To be fair Crimea does have a majority ethnic Russian inhabitants. Wikipedia lists Crimea's demographics as 65% while others were lower at 58% or thereabout. Given many of those Russians were there from the Soviet era or direct descendants, it doesn't seem too crazy of a claim. The US and NATO countries have done worse for less. Now invading Ukraine? Thats another thing altogether.

> To be fair Crimea does have a majority ethnic Russian inhabitants. Wikipedia lists Crimea's demographics as 65% while others were lower at 58% or thereabout

There's a whole lot of the Southwestern US you are agreeing that Mexico can and should invade and occupy, with a much stronger case, if you claim that this justifies Russia in Crimea.

My comment wasn’t to condone invasions, per se. But it’s unfair to say Russia had/has _no_ legitimate stake in Crimea. Texas came about almost exactly by the method you describe. If in the future Mexico has the military might to retake Texas, they might decide to do it. Who knows future Texans might welcome it. I mean the USA invaded two sovereign nations states in recent decades with dubious international legal basis.

In the end Crimea people did voted to rejoin Russia. Though not really legal, the people there have spoken their will. I would let that to rest. Invading Ukraine on the other hand is a big no. But, given we are now administer by old forgetful Biden, and Xi on the other side determine to get Taiwan, can we manage a 2-front war by 2 of the world superpower? EU is mostly headed by weak leadership (see Germany, Macron, and recent Boris debacle). Coming spring we might even enter a property crash with high inflation. American got the appetite to save Ukraine? Taiwan maybe given we addicted to chips and general Sino-phobia.

> In the end Crimea people did voted to rejoin Russia.

Cool, any invasion and occupation and annexation is justified if you stage a vote to retroactively justify it after the fact.

There was no imminent danger to those inhabitans when Russia annexed. They just seized the opportunity to take back important xUSSR territory. The inhabitants are mostly happy, though, as they were promised new horizons and no mandatory Ukrainian language, which they never spoken. All these regional problems are mainly due to the language. If Ukraine allowed Russian as it's second official (or at least regional) language, Donbas would return back in a blink. And Crimea might follow.

Russia has controlled Crimea since the 18th century. It's not an artifact of Soviet Union.

>All these regional problems are mainly due to the language. If Ukraine allowed Russian as it's second official (or at least regional) language, Donbas would return back in a blink. And Crimea might follow.

What? History goes back farther than the 20th century.

> Russia has controlled Crimea since the 18th century. It's not an artifact of Soviet Union

So Moscow should be handed back to Ukraine, the late seat of the Kievan Rus' [1]? Or perhaps the whole thing goes to Mongolia.

Originalist interpretations of border disputes are infinitely flexible, and justification for constant warfare.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27

Why not Poland? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Lithuanian_occupation_o...

> History goes back farther than the 20th century.

And much farther than 18th century. Crimea has a long and rich history, Russian power is relatively young and not justified in the modern world. Wasn't one of the ideas of Helsinki's agreements to agree on non pursuing historical territorial disputes?

History counts. Otherwise you wont have territorial issue especially pushed by China and Israel. Helsinki has no gun power to enforce anything. It is based on mutual respect and adherence. At this moment, Crimean people wants Russia whether it is legal or not. Russia has bigger guns than Ukraine and at least on par with Americans at their home ground. What is Ukraine worth to you than the smartphone in your hand? Should you worry about a brilliant tactician that make Obama like a pigeon or a Sino leader hell-bent to acquire back their territory at half the population life cost (read Mao's history on theorectical US invasion)? The bear will most likely make a few slight of hand moves to acquire their objectives with minimal lost of lives. The dragon-snake on other side is and will be very blunt.

But don't they have the right of self-determination if they want to join Russia?

They can move to Russia. They have as much right to move Crimea to Russia as citizens of Maine do to leave the US and join Canada - e.g. not much.

This is all hypothetical though. What happened in reality is that Russia rolled tanks into a neighboring sovereign country, invading it, and stole a part of it. It's a blatant and egregious act of war.

Someone should tell that to the Kosovans who broke off from Serbia 14 years ago, to jubilation in the US and western Europe.

That was a different context though, with ongoing civil war and strife and no foreign takeover but rather a local independence movement. And there is no point debating this here but your summary is very one sided.

> That was a different context though, with ongoing civil war and strife and no foreign takeover

Not quite a take over but NATO bombing of Serbia does count as foreign interference.

I was just about to say: The vast majority of northern maine, including most of my family, is "French Canadian", some of them even having French as a first language. Go ahead and try telling them they should belong to Canada and it wouldn't be a big deal if Canada invaded and annexed them. You won't have many friends

I'm not sure how you can get that sentiment from my comment.

I was agreeing, not disagreeing

> There was no imminent danger to those inhabitans when Russia annexed.

Please tell this to many thousands of people who moved out and never looked back. Also, hundreds of Crimean Tatar and various active citizens were imprisoned during these years. The danger is very real if you are not willing to keep your mouth shut there.

> To be fair Crimea does have a majority ethnic Russian inhabitants. Wikipedia lists Crimea's demographics as 65% while others were lower at 58% or thereabout. Given many of those Russians were there from the Soviet era or direct descendants, it doesn't seem too crazy of a claim. The US and NATO countries have done worse for less. Now invading Ukraine? Thats another thing altogether.

What do you mean "now invading Ukraine"? Russia already did that, when they invaded Crimea, which is Ukraine.

Without defending russia: the same argument does apply for selected parts of ukraine that still have not been yet annexed by russia.

I wonder how long it will take for russia to get tired of subsidizing crimea and they will beg to go back to the ukraine.

Not going to happen, major reason for annexation was to keep Sebastopol as the major/only Russia navy base in the Black Sea. That reason will never vanish as there are no other suitable locations to relocate that base.

> I wonder how long it will take for russia to get tired of subsidizing crimea and they will beg to go back to the ukraine.

Starting already. I mean, more than before. I found Crimeans not very understanding Russia's realities, so now even thought money go to Crimea from the rest of Russia, the people in Crimea start to compare unfavorably to the alternative.

History moves slowly. However, Ukraine going closer to Europe would be a good illustration.

> The US and NATO countries have done worse for less.

Care to provide examples? Crimea annexation was almost bloodless, right, but annexation nevertheless - ?

The obvious answer is Kosovo.

Stopping the terrorization of differently-religious people and preventing repetition of Rwanda-like genocide is worse and for less?

> Russia invaded and annexed Crimea

Russia invaded Crimea back when British red coats were stationed in New York City. The Russian military has been there ever since.

When did the US invade the Guantanamo section of Cuba?

> When did the US invade the Guantanamo section of Cuba?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guant%C3%A1namo#United_States_...

About 15 km away from the city lies the Guantánamo Bay, a superior natural harbor which has been utilized by the United States since 1898, when it was captured from Spain in the Battle of Guantánamo Bay. In 1903 Cuba leased it to the U.S. as it had committed to in the Cuban–American Treaty of Relations, and remains the site of a US Navy base, as well as the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

Russia has signed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Ukrainian_Frie... in 1999

As mentioned in article 2, the High Contracting Parties shall respect each other′s territorial integrity and reaffirm the inviolability of the borders existing between them

>> 6 month old account, 90% comments some sort of Russian great state content.

Does YCombinator ban trolls, these days?

It is indeed an annexation. But it is also true that the majority of the inhabitants of Crimea are Russians and wanted to return to join Russia. But all the consequences, not the cause. The reason, in my opinion, is the global conflict between the West and Russia. And, obviously, the fall of Russia is just a matter of time. Despite the fact that they have weapons, in everyday life, all residents use technologies and products made in the west. Everyone has an iPhone, Laptop, Internet, car, etc. How can you win a conflict if every inhabitant of your country is completely dependent on technology, software, products and money created by a conditional "enemy"?

I have not seen any data on the crimeans actually bring a majority ethnic Russians and eager to 'return' to Russia (which one? USSR ? Catherine's Russian empire? ...?). They just did a very questionable referendum once Crimea was occupied to annex the territory.

Crimea being majority Russian ethnicity is not disputed like the referendum is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea#Demographics

>It's one of the oldest tricks in the book.

I mean, isn't this also the tactic used in the late 1800s in the western U.S. to give a reason to pacify Native Americans? Promote U.S. citizens into frontier homesteads and then use the military to protect them/annex land?

Yes, and we did the same thing to mexico in order to grab texas. How the heck does this change how bad it is?

What's the point of saying "America bad too"? So? America HAS done awful things in the past, that's not valid justification for a hostile annexation of another country's land.

Topics on Russia ALWAYS have whataboutism nonsense. It seems supporters of Russian actions so badly want the rest of the world to be shitty too, as if that would justify their actions instead of condemn them as well as everyone else

Being HN, I may have given too much credit that a comment would be taken at face value and not focused through a nationalistic lens or viewed as some sort of attack.

I made no claims that it changes whether the practice is morally or ethically correct. I also didn't claim "America bad too."

I merely pointed out another data point relevant to the GP comment about it being an old tactic to annex land.

*btw, it's Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and parts of California. The book Blood and Thunder is a great read about the history of expansion of the West

I believe the reason is that russians often perceive western worldview as a voice from the ivory tower of free world implying some kind of moral superiority. The whataboutism is just an awkward attempt to decline this very moral superiority.

Sure, so if you're a big fan of one you'll be a big fan of the other.

Not sure why’re your bringing the U.S. into this right now to bash it. If anything increased U.S. military presence in Poland is sorely needed.

I don't think GP is trying to bash the US: they're just pointing out it's "the oldest trick in the book." Obviously that doesn't mean it's OK that Russia is doing it.

Correct, I was merely underscoring the historic use of the tactic and not "bashing" any country

>If anything increased U.S. military presence in Poland is sorely needed.

Why? What purpose does this serve?