People talk about land as if there were no people living on it. Do the people living in eastern Donetsk and Luhansk WANT to become Russian? Do their families living elsewhere in Ukraine want their relatives to be of a different nationality? If so, I haven’t heard it.
Some do, some don’t. Those regions have large Russian-speaking minorities (about 39% at the 2001 census) but were still majority Ukrainian.
This of course makes nonsense of any Russian claim that the majority in these regions “wanted to join Russia”.
There was arguably a case for more local self-government (which was provided for in the Minsk agreements I believe) and respect for minorities (Russian-speakers complained of being discriminated against, though how true this is I don’t know) but not for invasion and annexation by Russia.
ETA: Crimea on the other hand is over 80% Russian-speaking, and on that basis probably should not have been included in Ukraine after the end of the Soviet Union, but that still does not excuse Russia’s abrogation of the treaty that gave it to Ukraine and its armed invasion.
2 Likes
Where are you getting this from? Crimea was part of the RFSR until 1954 when Krushchev allocated it to UFSR. In the Budapest Memorandum (which it sounds like you are talking about) Russia simply agreed to leave Ukraine (including Crimea ) TF alone.
1 Like
Crimea voted to leave the SU, just like every other region in the 1991 referendum. Just not by as wide a margin as say the folks up in Lviv.
I think article you link to is a criticism of the West and China not keeping promises, not just Russia.
“Thirty years ago, on 5 December 1994, at a ceremony in Budapest, Ukraine joined Belarus and Kazakhstan in giving up their nuclear arsenals in return for security guarantees from the United States, the UK, France, China and Russia.”
So much for security guarantees.
Nobody honours promises really. Things change and the promises have to change with the circumstances. I’m not saying that’s a good thing but that is pragmatically what happens.
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” John Maynard Keynes
From a national point of view Ukraine probably shouldn’t have given up their tactical nuclear weapons, but from a Western perspective Ukraine was just as ropey as Russia. Removing nuclear weapons from Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan was a smart thing to do. Right up until the invasion Ukraine was seen as a being as corrupt as Russia. Then suddenly it was a paragon of virtue standing up to the Red threat.
I’ve argued all this before three years ago, and my posts are still on threads such The Ukraine situation, where will it end? so I’m not going to go around it again.
I wasn’t throwing down the gauntlet for a debate 
(though I think a debate here would be interesting) I was just restating my original position on the final outcome, which hasn’t changed and IMO seems to be the direction of travel. The tragedy is that so many lives have been lost due to political stupidity in the meantime. If only George Smiley had been in charge.
I’ve been around this loop before Chris. Why did Putin invade Crimea, that’s the question.
I don’t blame Zelensky for provoking the Russia, that started the day after the Wall came down (well a bit later). I blame Zelensky for not seeing the inevitable outcome of conflict with Russia under a dictator. Pain now or more pain later.
I don’t care what Russia does in Moldova and Georgia. It’s nothing to do with us (Europe).
“Russian forces would be on the border with Poland right now”. That’s the narrative we’re being fed now alright. I just don’t remember anybody saying that in 2021.
All this “appeasement” rubbish is so 1938 
The big problem, then as now, is that Europe is not capable of defending itself.
Ukraine did a magnificent job in repulsing Putin’s initial blitzkrieg. The focus then should have been on peace (or a spot of “appeasement” if you like), and building up massive defences, not squandering resources in offensive efforts to recover lost land.
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/ukraine-nuclear-weapons-and-security-assurances-glance
With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Commonwealth of Independent States signed the Minsk Agreement on December 30, 1991, agreeing that the Russian government would be given charge of all nuclear armaments. However, as long as the weapons remained in Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan, the governments of those countries would have the right to veto their use. The target date for dismantling the weapons was set for the end of 1994.
By 1996, Ukraine had returned all of its nuclear warheads to Russia in exchange for economic aid and security assurances, and in December 1994, Ukraine became a non-nuclear weapon state-party to the 1968 nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).
Did the people living in Alsace want to be German (or French), etc. etc.?
I think we have been blessed in living a golden age where there has been a fair amount of stability on our side of the Globe. But the reality is shit happens, and there’s a lot of it happening now. It seems we have moved, unnoticed by the masses, back into an era of “might is right”.
Back to the core of this thread, the US is run by a guy who thinks might is right.
Maybe Andy Grove got it right, and not only in busines, when he said “only the paranoid survive”.
So, by extension, we no longer need to take an interest in Gaza?
1 Like
OK, Russia gets temporary control of all the SU nukes, but that Minsk agreement has nothing to do with Crimea. The word Crimea isn’t present.
There’s nothing to cede in 1991 to Ukraine because Crimea is Ukraine and has been recognized as an international border since (slightly) before I was born.
I see your point John and it’s a fair one.
Having reflected on it, I don’t think the two sad situations are comparable.
Isreal is an apartheid state committing a genocide, ethnic cleansing and a land grab. Russia is “just” making a land grab.
The people of the regions Russia is trying to annex will (I assume, others may know better) become Russian citizens. With all the plusses and minuses that will involve. But they stay in their homes, communities and life continues much as before.
If there was the possibility of an alternative to a two state solution through Israel taking over Gaza and the West bank and with the integration of the Palestinian population as full and equal citizens in a secular state, then I would be in favour of that too. However Zionism prevents that.
If it is Putin’s intention to starve the population of Donbas and then to ship them off to South Sudan I’d consider the two situations comparable.
How convenient.
Well, it’s an attempted land grab at the moment. If it succeeds I think it’s inevitable that at least something like the rest will follow.
That’s only speculation, I’d argue my comments are based on the reality today. Though no doubt life in the Donbas is very rough.
Look, all I’m doing is saying what I think You are quite entitled to think it’s nuts.
Personally, I’m not convinced that there wouldn’t be ethnic cleansing in Ukraine if Russia had free reign which, fortunately, it doesn’t.
More broadly, every land grab comes at the cost of significant civilian death so, is that ok so long as it’s equal opportunity death and not based on your ethnicity?
Amnesty suggests that there is a history of ethnic cleansing though they don’t go so far as to allege genocide.
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20250808-residents-russian-occupied-ukraine-water-shortage
Quite a bit rougher now than under Ukraine. It’s not like they just change the street signs and passports and life goes on.
Explain this to me. What gives Russia the right to do this?
To be pragmatic, hard to see who is taking an interest that matters.
Except the US whose taking an interest seems to be taking the form of active disinterest. At least until whatever they think is good for US interests and the interests of power-holders and resource-holders in the US, h2as been as good as completed by others.
Good article. I need to think about it.
I accept the argument that land grabs bring bad things. I don’t know what the situation in Crimea was before the annexation (I’ve googled but found nothing) but it’s obviously not good now for certain sections of the community, but I’ve no idea of the scale.
I still come back to why Crimea was annexed, I believe it was for military reasons and it could have been avoided through diplomacy.
Yes, it’s dreadful. But to answer your question, because it can. If there had been any substance to the security pledges mentioned above then it wouldn’t have been able to.
A good analysis IMO.
It’s going to be some meeting.
Maybe Trump will be be the catalyst for the EU to get its act together.
Wasn’t/isn’t the Russian Black Sea Fleet based at Sebastopol in the Crimea?
Goodness knows why Krushkev gave it away, did he have a Ukrainian mother (happy birthday Mum sorry it isn’t wrapped) or some other connection?
There may be a good argument for it being Russian and, as I said from the beginning, maybe the eastern regions should have a referendum as to who they want to belong to, but I don’t think the Ukrainians see it that way.
1 Like
Can we ever again trust as fair, the results of any referendum?!