So a minority should dictate international relations? A minority that aren't even indigenous and whose only history of statehood was being a vassal of the Ottomans that captured and sold Slavs as slaves... Why should they dictate what happens between Ukraine or Russia?
No one from people not Ukrainians, not Tatars and not Russians had option to decide there future during the occupation process. There were just occupied by Russian military. It was military operation not decision of local population.
I do not understand why that message was down voted. Tatars are really the oldest owner of Crimea and they do not support Russia. They remember many bad from Russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tat... And now too nobody asked them if they want to be part of Russia or not.
Crimea is occupated and this is reality. All other talks about how much Crimea is more Russian sounds like a Russian propaganda.
Semi-related (not trying to detract from your point): interestingly enough, there is a whole Tatar state within Russia that many people might not be aware of (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatarstan).
>Crimea is occupated and this is reality. All other talks about how much Crimea is more Russian sounds like a Russian propaganda.
While I am very opposed to the capture of Crimea by RF, I feel you are being disingenuous when you say that. According to the latest census, russians make up 67.9% of Crimean population, while tatars make up just 12.6% [1]. Those numbers seem to support the point that Crimea is indeed majority russian, with tatars being outnumbered by almost a factor of 6.
>Semi-related (not trying to detract from your point): interestingly enough, there is a whole Tatar state within Russia that many people might not be aware of (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatarstan).
Tatars from Tatarstan and Tatars from Crimea share only name, they are different nationalities.
>While I am very opposed to the capture of Crimea by RF, I feel you are being disingenuous when you say that. According to the latest census, russians make up 67.9% of Crimean population, while tatars make up just 12.6% [1]. Those numbers seem to support the point that Crimea is indeed majority russian, with tatars being outnumbered by almost a factor of 6.
This logic is totally misleading. If there are more Russians it does not make Crimea Russian.
It might be misleading, but not totally. You're totally right that nobody had anything to say, Putin made the decision for them. But the share of population isn't insignificant. Would you see it differentley if 99% of Crimeans were Russians? 100%? If so, where is the borderline? If not, how would it be different from a colony (that I hope all agree is an embarassing relic of the past)?
>> Tatars are really the oldest owner of Crimea and they do not support Russia...
Tatars are not the oldest owner of Crimea. 2500 years ago Crimea was a Greek colony, then it was part of a Persian Empire, then Roman Empire, then Byzantine Empire [1] Mongols conquered Crimea only in 13th century.
Oldest that are living in that territory. No people from Persian Empire, then Roman Empire, then Byzantine Empire and Mongols at the moment living in Crimea.
>The Greeks were around a for a millenia prior to the tatars, the majority were resettled to modern day Ukraine under the Russian Empire.
Oldest that are living in that territory. No Greeks at the moment at Crimea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea#Ethnici...