What dies it take for Russia to stop this war?

[Anonymous]

Honestly I think that Ukraine will need to start bombing inside of Russia to force a revolution there. It’s horrible but that’s the only way that the Russian people will risk everything to take out Putin. Give them a week of notice of what will happen and then if they aren’t in the midst of a real revolution then bring the invasion home to them in every way - bomb our school, we bomb 3 of yours, bomb our maternity hospital, we bomb 3 of yours. If are cold and dark then so are your people, but more of them. We need to help Ukraine to do that with precision missiles that can reach deep within Russia. Right now, the Russian people are too comfortable and have no reason to risk their lives getting rid of Putin. Things need to get bad enough for them that dying for a revolution to protect their own children and families looks like a good option.

[Anonymous]

An interesting take on the history of Crimea that no one wants to talk about:

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/11/25/the-tragedy-of-crimea/

..Since 2014, a number of Western-sponsored polls have likewise shown a high level of support for reunification with Russia. Thus, a Pew survey from April 2014 showed that 91 percent of Crimean respondents believed the 2014 referendum was free and fair. A June 2014 poll, this one by Gallup, found nearly 83 percent of the Crimean population (94 percent of ethnic Russians and 68 percent of ethnic Ukrainians) thought the 2014 referendum reflected the views of the people. A spring 2017 survey conducted by the German-based Center for East European and International Studies found that, if asked to vote again then, 79 percent said they would cast the same vote.

Most striking of all has been the turnaround in the attitude of Crimean Tatars. A 2020 report in Foreign Affairs found that the proportion of Tatars who indicated that they thought being part of Russia would make them better off rose from 50 percent in 2014 to 81 percent in 2019.

Many leading Ukrainian political and cultural figures, including the writers Vasyl Shklyar, Yuri Andrukhovych, and former President Viktor Yushchenko, have referred to Crimea as foreign to Ukraine and depicted its multiculturalism as a threat to the nationalist Ukraine they were trying to create. After 2013, some have suggested letting this territory go its own way. The danger of doing so now, however, according to President Poroshenko’s permanent representative in Crimea, Boris Babin, is that “if we don’t liberate Crimea and the East [militarily], then all of Ukraine will become the East and Crimea.”

..
To be clear, the loss of Crimea stems directly from Russia’s illegal annexation, but, as Ukraine’s first president, Leonid Kravchuk, acknowledged in 2019, it was fed by years of “very aggressive attacks of one region [Galicia in Western Ukraine – NP], which often believes that its ideology is the most correct, the most essential for the Ukrainian people; [and it] encounters the opposition of all regions of Ukraine that have a different ideology, or maybe different views, to be more precise, on the situation in Ukraine.”

To regain their loyalty, Kiev will have to acknowledge the role that its own policies, most notably forcible Ukrainianization, have played in fracturing Ukrainian society, or face the prospect that recapturing these territories will result in a new cycle of violence, at some point in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:An interesting take on the history of Crimea that no one wants to talk about:

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/11/25/the-tragedy-of-crimea/

..Since 2014, a number of Western-sponsored polls have likewise shown a high level of support for reunification with Russia. Thus, a Pew survey from April 2014 showed that 91 percent of Crimean respondents believed the 2014 referendum was free and fair. A June 2014 poll, this one by Gallup, found nearly 83 percent of the Crimean population (94 percent of ethnic Russians and 68 percent of ethnic Ukrainians) thought the 2014 referendum reflected the views of the people. A spring 2017 survey conducted by the German-based Center for East European and International Studies found that, if asked to vote again then, 79 percent said they would cast the same vote.

Most striking of all has been the turnaround in the attitude of Crimean Tatars. A 2020 report in Foreign Affairs found that the proportion of Tatars who indicated that they thought being part of Russia would make them better off rose from 50 percent in 2014 to 81 percent in 2019.

Many leading Ukrainian political and cultural figures, including the writers Vasyl Shklyar, Yuri Andrukhovych, and former President Viktor Yushchenko, have referred to Crimea as foreign to Ukraine and depicted its multiculturalism as a threat to the nationalist Ukraine they were trying to create. After 2013, some have suggested letting this territory go its own way. The danger of doing so now, however, according to President Poroshenko’s permanent representative in Crimea, Boris Babin, is that “if we don’t liberate Crimea and the East [militarily], then all of Ukraine will become the East and Crimea.”

..
To be clear, the loss of Crimea stems directly from Russia’s illegal annexation, but, as Ukraine’s first president, Leonid Kravchuk, acknowledged in 2019, it was fed by years of “very aggressive attacks of one region [Galicia in Western Ukraine – NP], which often believes that its ideology is the most correct, the most essential for the Ukrainian people; [and it] encounters the opposition of all regions of Ukraine that have a different ideology, or maybe different views, to be more precise, on the situation in Ukraine.”

To regain their loyalty, Kiev will have to acknowledge the role that its own policies, most notably forcible Ukrainianization, have played in fracturing Ukrainian society, or face the prospect that recapturing these territories will result in a new cycle of violence, at some point in the future.

This “article” is some kind of bizarre a joke - a history of Crimea before 2019 to show why it will be hard for Ukraine to take it now?

There has been a sea change in the thinking of many (probably most) Ukrainians who were formerly pro-Russian (pre-2014). Every Ukrainian has watched how Russia has behaved as it took over Donbas and Crimea in 2014. Russia was unable to provide stable governance, pensions, etc. and those regions have turned into authoritarian kleptocracies run by thugs. Add in how Russia has behaved in the last 10 months - torture, disappearances, filtration camps, separation of minors from their parents or legal guardians, forced deportation to Russia - and TBH very few people except the most hard core Russians still support any kind of Russian governance in Donbas or Crimea. Russia will be lucky if Crimea gets some kind of independent, non-Ukrainian permanent status or a lengthy deferred status.

Another region Russia will never be able to keep Crimea is that from Crimea they can still easily threaten the major grain shipping channels. No one globally is going to support Russia keeping Crimea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An interesting take on the history of Crimea that no one wants to talk about:

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/11/25/the-tragedy-of-crimea/

..Since 2014, a number of Western-sponsored polls have likewise shown a high level of support for reunification with Russia. Thus, a Pew survey from April 2014 showed that 91 percent of Crimean respondents believed the 2014 referendum was free and fair. A June 2014 poll, this one by Gallup, found nearly 83 percent of the Crimean population (94 percent of ethnic Russians and 68 percent of ethnic Ukrainians) thought the 2014 referendum reflected the views of the people. A spring 2017 survey conducted by the German-based Center for East European and International Studies found that, if asked to vote again then, 79 percent said they would cast the same vote.

Most striking of all has been the turnaround in the attitude of Crimean Tatars. A 2020 report in Foreign Affairs found that the proportion of Tatars who indicated that they thought being part of Russia would make them better off rose from 50 percent in 2014 to 81 percent in 2019.

Many leading Ukrainian political and cultural figures, including the writers Vasyl Shklyar, Yuri Andrukhovych, and former President Viktor Yushchenko, have referred to Crimea as foreign to Ukraine and depicted its multiculturalism as a threat to the nationalist Ukraine they were trying to create. After 2013, some have suggested letting this territory go its own way. The danger of doing so now, however, according to President Poroshenko’s permanent representative in Crimea, Boris Babin, is that “if we don’t liberate Crimea and the East [militarily], then all of Ukraine will become the East and Crimea.”

..
To be clear, the loss of Crimea stems directly from Russia’s illegal annexation, but, as Ukraine’s first president, Leonid Kravchuk, acknowledged in 2019, it was fed by years of “very aggressive attacks of one region [Galicia in Western Ukraine – NP], which often believes that its ideology is the most correct, the most essential for the Ukrainian people; [and it] encounters the opposition of all regions of Ukraine that have a different ideology, or maybe different views, to be more precise, on the situation in Ukraine.”

To regain their loyalty, Kiev will have to acknowledge the role that its own policies, most notably forcible Ukrainianization, have played in fracturing Ukrainian society, or face the prospect that recapturing these territories will result in a new cycle of violence, at some point in the future.

This “article” is some kind of bizarre a joke - a history of Crimea before 2019 to show why it will be hard for Ukraine to take it now?

There has been a sea change in the thinking of many (probably most) Ukrainians who were formerly pro-Russian (pre-2014). Every Ukrainian has watched how Russia has behaved as it took over Donbas and Crimea in 2014. Russia was unable to provide stable governance, pensions, etc. and those regions have turned into authoritarian kleptocracies run by thugs. Add in how Russia has behaved in the last 10 months - torture, disappearances, filtration camps, separation of minors from their parents or legal guardians, forced deportation to Russia - and TBH very few people except the most hard core Russians still support any kind of Russian governance in Donbas or Crimea. Russia will be lucky if Crimea gets some kind of independent, non-Ukrainian permanent status or a lengthy deferred status.

Another region Russia will never be able to keep Crimea is that from Crimea they can still easily threaten the major grain shipping channels. No one globally is going to support Russia keeping Crimea.

Anything is a bizarre joke when it goes against your biases. But on an off chance that you're serious, there are a few things to consider:

- Crimea's takeover was largely bloodless and did not inspire a popular rebellion because most people in Crimea were uneasy about the forced Ukrainization of the area that was never Ukrainian in history, ethnicity or spirit. Western-sponsored polls after the takeover confirm as much.

- Ukraine is also an authoritarian kleptocracy run by thugs - a fact that was commonly acknowledged but became verboten in February 2022.

- Nobody globally HAS to support Russia keeping Crimea. I mean no one globally supports Israel's continued annexation of the West Bank, and so? Doesn't change a thing.

- What is your evidence for the bolded?

[Anonymous]

Ukraine was authoritarian until the people elected Zelensky. So, Putin attacked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ukraine was authoritarian until the people elected Zelensky. So, Putin attacked.

You have SO much to learn about the proper way to carve a turkey in Eastern Europe.

[Anonymous]

The history of Crimea since 1917 is the Bolsheviks massacred and deported a lot of the population, and many others fled, then Stalin killed and deported a bunch more, it was an autonomous SSR, then part of the Russian SSR, then in 1954 made part of the Ukrainian SSR. Russia says it is part of Russia because it is full of Russians, but that is because the Russians forcefully and brutally displaced much of the pre-Soviet population.

[Anonymous]

I don’t really care about the history.
The people there voted for their president.
They are a democracy that needs to be supported.
Also F Russia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The history of Crimea since 1917 is the Bolsheviks massacred and deported a lot of the population, and many others fled, then Stalin killed and deported a bunch more, it was an autonomous SSR, then part of the Russian SSR, then in 1954 made part of the Ukrainian SSR. Russia says it is part of Russia because it is full of Russians, but that is because the Russians forcefully and brutally displaced much of the pre-Soviet population.

And, in addition, historically Crimea was Greek (part of Byzantium Empire), only partially conquered by Kievan Rus, then conquered by the Mongols and then part of the Crimean Khanate until the 1780s when it finally became part of Russia for about 140 years, then changing hands during the Russian Civil War until finally becoming part of the USSR until 1954 (occupied by Germany in WWII) then it was transferred (with the agreement of both parliaments of Russian SFR and Ukrainian SFR) to Ukraine.

As PP said, part of the reason it has a significant Russian speaking population is due to the mass deportation of native Tatars (about 200,000) in 1944 by the Stalin and the resettlement by incentives of Russians.

The idea that Crimea is historically Russian is not a reflection of actual history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The history of Crimea since 1917 is the Bolsheviks massacred and deported a lot of the population, and many others fled, then Stalin killed and deported a bunch more, it was an autonomous SSR, then part of the Russian SSR, then in 1954 made part of the Ukrainian SSR. Russia says it is part of Russia because it is full of Russians, but that is because the Russians forcefully and brutally displaced much of the pre-Soviet population.

I love how you say “Russians forcefully and brutally displaced much of the pre-Soviet population”, as if Stalin wasn’t a Georgian and as if Bolsheviks weren’t a multiethnic force. There was a poster here about two pages ago who tried to lay the civil war atrocities at Russia’s feet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The history of Crimea since 1917 is the Bolsheviks massacred and deported a lot of the population, and many others fled, then Stalin killed and deported a bunch more, it was an autonomous SSR, then part of the Russian SSR, then in 1954 made part of the Ukrainian SSR. Russia says it is part of Russia because it is full of Russians, but that is because the Russians forcefully and brutally displaced much of the pre-Soviet population.

And, in addition, historically Crimea was Greek (part of Byzantium Empire), only partially conquered by Kievan Rus, then conquered by the Mongols and then part of the Crimean Khanate until the 1780s when it finally became part of Russia for about 140 years, then changing hands during the Russian Civil War until finally becoming part of the USSR until 1954 (occupied by Germany in WWII) then it was transferred (with the agreement of both parliaments of Russian SFR and Ukrainian SFR) to Ukraine.

As PP said, part of the reason it has a significant Russian speaking population is due to the mass deportation of native Tatars (about 200,000) in 1944 by the Stalin and the resettlement by incentives of Russians.

The idea that Crimea is historically Russian is not a reflection of actual history.

The history reflects even less of it being historically Ukrainian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t really care about the history.
The people there voted for their president.
They are a democracy that needs to be supported.
Also F Russia.

Next thing you know you’ll say Israel is a democracy!!

[Anonymous]

And for the person who wants to negotiate with Russia because Crimea was for Russian occupation, it tells me you're either a Russian apologist / propagandist, or just really naive and stupid. You narrowly focused on the "history" of the past few years.

To truly understand the history of Ukraine and Crimea, look up Stalin's holodomor, That explains what happened then, and what's happening now.

In fact, Hitler's "inspiration" for efficient conduct of the Jewish holocaust originated from, you guessed it, Russia!!! Ding, ding, ding!!!

But if you feel the need to appease Russian soldiers raping children, murdering old people, forcing mass exodus of civilian populations, driving mobile crematoriums to get rid of bodies, etc. I think you should go in person to Crimea and talk to the local officials directly. Why waste time typing on the computer when you could really make a difference. Just please fly into the Russian side of the border, you know, so that everyone knows you're a friend of Russia. Sound good! Problem solved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And for the person who wants to negotiate with Russia because Crimea was for Russian occupation, it tells me you're either a Russian apologist / propagandist, or just really naive and stupid. You narrowly focused on the "history" of the past few years.

To truly understand the history of Ukraine and Crimea, look up Stalin's holodomor, That explains what happened then, and what's happening now.

In fact, Hitler's "inspiration" for efficient conduct of the Jewish holocaust originated from, you guessed it, Russia!!! Ding, ding, ding!!!

But if you feel the need to appease Russian soldiers raping children, murdering old people, forcing mass exodus of civilian populations, driving mobile crematoriums to get rid of bodies, etc. I think you should go in person to Crimea and talk to the local officials directly. Why waste time typing on the computer when you could really make a difference. Just please fly into the Russian side of the border, you know, so that everyone knows you're a friend of Russia. Sound good! Problem solved.

The famine affected more countries than Ukraine. The inspiration for Holocaust was the Armenian genocide by the Ottoman Turks. You’re ignorant.

[Anonymous]

I think it ends when Putin dies or is overthrown, and I don't think it's that remote of a possibility. We have an obvious example in Nicholas II of what happens to an autocratic Russian leader when he leads his country into a war for which they are militarily ill-prepared, exposed, and humiliated against "lesser" opponents, leading to economic ruin. Russians put up with a lot from their leaders until suddenly they don't. Putin knows this, hence the paranoia and the 50-foot tables.