[filoleg]

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.

[jedberg]

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.

[Mikeb85]

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.

[pishpash]

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.

[filoleg]

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.

[bllguo]

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?

[filoleg]

>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.

[bllguo]

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.

[pishpash]

What is it about post-colonial westerners that makes them not able to grok that the world, but especially Asia, no longer exists to serve westerners?

Should there be a most "easternized" city in the heart of Europe that should have a prolific Mandarin speaker base?

[dang]

You've been repeatedly crossing into flamewar on these topics. We've asked you many times before not to do that, and even told you we'd ban you if you did it again. Would you please stop doing this on HN? It's abusive, no matter how wrong and ignorant others' comments are or you feel they are.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[dvfjsdhgfv]

> 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.

[vasili111]

>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.

[dvfjsdhgfv]

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.

[filoleg]

I had briefly mentioned this in the "P.S." section of my original comment, but I appreciate you adding more concrete and specific examples.

[everybodyknows]

The Tatar minority in Crimea, on the other hand, did not like the idea of being Russian subjects much at all.

https://newrepublic.com/article/116814/crimean-tatars-primer...

[Mikeb85]

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?

[inlined]

The US has a lot of people whose history of statehood traces back to slavery. They still get a right to vote on their future.

[Mikeb85]

Yes, they do. But the Crimean Tatars are what, 15% at most? Some people are acting like they should decide for everyone.

More than 15% of Ukrainians opposed Maidan (including Crimeans). Yet they were subjected to it.

[vasili111]

No one from people not Ukrainians, not Tatars and not Russians had option to decide there future during the occupation process. There were just occupied by Russian military. It was military operation not decision of local population.

And also yes minority have there rights.

[vasili111]

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.

[filoleg]

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.

1.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea#Ethnici...

[vasili111]

>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.

[dvfjsdhgfv]

It might be misleading, but not totally. You're totally right that nobody had anything to say, Putin made the decision for them. But the share of population isn't insignificant. Would you see it differentley if 99% of Crimeans were Russians? 100%? If so, where is the borderline? If not, how would it be different from a colony (that I hope all agree is an embarassing relic of the past)?

[hospes]

>> 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.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea#Ancient_history

[vasili111]

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.

[bitcurious]

The Greeks were around a for a millenia prior to the tatars, the majority were resettled to modern day Ukraine under the Russian Empire.

[vasili111]

>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...