Talk:2014 Russian annexation of Crimea

Citation needed

'At the same time Putin asks for plans to return Crimea to Rusia...' I think this statement needs citation. Who, -and where from -, knows that Putin made this request? 2A02:2F00:7107:5300:799D:FEA7:FB71:BD3B (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was not technically an annexation.

An annexation under international law: When an outside power forcefully occupies a population.

The population of Crimea is majority Russian, after the 2014 Maidan Coup they held a democratic referrendum which was at the time vouched for by UN observers on the ground at the, and the majority of the population voted to scede from Ukraine and become part of the Russian Federation. Russian forces were warmly welcomed by the local population and the vast majority of the Ukranian armed forces based in Crimea defected to the Russian Federation. If this was an annexation, the Russians would have arrived as conquerors, not been welcomed as compatriots. Crimea being shown as part of Ukraine on a map does not make it part of Ukraine, under international law it is the people of a region that decide that region's future. The people of Crimea identified as Russians, they voted to be Russian and the Russian Federation recognised this. The refferendum was carried out in line with international law, following the precendent of Kosovo's independence. Although given the threat of radical Ukranian nationalist militias carrying out an attack on the people of Crimea; it was clearly thought necessary by the Russian Federation for the Russian military to intervene and provide security to the region during the referrendum and afterwards. There is no evidence that force was used or violence implied by the Russian forces to the people of Crimea.

Whilst you might say: A foreign army entering your town and armed to the gills inherently implies violence; I would retort; If you saw this as your army, if they entered your home town during a time of turmoil when groups of hostile armed extremists from very different regions threaten to enter your region and bring violence to you and your home?

You need to ask yourself: When an entire civic government and 99% of the garrison of a region defect, there is a wealth of human and video evidence that the side moving in to secure the region is seen as liberators rather than conquerors by the people of that region who share the same culture and heritage; maybe, just maybe it is not an annexation. The Russians did not occupy, as they were not percieved as occupyers by the people of Crimea. And this is how it is defined under international law.

Because that is not the actual definition of an annexation. 117.20.69.76 (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please educate yourself further on this subject. 'Annexation' does not mean 'forcibly occupying a population'. It refers to the process of incorporating territory that had theretofore belonged to another state into one's own state. This can be done legally or illegally, with or without the consent of the resident population. See for example the Texas annexation, which was conducted by treaty. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 08:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please educate yourself on International Law: it is not the state that owns the land the people live on; it is the people who have the right to self determination:
This is the International Law precedent that was set in Kosovo and the Balkans after the shattering of Yugoslavia. This is how International Law is currently practiced and understood.
Here are some examples:
Kosovo: An ethnically Albanian region gains it's independence from Serbia, through popular referendum; as it is recognised that this region is not Serbian. International law ruled it was the right of the people of Kosovo to have their independence, and that if they did not want to be part of the nation of Serbia (and the unspoken part, is that they could survive. Nato forces come in and stop Serbia from interfereing, citing humanitarian concerns): they become independent.
Spain: The Catalans attempted the same thing, a popular referendum for independence; they are prevented by Spain from completeing a popular referendum, but if they had not been prevented from doing so, their independence would be in line with international law.
But no armed force stopped the Spanish police from interfereing, so Catalania stays lart of Spain.
Crimea, an ethnically Russian region has a popular referendum to leave Ukraine and join the Russian Federation, Ukraine cannot bring force to stop this; the units based in the region, mostly locally recruited defect and help the armed forces of the Russian Federation that prevent Ukraine from interfereing in the referendum, with very real humanitarian concerns. People were literally burnt to death in Odessa for protesting the government a few days before.
TLDR Ukraine loses Crimea, as the people of Crimea did not want to be part of Ukraine, and exercised their right of Self Determination under the UN charter, and Ukraine was unable to stop the process.
A state is not land or territory. A state is people. And if that state oppresses those people and they want out. They can do so: and legally they take their land with them when they go.
Germany shattered Yugoslavia by appealing to Croatia and Slovenia; Croatia and Slovenia acted in an obstrictionist way in the national parliment till they got the chance to have a popular referendum to leave Yugoslavia. They were the economic engine of the nation, and they did not want to essentially keep paying for the rest of the nation of Yugoslavia. Why should they have equal representation when they made most of the nation's wealth? This destroyed Yugoslavia. But that was their right to self determination as is written under International Law. 117.20.69.76 (talk) 10:12, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So to add to the previous diatribe: Land cannot be annexed by the people who live there and make up that territory, the idea is absurd; Annexing is top down, whether legal or not, the people of Crimea did not annex Crimea when they voted to cede from Ukraine, and apply to be intergrated into the Russian Federation.
The soldiers of the Russian Federation wore no badges or identifiers; as they were a security force enabling Crimean secsession from Ukraine; not the Russian army annexing Crimea. Hence why they were called little green men.
Although the Ukranian troops that defected and removed their badges, and also acted as a security force also did the same, so they too became little green men. 117.20.69.76 (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We say what the sources say; the sources use the term "annexation". — Czello (music) 11:00, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are deliberately misleading, for political reasons, rather than historical accuracy. 117.20.69.76 (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That might be your opinion, however Wikipedia has determined them to be reliable. — Czello (music) 13:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:RUSUKR, ip users and new accounts may not discuss issues related to Russian-Ukraibian conflict on Wikipedia. This applies to this discussion. Continuation may result in the block of the ip. Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 December 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Russian annexation of Crimea → 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea – Not the primary topic over the 1783 Russian annexation of Crimea. The long-term significance criterion exists for cases like these. No event from the 18th century can compete on pageviews with an event that is ongoing and unresolved, but it should mean something that "Russian annexation of [the] Crimea" had only one meaning for over 200 years. To quote Kelly O'Neill from Claiming Crimea: A History of Catherine the Great's Southern Empire (Yale University Press, 2017), p. ix:

When I began this project, the Russian annexation of Crimea was a singular occurrence in world history . . .

The disambiguation page Russian annexation of Crimea (disambiguation) should be restored to the base name. Srnec (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – The present naming scheme is laden with WP:RECENTISM. There is no clear primary topic here – as is written in the source Srnec quoted above, the 1783 annexation has enduring, long-term significance. Allowing the 2014 annexation to hold primacy at the undisambiguated title downplays the significance of the long history of Russian imperial intervention in the region. The 2014 annexation can only be truly understood within the context established by the 1783 annexation, and for that reason, the present scheme is non-neutral, and impairs the reader's understanding of these events. Implementing the above proposal will rectify this situation. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 00:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Citation not supertexted

In the "Legal Issues" section on the paragraph that starts "In the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances" citation 201 is not supertext. It says "The 1997 Russian–Ukrainian Treaty on Friendship,[201] ". Gamongo11 (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation