It's unlikely that they'll join Russia, at least in the short term. The 1991 referendum formed the legal basis of the Crimean decision and for whatever international law is worth was legal since all the i's were dotted and t's crossed in terms of Ukraine approving it. Legally, Crimea left Ukraine then. Which is, of course, why it never gets mentioned in the media and they like to pretend that the only referendum was the 2014 one as they can legitimately complain about that one. What exactly the media think the 1992 constitution was that was referenced in the 2014 referendum and how/ why that option meant independence from Ukraine without referencing the 1991 referendum, who knows?

Lugansk and Donetsk are at this point equivalent to South Ossetia and Abkhazia, intended primarily as leverage* in that they can ask to join Russia and be approved, but haven't. If they joined Russia it would be irreversible, as it stands it's still eminently reversible. Russia would probably still be happy with Minsk being implemented, but...

Fundamentally the problem is that Minsk was signed when Ukraine was losing badly, and froze the conflict before it was decided outright. Of course Russia got most of what it wanted in those circumstances, since they could have just taken what they wanted. Now, Ukraine has had 8 years of being told how much better its armed forces are and how they'll get support from US/ UK/ Poland and Russia will have its economy destroyed if the conflict resumes; and domestically 8 years of being told how unfair Minsk is and how it was made at gunpoint. Any pressure from France and Germany to get it implemented is cancelled out by the support from others for it not being implemented. The only way it gets implemented is if there's enough pressure, and if there's a difference between the pressure required for outright war or pressure required for implementation it's very fine. From Russia's pov recognising independence gives Russia the benefits of Minsk without having to implement their side and increases pressure on Ukraine to fold on other issues. It's also gives a lot of difficulty to the west in terms of response; the hawk side will want a robust response** that promotes escalation (or to be more charitable, a desire to show strength in the supposed belief that it will de-escalate, somehow), the dove side will want a weaker response that leaves diplomacy open.

*it's also unclear if the recognition is for the full oblast or just controlled areas. About half of each is controlled by Ukraine. That decision obviously provides further potential leverage

**ironically, that's generally had a detrimental effect on Ukraine despite supposedly being supportive, which is why Zelensky has repeatedly tried to get the rhetoric turned down. It's all very well the US and UK shouting from the sidelines, it's not going to cost them anything being inflexible and inflammatory.

Edited February 21, 20223 yr by Zoraptor

I guess sooner or later Russia wanted to get its secure land route to Crimea. 

Putin made a move, bold one, but I assume that tomorrow China will back those up as well (independace of the people and UA atrocities againa Russian speaking populce) , as a response for various EU and US declarations around Taiwan and Uighurs. 

Having Russia and China backing would be a huge issue to Germany and France. Ukraine will have to fold, and worst of this is, they have been treated as a tool in bigger geopolitics and tit for tat actions. 

Now... I wonder what will happen should China keep quiet... 

Will Putin have to scale back then? 

 

Edit: seema US response is kinda meh so far... 

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/white-house-biden-prohibit-trade-investment-with-ukraine-breakaway-regions-2022-02-21/

Edited February 21, 20223 yr by Darkpriest

Ok, things escalate quickly... 

 

PUTIN ORDERS RUSSIAN ARMED FORCES TO START 'PEACEKEEPING MISSION' IN E. UKRAINE BREAKAWAY REGIONS -- RIA

 

Seems Ukraine is moving northnof the separatists territory, to make sure they are able to respond should Russians try to move further than the separatist controlled areas... 

 

Edited February 21, 20223 yr by Darkpriest

It seem that Russian troops new home is in Ukraine

That last one is a real hoot coming from Putin:

I see he got my memo about saying they have WMDs.

Zelensky did say that Ukraine would potentially look to reacquire nukes at the Munich conference last week- in context, if it couldn't get into NATO. That isn't a new position either, first(?) floated last year.

(Probably not a serious proposition but designed to put pressure on NATO/ the west. Also probably not a sensible way to do it, since it hands Putin an extra stick to beat them with)

Its interesting how the majority of countries wh

5 hours ago, Agiel said:

That last one is a real hoot coming from Putin:

But havent you heard from Dark and Zora and other Russian apologists , of course all these things are. We know they true because Putin said so and  especially wiping out the Russian Orthodox Church and how Ukraine is going to use WMD against  Russia 

The endless misinformation, gaslighting  and state control of the Russian media means it doesnt matter within Russia what is true or not because that is who his rambling, revisionist  historical speech was aimed at. Its just about convincing the Russia people the recognition of these regions is justified. It was never going to be accepted by most of  the rest of the world anyway. Im surprised Putin didnt say " The West is using actively implementing genocide of all Ukrainian separatists "

But their is always a positive. We now stop constantly  raising how the justification of the   invasion of Iraq was the greatest lie we have heard in the last 20 years or so . So Russia has once again  surpassed the US in its behavior that typically would illicit criticism and " outrage " from some political commentators

4 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Zelensky did say that Ukraine would potentially look to reacquire nukes at the Munich conference last week- in context, if it couldn't get into NATO. That isn't a new position either, first(?) floated last year.

(Probably not a serious proposition but designed to put pressure on NATO/ the west. Also probably not a sensible way to do it, since it hands Putin an extra stick to beat them with)

No need to justify Putins speech Zora, of course its true. Putin would never lie about anything 

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

The West is using actively implementing genocide of all Ukrainian separatists "

Your language betrays your bias. Those people were never Ukrainians. They were Russians (ethnically, culturally and nationally) for 400 years before Ukraine existed. Did I mention nation states and nationalism being a bad thing?

1 minute ago, Gorth said:

Your language betrays your bias. Those people were never Ukrainians. They were Russians (ethnically, culturally and nationally) for 400 years before Ukraine existed. Did I mention nation states and nationalism being a bad thing?

You did Gorthfuscious. I am going to base my views on this on international definitions of borders  and what the UN defines as the  sovereignty of any region and no country can unilaterally change this. You can change borders with international and UN  support like the creation and recognition of South Sudan 

Its the same as Chinas definition of the South China sea and its encroachment on OZ fishing waters and its right to operate in these territories irrespective what international law says 

https://thediplomat.com/2020/12/pacific-island-nations-wary-of-chinese-fishing-fleets/

So you right, Im biased in that regard and I admit it 

They were not Russians for 400 years, they were Russians after Stalin created great famine which basically killed original population and he replaced them with Russians. Also China is pro Ukraine. Did not expected that

Are they going in full force or just light infantry? I saw some twitter videos of tanks rolling in, but don't know if that was really in Ukraine.

4 minutes ago, Sarex said:

Are they going in full force or just light infantry? I saw some twitter videos of tanks rolling in, but don't know if that was really in Ukraine.

Both I think, tanks and infantry and its in  the eastern separatist states 

23 minutes ago, Chilloutman said:

They were not Russians for 400 years, they were Russians after Stalin created great famine which basically killed original population and he replaced them with Russians. Also China is pro Ukraine. Did not expected that

China did mention " respecting the borders of Ukraine " but what that really means is almost impossible to discern when it comes to the ideological views of the CCP 

41 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

China did mention " respecting the borders of Ukraine " but what that really means is almost impossible to discern when it comes to the ideological views of the CCP 

Yeah, the same way they respected the borders of Tibet 😛

 

55 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

its in  the eastern separatist states 

Isn't that Ukraine? 🤨

1 hour ago, Chilloutman said:

They were not Russians for 400 years, they were Russians after Stalin created great famine which basically killed original population and he replaced them with Russians. Also China is pro Ukraine. Did not expected that

Partially correct, they were not Russian for 400 years, because for 80 years they were "Soviets" (not a big difference really, as the Soviet Union was de facto the old Zarist Russia). The area was originally known as Zaporizhian Sich until it was conquered by Russia (from The Ottoman Empire) in the 18th Century and the demographic slowly changed from Turkic people to Russians... Turkey has more of a legitimate claim on Donbass and Lugansk than Ukraine ever had. Just don't tell Erdogan.

5 minutes ago, Sarex said:

Isn't that Ukraine? 🤨

Not anymore as far as Putin is concerned, my understanding is the separatist states according to him are independent from Ukraine  but I may wrong ?

10 hours ago, Elerond said:

It seem that Russian troops new home is in Ukraine

Elerond I watched an interview with your president on CNN about Ukraine , he comes across as reasonable and articulate. I like him and how he makes his points

Does he also go to night clubs like your hot prime minister ?

It's interesting to see China being resereved in its view of Ukraine. 

They still may be worried about how would their decision impact western claims on Taiwan. 

Until they will address independence of these 'republics' we really do not know. If they would recognize them, we know that they want to have Russians just stop on these territories. 

If not, it will be an interesting nut to crack for Putins relations with China. 

Now, it seems Russia is not entirely supporting 'republiks' claims to full Oblasts, and sticks to keep only the currently controlled areas. 

On the other side it seems that those republiks thrown ultimatum to Ukraine to abandon and withdraw from the Donetsk  Oblast completely, meaning 2/3s of it still controlled by UA, which includes a large port city in the south (Mariupol?) 

 

3 hours ago, BruceVC said:

You did Gorthfuscious. I am going to base my views on this on international definitions of borders  and what the UN defines as the  sovereignty of any region and no country can unilaterally change this. You can change borders with international and UN  support like the creation and recognition of South Sudan

I.e. the ones with the most and biggest guns dictates where borders go... if the borders are good for "us" and bad for "them", they are good borders, regardless everything else. That kind of neo-colonialist attitude makes you part of the problem, not the solution. Me, I believe in self determination and often side with the "underdogs", whether the were the people of Donbass living under Ukrainian occupation or the people of Tibet living under Chinese occupation. Both are trying to stamp out the existing culture and replace it with there own. My preferred solution will always be let the people who live in an area have a say first.

I'll concede the eradication of Aztec culture was not necessarily a bad thing, because the whole human sacrifice thing was a bit disturbing...

 

China is China's friend first and foremost, and I think right now it can afford not to make alliances with violent, untrustworthy, psychotic serial liar with remarkable talent to make enemies with everything. 

Wonder how Russia can worm out of it with saving face and without causing a world war. The best thing would be to snuff the nasty botoxy goblin and go "Sorry sorry, it's not really us, it's just this one crazy guy. Sorry, won't happen again", but to save face this cannot happen immediately. Alas. 

12 minutes ago, Gorth said:

I.e. the ones with the most and biggest guns dictates where borders go... if the borders are good for "us" and bad for "them", they are good borders, regardless everything else. That kind of neo-colonialist attitude makes you part of the problem, not the solution. Me, I believe in self determination and often side with the "underdogs", whether the were the people of Donbass living under Ukrainian occupation or the people of Tibet living under Chinese occupation. Both are trying to stamp out the existing culture and replace it with there own. My preferred solution will always be let the people who live in an area have a say first.

I'll concede the eradication of Aztec culture was not necessarily a bad thing, because the whole human sacrifice thing was a bit disturbing...

 

yeah and Sudeten Germans living under Czech occupation...

 

Or lets make Luton part of Pakistan, why not?

Edited February 22, 20223 yr by Chilloutman

1 hour ago, Gorth said:

Partially correct, they were not Russian for 400 years, because for 80 years they were "Soviets" (not a big difference really, as the Soviet Union was de facto the old Zarist Russia). The area was originally known as Zaporizhian Sich until it was conquered by Russia (from The Ottoman Empire) in the 18th Century and the demographic slowly changed from Turkic people to Russians... Turkey probably has more of a legitimate claim on Donbass and Lugansk than Ukraine. Just don't tell Erdogan.

Well, originally it was Scythia. That was ~1000BC though, so of limited relevance except that it was unlikely Stalin killed the original inhabitants (as is the way of things, it was probably the Sarmatians/ Scythians killing whoever was there before them).

Ironically, if you go by historical precedent/ longevity the best claimant is probably Iran- or Ossetia- since the Alans were there for ~800 years and the Sarmatians (Scythians) ~1000 before that. Then about 500 years of turkic Cumans and Tartars. Can't give that to Turkey though, as they're almost entirely greeks/ armenians/ anatolians/ kurds or in Erdogan's case georgian who just larp as turkic. You'd have to give it to one of the independent 'stans, or tartaristan.

Donetsk and especially Lugansk were ethnically East Slav early though, as they just didn't have very big populations of anyone. The Cossacks of the Sich/ Hetmanate were East Slav*. Most of Lugansk oblast was near continuously part of Russia since the early 16th century (Vasili III) and not part of the Sich. Donetsk was first taken by Ivan Grozny, but lost later (and was part of the Sich). There's essentially zero historical link to Ukraine prior to Brest Litovsk in 1918; they weren't part of the Kievan Rus and they weren't part of the East Slavic P/LC areas either.

Kind of early for my biennial rant on ethnicities, so I'll limit myself to saying that the East Slav ethnic divisions are particularly stupid and arbitrary. There's no objective difference between Belarussians/ Russians/ Ukrainians.

*not Ukrainian, though as above the distinction is entirely subjective. Indeed, they regarded the modern Ukraine with a fair bit of disdain due to them being under the yoke of catholic poles.

Edited February 22, 20223 yr by Zoraptor