> Russian forces invaded Crimea in an eerily similar way to how Nazi Germany annexed Austria, Czechoslovakia, and the Rhineland <
Poor argument. The Rhineland was historically part of Germany. One could argue that Germany had a right to occupy the Rhineland. But Austria and Czechoslovakia were most certainly not part of Germany. Germany had no right to occupy those countries. To lump all three regions together shows either laziness or a lack of knowledge on the part of the author.
Ah, but there are analogies here. Crimea is to Russia as the Rhineland is to Germany.
And Ukraine is to Russia what Austria and Czechoslovakia were to Germany.
“Crimea is to Russia as the Rhineland is to Germany.”
Impossible comparison. Don’t know why the narrator brought in the Rhineland. Seems it’s a typo and he should have mentioned the Alsace Lorraine Valley, which was disputed between France and Germany. It was nominally awarded to Germany after WW I, but France’s military was close by, and Germany was barred from militarizing it, which they then did after Hitler took power, basically because France and England at the time believed in peace through weakness.
But back to Crimea. It was originally part of the Mongol Empire, then the Turkish Empire, then briefly independent, then the Catherine the Slutty annexed it, then the Soviet Union took over from the Czars. Then Stalin ethnically cleansed the indigenous Tartars. Then Nikita Kruschev gifted it to the Ukrainian Republic because the peninsula had no fresh water except coming from Donbas. Now Russia is occupying Crimea and the Southern Donbas. OK. But Crimea is to Russia as the Rhine is to Germany? Seriesly? It would suit me fine whatever the people of Crimea decide to do in consultation with Ukraine, after the diaspora of Tartars is returned to their homeland, Crimea. But it’s not integral to Russia, just because they stole it twice.
There's a point at which such analogies become rather... strained.
Regards,