UKRAINE (2) 

European and other leaders are getting very hot under the collar about the proposed succession of the Crimea from Ukraine to Russia. There is lots of talk about sovereignty and territorial integrity. Russia is being a bad boy.

I am not usually a big fan of the Russians (except when they are playing ice hockey), but on this question, I have to admit I have some sympathy for their position. Nobody knows exactly why the Soviet Union transfered the province from the Russian Federation to the Ukrainian Republic in 1954; the story goes that Khrushchev, who was born on the Russian-Ukraine border and ran Ukraine in the early part of his career, ordered it transfered while he was drunk. But the fact of the matter is that it has not been Ukrainian for very long (to be frank, neither has Ukraine itself), before the transfer it had been firmly Russian since the time of Peter the Great, the Sevastopol naval base is the Russians' key military installation on the Black Sea (and the Russians have rights there), and the Crimea's population is more than 50% ethnic Russian. In an era where people continually trumpet self-determination, that seems a fairly persuasive combination.

Returning to the status quo ante-1954 seems to me a fairly small price to pay for solving what could end up being a right, bloody mess. However, I fully expect it to garner zero support in the capitals of the western world.

Walter Blotscher