[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)?