I don't think this particular clip shows a strong support for the Russian Federation in general. He seems to be saying that a majority of the people of Crimea want to be a part of Russia, having been more tied to Russia proper historically than any independent Ukraine, and they were able to make that switch without much violence.
It completely ignores the context (which you would see in more mainstream sources) for why most people see that annexation as unethical.
In particular, the lack of a "status quo" option for Crimea (the referendum only had two options, go independent or join Russia) and the lack of international observers (OSCE observers currently in the Crimea were asked to leave by the Russian authorities in the area) made the whole thing iffy from the get go.
And that's not even getting into the fraud allegations ...
That's definitely true. However, it's not really arguable that a majority or close to a majority of Crimea was moreso favourable to joining Russia than staying in an anti-Russia version of Ukraine. Independent polls confirm this : https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/03/20/one-year-a...
There was no status-quo option because at the time, according to the dominant legal opinion (as in, backed by force), Crimea had already seceded from Ukraine. To consider the status quo that Crimea was part of Ukraine would undermine the legal basis for a referendum without assent from Kyiv, which is why it was not included. It's for sure bullshit to the moral level, but it couldn't have been done differently while still being a referendum on joining Russia. They could have done a referendum on returning to Ukraine, I guess.
To be fair, it is a tiny clip of an off-hand response; hard to compare to focused articles and segments on the topic. I can see the criticism of piecing together an opinion from a bunch of off-hand comments vs fully expressed arguments. It might be better to compare a full discussion on the specific topic from the criticized party to the lauded one.
One problem with many mainstream outlets is that they are often give free passes to organizations like OSCE. For example, the OAS, an organization that serves a similar watchdog position in the Americas, completely bungled their duties in recent Bolivian elections. So much so, that they helped legitimize a violent far-right coup in 2019.
He glosses over the fact that native Ukrainians in those regions were displaced in the 1930s during the Holodomor and replaced with Russian settlers. That might explain why Russian sentiment in those regions is high.
The problem with that argument is that Crimea had been considered a part of Russia as far back as about the founding of the United States, and prior to that had nothing to do with a Ukrainian National project. Crimea isn't even mentioned by name once in the Wikipedia article you linked. Why would they be targeted as Ukrainians at that time?
