I think you are purposely narrowly referring to 1 action of many in a crisis that has had >10,000 deaths.
Wat? We are discussing the "annexation of Crimea", not the larger context. I just provided examples for comparison to show that the "annexation" itself is indeed can be called "effectively bloodless".
I hope you understand that your friend quite probably is really biased regarding this issue, right?
The irony is strong with this one.
Sure, in this particular case my point of view is closer to the Russian narrative, than to the Western one. And some may call it a bias. This is why I've tried to provide sources supporting my position, which are independent from the Russian state.
>For the "actively supported", where are you getting that information?
Directly from Crimeans. I have visited Crimea last year as a tourist and talked with them personally (in Massandra and Alushta, btw the wine is really great, recommend trying it). Try watching 2014 videos, for example this one is before Russian forces have became active:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atm0W5wA2y4
If you don't trust my anecdotal experience, then how about "The Crimea conundrum: legitimacy and public opinion after annexation" published in the Eurasian Geography and Economics journal? Or how about "To Russia With Love" article published in Foreign Affairs? They both confirm strong local support in favor of the transfer.
>My impression (from friends in Kiev) is that it's universally condemned.
I hope you understand that your friend quite probably is really biased regarding this issue, right? Always try looking outside of the media narrative (one may call it soft propaganda), usually world issues are far more complex than the version painted by media.