> However, it uses the Russian spelling of Crimean place names on its maps in Russia, rather than the Ukrainian spelling.
The vast majority of people in Crimea are Russian speakers (as well as being ethnically Russian). It's been that way since the Russian Empire conquered the peninsula from the Ottomans in 1783. In fact, there's nearly as many Tartar (descendents of Ottomans) speakers in Crimea than Ukrainian. Last time I was there (early this year), I saw a number of new mosques under construction.
I'm not justifying the recent annexation, just noting the linguist realities on the ground. Also, politics aside, if you ever have the chance to visit, do it. The peninsula is very beautiful and there's lots of interesting geographical features and historical sights to see. Also, the infrastructure has improved significantly since the Russian takeover (unfortunately Ukraine being poor, neglected the peninsula after the collapse of the USSR) so getting around is easier now.
By that logic, all areas of Russia where the non-Russian ethnicity is dominant (of which there are a lot) should all be written out in their respective languages.
Also, the argument "well it was like that since <some time t>" does not really have traction. Why choose an arbitrary time point? Usually, these arguments fall apart when you suggest to look at <t - dt>.
In many Russian territories, they are in fact. You'll see multi lingual signs and that kind of stuff. I was in Komi Republic this time last year and many signs had both Komi (a Fino language) and Russian, despite a very insignificant number of living speakers.
No, not in Crimea. True hate for all things Ukrainian was real there, especially in older folks. Many older generations never learned the language anyway and feeling of being heavily abused by politicians in Kyiv didn’t help the cause either.
This was very different from for example Baltic states.
Wait wait wait, I grew up in the Baltics as a Russian speaker. What you go through as such there (especially in Latvia and Estonia) is actual discrimination. As in: some people started to change their names to hide their Russian origins. What you have in Ukraine in comparison is a gentle reminder to please at some point learn the language of your country.
To this day in Baltic states there are places where people were moved in by Soviet Union and even today most of the people hardly speak the language of the country they live in. Because of this they mostly watch Russian national tv and think that Soviet Union was the best place in the world.
The Baltics are still very vurnerable to Russian propaganda, for Ukraine it's even harder to escape propaganda, because of Slavic roots and similar languages.
Edit: If there's a majority of former Soviet nationals thinking that they are somehow "abused" by living in the independent Baltic state, so do you think father putin should save them by occupying the country? Or should those people need to buy one way ticket to their motherland and never come back?
Crimea has autonomy since forever and local parliament and government. Most schools in Crimea are russian speaking. This talk of abuse is just propaganda.
> By that logic, all areas of Russia where the non-Russian ethnicity is dominant (of which there are a lot) should all be written out in their respective languages.
Why not? Use the most common local language as well as Russian.
I'm talking about local street signs and documents having the local language + official federal language. The languages used on Google maps just seems to default to your local language + the country official language. That's just the technical aspect of how Google maps works - you can change the language in settings. If you look at Quebec from English-speaking Canada or US you will mostly see English and no French.
But concepts like "Russian" and "Ukrainian" are time period specific. I think GP is saying that the area has been Russian-majority every since when the distinction between Russian and Ukrainian came into existence.
Distinction between Russians and Ukrainians started after rename of (Kievan) Russia into Ukraine in 1908, when delegates from whole Russia Empire made decision to change name, to move away from Moscow. After Soviet Revolution, Ukrainians started Great Ukrainization, with it peak in 1929. At it peak, 81 millions of Ukrainians (Russians) and 77 millions of Russians (Russish) were counted in 1926. This was perceived as great threat to Soviet Union, because Ukrainians wanted their own, independent from Moscow, country. To tame Ukrainians, genocide was started, known as Holodomor, which killed 7 millions of adults (accepted by RF) and 23 millions of children (not accepted by RF) in 1932-1934, which are hidden in losses in WWW2, which are raised from 12 millions to 42 millions. Also, 20 millions of Ukrainians were written as Russians at Kuban and Crimea, so number of Russians jumped from 77 millions to 97 millions. So, at next people count, 97 millions of Russians and 29 millions of Ukrainians were counted. Problem solved. To tame Ukraine furthers, Ukrainian language was forbidden to use, and Ukrainian elite is (still) killed regularly.
That's modern propagandistic oversimplification of the Great Hunger, which devastated agricultural parts of Soviet Union, including Russians and Ukrainians.
It was prohibited to talk about Holodomor at times of Soviet Union. Actual number of victims is still top secret of Russian Federation. Archives, which has huge historic value, are destroyed in 2010, 70 years after Holodomor, instead of opening for public. If you have detailed information about Holodomor, please share. Currently, we use recorded witnesses and sporadic documents to study it. Also, graves of victims are found at rate of about 2 new mass-grave per month in Summer, for decades.
All recorded witnesses share same main narrative: it was year with high yield, but everything edible, even in very small quantities, like handful of seeds, was confiscated by state multiple times per month, until people starved to death.
It's not a Great Famine, like in 1921. It's Holodomor ("Mass-murder by Famine").
Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands is excellent on the Holodomyr. He cites various sources estimating the victim count at 3M to 10M, and suggests 6M himself IIRC. He also details Stalin's orders in 32 and 33. The NKVD confiscated grain. When all the grain was gone, they confiscated seed grain, making it impossible to plant for the following year. And they confiscated the cattle too. Snyder constructs a strong argument to the effect that this was deliberate mass murder by Stalin.
And then Stalin launched the Great Terror in 37. Snyder estimates the death count as 750K.
In the West we have a propaganda hangover from WWII - the "Uncle Joe" view of Stalin. Many wonder at what was going on in Hitler's mind. For me Stalin is far more incomprehensible. Utterly cold, cynical and calculating. Must have been some kind of sociopath or psychopath.
Russian Duma confirmed 7 millions of victims at 02.04.2008, then Russian FSB destroyed archives of 1926 census in 2010, to hide real number of victims.
No witnesses to confirm this theory. As far as I know, Ukrainians and some other minorities were targeted with Holodomor.
Number of Russians jumped from 77 millions to 99 millions between 1926 and 1939. It doesn't looks like genocide.
Russians were supported by government. Villages of dead Ukrainians were granted to Russians, including free transfer by rail road from central Russia to Ukraine, free seeds, free equipment, and free cattle, confiscated by government prior to that.
According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, "Some 4 to 5 million died in Ukraine, and another 2 to 3 million in the North Caucasus and the Lower Volga area."
Russia had very traditional society at that time, with large number of children. If you have 5 kids, and two dies from commie-induced hunger, the population would still grow and it would still be genocide.
You forgot to mention that Crimea Tatars, Greeks, and Ukrainians were deported and murdered in Crimea. It's easy to make Crimea speak any language this way.
However, in times before mass-education was started and official variant of Russian language was developed, the folk variant of language spoken there was called "molva", which now known as Ukrainian language ("mova").
Well, yes - this deportation happened and is one of the many dark moments in USSR history. Glad you brought this up - difficult to write the entire history of the region on hn. The history of the Pontic Greeks and then later, Italian city states, in the Black Sea is really fascinating.
Molva (~rumors, «народная молва») was common name of folk language spoken at territory of (Kievan) Russia. Later it was replaced by official developed language, called yazyk ( tongue, «язык»), which was based on ancient dialect of South Slavic language, as spoken in Russian churches.
However, leaders of folk movement, later known as Ukrainians, developed and enhanced folk language, which then was renamed into Ukrainian language, and used as one of symbols of independence from Moscow, so it was systematically suppressed by government of Russian Empire, Soviet Union, and Russian Federation.
Crimean Tatars constituted the majority of the population of Crimea before the Russian conquest. They became the minority partly through genocide, and partly because the peninsula was settled by Russian colonists.
Ukrainians, on the other hand, were never indigenous in Crimea. It was not a part of Kievan Rus, so any Ukrainians who lived there, immigrated there after the Russian occupation of it. And there are so few mostly because most immigration to it was orchestrated, and the Imperial government preferred to settle it with Russian rather than Ukrainian colonists.
So in one case, you can talk about genocide of the indigenous population. In the other case, it's preferential treatment of one ethnicity over another for colonization purposes.
> The vast majority of people in Crimea are Russian speakers (as well as being ethnically Russian). It's been that way since the Russian Empire conquered the peninsula from the Ottomans in 1783.
Where did you find population data before 1879? I have looked at the linked data before and it was called the first Russian census [1]. If I am not mistaken, the data at that time shows Tatars still being the biggest group at 35.6%.
In the context of this topic I think it is fair to also include the deportation of hundreds of thousands of Crimean Tatars by Lavrentiy Beria, which is one of the reasons for their numbers dwindling to less than one percent in '45 [2].
The link [2] also shows that Crimean Tatars made up 98% of Crimea in 1783. From the linked authors, Tanner [3, p. 21–22], wrote:
> Ever since the first Russian conquest of the Crimean Khanate, the Tatars had faced striking and gradual colonization of Crimea by Slavs, mainly Russians and Ukrainians. At the time of the Russian annexation of the Crimean Khanate in 1783, Crimea was an almost uniformly Tatar country, Crimeans constituting 98% of the population (about 500,000) people.
With the other author, Drohobycky [4, p. 73], writing:
> Until the end of the eighteenth century, the Crimean Tatars were the largest ethnic group based on size. The process of formation of the Crimean Tatar people had been completed in the sixteenth century. After Crimeas annexation by Russia in 1873, Crimea was intensively colonized by the Russians and less intensively by the Ukrainians, Germans, Bulgarians, Jews, Armenians, Greeks, and other ethnic groups.
3. Tanner, A. (2004). The Forgotten minorities of Eastern Europe: the history and today of selected ethnic groups in five countries. Helsinki: East-West Books.
4. Drohobycky, M. (1995). Crimea: Dynamics, Challenges and Prospects. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
We're not in disagreement. The displacement of Crimean Tartars was not immediate. Then later, the deportation of them under Stalin and Beria to the Soviet *stans (which was terrible and horrifying). After the fall of the USSR, a large number of the Tartars returned to Crimea (I once had an interesting conversation with one on a flight who now lives in the US).
> The vast majority of people in Crimea are Russian speakers (as well as being ethnically Russian), not Ukrainian. It's been that way since the Russian Empire conquered the peninsula from the Ottomans in 1783. In fact, there's nearly as many Tartar (descendents of Ottomans) speakers in Crimea than Ukrainian.
This is misleading and factually incorrect. Everyone who speaks Russian also speaks Ukrainian in Ukraine, except for people who literally moved there recently from Russia and other countries.
Yes, this is factually correct - just Google around for Crimea language maps. While this is true of mainland Ukraine (multilingual), Crimea has a different history. It was Russian speakers from the Russian Empire who displaced Tatars (a Turkish language). There was never a significant Ukrainian speaking population in Crimea. Most Crimeans don't speak any Ukrainian.
Just because you don't agree with Russian politics doesn't change the facts about which languages are spoken:
No, most Crimeans do speak both Russian and Ukrainian, just like everyone else in Ukraine, since Ukrainian is the only official language and it's pretty much impossible to not be exposed to both languages, especially in education and media. After the fall of Soviet Union all the ethnic Russians in Ukraine (incl. Crimea) had no way of avoiding it and do speak Ukrainian.
Are you Ukrainian? Have you been to Crimea? A language becoming official (which was only very recent) does not magically make everyone fluent. Sure, Crimeans probably all know some A2 level Ukrainian from media. But they are not fluent and are likely speaking Russian or Tartar at home.
> Also, the infrastructure has improved significantly since the Russian takeover (unfortunately Ukraine being poor, neglected the peninsula after the collapse of the USSR) so getting around is easier now.
Ukraine, after Soviet Union crumbled was always under the foot of Russian Federation. It is the poorest performer of any country which became independent after Soviet occupation. It never managed to properly "westernize", because Russian influence and bullying was strong. Russian cronies in the government and Crimea was literally a Russian naval base. Due to strong influence from the East, eastern Ukraine population was mentally stuck in the "good old Soviet times".
After Maidan in 2014 and Russian friendly Ukrainian president was toppled for dropping trade agreements from EU, Putin clearly saw that he may lose control of the naval bases to the Black Sea, so decided to take Crimea by power.
Crimea to Russia right now is just propaganda to push agenda for the rest of Ukraine and to the Russians as well (oh look how great you'll live in the Mother Russia). Most of the Russia except for Moscow and St. Petersburg is in pretty poor and rough state.
P.S. sorry for my English. Non native speaker. Also opinion is mine and speaking from my memory, if I am not correct please correct me.
I am talking as a person whose country was at the same position as Ukraine 30 years ago, but now average Joe is economically 5-10 times better than average Ukrainian. Ukraine is poor because it's 20-30 years late to free itself from Soviet/Russian shambles.
Edit: also I want to add that for Russia this stunt did cost huge amounts from cash reserves and rubble have lost half of it's value which has not recovered to this day, which made locals "very happy".
Interesting and fair enough. Crimeans that I've spoken to are mostly happy with the annexation, but they have complained about the loss of purchasing power (Ruble is stronger than Hryvnia). So infrastructure is better, but their incomes have not adjusted to be in line with rest of Russia and things are more expensive than before.
I am sorry in advance, but to me your comments seem very naive. I guess people who have never survived any kind of foreign oppression, propaganda, active fifth column [0] operating for years in sovereign country, KGB/FSB tactics and mentality, etc. will never fully understand this.
> Crimeans that I've spoken to are mostly happy with the annexation
1. They won't tell you otherwise. Ask N. Korean citizen if it likes to live there. Of course it does - either because it does not want to end up in a work camp lasting for 3 generations or at best - that the person does not know any better.
2. I guess the most important thing is - Russification of Ukraine lasting more than a century. Crimea suffered the worst [1]. I could bet that former Soviet citizens living in Baltic states [2] would have asked for "help" from Kremlin and would've successfully and "happily" voted for regions with biggest Russian population to secede from Baltic country into Russia. That's what happened in Crimea and thank god that Baltics are in NATO.
3. Sevastopol is a major naval base for Russia [3][4] that they leased from Ukraine (oh how generous of them) and was one of the initial attack vectors to annex peninsula in 2014.
I could rant for hours on this, but in short - Russian Empire and Soviet union have destroyed major percentage of natives from the occupied territories and have relocated great numbers of native Russians into the occupied territories.
In the Baltics every person knows at least some relative or a friend that during Soviet times were exiled to Siberia, mysteriously disappeared or KGB kicked out the door at 3am ant told to go "for a drive". If the person does not know anyone with such faith - I could give 99.9% that the person (or it's ancestors) were/are Russian/Soviet citizens.
To this day Russia uses those former Russian/Soviet citizen as a fifth column, these people are very susceptible to Russian propaganda and they have very idilic image of Soviet way of life (oh those great young days). Soviet/Russian propaganda is strong, intelligent and witty. Goebbels would be so jealous of how good they are.
I actually agree with you (about propaganda, 5th column, etc), but the Russification of Crimea was against the Ottomans (Tartars), not endemic Ukrainians. The Russian Empire and Soviets actually have a lot in common with the USA in terms of displacing native populations, destroying cultures/languages, etc.
> .. but the Russification of Crimea was against the Ottomans (Tartars), not endemic Ukrainians.
So how does this make Crimea Russian then?
I am pointing out from the top of my head, but in 2014 I've heard these top excuses for annexing Crimea:
1. Crimea was given to Soviet Ukraine, by Soviet Russia, thus Crimea is Russian and Russian Federation is taking it back, because they "suddenly realised" it was a mistake.
2. "Crimean people asked" for protection from "Ukrainian nazi junta" and they had "independent" vote on integrating themselves into Russia.
-----
How about Lithuanians should take over the Kaliningrad Oblast [0] as it was Minor Lithuania many years ago? Maybe Germans should come to the negotiations as it was territory of Prussia too?
Kaliningrad population is 90% Russian, and you can't make German or Lithuanian out of Russian by changing his name in passport. You can make Ukrainian though, just change Alexey for Olexy.
It really sounds like you are, though. I mean the principle most of us care about here isn't about matching iOS app text to "the linguistic realities on the ground", it's about not condoning the literal invasion of neighboring countries (by a nuclear power, no less).
> Also, the infrastructure has improved significantly since the Russian takeover
Also sounds very much like a justification for an invasion.
Want to know the worst part? Chase* edited his comment to add those parts you quoted. It's not surprising I guess he has "CCCP" on his IG avatar: https://imgur.com/Oh1OlfD
Oh, you got me - I'm a communist!!! Or a Putin sympathizer (I always mix up which one is the more pointed insult).
Anyways, that was taken outside of an interesting museum in Sevastopol. The entire bay there is pretty cool. You can take a boat tour around it. There's a bunch of old USSR ships in various levels of decay as well as some of the newer stuff (the main reason for the annexation was for control of this warm water port btw):
Museum of the Black Sea Fleet
Lenina St, 11, Sevastopol
So? It's not Z Lałręc ul nor Hospital Conmemorativo de Jackson in US just because the majority of people in a place speak a different language or came from somewhere else.
Except that's exactly how it happens in the US, it's "Los Angeles" /lɔːs ˈændʒələs/ and not "Los Ángeles" /los ãŋxeles/ because the majority of people there have been English speakers ever since the US conquest of the Southwest.
The majority of the people in Crimea are and were Russian at the time of vote for annexation. It makes sense that genetic Russians would want to reunite with their people.
First, you’re conflating language with national identity here, second you’re completely ignoring Crimean tatars that we’re repressed and mass deported from Crimea by Stalin, third you’re not making any sense anyway, because just because major chunk of local population wants to secede - can’t be ground for annexation and starting war, that’s just idiotic.
Hmm. How you will slice Russia? Even USA cannot do that, because of (real) fear of MAD. It's better to not spread something like that. Empire will fall on it own, just wait.
Yeah, right, vote under gunpoint of Russian soldiers, organized by Russian side, counted by Russian side, all completed in just two weeks during which the whole peninsula was filled with propaganda claiming Ukraine was taken over by nazi junta so the Choice is either nazi or Russia.
I would like to believe the person you are responding to is very naive, but looking at the account, the comments it makes (most of the comments in the last 2 weeks) and the karma comments receive..
It's either a member of fifth column [0] (could be unwillingly - by accident) or a troll/bot [1]
Just because someone does not have the mainstream western view does not make them a troll. Suggesting so is intellectually lazy. People are still allowed to think for themselves.
Yes, the Crimean vote was a scam. The way that Crimea was forcefully annexed is certainly not ideal and out of line with modern norms. But that doesn't mean that Crimeans didn't want to rejoin Russia. Both can be true.
> Yes, the Crimean vote was a scam. The way that Crimea was forcefully annexed is certainly not ideal and out of line with modern norms. But that doesn't mean that Crimeans didn't want to rejoin Russia.
this line of thinking is not irrational but still very harmful to civilization as a whole. a belief that some chunk of population wants to secede can never be used as grounds for annexation, it should only be used to influence internal political affairs. calling annexation on such grounds "not ideal" is understating it to the point where i can rationally conclude your goal is to just see the civilization burn to the ground.
which coincidentally is exactly the kind of views that russian government trolls promote in all corners of the internet.
yes, "Both can be true", but you don't know if the latter is true without holding a proper referendum with both sides of the question represented fairly and debated widely so that citizens are well informed/educated when going to vote. and that means you should condemn in strongest terms what russia has done (or any other country involved in similar conflict), not just meekly call it "not ideal".
> A joint survey by American government agency Broadcasting Board of Governors and polling firm Gallup was taken during April 2014.[284] It polled 500 residents of Crimea. The survey found that 82.8% of those polled believed that the results of the Crimean status referendum reflected the views of most residents of Crimea, whereas 6.7% said that it did not. 73.9% of those polled said that they thought that the annexation would have a positive impact on their lives, whereas 5.5% said that it would not.
.svg){kind=link}
The vast majority of people in Crimea are Russian speakers (as well as being ethnically Russian). It's been that way since the Russian Empire conquered the peninsula from the Ottomans in 1783. In fact, there's nearly as many Tartar (descendents of Ottomans) speakers in Crimea than Ukrainian. Last time I was there (early this year), I saw a number of new mosques under construction.
I'm not justifying the recent annexation, just noting the linguist realities on the ground. Also, politics aside, if you ever have the chance to visit, do it. The peninsula is very beautiful and there's lots of interesting geographical features and historical sights to see. Also, the infrastructure has improved significantly since the Russian takeover (unfortunately Ukraine being poor, neglected the peninsula after the collapse of the USSR) so getting around is easier now.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea#demographics