Rejoice, Russians! The annexation of Crimea is complete and legitimate – Google Maps proves it

Re: Which cliche works here....

Google will do whatever it thinks is best for it's own future interests.

Re: Which cliche works here....

Well it's not unprecedented for Google. A few years ago they renamed the Persian Gulf the Arabic Gulf for residents in Saudi Arabia (and a few other countries with nasty regimes, I think). Note: this isn't simply a language thing. It's been called the Persian Gulf for over a thousand years including in the Arabic language.

These sorts of things are worrying because when a power wants to extend its grasp, it very often takes the initial step of renaming an area. Germans only popularly began calling Sudetenland (western parts of Czechoslovakia) that in the early 20th Century which was followed by invasion. Japan and China bicker over the name of the Sekaku / Diaoyu islands. Many pro-Israeli people will insist there was no such country as "Palestine" despite there being plenty of pre-Israel maps with a large region marked exactly as such (queue incoming justifications why it doesn't count).

In short, when you see a power renaming a region, or as in this case Google renaming it to please Russia, you worry.

As to Crimea itself? Well if the people want to be part of Russia they should have that right - I believe in self-determination. But it's not what I would choose if I were them!

Re: gMegalomania

That's the version of Google Maps used internally at Google. No borders at all. No tax regimes. No Governments.

Re: GOOD!

Surely you meant 1954? If memory serves me right, Krushev made himself a birthday present after getting shitfaced off his tits in 1954, not 1953 (that is the _ENTIRE_ basis for Ukraine territorial claim to Crimea, there is no other).

In any case, the issue is simple. Is there the right to self-determination or not?

We have allowed Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia and Kosovo and we are now allowing Scotland to decide which way they go (though quite clearly some people in Westminster have some second thoughts about the last one). We have supported them and even forced the issue by any means necessary. Why is the population of Crimea any different?

In any case, people in glass houses should not throw stones. If the newly unelected hunta in Kiev did not revoke all minority rights as their first act of power Crimea would have probably been still in Ukraine.

As far as the "gas station". If it was indeed a gas station it would not make our Etonian graduates look like dummies every time they sit at the negotiation table. First Syria, now the "remove all illegal occupations clause" in the Geneva agreement. The Ukrainian government signing an agreement that mandates it to remove itself from power and having it countersigned by the EU and USA. I was laughing madly when I read the news for half an hour (and quite rightly too).

Sweden is the best comparison actually

If memory serves me right Finland (which is within the 1658 borders) treats its Swedish minority as equal, Swedish is a valid language and most signs are double-language.

The previous government in Ukraine voted a similar regime to take place.

The hunta currently in power revoked it as its first act after staging the putch. If it did not we may have had a second example of the Swedish (from Finnish perspective) solution in Europe. Now we do not.

Re: Recognise it or not, its the reality on the ground!

Meanwhile, 80 odd years ago ...

"Fact is Germany now owns Czechoslovakia with troops, its theirs now. Whether we agree or not is irrelevant as the map should show the reality of current borders no matter our feelings."

Re: Recognise it or not, its the reality on the ground!

> Fact is

Pro-tip my friend: never start a forum post with those two words.

(unless quoted)

Oh, dear. I was going to keep out of this discussion but I just could not resist...

1. He was bribed by Russia

No, he was bribed by other Ukrainians. Incidentally, by those who are now supporting the "interim" government and those who have been appointed by that government to rule over cities and regions as the payback for that support (read on recent appointments of key cities' mayors).

2. He led innocent political rivals captive on fake charges

If you are talking about that woman - her treatment was harsh, unnecessarily so, but she is no innocent Cinderella. When she was released and paraded in front of the "Maidan" protesters the crowd shouted for her to "go back to her prison". No one wants to touch her with a barge pole.

3. He sold his country to Russia allegiance and servitude

He did not sell his country to Russia, his country has been dependent on Russian subsidies from the moment it left the USSR. Ukraine is not in Russian "servitude", there is very little of cross-ownership between Russian and Ukrainian businesses. Russia was spending billions every year (in soft loans and heavily discounted gas) to prop-up otherwise bankrupt Ukrainian economy in the hope of not letting it dissolve in a civil strife.

In retrospect, it would have probably been better if Russia just let the Ukraine go completely bust and then rebuild itself from the ruins but it takes a bold politician to allow a bomb the size of Ukraine to go off next to his own country's borders.

This is something, though, that the EU will now have on their borders, because they either have to step in where Russia withdrew and finance the Ukraine's economic black hole or push for reforms, which will make average Ukrainian long for the good old times, at least for several years. In a country as divided as it is, there will likely be a bloodbath in the process.

And, yes, Putin will not rush to make it any easier for the West, if it comes to that.

> Why was the last Ukrainian president ousted ?

Errm... He wasn't ousted. He was deposed by a coup d'Êtat. At least that's what it is called when it is not backed by the West.

A manoeuvre the idiocy of which makes Bush's inva... sorry, liberation of Iraq pale in comparison. :-(

Re: The Google spokesman's comment is a bit disingenuous...

> If Google really conforms their maps to the country code being used, shouldn't those islands only show as Islas Malvinas?

Possibly because Argentina does not insist by force of law that they be called Malvinas? They are very partial to that name, but to my knowledge is not actually illegal to call them something else. I don't recall what name the Buenos Aires Herald uses though.

Also, they are not under Argentina's effective control.

Having said that, maps printed in Argentina must by law include a depiction of both the Falk... Malvinas and the country's claim to Antarctica. They are usually shown in an inset.