Well, world war yes, but we just saw Russia annex a part of a different country by force. So China could say: Taiwan is Chinese, we belong together. And would the rest of the world not say: Well, we can't start a world war, because it's an extinction level event, so let's just condemn China in a very strongly worded letter?
It was so forceful, that it was effectively bloodless and an overwhelming portion of the "annexed" populace has actively supported it.
Meanwhile situation in Taiwan is drastically different. Pro-mainland faction is really weak and can not be used to provide sufficient support for quiet absorption. And since Taiwan has deep military connections with USA for many decades, any military intervention will inevitably escalate into a major military conflict.
The only scenario in which something like that can happen is civil-war-level turmoil in USA. Probability of which, worryingly, is noticeably bigger than zero.
"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).
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:
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.
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".
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.
Crimean population is overwhelmingly Russian so that played a massive role ("These aren't invaders, these are our people" sort of take). I wonder if Taiwanese population identifies as strongly with China as Crimeans do with Russia
"Russian" is not only an ethnicity, but also a language (which is a proxy to culture and society values). According to the same Ukrainian census for 77% of Crimeans Russian was a native language. Rejection of forceful ukrainazization was one of the major driving forces behind protests in Crimea and Donbas.
I am more than certain that if Russian language was a second official language in Ukraine and rights of minorities were properly respected, then Crimea would have been still part of Ukraine and war in Donbas wouldn't have happened.
Plus note, that a significant number of people in Crimea (and in Ukraine) are of mixed blood, so they can easily change their ethnicity based on the current political situation.
I doubt ethnicity was the driving factor behind it, as much as growing NATO influence over Ukraine, in the years leading up to the conflict.
Russia does not want to lose its warm-water ports, or to be bordered by hostile countries. If Mexico made serious noises about joining an alliance with China, we'd see regime change before the week were out.
Yes, the main reason why it has happened is the strategic value of Crimea (Donbas was not so lucky in this regard...), but the overwhelming local support (which originated from factors like ethnicity, culture, language, poor Ukrainian rule, etc.) made everything much easier and cheaper for Russia. I highly doubt that with a hypothetical level of support 50% or lower Russia would have risked to take such action.
I think protests and exodus were result of TV propaganda, amount of disinformation was tremendeus, though Crimeans probably got better life within richer Russia.
Funny you mention this law, IIRC exactly its revoking has triggered the Crimean protests, which have opened a window of opportunity for Russia. And the new power in Kiev was actively hostile to Russia, so there was no hope for a better law. In a sense it was the last straw for Crimeans.
And even before that, Ukraine is a country in which 30% consider Russian a native language (according to the official census, so I consider it a lower bound) and more than 80% prefer to use it in daily live (the numbers should be lower now for obvious reasons, but the point still stands). It's simply ridiculous to not have Russian as an official language in such conditions. For comparison in Canada only 20% know French and still it's a full-fledged official language.
It's exactly the same day when active protests in Crimea and Donbas have started. Yes, technically the law was still active, but it was just a delay due to the powerful backlash and people understood well intention of those who came into power.
>Sounds reasonable to me.
Wow... I guess let's agree to disagree here. Because for me a situation in which 80% people speak a language in daily life, but it's not an official one, looks more suitable for an occupation, than for a normal state. Can you name any other world country with a similar situation? (IIRC only Baltic states come somewhat close)
And let's be honest, "regional language status" was just breadcrumbs. Russian was systematically discriminated as a matter of state policy starting from TV and ending with schools, with situation only worsening over time.
>Window of opportunity was caused by messed up government in Ukraine, which couldn't produce any resistance against Russia's military invasion.
Don't forget about heavily demoralized military (and the protests have played a major part here), which didn't believe in the new government, and most of which accepted Russian terms and got integrated into its military. Also some say that the new government has intentionally allowed the situation around Crimea and Donbas to degrade, so a lot of pro-Russian electorate would be cut off from elections. But I guess gross incompetence is usually a better explanation.
> Yes, technically the law was still active, but it was just a delay due to the powerful backlash and people understood well intention of those who came into power.
Pure speculation.
> in which 80% people speak a language in daily life,
Citation needed.
> Don't forget about heavily demoralized military (and the protests have played a major part here), which didn't believe in the new government, and most of which accepted Russian terms and got integrated into its military.
Revoking of what? Russian language is protected by Constitution of Ukraine, as language of minority. Did you read what you posted?
> looks more suitable for an occupation, than for a normal state.
You are right, Crimea was occupied by Russian Empire and USSR. Natives (Tatars, Goths, Greeks, Italians, Turks, Ukrainians) are exhaled or exterminated.
> Don't forget about heavily demoralized military (and the protests have played a major part here)
Russian propaganda, in Russian language, played major role. Russian Federation planned to attack Ukraine since 2008, preparing for occupation of Crimea and creation of "Newrussia". As former officer of intelligence, I knew about planned protests controlled by RF (AKA "Шатун") in 2012.
> And would the rest of the world not say: Well, we can't start a world war, because it's an extinction level event, so let's just condemn China in a very strongly worded letter?
There are repercussions within the spectrum between hand wringing and nuclear war. Severe economic sanctions come to mind.
And from a realist perspective, the rest of the world is more likely to care about Taiwan than Crimea.
Maybe I've watched Dr. Strangelove too many times, but everyone knows that flinging all of your nukes at someone kills you too (the "Doomsday Device"), so what I'd expect to see in WWIII is two things: 1) the clash of a ton of new technologies where we have really no idea what beats what, and 2) strategic, low-yield nukes used against blue-water navies and ports.
The only way how a WW3 could become an exinction level would be full Warsaw Pact - NATO war during the peak of the cold war; and even then it would be expected to be a horrible disaster, but not really an extinction level (e.g. killing 80% of population is a catastrophe, but far from extinction).
But now both USA and Russia have far less nukes (and with smaller yields) so now the effect of a full USA-Russia nuclear exchange would be much smaller - but we are not even talking about that; we're talking about China, which has something like 250 warheads (contrast to ~45000 warheads that USSR used to have, it's more than a hundredfold difference) - it's a sizeable deterrent, but it's not mutually assured destruction. MAD was the doctrine between USA and USSR or Russia; MAD does not apply for any other nuclear powers - China, France, UK, India, etc. A nuclear exchange with them is "only" mass murder, but nowhere close to an extinction level event.
The next globe-spanning total war in the style of World War II will be, yes. But that's not the only kind of war.
There's proxy wars like we saw in Korea and Vietnam during the Cold War. There's cyber attacks and other acts of sabotage carefully cloaked in plausible deniability (for example the 1982 Siberian pipeline explosion, Stuxnet, the attacks on Sony attributed to North Korea). There's limited wars where there's actual open fighting, but neither side is prepared to escalate further (think of the Falklands War, the War of Attrition between Israel and Egypt, or any number of peacekeeping actions by the UN or NATO).
Total war between major powers has gone away, but war is here to stay.
Wars have a way of getting out of hand. A nation may go to war over a fairly realistic goal, only to find itself mired in a conflict it cannot exit that is being escalated by forces beyond its control.
Because they refuse to believe that it is an extinction level event (“project fear”); or they think the threat of damage will force their opponent to surrender (“they need us more than we need them”).
It would hardly be the first time that a government failed to understand the situation they found themselves in.
