This would require military action by Moldova/Georgia/Ukraine because the territories you mention are ethnically different and do not want to be part of those countries to start with.

Abkhazia fought a war in the early 90s to split from Georgia. South Ossetia also fought several wars to become independent. So both those territories might strive to become fully independent but will absolutely refuse to be re-absorbed by Georgia.

Moldovans are actually a minority in Transnistria, which has also seen open tensions since the fall of the USSR.

Lastly, Crimea, which was Russian until 1954, will definitely require a war and ethnic cleansing if Ukraine want to take it again and to keep it.

> This would require military action by Moldova/Georgia/Ukraine because the territories you mention are ethnically different and do not want to be part of those countries to start with.

Curious that, at least in the case of Georgia and Ukraine, those territories only decided they didn't want to be part of their countries when Russian troops rolled in and made totally non-threatening offers.

>Curious that, at least in the case of Georgia

That's not entirely true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abkhaz%E2%80%93Georgian_confli...

Well, from the Wiki: "a militia composed of ethnic Georgians who lived in Abkhazia and Russian-backed separatist forces".

Sure, there may be a slice of population that wants to leave but how can that be gouged properly when Russia keeps influencing the people and supplying weapons to separatists? There's a cause and effect here.

The fact is that Abkhazians haven't been fans of the idea of being part of Georgia, even before they were forcibly incorporated into Georgia by the Soviets, and the ethnic strife started before the collapse of the SU, and before the armed conflict (and Russian military assistance) has started. In Spain's Catalonia separatist sentiment can be gauged properly, but does that help with an actual realization of that sentiment? Not much. And that's a highly developed European country, from which Georgia is still very far institutionally, and was even farther in the 90ies.

Not true.

Crimea could turn into an independent, mostly Russian speaking, fully demilitarized country living off tourism. Possibly joining the EU later.

I bet they would be much richer than today. Being a part of Russia sucks from the economic point of view. IDK if Crimean Russians are so nationalistic that they would rather live in a semi-starved, heavily sanctioned, economically isolated country.

Why can't they remain part of Russia like they historically were (well, I mean since Russia took over form the Tatars, of course) and seem to want?

It's not because Russia has taken Crimea back in a rather cavalier way that they should be split again just to weaken Russia. This can only perpetuate resentment and problems.

Speaking only as an American, I don't think we really know what Crimeans want. Russia isn't well-known for legitimate democratic voting, and the Crimean referendum has never been acknowledged by Western Democracies.

I would not be starkly opposed to Crimean independence, nor even Russian-integration, but in essence it looks like Russia took Crimea and then held a fake referendum to legitimize it.

But the question always goes - where do we draw lines. Should we support the concept of the Confederate States of America seceding from the United States? If California or Texas wanted to secede, should we support it? Wales? Okinawa? Quebec?

How should governments determine actual stake and determination over a specific part of land?

> Should we support the concept of the Confederate States of America seceding from the United States? If California or Texas wanted to secede, should we support it?

Yes. The Tenth Amendment reads, 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.' There is no power delegated to the United States by the Constitution to eject states, therefor the power to leave the union is reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Secession was and is perfectly constitutional. The fact that the Confederate States did so for a truly bad reason doesn't change that fact. The right thing would have been to … let them go.

Brexit is a great example of how things should work: a state freely decided to leave a suprastate body, and that body let it.

It's a great example of handling a peaceful exit from a political union, but in terms of maintaining the existence of "The United Kingdom" it remains to be seen. There was no civil war, but it was polarising enough that it could well have lit the fuse that ultimately tears the country apart over time.

Scotland voted against its independence referendum in no small part due to fear-mongering about an independent Scotland being barred from joining the EU. The independence issue was then considered absolutely settled for a generation at least. However post-Brexit that has rightly called this into question, with still strong SNP support Westminster will have to reckon with that soon enough. Irish reunification isn't something I'm too familiar with the intricacies of, but they were pro-EU too and the Irish Sea border doesn't exactly strengthen the unionists case.

Crimea it at least 70% ethnic Russian and was Russian until moved to Ukraine without consultation.

So I think this is a case where Putin's actions did align with what the people actually wanted even if that's too hard for the West to acknowledge publicly (I'm sure that they accept that Crimea is not going back to Ukraine).

> Crimea it at least 70% ethnic Russian

So are parts of Ukraine who are vigorously resisting the Russian invasion.

Identity is tricky. Many once ethnic and/or linguistic Russians may choose to identify differently, to be governed differently, and that’s their right. The modern “Russian” ethnicity, as one distinct from e.g. Ukraine, is only a few hundred years old [1].

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus'

>So are parts of Ukraine who are vigorously resisting the Russian invasion.

To be pedantic, Ukraine's regular military forces are vigorously resisting the Russian invasion, not parts of Ukraine. Regarding the ethnic and identity composition of Ukraine's military forces -- I have no idea.

> Ukraine's regular military forces are vigorously resisting the Russian invasion, not parts of Ukraine

There is widespread protest and limited insurrection in occupied cities, together with mass enrolment by the population in the military. The Ukrainian people, perhaps more than the state, are repelling this invasion. (In strong alliance with Moscow’s military incompetence.)

> I would not be starkly opposed to Crimean independence, nor even Russian-integration, but in essence it looks like Russia took Crimea and then held a fake referendum to legitimize it.

> But the question always goes - where do we draw lines. Should we support the concept of the Confederate States of America seceding from the United States? If California or Texas wanted to secede, should we support it? Wales? Okinawa? Quebec?

Why drawing a line? It's either you allow everyone to choose their country, or noone. Allowing Crimea but not California, or allowing Kosovo but not Mexico and allowing Slovakia and not Catalonia is the worst solution. Right now, it's completely arbitrary, and this arbitration is what leads to wars and conflicts.

I would say, let them all decide for themselves.

Do you want to allow Ukraine to be independent? Then also allow Donbas republic to be independent of Ukraine, and consequently allow cities in Donbas that wish to stay in Ukraine to secede from Donbas. And even within those cities, allow neighbourhoods that want to stay in Donbas to stay.

Why not, if that's what people want? And that would mean no war. Yes, it may be complex in an administrative way. Who wants to show passport to cross the street and go to the store. Or to cross borders twice when going to work? Or to apply for a work permit? But exactly that complexity would quickly lead to different agreements and territorial rearrangements if people decide it's better for them. Again, why not? If they agree, they can change the state every year or so. If you let people power to decide, they will be more responsible for purely selfish reasons. That's how capitalism works, why not politics?

As soon as you draw a line who can and who can't decide, you are creating a conflict that may or may not lead to war and other atrocities.

Wanted to edit the previous comment, but it won't let me anymore. I usually don't comment about downvotes, but here I'd really like to know the reason?

What is so controversial about giving the right of self-determination to everyone?

If everyone, regardless of the colour, race of gender has equal right, why some people should, and some should not determine if they want to live in one country? You can even choose your gender now, but can't live in an independent state?

Maybe I am missing something obvious. I Would really like a counterargument here instead of simple downvotes.

I didn’t downvote but one glaring issue is that you’re well of the mark here:

> Allowing Crimea but not California, or allowing Kosovo but not Mexico and allowing Slovakia and not Catalonia

Slovakia had a popular recognised referendum and decided to vote for the velvet divorce

Catalonia had an informal referendum that was not legally recognised, but afaik there is still technically a path to do so.

Kosovo - I do not know a great deal about Kosovo.

California can secede and there doesn’t seem to be a huge interest in doing so.

Mexico … idk where you’re going with this one.

But importantly in Crimea the Russian “little green men” showed up, took over, hastily ran a referendum that was very dubious and happened to just coincidentally deliver the result that said exactly what the Russians wanted. It was a fix.

I think you know this though, and that you’re engaging in what’s known as “sealioning” :-)

Thanks for the clarification. In my previous comments, I assumed that everyone should have the right to organize a referendum and show a clear will for the independence, but didn't write the assumption down. And the examples are a bit unrealistic.

> I think you know this though, and that you’re engaging in what’s known as “sealioning” :-)

I learned a new word today. Thanks, although I don't think I'm engaged in it, since I idealistically think that everyone, with the accent to everyone, should have a right of association and disassociation with willing partners, and that our current state system is not the healthiest way of governing humans.

They can, if they prefer to, but in order to achieve lasting peace in the Black Sea, Crimea should IMHO be demilitarized.

Having Russian military bases on their south flank is a major security problem for Ukraine.

On what basis are you fantasizing about demilitarization of a nuclear state? How would that work? I hate Putin as much as the next person, but nothing will happen to the Russia proper -- they'll start throwing nukes, tactical first, then strategic.

Peace treaties in the past contained all sorts of demilitarization clauses. It is not unprecedented.

Counties sign such peace treaties when they lose hard enough to start losing their territory proper, or they are forced to capitulate, are occupied. How would a nuclear state lose their territory proper? There were indeed various peace treaties in the past, but not a nuclear state losing their territory proper.

Can people who downvoted this explain why?

I don't know much about Crimea and its situation but I've spent considerable time in both Abkhazia and Transnistria; I have a number of businesses that I have based out of Tiraspol and Sokhumi. While far from a fan of Russia's interventions in both regions, I have long felt, form talking to as many people as possible in both nations, that the majority (although not necessarily an overwhelming one) support the countries being independent from Tbilisi and Chișinău, respectively.

I'm more than happy to have my priors re-adjusted here.

Independent countries are one way to go. A mostly independent region within a federalized republic could be another.

Isn't technically Russia a federation already...?

This is inaccurate information, Russia fought both wars in Georgia, currently Abkhazians and Ossetians are Russian citizens (they grabbed Russian passports as soon as they become available) so they will go back to their motherland Russia, Georgia will re-absorb it's own historical territory.

Looks like you are spreading Russian propaganda in bad faith.

Abkhazians and Ossetians aren't "Russians" ethnically, culturally, or linguistically though. Why would they want to go "back" to Russia (not their homeland)? The whole point of their struggle is ultimately to get their own countries just as other ethnic groups have. They merely accepted Russian aid and citizenship as a way to get out of Georgian rule. Which of course may ultimately be going from the frying pan into the fire.

They rushed to took Russian passports thus they are Russian citizens and can go back to their homeland Russia.

The whole point of their struggle was Russian invasion so Russians could build military bases there (which they eventually did)

You are confusing the motivation of Russia (which was indeed to build military bases) with that of the oppressed minorities. Again, these people are not "Russians". They are traditionally Muslim peoples who speak languages completely unrelated to Russian.

There are gazillion of people in Russian federation who are not "Russians" culturally, Abkhazians speak Russian and South Ossetians are invaders into Georgia from North Ossetia which is... Part of Russia.

Also, there are no "oppressed minorities" in Georgia, never was. That would be part of Russian propaganda.

Abkhazians speak Abkhazian (a Circassic language) and Ossetians speak Ossetian (related to Farsi). Sure, many of them may speak Russian too. But so do Georgians. All these areas were part of the Soviet Union which imposed Russian as the standard language. But people still kept their native languages. The point is that these people want to live where they do, speaking their own languages -- they have no desire to go "back" to Russia, but on the other hand they have no desire to be assimilated into Georgian culture either. Why is this so hard to understand?

They speak both, but Abkhazian and Ossetian is dying language, they are Russian citizens and speak Russian first.

Georgian language on other hand is the most widely-spoken of the Kartvelian languages and serves as the literary language or lingua franca for speakers of related language.

Before Soviet Union, it was Georgian territory for thousands of years, South Ossetia - is Russian name, in fact it is named Samachablo, Ossetians migrated there from North Ossetia en masse during Soviet Union times and re-named area to South Ossetia to give it impression as if two Ossetia's where same area.

The point incorrect, Chechens do not desire to go back to Russia and fought war over it, but they lost because Russians committed their genocide.

You can not simply settle somewhere and then want to break-away, Why is this so hard to understand?

Oh so you're saying that Georgia wants to forcibly take those territories and go full ethnic cleansing (That's how I read what you wrote, I'm not trying it on)? If so, they might indeed prefer to have the Russian army around...

I've hosted Ossetians (well, my mother did) back in the days. There is actually a huge diaspora in France, and even when they are deeply religious, they do hate Russia with a passion I've never felt with anyone else. So I'm quite disbelieving this kind of statements, maybe my vision is skewed by my experience.

Again, you are spreading Russian propaganda, Hacker News is not a place for Russian shills.

Is there any particularly strong desire within Abkhazia to return to being part of Georgia proper? I'm sure in the event of a Russian collapse it would likely be reintegrated by Georgia anyway, but my naive understanding was that they'd always considered themselves a distinct people and separate territory and that being allied to Russia was convenient for both (with the Abkhaz being able to largely self-rule on paper at least, and Russia getting a pliant neighbour it can exert a lot of power over and perhaps annex at a future convenient date)

> Lots of countries are obviously positioning themselves to (re-)integrate some territory just in case.

Can anybody confirm this? I haven't seen any state official talking about getting Königsberg or Karelia back. Where has this positioning been hinted? I might have missed something.

I haven't heard an official statement about Kaliningrad either, but I am acquainted with a few MEPs and their assistants, and there is some excited backroom talk about it.

The Kaliningrad exclave is a huge territorial and security headache for the EU.

Germany isn't going to take it back. It already had the chance, I believe, during the 1990s in exchange for a large sum of money but refused. Germany's eastern boundaries are formally set by treaty. Germany does not want jokes about the "return of German revanchism" and "East Prussia". More seriously, Germany would not want to absorb so many Russian speakers.

A small, Russian-speaking nation under EU's influence (and presumably future EU member) would be a good thing for the EU, to show off to the world (and specifically to Russia, as a positive example).