Slashdot Mirror
Russians Take Ukraine's Last Land Base In Crimea
An anonymous reader writes "Firing shots in the air and using stun grenades, Russian troops captured the last Ukrainian military base in Crimea today. From the LA Times: 'Meanwhile, Ukrainian and Russian officials were carrying on talks on evacuating Ukraine's loyal servicemen and families from the peninsula, a top Ukrainian military official said during a briefing Monday in Kiev. "About 50% [of Ukraine servicemen stationed in Crimea] joined the Russian side," said Olexandr Razmazin, army deputy chief of staff, the UNIAN news agency reported. The decision has been made to carry out the evacuation, he said, "but we need to work out a legal way to do it."'"
"All your base are belong to Rus'"
Although fighting for something on principle isn't always a bad thing, doing so in a hopeless situation is foolish.
Because it would have been A> futile, and B> converted this into a full-scale shooting war, which no one, but particularly Ukranians, want to see in their country. Ukraine cannot, as a practical matter, do anything about Russia.
This space for rent.
Did you mean that sarcastically? The majority of people in Crimea were loyal to Russia before any of this unrest began a few months ago. The last elected Ukranian president was a Russian loyalist. He was a deposed by a moltov-throwing mob with west-leaning sympathies, so we support them. But that doesn't change the feelings of the majority there.
Once Obama takes office, our respect and standing with the world will be restored!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
At the time Germay was "reoccupying land dominated by Germans". The League of Nations stood by and actually there were negotiated terms, the Munich Accord which spelled out what would happen.
However, Germany was emboldened by the success of expansion. And the occupation was far from the end of the aggression.
I myself have been to combat more than once.
I'm not sure how much I would like to fight a Russian MRR on the offense.
These guys use recoilles rifles (modern bazookas) to rescue children. They killed 1 out of every 13 Afghans in the Soviet-Afghan war (no shit). Look how Chechnya looked after the battles.
to finer tune your point, the Ukranians stand alone and will lose even more if/when this escalates.
Because they'd get walked over. They are nothing compared to the red army.
Some of the commanders on bases were publicly BEGGING the Ukrainian leadership to give them the order to leave, because until they got that order, they were going to stand their ground ... and they knew what the result would be. They were more than willing to die for their country if that was what they were supposed to do, but not for a cause they weren't going to win.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Maybe they are following orders of the elected government, not the coup leaders.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Because if Ukrainian soldiers fired a single shot on a Russian soldier, Putin would march directly to Kiev and just take all of Ukraine as new Russian territory.
It's the same reason you give your wallet to the mugger with the gun and the crazy eyes.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Well, according to the OP, about 50% joined the Russian side, so even without the outside forces you'd have most people dead, assuming equal training and weaponry (which if they're all from the same base, is pretty likely). Also, most of these guys would have served together for years, so it's likely they didn't relish the idea of killing (and being killed by) their comrades when the alternative was "pack up your shit and go home to be with your families."
Now add in the outside Russian forces, and anyone who fought back would have been quickly destroyed. Ukrainians aren't stupid, but they can be pretty pragmatic. The ones from Crimea were likely Russian heritage or at least had Russian sympathies, and the ones who were just stationed there likely didn't give much of a rat's arse about losing the peninsula after most of the people there voted to leave Ukraine. So rather than dying, they went home.
There's a lot to be said for living to fight another day, and it seems like these people "get it" in that regard. Why die for a lost cause that you may not really believe in? Why defend a peninsula that doesn't really seem to want to be defended? Russia takes what it wants, the "allies" of Ukraine have made it clear they have no intention of doing more than a bit of posturing in response, why stay and fight?
I don't get why the obviously loyal Ukrainian military didn't defend their bases with firepower against the invading Russians? Were they just too scared?
Because they don't want to give Russia a casus belli for a war with Ukraine. Without being directly fired upon, if Ukrainina soldiers shoot at the Russians the Russians can rightfully claim Ukraine as the agressor and invade. Also the Ukrainian soldeirs have been given express orders not to shoot except in cases of self defense. If a Ukrainian soldier shoots a Russian "peacekeeper" (where's a sarcasm tag when you need one?) Russia won't stop until they have tanks parked on the streets of Kiev.
One other thing: look at all the pictures that have been taken over the past few weeks regarding the standoff between the Russians and Ukrainians. The Russians have been posturing with armored vehicles and the Ukrainians have not been seen deploying any heavy weapons in any type of defensive fortifications. This would indicate that these troops are armed with nothing more than light weapons, with heavier weapons probably stored in depots elsewhere, if at all. No sane soldier is going to try to stand against amored vehicles with nothing heavier than a light machine gun. It's not fear. It's realism and following orders.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
I don't get why the obviously loyal Ukrainian military didn't defend their bases with firepower against the invading Russians?
They didn't have the firepower necessary to hold off even an immediate attack, much win the conflict they would have started when things escalated. All they could accomplish would be to get themselves and possibly others killed. Worse, the example of Georgia has shown that the Russians will use any violent resistance as an excuse to just seize even more territory.
Some of the bases personnel essentially chose to engage in nonviolent protest, marching with flag and no guns (despite getting warning shots from the Russians). It's been a really weird conflict so far, from this distance.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Here we go again. I thought this ended when I was a kid and that when my father and his generation passed away, that WWII would finally be over as though he was a good man, the death of that generation means the end of suffering for all those who not only fought in the war ... but had to come home and live with what they had done. Fighting a war, even for 'the good guys and reasons' still means you have to do things that no civilized man should be able to do in a healthy frame of mind, and none of them come up the same as they left. The winners are still losers.
Alas it looks like Russia doesn't want it to be over and wants to rekindle its 'former glory'.
Is my son now going to have to suffer the life of a soldier like my father because of some assholes half way around the planet can't just fucking leave well enough alone with his rich life of being a political prick?
I'm beginning to wonder if my father and his cold war hate weren't that unjustified.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I think this is flame bait, but just in case...
To compare to America, I think you'd do better to look at Afghanistan or Chechnya. "Capturing" an island (peninsula?) that wants to be captured is not exactly the best example. You'd have to go back to the annexation of Texas, Hawaii, or something else in the 19th century to get a good analog on the US side.
And that is the point, the 19th century kind of sucked for all sorts of reasons, and it would be nice if Russia didn't take us back there.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Three reasons:
1) They are basically countrymen or close to it, and probably didn't feel like shooting their own.
2) Half your brothers in arms defected to the other side, probably really don't feel like shooting them either.
3) This is the Russian armed forces who have come in strength and prepared, given situation how wise to provoke?
To my mind this is a lot like Canada and Quebec relations.
It would be like Canada deciding Trade options between France and England, where it is likely that Canada might decide to go with England. France with a lot to lose might invade Quebec. Within Quebec there are those that identify with one or the other, but most with France and are French speaking. Quebec has also talked about independence in the past, and also had its own referendum which much of Canada called into question its validity. The Canadian Armed Forces stationed in Quebec might be put in a similar situation. Odds are they are not going to want to fight their brothers in arms.
The difference with Ukraine which would make it even harder to do so, is close physical location with Russian counterparts, in that it is just across the border, not across an entire ocean. Also while Ukraine has a storied history, it was part of the Soviet Union along with Russia in the very recent past (comparatively speaking). I don't think being a coward really enters into it.
Many are probably like "Fsck it, let the politicians figure it the hell out, I'm going home."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... At the time Germay was "reoccupying land dominated by Germans". The League of Nations stood by and actually there were negotiated terms, the Munich Accord which spelled out what would happen.
However, Germany was emboldened by the success of expansion. And the occupation was far from the end of the aggression.
I have found it the height of irony that Putin has been essentially mirroring the beginning of a conflict that killed millions of Russians (not to mention millions of people from other countries as well) in the name of protecting "Russians". Putin is playing a very dangerous game, especially when you consider that, for the last few weeks, whether or not Russia and Ukraine went to war was essentially dependent on some panicked soldiers not giving in to fear or uncertainty and pulling the trigger.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
It's the same reason you give your wallet to the mugger with the gun and the crazy eyes.
And this is exactly what it is. Putin is a mugger with a gun and crazy eyes. Too bad he also has nuclear weapons so nobody can do anything about. The only thing that can be done is to isolate Russia the same way as we isolate North Korea. Nazdrovje!
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
Unfortunately we are in the very dangerous point of really needing lots of people to die to stop Putin. I am sure he knows this and knows that until he encounters a country
a) willing to commit to the loss of lives
and
b) expecting to be able to "win" should a) occur
Putin is going to be able to do whatever he wants.
After the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistian it is clear that the west is highly resistant to (a) and is uncertain if (b) is even possible. With those massive levels of innertia Putin is going to be able to march all over the Ukraine and likely several other "Soviet" regions as well.
There is, of course, the fact that whatever the legal status of the Iraq invasion, Iraq was not annexed.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Where on earth did Russia get the idea they could stir up political descent with spys, attack a countries network infrastructure then invade after there was a coup and have the people hold questionable votes for a new government that violate that sovereign nations constitution all while at gunpoint? Oh wait... that's right, we did. Shit.
The actual beginning of the end for the League of Nations as a meaningful quantity was when it stood by and let Italy seize Abyssinia without question. Once it became clear to Hitler that there were no real repercussions to forced annexations, he felt quite free to begin plotting his own.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
There were many reasons for Finland's relative success that don't apply today to this conflict, and if you don't understand that you are in the realm of magical thinking. I will also point out that as glorious as Finland's resistance was, Finland actually lost that war and had some of its territory taken by the Soviet Union and added to the Russian Soviet Republic.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Yes I guess the Ukranians should have added "no backsies" to the 1994 Belgium memorandum. But I guess that piece of international law was "more like guidlines".
I guess we should watch out for Mexico reclaiming parts of Texas real soon now because "it is Mexican". After all they over 60% are Mexican and they speak "Mexican" and a scant 160 years ago they did rule the place.
Hell why we are at the Russians should take back Alaska too. After all what are borders when Russians get bored of the current borders. Never mind that the reason that the Crimea is mostly russian is that only 25% of the Tatars repatriated after Stalin kicked them out. And also that Russian soldiers were given free apartments and cars when they "decided" to retire to Yalta.
Russia is not getting isolated. That would mean tens of millions of Poles and Germans getting very cold next winter.
The big question is whether giving up Sudetenland^WCrimea will be enough to placate the dictator.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Your argument is flawed in that it assumes people are rational and make logical decisions.
As Latvian, I not give two potato about situation in Crimea.
I give one potato, but only because is very important issue.
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
The last elected Ukranian president was a Russian loyalist.
Perhaps he should have been loyal to Ukraine.
Because Saddam Hussein made open threats against the west, repeatedly defied the United Nations, refused nuclear weapon inspections, and ultimately defied UN resolution 1441. This is why Iraq was invaded by a coalition made of mostly the United States, United Kingdom, Spain, Australia, Poland, Portugal, and Denmark with 33 other countries providing some form of troop support.
The fact that Saddam Hussein himself escalated the events leading up to the war and that it was a multilateral invasion seems to be forgotten. I assume for some type of political advantage by the progressives and the participating countries who rather the US be held fully accountable.
I guess you are throwing the right of self determination out of the window dude. What sort of international law are you talking about? It's funny because in Kosovo, there was no referendum at all, it became independent just by bombing. The alaska thing is straw man, it was sold to the US.
It did not legally belong to Russia at all. At a time when it was legally owned by the USSR an internal transfer was made from one region to another.
A referendum with two alternatives, both of which were the same.
Wrong. Independence wasn't either of the options. They were both "join Russia".
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
According to CNN, it looks like the US and the other members of the G8 voted to kick Russia out. Russia's response to that should be interesting.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
are sitting in Odessa, discussing what is going on in Ukraine.
Man 1: I stopped speaking Russian.
Man 2: Why? Afraid the Ukranians will beat you?
Man 1: No, that Russians will come to protect me.
He was pro-Russia, but not pro-give-up-Crimea-for-free-pro-Russia. For instance a deal Yanukovitch would have taken would be 'Russia gets Crimea, Ukraine gets lots of money and gas for many years, and permanent leases for military bases in Crimea, just as Russia had the reverse when it was Ukrainian."
Right now, he has FSB following him everywhere. He is now Putin's bitch.
Better question? Why are the Russians taking known traitors into their military?
Because they aren't viewed as traitors by the side that's taking them. Think of them like Confederate soldiers who crossed the line to join the Union because they were put the nation before their home state. The Confederates would consider them traitors; the Union would consider them loyalists.
It's actually a lot like that time period, because the people in Ukraine consider themselves more loyal to their factional groups than to the country as a whole. Imagine how bad partisanship would be in America if both parties represented groups that literally did not speak the same language and that had the backing of different, foreign powers upon who their prosperity depended.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Finland dished out an awesomely disproportionate asskicking, but in the end, who won? Do you think Stalin missed all the guys Russia lost? Think Finland's equally failed to mourn their fallen?
Regardless of whatever Ukraine could do, they're thinking about what they should do, and a lot of their people getting killed, doesn't rank high on the list. Even if you can kill a bunch of Russians, sometimes your death isn't worth it.
BTW, to anyone who thinks the Crimean referendum was a sham election, you need to talk to an American Republican to get the right perspective. Keeping dissenters away from the polls wasn't a rights violation; it was all about preventing election fraud. ;-)
The alaska thing is straw man, it was sold to the US.
Russia keeps the receipts and has an expansive view on return policies.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
That is disengenuous and will only fool those who don't know what's going on. The two options were:
"Are you in favour of the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a part of the Russian Federation?"
"Are you in favour of restoring the 1992 Constitution and the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?"
The latter establishes an independent state technically within Crimea, but with autonomy to later join Russia if it wishes, and the parliament already said it does.
So, basically, the options were "Join Russia now, or join later." There was no option to remain as part of Ukraine under the status quo.
Well, duh.
The Supreme Soviet gave, the Supreme Soviet has taken away.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
No "real" similarities exist between Hitler's Germany and Putin's Russia, nor do they exist between Sudeten and Crimea, nor do they exist between the actions of Hitler and Sudeten and Russia and Crimea.
the similarities are huge and terrifying
Sudeten never voted to become part of Germany as Crimea did Russia.
that was not a vote in crimea. invaded by a foreign army, which operates without insignia and is denied by russia itself. active terror against tatars. it has been a terrible, terrible lie that seems to be promoted by rt, mostly (well, and the mass media in russia, of course).
Crimea as a region has been pro Russia since long before the coup in the Ukraine
it was not a coup. the current rada is the same one for the most part. claiming anything else is a lie from the cremlin media.
so the vote was not Russia "taking territory" like you are trying to frame it.
and again, something like that can not be called a vote, and yes, russia absolutely invaded a territory of another country. one that gave up nuclear arms in a promise to protect it's teritorial integrity... by russia in part.
Russia has been playing catch up since the disbanding of the old USSR.
compared to ukraine ? haha
...US has been
don't change the topic.
russia is the aggressor here. they occupied their neighbour - actually, they have been doing this continuously for quite some time, georgia being the previous victim. russia spends a lot of money on propaganda, though - i don't know whether you are paid or just mislead by rt and similar media, but there oh-more-than-enough paid people, spewing bullshit about "vote" in crimea.
look at all the neighbouring countries of russia. they know what they are dealing with. they are very, very concerned.
popularising such lies is very evil. please try not to be evil.
Rich
It is completely ironic that you suggest Putin won't take back Alaska because of the threat of nuclear war. The Ukrainians gave up their ICBMs so now the Russians are invading Ukraine.
The sad thing is that no one would make that "mistake" again. Say goodbye to any prospect of nuclear non-proliferation in the new century.
No the grand parent remember wrong as well. The two options was independence or join russia. Remain in Ukraine was not an option which is why 40% of the population (tartars and ukranians) boycutted the election. Fortunately their boycut was made up for by 120% voter turnout in the capital.
Are people making a big deal out of this because even though the majority of Crimerians voted to merge with Russia, they believe that vote was coerced under the threat of violence ( Russian troops massing on the border )?
No, people are making a big deal out of this because Russia marched troops and mobile armor into Ukraine, allowed (some would say encouraged) armed mobs of fanatical ethnic Russians to run amok, surrounded Ukrainian bases in Crimea, and then decided there should be a hastily organized vote on whether Crimea should join Russia immediately or become independent and let its leadership vote on whether to join Russia (no options to remain part of Ukraine). Ethnic Russians make up about 51% of Crimea. Since Crimea was handed to Ukraine some 60 years ago, younger generations of ethnic Russians have grown up as Ukrainians and largely self-identify as Ukrainian. About 15% of the population there are ethnic Tatars, who were brutalized and murdered by Russia until Crimea came under control of Ukraine. The rest is mostly ethnic Ukrainian.
So with Russian tanks and armed troops parked outside peoples' homes and armed mobs of fanatical pro-Russia groups roaming the streets uninhibited, a vote took place in which 97% of votes cast were to join Russia. 97%, despite the fact that at least 15% of the population would essentially be like Jews voting to have their homes fall under the control of the Nazis. The Russians claim this is somehow a legitimate vote and that the people of Crimea have the right to simply vote themselves part of any country they choose (so long as that country is Russia).
Why are some Crimerians fighting and not others? Different ethnic groups being for and against the merger?
There's very little fighting going on. Much of the violence you're seeing in Crimea is from pro-Russian fanatics who've formed armed mobs supported by the Russian military. They've killed or wounded a small number of Ukrainian soldiers stationed at Ukrainian bases in Crimea and they're generally running amok because nobody's stopping them. The Ukrainian troops in Crimea aren't shooting because if they did, the Russians would just murder them (bombing from the air, rockets from helicopters, shelling from artillery; the Russians have a lot of options against small numbers in tight quarters armed only with small arms). As it turns out, about half the Ukrainian military on the ground in Crimea are joining Russian forces, likely because they don't want to be on the losing end of a potential slaughter and/or due to personal or familial Russian self-identification issues.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
To make the Kosovo analogy work, you would need to establish that Ukraine acted against Crimean Russians in a way comparable to how Yugoslavia acted against Kosovan Albanians.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
There is a difference between "self determination" and "referendum performed under armed guard, with no international election observers allowed into the country", but it's a subtle one, I grant. That said, it's the sort of difference that can give you a 95% "Join Russia" vote, with 80% turnout (76% of total voters, if you do the math) in a region where at most 60% of the population is ethnic Russian and at least 10% (the Tatars) are _extremely_ unlikely to have vote for union with Russia.
If you think those referendum results are fair and represent self-determination, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Ukrainiane didn't attempt to ethnically cleanse Crimea of Russians. That is the critical difference.
No, it is a spot on analogy. Crimea was legally transferred from Russia to Ukraine in the 1950s. Alaska was legally transferred from Russia to to the US during the 1860s. Both transfers were approved by the Russian legislative body of the time. The only differences are 1) that the US paid two cents per acre while Ukraine paid nothing (but this is irrelevant to the legality/sanctity of the transaction), and 2) Putin knows that if he ever landed troops in Alaska, it would set off a new world war.
The referendum was bogus by any rational measure. No time was set up for voters to become aware of the issues or debate them, it was obviously rushed. There was plenty of heavy handed intimidation by mobs in the streets, Tatar houses were marked with Stalinist era crosses, and so forth. No opposition would want to speak out in that environment. Journalists were intimidated. The government itself was essentially gone; the Crimean government buildings had been taken over forcibly and flags replaced before any voting. Ukrainian forces (the legal military protectors of that region of land) were blockaded in their bases. The pro-Russian people essentially set up a de-facto "we're already Russian" system in a couple of days.
Mysterious snipers, maybe hired by Yanukovych, maybe hired by someone else, no one is sure. But after that most of Yanukovych's parliament allies either stopped siding with him or pressured him to soften his stance. And soon after that he fled office. I think he saw the writing on the wall, knew that he could not win the next election, knew that he'd be in big legal trouble when all the money turned out to be missing, and knew that his only friend left was Putin.
The US did not install a government in Kiev. That is ridiculous Russian propaganda. This was internal strife in the country, not from outside agitators, and Yanukovych was quite well disliked on his own lack of merits.
Yes, that government had a shakeup. Yanukovych fled, the remaining parliament rolled back recent constitutional changes, some minority MPs got a few seats in the government. But it was not entirely lawless (except in Crimea). However, even if it had been completely lawless, that is no justification whatsoever for Russia to invade. The neocon warmaker here is Putin.
I guess you are throwing the right of self determination out of the window dude. What sort of international law are you talking about? It's funny because in Kosovo, there was no referendum at all, it became independent just by bombing. The alaska thing is straw man, it was sold to the US.
Ironically, Alaska was sold to the US in part** to help pay for Russia's war debt incurred during the Crimean War (and in recognition that it would likely loose the territory anyways in a war with Britain as well) ...
The reason it took so long to close the Alaska deal (1859-1867) was that the US was fighting its own right-of-self-determination referendum (aka US Civil War) and that temporarily interrupted negotiations. I don't remember how that referendum turned out... ;^P
Fortunately for the US, we kicked out most of the 700 Russians in Alaska shortly after annexing (a small part of the off-color history General Jefferson C. Davis), so there would unlikely to be a vote similar to Crimea the matter of rejoining Russia...
On the other hand, I'm sure some high ranking democrats would be happy to support Alaska going to the other red team to make room for Puerto Rico, so you never know...
** the other part was to pay the debts associated with the 1861 Russian Peasant reforms...
This.
> The referendum was observed by 135 international observers from 23 countries with no violations registered.[14][15][16] The EODE observer mission concluded that the referendum was conducted freely and fairly.[17] [...]
Is this.
> Eurasian Observatory for Democracy & Elections (EODE) is an election monitoring organization led by the Belgian far-right activist Luc Michel.[1] Since its founding in 2006, it provided monitoring missions to Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Caucasus, Balkans, the Black Sea region, and North [...]
This translates to friends of Putin. There is no reason to believable anything they say. Being a corrupt and all.
Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Iraq was wrong. However we did not march into Iraq in a single weekend, we didn't send in soldiers in unmarked uniforms, instead we went to the UN and when that failed we still obtained allies. Dubya did not have the unswerving patriotic fervor of all Americans standing behind him ready to do his every bidding; instead he got a lot of flack for it and lots of protests. Russia invades almost immediately after Yanukovych leaves, with no external allies, no attempt at diplomacy, citizens standing behind him giddy at the prospect of Russian glory, and virtually no opposition or protests at all due to near total state control of media and laws that make organized protests a serious crime. Similarly, Iraq was aggressive, they had been taking provocative actions, whereas all Ukraine did was get rid of a corrupt president.
Remember that in Russia there has been a decade of propaganda that the orange revolution was a bad thing, that it's all about mob rule which is secretly controlled by western powers trying to undermine Russia. They don't see it as democracy but as subversive. Losing Yanukovych meant that orange was coming back in fashion, and Putin felt he needed to stop that before it took hold again.
It is a ridiculous attitude to take of "country X did an immoral thing, therefore it's good if my country Y does an immoral thing too".
"Why does everyone ignore the fact that the population there WANT to join Russia?"
Because they almost certainly don't? Objective polling before the election put only 41% of Crimeans in favour of becoming part of Russia. Russia invaded, installed a puppet Crimean government (kicking the democratically elected one out) took over the airwaves, spread propaganda everywhere, refused to allow impartial international observers in and then called an election which they "won" with 97% support - the jump from 41% to 97% isn't within any sane margin of error.
The real question is if a majority of Crimeans wanted to be part of Russia then why did Russia have to go to such lengths? If the Crimean people supported joining Russian then their democratically elected government could've called a referendum, international observers could've been allowed in to verify it's validity and so on and so forth. The fact none of that happened is evidence enough that the Russians had zero confidence that the people there wanted to join them fair and square. If that was the case then hell I'd even support what happened, as it wasn't I can do nothing other than refer to it as an illegal annexation against the verifiable will of the populace.