Two takes on Crimea crisis

Re In Trump era, Putin remains the West’s favourite villain, Jan. 13 Kudos to Thomas Walkom for his clear-eyed assessment of Vladimir Putin and for noting that Chrystia Freeland, even as foreign affairs minister, is persona non grata in Russia. While I have great respect for her, I hope that she does not still have an axe to grind over Crimea. It is important for her to keep in mind the following.

First, Russia has a historical claim to Crimea since, in 1954, the Soviet Union ceded the peninsula to Ukraine. Currently, 58 per cent of Crimea’s population are ethnic Russians.

Second, Crimea is geopolitically critical to Russia, since Russia’s Black Sea Fleet is based in Sevastopol, located in the southwestern region of Crimea.

Third, in February 2014, the U.S. supported a right-wing coup in Ukraine, overthrowing president Viktor Yanukovych. More euphemistically, it “brokered a deal” in support of regime change.

Fourth, Russia annexed Crimea in March 2014 after a referendum in its favour. In so doing, Russia simply acted in its own reasonable regional interests. Why is Russia demonized for this? Why is it so hard for us to be deprived of a villain? Tobi Baumhard, King City

As a historian who has worked extensively with sources on the 1783 annexation of Crimea, I can assure Mr. Walkom that two groups — the Tatars and Turks — would beg to differ with his statement that the Russians have a “historical claim” to the peninsula. Tatars have lived in Crimea for some 600 years, much of that as autonomous vassals to the Ottoman Empire.

Like their many other imperial acquisitions, the Russians conquered and retained Crimea through a mix of manipulation, deceit, colonization and brutal violence. They have as much “historical claim” to it as France has to Algeria or Britain to India. Ethan L. Menchinger, Near Eastern Studies, University of Michigan