HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Ethnic make up of Crimea.
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Feb 27, 2014, 01:33 PM

Ethnic make up of Crimea.

For those who wonder what the percentages of different ethnic groups in Crimea might be, here you are:



With a referendum on Crimean independence now set for May 25th, some serious fence-mending is likely to be needed if Ukraine wants to keep this region in the Ukrainian nation.

29 replies, 1535 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 29 replies Author Time Post
Reply Ethnic make up of Crimea. (Original post)
another_liberal Feb 2014 OP
Coyotl Feb 2014 #1
goziosskiy Mar 2014 #2
hrmjustin Mar 2014 #3
amandabeech Mar 2014 #4
Scootaloo Mar 2014 #27
goziosskiy Mar 2014 #5
TBF Mar 2014 #7
goziosskiy Mar 2014 #10
TBF Mar 2014 #13
goziosskiy Mar 2014 #18
Adrahil Mar 2014 #6
goziosskiy Mar 2014 #15
Adrahil Mar 2014 #16
goziosskiy Mar 2014 #25
Adrahil Mar 2014 #28
another_liberal Mar 2014 #9
Tommy_Carcetti Mar 2014 #29
another_liberal Mar 2014 #8
goziosskiy Mar 2014 #11
another_liberal Mar 2014 #12
pampango Mar 2014 #14
another_liberal Mar 2014 #17
pampango Mar 2014 #19
another_liberal Mar 2014 #20
pampango Mar 2014 #21
another_liberal Mar 2014 #23
Bad Thoughts Mar 2014 #22
another_liberal Mar 2014 #24
goziosskiy Mar 2014 #26

Response to another_liberal (Original post)

Thu Feb 27, 2014, 01:40 PM

1. I worry more about their politics.

Some of the political actors fomenting this unrest and overthrow of a democracy want to reconquer all of Europe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 12:24 AM

2. Crimea's right for independence

1. Population of Crimea have exactly the same right for independence as Kosovo, South Sedan, and English colonies in north America in XVIII century.

2. The only way to peaceful solution is a referendum, but not with such confused question as proposed by "Maidan's government".

3. As far as Crimea was passed by Khrushchev to Ukraine in 1954 without asking people of Crimea their opinion about it, so it must be asked now in a referendum with questions like this:
a) should Crimea be independence?
b) should Crimea stay in the Ukraine?
c) should Crimea be re-united with Russian Federation?
only this way would show respect by "world society" to opinion of Crimea's people, only that if EU and USA approve that referendum and admit any results of it, they might show that they still hold onto democratic way of life, otherwise:

4. all this political "mishmash" issued from EU and USA about "Maidan" and Crimea's question clearly show that not EU neither USA can't be longer consider as truly democratic country; all this is a proof that when expression of people's demand, such as in the latest "Maidan's" uprising, lay in accordance with EU and USA global interest they give them their hard support and money, but when people want something that leads against USA and EU substantial goals, they never approve it.

...why the opinion of "Maidan" have to meet more attention and approve than the opinion of Crimea? Why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to goziosskiy (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 12:27 AM

3. If there is to be a referendum the Russians should withdraw so it is fair.

With the Russians there with guns a referendum would be difficult.


Welcome to DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 12:43 AM

4. Your absolutely right.

The referendum results will be tainted completely if the Russians are still there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amandabeech (Reply #4)

Wed Mar 5, 2014, 03:08 AM

27. It is actually impossible while the Russians are there

If a territory wishes to declare independence, it must have control over the territory it's claiming - this is why the Palestinians for instance cannot just unilaterally go "We're a state, fuck off!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 07:03 AM

5. other conditions to make it transparent

... besides it seems that it wouldn't be out of place if it would be organized under strong observation by independent observers like UN (I guess RF (Russian Federation) neither EU can't be considered as such)...

... but anyway all situation looks like struggle not for the people's vital interests, or democratic value, but for the economical and political profit and influence (perhaps, if RF would hold hard to the right of nations to self-determination it gave independence to Chechnya, I guess, and others republic on the territory of RF which demand it in the 90s, but when RF speaks about defending Russian population - it looks very similar to what speak Nazi in the 30s, and, in my opinion, itself, probably, might be considered as fascism and nazism to some degree)

(thanks for welcoming, hrmjustin)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to goziosskiy (Reply #5)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 07:55 AM

7. Are you in Ukraine currently?

I am just curious. I just posted a piece in "Good Reads" about Trotsky on Ukraine (and the need for the people of the Ukraine to self-rule).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #7)

Tue Mar 4, 2014, 02:43 AM

10. answer to TBF

... no I'm not in Ukraine and never was there; I was born and live now in RF, maybe of that reason I'm deep down in my soul and heart so tend to support Crimean's independence, not because I agree with Putin's regime and policy, but, well, if you live in Russia sine your childhood and know more or less its history and culture, the fact of passing Crimean in 1954 to Ukraine seems as a very big mistake (probably, that it was a mistake can be proved by recent events, that is, if Crimea hasn't been passed, there wouldn't be such a problem) and, besides, it seems like a very wrong act, why: not only because nobody had been asked or because some historical events connect Russia and Crimea (though it does some matter (and for some citizens of RF - it matter a lot), as it mattered, for example, in the middle of XX century when state Israel have been formed in Palestine only because ages ago on that territory was ancient Israel), but generally because cultural meaning of that region, its connection with Chekhov, Tolstoy etc. The fact of such a "gift" leaves some pain, which now tears the heart apart. So, that is why I strongly hold onto idea that the destiny of Crimea should be revise, and revise only by people of Crimea, though I agreed, of course, that in current circumstances it looks very very difficult, moreover - it fantastic and absolutely unreal (Yatsenyuk's government with EU and USA never raise such a question (and in my opinion in this fact you can see their hypocrisy, because it isn't right to support freedom only for those people with whom you see agree, and not for them, who doesn't), nor RF while Putin is the "tsar" leave his imperialistic idea of "Great Russia" and new Union of Religious Dictatorial Republics when instead of communism they propagate "pravoslavie" (ideology of eastern orthodox church); as for me, I support Kiev and west Ukraine in their striving to EU likewise Crimea's right to determine their status by themselves, in that perceptive, military actions of RF looks like 1. understanding that EU, Yatsenyuk, USA will never agreed to revise status of Crimea and 2. some kind of vengeance for "splitting" Yugoslavia, Serbia, which was supported by EU and USA and met strong opposition by Kremlin, and for something else, probably (vengeance for Livia and Qaddafi maybe))
...
Trotsky's article recommended by you is very good, very!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to goziosskiy (Reply #10)

Tue Mar 4, 2014, 07:35 AM

13. I don't know the history

as well as you and appreciate you go through that. Also I agree with your analysis. I'm glad you came on DU to give this perspective. Welcome!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #13)

Tue Mar 4, 2014, 08:51 AM

18. thanks for welcoming

Thank you, deeply respected TBF, thank you for welcoming! never expected such warm reception by people...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 07:07 AM

6. Agreed... but it's not like they will be far away...

... no doubt ready to come back in if the vote were to not go their way.

I guess the Crimean Tatars will need to pack their bags..... AGAIN.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #6)

Tue Mar 4, 2014, 08:43 AM

15. Crimean Tatars as one of the most

Crimean Tatars are one of the most oppressed nation, here some statistics from wiki's "Demographics of Crimea":

1897 census
Russians - 33%
Ukrainians - 12%
Crimean Tatars - 36% (!)

1939 census
Russians - 50%
Ukrainians - 14%
Crimean Tatars - 19%

1989 census
Russians - 67%
Ukrainians - 26%
Crimean Tatars - 2% (!!!)

and today's % - in the main post

Dynamic is clear, only after collapse of USSR population of Crimean Tatars began to grow. In following the right of nations to self-determination's point of view - if the main nations, which now reside in Crimea, want to obtain sovereignty, then territory of Crimea should be divide by national principle to three parts with territories of "compact accommodation" of each nation, I guess; but, again, it's only "dreaming in the sky" - nobody and never would follow so strict to this vital right of each people (if you have power, money and political influence you obtain your independent state – as Israel, if you haven't - nobody will consider with your opinion - for example Basques in Spain and much more other nations all around the world), moreover, I believe, Russians, if the y gain Crimea and declare it "their territory" would be against independent state of Crimean Tatars as well as Ukrainians if Crimea would stay in Ukraine, though they ain't against independent states of Russian and Ukraine, well, in that case one can ask - why Crimean Tatars doesn't have a right to their state while others have?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to goziosskiy (Reply #15)

Tue Mar 4, 2014, 08:45 AM

16. Following WWII, the Crimean Tatars were mostly forcibly relocated by the Soviet Union..

... most were forced to relocate Eastern Russian.... FAR away from Crimea.

It's important to remember that when certain members here bleat about how Crimea "used to belong to Russia."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #16)

Wed Mar 5, 2014, 02:25 AM

25. any statements that some territory in historical times was used to belong to some country...

Last edited Sun Mar 9, 2014, 04:48 AM - Edit history (1)

... and because of that should be part of that country at present times - are absolutely fascistic, and should be condemned by any means; the only thing that matters is the opinion of people who live on that territory now...

----
I guess my statement above is in some kind too harsh, categorical and looks like it gives no possibility for any other opinion, to correct this I have to add that I think any way of thinking from far-left to far-right perhaps have an equal right to exist as long as it don't strive to violence, killing or any other kind of radicalism... I shouldn't have written "...are absolutely fascistic, and should be condemned by any means", but rather "...are fascistic, and, by my opinion, probably should be condemned"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to goziosskiy (Reply #25)

Wed Mar 5, 2014, 07:09 AM

28. I would more or less agree....

.... Though I think we do have to be a bit careful. The Tatars have been screwed over historically, and while Crimea is majority ethnic Russian, that should not be a license to abuse the over 40% who are not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 03:30 PM

9. That would, though, be the green light for Svoboda to move into Crimea.

Honestly, do you think they would be welcomed by the Russian-speaking majority there? I fear a true bloodbath might ensue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #9)

Wed Mar 5, 2014, 07:16 AM

29. So you are now on the record for supporting the Russian occupation.

Fair enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to goziosskiy (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 03:23 PM

8. I would prefer it that Ukraine would stay one country . . .

I am not, however, a citizen of Ukraine, or of Crimea, and I am definitely not a Russian descended, Russian-speaking citizen of such.

At this point, I suspect, for Ukraine to remain whole would require the so-called "Interim Government" in Kiev to step aside, Yanukovich to resume his authority as President and his majority coalition of Rada deputies to be given back their seats. The early election (which all parties agreed to only a little over a week ago) could then reaffirm Yanukovich's Presidency, or remove him and his coalition from power. That is what we like to call "democracy!"

And welcome to Democratic Underground, goziozzskiy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #8)

Tue Mar 4, 2014, 03:33 AM

11. should there be bloodshed to remain Ukraine's integrity or to gain Crimea's independence

... as for me, if a question formulated like this: "there is some injustice, to correct that injustice should there be a bloodshed or not" the only possible answer is - absolutely no.

If it means foreign military intervention and bloodshed to fix mistake of 1954 (in my opinion - mistake), when Crimea was passed to Ukraine, I'd rather refuse from insisting on correction that mistake (because it's only an idea, and to kill anybody merely for an idea - nonsense and it definitely not permissible from my point of view, because any idea - is something which may be right or wrong, but life can only by right: if something has quality of life it's automatically cannot be described as wrong, because any life is something that maintain "existence" and oppose "non-existence" which only can be describe as a wrong)

likewise - if people of Crimea strive for other way, than those who strive for EU in Kiev, and want to form independent government it's also in my opinion not permissible to force them by military action of any kind (beside if Yatsenyuk would agree to use of force to bar extraction of Crimea from Ukraine is there be any difference between him and those who send "Berkut" to kill people on Maidan?) - of course, that kind of judgment would be possible only if Crimea's people make their decisions without military invasion from outer country – in present condition one cannot judge like this, because there is foreign military intervention, though hidden, as I suppose; so in this way to judge Yatsenyuk's possible reaction one must take into consideration, for example, such question: what would do Kremlin, or Brussels, or Washington if such situation took place in their territory? how Putin would respond if China drive their force to Vladivostok, how Ashton would respond if Turkey drive their force to Greece? how Obama would respond if Mexico drive their force to California? - it's some kind of "big politics" i don't know how to respond on such questions, the only strong conviction of mine is that no idea or political interest can justify bloodshed or killing even one man...

completely forget – thank you for welcoming, another_liberal...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to goziosskiy (Reply #11)

Tue Mar 4, 2014, 04:25 AM

12. In this current situation . . .

The use of deadly military force would be extremely foolish. You are completely correct concerning the protection of human life being paramount. In this current situation, we must remain calm and pragmatic. Military force by anyone involved could lead to the kind of wholesale bloodshed, destruction and death that no sane person can possibly want to see.

Crimea, as you note, was only added to Ukraine sixty years ago, and even after that transfer they both remained within the Soviet Union. I seriously doubt such an action would have even been considered had people at the time foreseen a breaking up of the Soviet Union itself. That makes Crimean independence a different situation than it would be if one of the States of the United States, for example, attempted to secede and become its own country. I think it is entirely justified for the citizens of Crimea to have a free and fair vote to decide the question of their independence, or continued status as a part of the larger Ukraine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Original post)

Tue Mar 4, 2014, 07:57 AM

14. Assuming the 41.5% who are not ethnic Russians vote No, it would only take a few

ethnic Russians (perhaps liberals who do not see a future with Putin's domestic policies and prefer the "humanist, socially liberal policies that exist in Europe) to lead to a surprising result in the referendum. What then? Does Putin say "The people have spoken. We are out of here."

And I'm not sure that Putin wants people in provinces/regions voting in referendums to determine what their national affiliation will be. There are many regions in Russia where ethnic Russians are a minority. I suspect the "Putin Rule" on nationality referendums only applies when and where Putin says it applies. And that is the beauty of large armies (though I think they are an incredible waste of money). Rules don't apply to you; only to countries with smaller armies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #14)

Tue Mar 4, 2014, 08:46 AM

17. Your last point, about countries with large and small armies is spot on.

Our own country's recent history proves it fairly well.

As to how the non-Russians will vote in Crimea's referendum, I doubt if all of them will be against independence, especially not when the alternative is staying under the control of the kind of clowns who outlaw political parties, censor the press, elevate unelected "technocrat" stooges to the Presidency (at the behest of the US government) and have no clue how to run an economy (except for begging handouts from anyone who will listen).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #17)

Tue Mar 4, 2014, 08:55 AM

19. We shall see but I doubt too many non-Russians in Crimea think that Putin

is a paragon of democracy, civil rights, economic management (his man, Yanukovych, certainly was not) or a supporter of a free press.

In the short term it looks like a choice between the "lesser-of-two-evils". In a longer term view you could argue that the chance for some level of economic prosperity and liberal social policy is greater the current Ukraine administration and its tilt towards Europe than is a closer association with Putin's Russia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #19)

Tue Mar 4, 2014, 12:54 PM

20. I think the Crimean referendum is to be for or against independence . . .

I've heard nothing about it's being about a union with Russia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #20)

Tue Mar 4, 2014, 01:45 PM

21. The new Crimean leader changed the referendum date from May 25 (passed by parliament) to March 30

but did not really explain why.

Crimea's new pro-Moscow premier, Sergei Aksenov, moved the date of the peninsula's status referendum to March 30.

On Thursday, the Crimean parliament, which appointed Aksenov, had called for a referendum on May 25, the date also set for the urgent presidential election in Ukraine.

“In connection with a necessity we decided to speed up the holding of the referendum on the stauts of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea,” Aksenov said Saturday in Simferopol at a new government session, the UNIAN information agency reported.

Earlier that day, Aksenov, head of the nationalist Russian Unity organization, appealed to Russian President Vladimir Putin “to render assistance in securing peace and tranquility on the territory of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea," UNIAN reported.

http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-crimea-referendum-date-20140301,0,2305350.story#axzz2v1DwtWQ3

The only reason for moving up the date given was "in connection with a necessity". I'm not sure what that is code for or if he has explained it more fully somewhere else. Was "the necessity" that Vladimir decided he needed an early referendum, while emotions are high and troops are widespread, because he wants a positive vote on it to bolster his case now not 3 months from now?

The Washington Post has an article supposedly clarifying the wording of the referendum:


Volodymyr Konstantynov, chairman of the Supreme Council of Crimea and a high-ranking official in the same new regime, claims that it would give Crimea the status of a “state” and that Crimea – and Ukraine as a whole – belong to “the Russian world.” Some Russian media describe it as a referendum on independence as well. The Russian-language text of the question to be put before the voters is as follows:

Автономная республика Крым обладает государственной самостоятельностью и входит в состав Украины на основе договоров и соглашений (да или нет )?”

I loosely translate this as “The autonomous republic of Crimea possesses state independence and is a part of Ukraine on the basis of treaties and agreements (yes or no)?” In Russian, as in English, this legalistic language is ambiguous enough to be interpreted either way. Perhaps it means that Crimea is an independent state that has some loose connection to Ukraine based on agreements. Or it could mean that Crimea has a legal right to be independent if it want to, but has chosen not to be. Legalistic hair-splitting aside, there is little doubt that Putin could use the referendum as a pretext for justifying de facto Russian control of Crimea, even if not de jure.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/03/thoughts-on-the-crisis-in-ukraine/?tid=pm_national_pop

The wording - at least the English translation in the article - seems odd. Does a "Yes" vote mean a vote for "state independence" or for being "a part of Ukraine"? If you want Crimea to stay in the Ukraine, do you vote Yes or No?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #21)

Tue Mar 4, 2014, 05:53 PM

23. They do need to work on the wording, or on the translation . . .

No doubt about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #20)

Tue Mar 4, 2014, 01:52 PM

22. The perception of outside influence could easily affect such a vote ...

... even if it is simply a matter of independence. For instance, the vote in the Saar was tipped partially by the sense that France was pushing too hard for it to be an independent state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Thoughts (Reply #22)

Tue Mar 4, 2014, 05:55 PM

24. Yes, there will be many influences at play . . .

The most important thing is that the vote be free and fair (a secret ballot is essential).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #14)

Wed Mar 5, 2014, 02:52 AM

26. don't know what Putin would say in that case, but as for me...

... such result of referendum (I mean that Crimea will remain in Ukraine) as well as any others would mean that Crimea's question is closed, and that Crimea become the real, true part of Ukraine, and no-one can claim on this territory...

There are many regions in Russia where ethnic Russians are a minority. I suspect the "Putin Rule" on nationality referendums only applies when and where Putin says it applies.
- the main example to this is Chechnya, I guess...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread