[regnull]

The Russian annexation of Crimea had at least some ambiguity. Yes, it was illegal, but Crimea used to belong to Russia, it had majority Russian-speakers, and there was no violence on any significant scale during takeover. The question was, if they are taking over your territory, why don't you fight back? The answer is obviously complicated (and for the record I fully support Ukraine, and I think Crimea and all other occupied territories must be returned to Ukraine). Russia has succeeded, to some extent, making it a "one-of" issue. Now, of course, they've completely destroyed their previous position, it turns out Crimea is not special, they basically try to annex any territory they have any sort of control over.

[antod]

Yeah, the Crimea annexation was dodgy as hell but as you say more ambiguous. The population had enough imported Russians (and "exported" Tartars) that they could run bullshit referenda and claim the people wanted annexation.

The reason the 2022 invasion (compared to Crimea) got the backlash it did from most of the world is that it was so unambiguously clear cut and telegraphed in advance despite Russia's denials they would invade. Russia left no room for its usual grey area bullshit to work for them. It seemed about as unambiguous as Poland in 1939 vs eg the murkier annexation of Austria in 1938.

[petesergeant]

> it was so unambiguously clear cut and telegraphed in advance despite Russia's denials they would invade

This is selective memory, I think. Most of Europe and Ukraine itself was pooh-poohing the idea of an invasion despite UK and US intelligence loudly insisting it was going to happen.

[antod]

Not sure what you thought I meant or was selectively remembering, your statement doesn't contradict mine and is just how I remember it too (US and UK playing up vs Europe and Ukraine playing down). Unless you were claiming the Russian denials didn't happen?