It amazes me when suddenly something matters or it doesn’t. There were outcries over Crimea until there suddenly weren’t. There were no outcries over Syria until there suddenly were.
I feel like the situation at hand is very different. Crimea, unlike Hong Kong, isn't an alpha+ city that is one of the most important financial hubs in the world. While capturing Crimea by RF was extremely reprehensible, there was not much at stake there for any side not directly involved in the conflict. All there was in Crimea situation is just a geopolitical projection of power. With Hong Kong, the stakes are way higher, and I don't think that straight up capture of Hong Kong (Crimea-style) will go over nearly as well.
P.S. Also, not that it makes the situation any less reprehensible, keep in mind that heavy majority of Crimea population at the time of capture was ethnically Russian and was supportive of RF actions. Hong Kong residents, on the other hand, seem to be way less supportive of PRC.
The unfortunate truth is that Hong Kong isn't nearly as important to global banking as it once was. China has a done a really great job handicapping them, for this very reason. So that it would be easier to absorb them.
They didn't handicap them. HK's status was entirely based on the fact that it was the entry to do business with China. Shanghai and China becoming more open (for example, foreign investors being able to invest in Chinese securities) made HK less important, and the Umbrella Revolution made HK less relevant (bankers don't like risk).
Edit - And this most recent round of demonstrations is the nail in the coffin. No business would ever do business in HK now with the political uncertainty, easier to simply set up shop in Shanghai or form a JV.
China didn't handicap shit. Hong Kong's rise in the first place was entirely due to China's self-inflicted communism and external sanctions in the first decades after the Revolution. (Shanghai was the Paris of the East before that.) Ever since that stopped, Hong Kong was no longer as important by default. Hong Kong's special status was always predicated on somehow China failing, including now (rule of law, etc.).
This is why the underlying sentiment of Hong Kong independence is especially offensive to Chinese sensibilities.
That's the real leverage. Hong Kong's true potential is still there to be uncovered, and people remember how flourishing it was back then. Imagine how it could all blow up to even higher highs if the PRC rule was completely gone from Hong Kong. I feel like if that gate opens in the near future (i know, wishful thinking), HK will have its new golden age, as companies and individuals will not need to worry about PRC influence on HK anymore.
HK used to flourish because it was the access point between China and the West. If they completely severed ties with China there is no value proposition anymore... what "higher highs" are you anticipating, exactly?
>If they completely severed ties with China there is no value proposition anymore
Becoming independent from China != completely severing ties with China. Also, I think these days a better served purpose of HK is as the access point to the whole Asian/SEA region, rather than the access point to China alone.
Also, HK seems to be (from an outsider perspective) one of the most (if not the most) "westernized" cities in the region, with the proliferation of English language and all, so I can totally see it becoming the central hub in the Asian/SEA region for a lot of companies from the west.
Hm. I guess I just don't see China allowing that kind of relationship with an independent HK. HK is also so incredibly close to China geographically, economically, and even culturally that it's hard to wrap my mind around the concept of HK independence.
HK as an Asia/SEA hub is a reasonable point, but Singapore already serves that role and is much less reliant on China.
> While capturing Crimea by RF was extremely reprehensible, there was not much at stake there for any side not directly involved in the conflict.
There was something else still: the population of Crimea was mostly Russian. Like, really Russian. Using only Russian language, calling hryvnas rubles, and in general feeling Russian. Many of these people actually liked the idea of Crimea being a part of Russia (at least before the invasion - things changed a bit since then). In HK the situation is completely different: people know what kind of country China is, and will fight for whatever rights they still have.
>There was something else still: the population of Crimea was mostly Russian. Like, really Russian. Using only Russian language, calling hryvnas rubles, and in general feeling Russian. Many of these people actually liked the idea of Crimea being a part of Russia (at least before the invasion - things changed a bit since then)
We do not know what people of Crimea wanted. Nobody during military occupation of Crimea asked their opinion.
I don't know about people in general, but those I spoke to a few years before the invasion told me on numerous occasion that they would prefer that Crimea belonged to Russia, and that they would be much better off then. of course, this doesn't mean they supported the invasion in any way, it was just an opinion.
After the invasion cam ethe period of disillusionment. It turned out the situation only changed for worse. But nobody should be surprised there was practically no opposition when Russians took over Crimea.
So a minority should dictate international relations? A minority that aren't even indigenous and whose only history of statehood was being a vassal of the Ottomans that captured and sold Slavs as slaves... Why should they dictate what happens between Ukraine or Russia?
I do not understand why that message was down voted. Tatars are really the oldest owner of Crimea and they do not support Russia. They remember many bad from Russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tat... And now too nobody asked them if they want to be part of Russia or not.
Crimea is occupated and this is reality. All other talks about how much Crimea is more Russian sounds like a Russian propaganda.
Semi-related (not trying to detract from your point): interestingly enough, there is a whole Tatar state within Russia that many people might not be aware of (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatarstan).
>Crimea is occupated and this is reality. All other talks about how much Crimea is more Russian sounds like a Russian propaganda.
While I am very opposed to the capture of Crimea by RF, I feel you are being disingenuous when you say that. According to the latest census, russians make up 67.9% of Crimean population, while tatars make up just 12.6% [1]. Those numbers seem to support the point that Crimea is indeed majority russian, with tatars being outnumbered by almost a factor of 6.
>Semi-related (not trying to detract from your point): interestingly enough, there is a whole Tatar state within Russia that many people might not be aware of (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatarstan).
Tatars from Tatarstan and Tatars from Crimea share only name, they are different nationalities.
>While I am very opposed to the capture of Crimea by RF, I feel you are being disingenuous when you say that. According to the latest census, russians make up 67.9% of Crimean population, while tatars make up just 12.6% [1]. Those numbers seem to support the point that Crimea is indeed majority russian, with tatars being outnumbered by almost a factor of 6.
This logic is totally misleading. If there are more Russians it does not make Crimea Russian.
>> Tatars are really the oldest owner of Crimea and they do not support Russia...
Tatars are not the oldest owner of Crimea. 2500 years ago Crimea was a Greek colony, then it was part of a Persian Empire, then Roman Empire, then Byzantine Empire [1] Mongols conquered Crimea only in 13th century.
Oldest that are living in that territory. No people from Persian Empire, then Roman Empire, then Byzantine Empire and Mongols at the moment living in Crimea.
>The Greeks were around a for a millenia prior to the tatars, the majority were resettled to modern day Ukraine under the Russian Empire.
Oldest that are living in that territory. No Greeks at the moment at Crimea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea#Ethnici...
Economic sanctions against Russia have not changed, nor have other consequences of their action in Crimea, such as their exclusion from G7 (formerly G8, formerly G7+1).
Sure, the topic has disappeared from the news. But that does not mean everything is back to normal. It just indicates the situation is frozen.
More generally, territorial expansion by force has been extremely rare in recent history, compared to previous times. That would indicate that the practice generally being frowned upon, and the available actions in response, are somewhat effective.
As to Syria, I remember hearing about it on the first day of protests. That's not to say it went well in any meaning of the word–there really aren't any good options once a government has decided to brutalise its own people. But it did get attention.
P.S. Also, not that it makes the situation any less reprehensible, keep in mind that heavy majority of Crimea population at the time of capture was ethnically Russian and was supportive of RF actions. Hong Kong residents, on the other hand, seem to be way less supportive of PRC.