims that Crimea was always Russia. Crimea was not always Russia; Crimea became "Russian" only through brute force and premeditated design.