Hacker News Reader

Comment by justinclift | Hacker News Reader

> It was so forceful, that it was effectively bloodless and an overwhelming portion of the "annexed" populace has actively supported it.

That seems like an unusual perspective.

If by "bloodless" you mean "lots of people died, but nowhere near as many as a world war" though, then sure.

For the "actively supported", where are you getting that information? My impression (from friends in Kiev) is that it's universally condemned.

View on HN

"Effectively bloodless" and "actively supported" are missing the "as reported in Russian media" and "by the people left". The UN reports something like 13,000 people died and between the UNHCR and the IDMC says there's something like 1.5-2 million people internally displaced by the Crimean annexation. That's in a region with a 2014 population of around 2.3m.

Are you serious? Crimean population difference between 2001 and 2014 censuses is less than 5%. And considering that population was slowly dwindling since 90s, number of people who left from Crimea to Ukraine is even less than that. Can you provide any sources claiming that more than 6 people have died in Crimea during 2014 events?

I think you are trying to confuse others with numbers describing the Donbas conflict, not the "annexation" as implied in your message. A really low effort fallacy I must say.

I think you're being downvoted for tone, but skimming wikipedia ... to my surprise it looks like you're right. 3 soldiers died (1 on the Russian side, 2 on the pro-Ukraine side) and 3 civilians were killed (2 pro-Russian, 1 pro-Ukrainian).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Ru...

> Can you provide any sources claiming that more than 6 people have died in Crimea during 2014 events?

Wow. So, you going to claim this isn't relevant or somehow correct then either?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17

By it I mean that only total 6 people have died from both sides, of which only 2 can be attributed to direct actions of Russian armed forces (well, if you trust Ukrainian version of events, which should be taken with a lot of salt, same as with the Russian one). Now compare it with number of deaths in Kiev, Odessa or Donbas. (note that majority of deaths in the latter case are Ukrainian citizens killed directly by Ukrainian army, so much for "war with Russia")

>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.

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.

Correct me if I am wrong but OP was referring to actively supported by more than half of the population in Crimea (pro-russian) but widely condemned outside. I remember reading the same when the war broke out and was used by Russian as justification to invade.

Whereas in Taiwan, recent survey shows only 4% identified as Chinese and 90% are willing to defend Taiwan if "China uses force against Taiwan for unification"

>I remember reading the same when the war broke out and was used by Russian as justification to invade.

Small nitpick: has US invaded Syria in your opinion?

Yes, Russia obviously supports Donbas republics, but most of those republics military consists of Ukrainian citizens. In a way it's similar to how US supports Kurds and "moderate opposition". Such situation is really common for civil wars, but I don't think "invasion" is a correct word to use here.

> I don't think "invasion" is a correct word to use here.

Russia literally claimed Ukrainian territory. How is "invasion" in any way the wrong word?

> lots of people died

First time I hear this. Source?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com