What you say is mostly true. Most Ukrainians function well in Russian. That common language is part of the Soviet legacy. But Russian speakers, whose familes have lived in Ukraine for several generations, have not bothered to learn the "native" language. Hence there are pockets of Russian speakers throughout Ukraine demanding their rights.

It was interesting to note that most of the newspapers in Kiev were written in Russian when I was there. That was understandable: Ukrainians can read Russian; the Russians will get their news elsewhere if Ukrainian is used.

It is also interesting that many Ukrainians have Russian as a first language (and have only a basic understanding of Ukrainian), yet still identify themselves as Ukrainian. This is common in the east Ukraine.

Crimea was mostly a Russian enclave. Since 1991, Ukrainians were moving into Crimea, mostly for career reasons, encourgaged by a government that wanted Ukrainify the Crimea. Crimea is not a natural stomping grounds for Ukrainian history. The Ukrainians in Crimea were a new minority.

I have not kept up with the "Tartars" (I can't remember the correct word for this Turkish group). Since 1991, the Ukrainian government had been recruiting them to come back from Siberia, in part to right past wrongs but also to dilute the Russian culture in Crimea. The Tartars did not support the annexation. I would not be surprised that they are politically oppressed these days.

As for the economics of Crimea, that is quite complicated. Ukraine may indeed be supplying Crimea, but Ukraine itself is still very dependent on Russia. I believe a bridge has been built to link Kerch with Russia proper, lessening the need to trade with Ukraine.

I remember a taxi ride in Simforipol. With my broken Ukrainian, I managed to have enough of little chat with my driver, Sergei. He was a former navy guy. While I was surprised that we could exchange a few things, it was clear he did not like the Ukrainian occupation.