> Quote: “All Russian citizens are, in fact, colonisers, because they came to the occupied territory to change its demographic composition. They are accomplices to a crime. And we will expel them if they do not leave before the territory is liberated. International law does not provide for collective expulsion – collective deportation is prohibited. Therefore, individual decisions will be applied to them.”
> Details: Tasheva emphasised that she was referring to Russians who illegally entered Ukraine after 2014.
Accurate and fair.
Although I have a feeling that a great deal of those Russian colonizers are going to leave on their own, but regardless collective punishment is indeed bad and I’m glad to see them propose this from the get-go.
The problem is that it is about a million people.
I mean, technically, Ukrainians were colonizers there, too. Crimea (and the surrounding areas near the Black Sea) was originally inhabited by Iranians, Scythians, Goths, Kazakhs, Cumans, and multiple other Turkic groups, like the Tatars.
Ruthenians (proto-Ukrainians) only entered the regions much later, and it was definitely as colonizers. Same with further south; many of the Russians in the Caucasus were originally (East Slavs that we would now consider to be) Ukrainians, especially Ukrainian Cossacks, that were colonizers.
Ahahahahaha
Yeah…something tells me that Russians will be expelled regardless if they entered Crimea before or after 2014…
Russia losing Crimea would be absolutely catastrophic that I personally don’t believe they would allow that to happen.
You then run into the very likely possibility that the majority of Crimea does not wish to be apart of Ukraine in which case you get a Donetsk situation.
What I believe personally.
1. If Russia risks losing Crimea then I believe that would be a great time to use conventional nuclear weapons on key targets in Ukraine.
2. I do not believe majority of Crimea wishes to be apart of Ukraine and that their sovereignty should be respected. Kosovo is a breakaway state of Serbia yet we support Kosovo’s independence. I would encourage the same thing from Crimea. If Russia were to lose Crimea then they should become independent from both.
3. I believe the war despite going on over a year is still too early to call a victor. More than likely it’s looking like a brutal war of attrition in terms of manpower and economics.
[removed]
“All Russian citizens are, in fact, colonisers, because they came to the
occupied territory to change its demographic composition.”
​
“She reminded people that all Ukrainians in Crimea who have been victims
of Russia’s forced passportisation are recognised by Ukraine as
Ukrainian citizens under the law.”
​
This just sounds that they will be expelled individually in a sense that if they are Russians, then they get ethnicly cleansed, if they are Ukraininas they can stay. I dont think thats something the West should be supporting.
My brother, who currently resides in Ukraine, says that one big problem of Ukrainian propaganda is that it’s acting like they’ve already won, with the hottest topics being “what will we do after we will win Crimea” and “how we should divide Muscowy in separate ethno states”.
In that regard Ukrainian propaganda acts much worse than Russian one – at least Russian one is just silent and blatantly dumb, but not building dangerous “We’ve already won” narrative.
Oh Good.
I almost did not expect anything better than the expulsion of Germans from eastern Europe and eastern central Europe after WW2. But this sounds more considerable.
Hopefully from so called Kaliningrad Oblast too.
Wasn’t Crimea donated to Ukraine by Kruschev?
who is Russian ? what if the migrating “Russian” has a Ukrainian parent or grandparent and has nothing against Ukrainians or Russians.
Even if Ukraine wins the war Crimea shouldn’t be touched for the sale of long term security
That’s fucked up.
Firstly: completely pro Ukraine and want Crimea to be returned to them.
I find that scetchy, it’s not like Ukrainian crimeans were always natives there. The only culture who really had a long stay there are the tatars who returned after soviet cleansing. Beyond them russian and Ukrainians settles there, neither of them were there for a long time besides maybe in small minority pockets. Nobody but the tatars have a claim to call this their home land, not even the ukraians which wouldn’t even own the land of it wasn’t for some border redrawing during the SSR. Claiming they have the right to remove Russians because they aren’t ethnic there would be hypothetical of the Ukrainians who basically settled land too after the sovjet ethnic cleansing of the Tatars. Yes they were not part of the Russian controlled government who ordered it but by taking advantage of it they are at least participants.
Its always hard to argue how long a person has to stay to become a native, are US Americans still colonizers? I assume most would say no. Are northern Ireland unionist colonizers? That’s probably more contentious even if they lived there for generations. Are Ukrainians and Russians colonizers after they settled previous inhabited crimean land?
In the end ethinic cleansing is always bad, no matter if it’s done to our enemy or not. I would say that they at least should get the chance to renounce their Russian citizenship and become Ukrainian only citizens, those who are idiotic enough to stick to Putins Russia and don’t renounce it get deported to Russia.
(also if we return people to Russia that will soffen their demographic crisis and help their economy)
Headline translation is misleading a lot of people here. In Ukrainian there are two different words for “Russian” as a citizen of Russia, and “Russian” as ethnicity. Ukrainian headline uses the word “Росіян” meaning citizens of Russia. And Russian translation of headline uses word “Россиян” meaning citizens. But for some reason translator didn’t think about this distinction while using “Russian” in headline.
Article itself makes it clear that they are talking about Russian citizens who moved to Crimea after it was occupied:
> All Russian citizens are, in fact, colonisers, because they came to the occupied territory to change its demographic composition.
18 comments
That will take ages to expel them one at a time.
> Quote: “All Russian citizens are, in fact, colonisers, because they came to the occupied territory to change its demographic composition. They are accomplices to a crime. And we will expel them if they do not leave before the territory is liberated. International law does not provide for collective expulsion – collective deportation is prohibited. Therefore, individual decisions will be applied to them.”
> Details: Tasheva emphasised that she was referring to Russians who illegally entered Ukraine after 2014.
Accurate and fair.
Although I have a feeling that a great deal of those Russian colonizers are going to leave on their own, but regardless collective punishment is indeed bad and I’m glad to see them propose this from the get-go.
The problem is that it is about a million people.
I mean, technically, Ukrainians were colonizers there, too. Crimea (and the surrounding areas near the Black Sea) was originally inhabited by Iranians, Scythians, Goths, Kazakhs, Cumans, and multiple other Turkic groups, like the Tatars.
Ruthenians (proto-Ukrainians) only entered the regions much later, and it was definitely as colonizers. Same with further south; many of the Russians in the Caucasus were originally (East Slavs that we would now consider to be) Ukrainians, especially Ukrainian Cossacks, that were colonizers.
Ahahahahaha
Yeah…something tells me that Russians will be expelled regardless if they entered Crimea before or after 2014…
Russia losing Crimea would be absolutely catastrophic that I personally don’t believe they would allow that to happen.
You then run into the very likely possibility that the majority of Crimea does not wish to be apart of Ukraine in which case you get a Donetsk situation.
What I believe personally.
1. If Russia risks losing Crimea then I believe that would be a great time to use conventional nuclear weapons on key targets in Ukraine.
2. I do not believe majority of Crimea wishes to be apart of Ukraine and that their sovereignty should be respected. Kosovo is a breakaway state of Serbia yet we support Kosovo’s independence. I would encourage the same thing from Crimea. If Russia were to lose Crimea then they should become independent from both.
3. I believe the war despite going on over a year is still too early to call a victor. More than likely it’s looking like a brutal war of attrition in terms of manpower and economics.
[removed]
“All Russian citizens are, in fact, colonisers, because they came to the
occupied territory to change its demographic composition.”
​
“She reminded people that all Ukrainians in Crimea who have been victims
of Russia’s forced passportisation are recognised by Ukraine as
Ukrainian citizens under the law.”
​
This just sounds that they will be expelled individually in a sense that if they are Russians, then they get ethnicly cleansed, if they are Ukraininas they can stay. I dont think thats something the West should be supporting.
My brother, who currently resides in Ukraine, says that one big problem of Ukrainian propaganda is that it’s acting like they’ve already won, with the hottest topics being “what will we do after we will win Crimea” and “how we should divide Muscowy in separate ethno states”.
In that regard Ukrainian propaganda acts much worse than Russian one – at least Russian one is just silent and blatantly dumb, but not building dangerous “We’ve already won” narrative.
Oh Good.
I almost did not expect anything better than the expulsion of Germans from eastern Europe and eastern central Europe after WW2. But this sounds more considerable.
Hopefully from so called Kaliningrad Oblast too.
Wasn’t Crimea donated to Ukraine by Kruschev?
who is Russian ? what if the migrating “Russian” has a Ukrainian parent or grandparent and has nothing against Ukrainians or Russians.
Even if Ukraine wins the war Crimea shouldn’t be touched for the sale of long term security
That’s fucked up.
Firstly: completely pro Ukraine and want Crimea to be returned to them.
I find that scetchy, it’s not like Ukrainian crimeans were always natives there. The only culture who really had a long stay there are the tatars who returned after soviet cleansing. Beyond them russian and Ukrainians settles there, neither of them were there for a long time besides maybe in small minority pockets. Nobody but the tatars have a claim to call this their home land, not even the ukraians which wouldn’t even own the land of it wasn’t for some border redrawing during the SSR. Claiming they have the right to remove Russians because they aren’t ethnic there would be hypothetical of the Ukrainians who basically settled land too after the sovjet ethnic cleansing of the Tatars. Yes they were not part of the Russian controlled government who ordered it but by taking advantage of it they are at least participants.
Its always hard to argue how long a person has to stay to become a native, are US Americans still colonizers? I assume most would say no. Are northern Ireland unionist colonizers? That’s probably more contentious even if they lived there for generations. Are Ukrainians and Russians colonizers after they settled previous inhabited crimean land?
In the end ethinic cleansing is always bad, no matter if it’s done to our enemy or not. I would say that they at least should get the chance to renounce their Russian citizenship and become Ukrainian only citizens, those who are idiotic enough to stick to Putins Russia and don’t renounce it get deported to Russia.
(also if we return people to Russia that will soffen their demographic crisis and help their economy)
Headline translation is misleading a lot of people here. In Ukrainian there are two different words for “Russian” as a citizen of Russia, and “Russian” as ethnicity. Ukrainian headline uses the word “Росіян” meaning citizens of Russia. And Russian translation of headline uses word “Россиян” meaning citizens. But for some reason translator didn’t think about this distinction while using “Russian” in headline.
Article itself makes it clear that they are talking about Russian citizens who moved to Crimea after it was occupied:
> All Russian citizens are, in fact, colonisers, because they came to the occupied territory to change its demographic composition.