Well, somebody had to say it.

Anyway, this all reminds me of the trials of Carter and Torrijos back in the 80s, and the cooling jungles of Panama.

Throughout almost the last 80 years of the previous century, we had a Panama Canal Zone (e.g., Panama [CZ]). It was a great place to live, all sunny and warm, with mild oceanside weather, much like Crimea. Of course the Pan Canal Co. workers didn't want to leave! But it was also a military holding for the United States of America. On the downside, it split a sovereign nation, with a 10-mile strip of U.S. Trust Territory, almost right down the middle. To visit relative in the northern half of the country, families from the southern half would have to pass though a foreign nation, with foreign laws, with foreign regulations, foreign language... In my opinion, returning the canal to Panama was the height of U.S. nobility, an act which set the reigning General Omar Torrijos to near sainthood by his nation.

"You may rest assured that in our negotiations with the U.S. you will always find us standing on our feet or dead, but never on our knees. Never!" At a public rally.

I actually had the honor of shaking that man's hand once. Unyielding, but a very likable fellow.

Today, I see no difference with Crimea. It has become a Russian military compound, largely peopled by Russians and their immediate descendants (first and second generation), most of whom actually miss the old USSR, for it was a steady paycheck. The USSR had been known to sacrifice its civilian populace for a strong military.

Population, according to Wiki:

The ethnic groups include Russians and Crimean Tatars.

The 2001 population was:

58.32% Russians
24.32% Ukrainians
12.10% Crimean Tatars

So-o-o ... basically, the deck has been stacked in this "democratic" election. What are the odds that Russia will win a new annexation? The fight involved might be cheaper than tossing a new group of military unemployed to the streets of Russia.

Cheers, all.