petrescatraian@libranet.deThat pretty much has to do with how the population feels about it. Transylvania was ruled for hundreds of years by Hungary, then it became an autonomous province under the Ottoman Empire after Budapest fell to it, then part of the Habsburg Empire, only to fall again under the dominance of Budapest under the Austro-Hungarian dual monarchy. Yet the Romanian majority was largely persecuted, firstly because they were Orthodox and not Catholic (and later Protestant/Evangelical), then because they were, you know, Romanian. And as in 1859 the southern provinces of Wallachia and Moldova united to form the nowadays Romania, they naturally gravitated towards it. Likewise, there's now a strong unionist movement in both Romania and in the Republic of Moldova (which is mostly named as Bessarabia to make a distinction from the Eastern part of Romania also called Moldova) calling for the reunification of both countries (albeit not strong and cohesive enough to create real political pressure, but that's a different story).
Regarding Crimea, the issue was not who owned it and for how long, but basically who owned it in recent times. You see, after WW2, people decided it would be too dangerous and too unpleasant to go to war again, so we adopted a series of treaties. And Europe, where some of the bloodiest territorial conflicts occurred, made no exception. Even if it was mostly owned by the Russian Empire throughout its history, then by USSR, Crimea had all the reasons to stay Ukrainian, as to not create a precedent in violating the said agreements.
Otherwise, if we take the population into account, I would be for an independent Tatar Crimea, but we know there's a certain state which doesn't like independent states. And that is not Ukraine, which still views it as an autonomous province.
Stamau123@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I think even by that point there was a distinction between being Chinese and being Vietnamese, and it persisted even with the north east being separated for a thousand years