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.