There is hardly anything in this article on the influence of the Black Sea on the Mediterranean world. The article is a review of a book on Mithridates and the Kingdom of Pontus (which had a lot of contact with the Mediterranean states).
I was also really disappointed about how it did a good old bait and switch as well. Grab your interest by mentioning hannibal, then switch to talking about some guy's research of a little known personal kingdom on the shores of Turkey. Hardly what the title would lead you to believe.
The archaeology of Crimea is pretty interesting; abandoned Soviet submarine bases, Genoese castles, Pontic and Byzantine ruins. Chersonesus was one of the most fascinating places I've visited ... and you can go swimming amidst Greek/Pontic ruins. I'm assuming the rest of the Black Sea coast is similarly interesting.
Kind of difficult to get there as an American at this point, but for everyone else.
Politics aside, it's not so difficult if you have a Russian visa or passport and arrive from Russia. Even then, most of the time you won't even get stopped driving in from Russia proper. Just remember to bring cash and a Russian SIM due to western sanctions and leave the politics at home.
Your threat is bizarre (and quite frankly rude and probably against the yc rules).
There's nothing illegal about traveling to Crimea, only warnings from the US state department and maybe some other western nations.
From the Russian perspective, the Crimean territory is theirs. If you have valid Russian travel documents, you can enter. From the Ukrainian perspective, the Crimean territory is theirs and US citizens can spend up to an entire year in Ukraine visa-free.
You can't go to Crimea from Russia. It's against the international law. It's an illegal border crossing. Also, if you will try to access to GitHub from Crimean is's you will be blocked. And that your advice for going to Crimea from russia can bring troubles to people who will try to do that.
Its not illegal border crossing either because there is de facto no border there.
A dejure argument doesn't make sense because no matter which side of the argument you take, crossing into crimea isn't on its own illegal. At worst you're supposed to get a visa, but Ukraine has a pretty open policy so that is generally not required for tourism under 90 days.
Presumably if you're coming from Russia you already have a visa to be in Russia too
My socioeconomic determinism conspiracy theory for the filibustering of Crimea: one can find deepwater ports anywhere, but how else were the Moscow elite supposed to send their children to Artek?
Thanks for that; stayed in a hotel near there when I visited Yalta.
I tried using Ukrainian politeness on people in Crimea in ~2011 and got what amounted to "speak Russian or die Americano running dog," so my theory of what happened there is considerably simpler.
Most Crimeans were speaking Russian as a first language well before the takeover (the Russian Empire took the peninsula directly from the Ottoman Empire and started moving Russians in after). You'd be about as likely to encounter Crimean Tartar as Ukrainian.
That's why I find the Crimea situation so complicated, making the big assumption that I have the history correct.
You have the Tatar Exile during WWII, people re-settling the area, and then later Crimea was borderline on being independent or part of Ukraine during the dissolution.
So you end up with the fact that, whether right or wrong, Crimea is full of ethnic Russians who were lukewarm about being part of Ukraine in the first place. So as sketchy as the whole annexation was, was it wrong?
I honestly can't say it is, which is probably why Russia felt they were able to take that chance.
> So as sketchy as the whole annexation was, was it wrong?
As a Russian who generally thinks that both Russia and NATO need to back down from the pissing contests they engage in...
Yes, it was wrong. Ukraine was done wrong by it. It was not done legally. Even if it was done with respect to the doctrine of self-determinism (I generally approve of secessionist movements), it was not done correctly. There are correct means of going about secession, and the War in Donbass was not one of them. It was a thin pretense for other geopolitical ambitions.
If Russia can chop Crimea off of Ukraine just because Crimea's residents speak Russian, then maybe Chechnya whose residents speak their own native language deserves the independence from Russia that the Chechens have fought for for centuries.
My impression is that the resolution of the 1993-2000 wars was that the younger Kadyrov (the elder having been blown up) was offered (or proposed?) the RF equivalent of a twenty-first century Marcher Lordship, and both sides found the arrangement acceptable[1]. Is this not the case?
(What I wonder is how Baskov's marriage had been supposed to take place in Grozny a few years back. On the equation svadba==vodka, my best guess is that although the sale of alcohol is heavily controlled in the Chechen Republic, the consumption of alcohol, at a private party, would not have been.)
[1] from time to time I've seen Kadyrov invoke the spectre of foreign separatist influences. Given his paternity and history, a wild guess from the outside is that he'd likely know about such things, from back when the influences were on his side.
a bit of recent history - in 1991 or 1992, soon after Ukraine independence a "train of friendship" - a train loaded with several hundreds of Western Ukrainian ultra-nationalists (many wearing insignia and uniforms of OUN-UPA - Ukraine nationalistic organizations which collaborated with Nazi and committed genocide of Polish and Jewish populations in Volyn region in order to make it majority Ukrainian territory) tried to come to Sevastopol. Combined police and Russian Navy forces blocked the train from coming into the city . Small group of the nationalists made their way into Sevastopol by boats, yet being mostly non-armed and outnumbered they could do nothing.
Things were different in 2014 when volunteer battalions of such nationalists were organized under the cover provided by the Ministry of Interior Affairs and thus were legally armed, and "the trains and buses of friendship" were about to go to Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Well, they did still go to Eastern Ukraine while the Crimeans got lucky that Putin decided that it will boost his rating.
Artek is where many from the elite did go back then in 197x-198x. Their children though aren't near any Russian resorts/schools/colleges/etc, they are mostly in Western Europe and US. Even low classes in Russia prefer to go abroad - to Turkey, Egypt, Greece these days - it is cheaper and service is much better.
These are all places where it's also much easier to obtain a visa, (and, in Greece, an easier-path to EU citizenship) as a Russian national.
I have no idea where it ranks on in terms of desirable places to go, but judging from the Instagrams of Russian friends, the Maldives belong somewhere on this list. :)
(I wouldn't be surprised if the turkey scenes in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ_2YTkxWug
were filmed in the former Pontus. The clip itself shows the telenovela can be found in any culture...)
Edit: people in the Pontic region traditionally were into (vertical) transhumance instead of transhumanism.
This article covers a broader time frame of the history of the region. I think it's a bit much to say, as the article says, that the Greeks were "gobsmacked" by the rise of the Kingdom of Pontus. The area has a very long history in the ancient world.
As the topic is about the Black Sea, this could also be interesting for the audience - one of the oldest gold treasures found (4,600 BC to 4,200 BC):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_Necropolis
More pictures in the Bulgarian version of the article.
For folks interested in this, Fernand Braudel's magnum opus "The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II" is an incredible work of history, studying the Mediterranean and the societies around it.
