I'm confused about one thing. All news outlet are reporting this as "occupation of Crimea" as if Crimea was not politically a part of Ukraine proper, as if Russian army in Crimea is not the same as Russian army in the Ukraine even though Crimea is part of the Ukraine. Why is that? Is it because the majority of Crimea's population is ethnically Russian? Or is Crimea a disputed territory, like Abkhazia?
From wikipedia: "Crimea is an autonomous parliamentary republic within Ukraine and is governed by the Constitution of Crimea in accordance with the laws of Ukraine."[1]
It was part of Russia till 1954 when it was transferred to Ukraine. Even after fall of Soviet Union naval bases are still used by the Russian navy. So basically historically population is pro-russian and military personnel was already there before the crisis.
Yes, I've read the wiki. It's still a part of the Ukraine. Similarly, Kaliningrad was part of Germany (Prussia) until end of WW2. Yet if Germany invaded Kaliningrad today, it would still be perceived as declaration of war.
Trying to think of analogy here but nothing concrete comes up. The messy thing about this is that the ethnic, cultural and linguistic makeup of Crimea is by majority, Russian. It's something of an foreign-induced rebellion that the majority willingly accept.
So, let's say Crimea overwhelmingly wishes to secede to Russia. Would it be undemocratic for the US to oppose such a move, whether it is induced/heavily influenced by a foreign nation? It get's murkier at that point. It's a rather well-planned move on Putins part and I believe it was pre-mediated months in advance. But that's just my opinion.
