What specifically about the Crimea referendum is "illegitimate" in the eyes of the in

Dannyboy83 · 21-03-2014 1:03pm

recedite wrote: »

I really can't see how anyone can say that is a "Yes and Yes" choice.

OK, I think I can see why you're confused now.

Both options offer a change.
Neither option offers a continuation of the current state of affairs.

(The 2nd option sounds confusing because it says 'as part of Ukraine', but the key clause is, restoration of the 92 constitution, as part of Ukraine).

Let me give you an example here:

The Northern Irish receive a referendum
A) Join the UK

Become independent, but as part of the Irish nation (crucially, legally enabling the local government to then join UK)

There is no option C) Remain part of Ireland

First Up · 21-03-2014 1:19pm

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

OK, I think I can see why you're confused now.

Both options offer a change.
Neither option offers a continuation of the current state of affairs.

(The 2nd option sounds confusing because it says 'as part of Ukraine', but the key clause is, restoration of the 92 constitution, as part of Ukraine).

Let me give you an example here:

The Northern Irish receive a referendum
A) Join the UK
Become independent, but as part of the Irish nation (crucially, legally enabling the local government to then join UK)

There is no option C) Remain part of Ireland

That still doesn't explain why 83% of the electorate voted 96-4 to join Russia.

recedite · 21-03-2014 2:00pm

Under the 1992 constitution, they would have had the freedom to;
a) Remain as an autonomous region within Ukraine
b) Integrate with Ukraine (what you correctly call the current "status quo"while agreeing it has not been the status quo for very long)
c) Integrate with Russia

What makes you think "local govt." would go against the wishes of the people? To exercise either b) or c) above they would need to either have another referendum, or have a vote by elected representatives in the Parliament.
Some democratic countries such as Ireland, hold a lot of referendums. Others such as the UK, just go with their elected representatives.
But either way, its a democratic mandate.

Eggy Baby! · 21-03-2014 2:17pm

comongethappy wrote: »

The merits & competencies of Chechen independence doesn't matter.

They do. The lawless nature of Chechnya spilled over into Russia and that led to the second Chechen war...Chechen based jihadis actually invaded Dagestan (Russian territory)...what did you expect the Russians to do? Allow a lawless wahhabi state which hated them to exist on their doorstep and churn out suicide bombers at Moscow?

Additionally, there was no legal basis for Chechenya to secede because it was not an autonomous SSR within the USSR. It was a part of the RSFSR, unlike Ukraine or Belarus or whatever.

Notably, Crimea was a part of the RSFSR before it was transferred to the Ukrainian SSR (With no legal basis. This was a purely symbolic exchange to mark the 300th anniversary of the Treaty of Pereyaslav which bound Ukraine to Russia for many centuries) without the consent of the inhabitants. Again, like I've said before, Putin is reaping the seeds that the Soviet sowed...

Dannyboy83 · 21-03-2014 2:26pm

recedite wrote: »

Under the 1992 constitution, they would have had the freedom to;
a) Remain as an autonomous region within Ukraine
b) Integrate with Ukraine (what you correctly call the current "status quo"while agreeing it has not been the status quo for very long)
c) Integrate with Russia

That's not correct -

Option 2 on the ballot paper explicitly revokes Your First option a) Remain as an autonomous region within Ukraine

That is why the '92 constitution was replaced with the '95 and '98 constitution (as you pointed out)

In May 1994, the Crimean parliament voted to restore the May 1992 Constitution.

In September 1994 President of Crimea Yuriy Meshkov and parliament decided to write a new Constitution.[1]

On 17 March 1995 the Verkhovna Rada abolished the May 1992 Constitution (and the post of President of Crimea).

From June till September 1995 Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma governed Crimea under a direct presidential administration decree.

In October 1995 the Crimean parliament adopted a new Constitution which was not recognized by the national (Ukrainian) authorities until April 1996 when significant amendments where suggested.

A fifth draft law of the October 1995 constitution was ratified on 21 October 1998 at the second session of the Crimean Verkhovna Rada (parliament).

The Verkhovna Rada confirmed this constitution on 23 December 1998.
(Article 135 of the Ukrainian Constitution provides that the Crimean Constitution must be approved by the Ukrainian parliament.[12])

It came/has been in effect (since) 12 January 1999.[1]

Now do you see where you're getting confused?

You're assuming that Option 2 offers membership of Ukraine under the 98 constitution (the status quo).
Unfortunately, it explicitly says part of the Ukraine under the 92 constitution.

1. Establish what the status quo is (98 Constitution as part of Ukraine)
2. Offer that as an option (no amendment)

First Up · 21-03-2014 3:15pm

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

That's not correct -

Option 2 on the ballot paper explicitly revokes Your First option a) Remain as an autonomous region within Ukraine

That is why the '92 constitution was replaced with the '95 and '98 constitution (as you pointed out)

Now do you see where you're getting confused?

You're assuming that Option 2 offers membership of Ukraine under the 98 constitution (the status quo).
Unfortunately, it explicitly says part of the Ukraine under the 92 constitution.

1. Establish what the status quo is (98 Constitution as part of Ukraine)
2. Offer that as an option (no amendment)

So how different would the result have been if the 98 constitutional position had been an option?

Dannyboy83 · 21-03-2014 3:27pm

First Up wrote: »

So how different would the result have been if the 98 constitutional position had been an option?

The end result would still have been the same in my opinion.
Just much closer.

Crimea would have rejoined Russia (and rightfully so imo)
But it would have been legal and democratic.
And if terrorists would start blowing up Crimea in future, Russia would have the moral high ground.

The world needs a strong and democratic Russia.
It's imperative.
Not just economically, but to maintain global peace.

They also have among the most beautiful languages, and a fantastic culture.
The rest of the world should know about it.

Instead, we're back to suspicion. Everybody loses.

First Up · 21-03-2014 3:44pm

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

The end result would still have been the same in my opinion.
Just much closer.

Crimea would have rejoined Russia (and rightfully so imo)
But it would have been legal and democratic.
And if terrorists would start blowing up Crimea in future, Russia would have the moral high ground.

The world needs a strong and democratic Russia.
It's imperative.
Not just economically, but to maintain global peace.

They also have among the most beautiful languages, and a fantastic culture.
The rest of the world should know about it.

Instead, we're back to suspicion. Everybody loses.

Marginally closer I'd say but we are agreed on the outcome.
For sure it could have been handled better, although no process that allowed Crimea decide it's future would have been acceptable to Kiev. Whether the "West" could have been brought on board is debatable- even if it could, the process would have taken months if not years and things on the ground would have been potentially nasty.
The Russian speakers in Crimea were never going to quietly accept the downgrading of their language and what that might lead to.
Ukraine is a very divided country and this is not helping. But like you I have sympathy for the Russian position and I find much of the western reaction deeply hypocritical.
It should be recognised that the people most affected - the Crimeans - seem to be the happiest of anybody. That should tell us something.
And I'm still waiting for someone who is condemning Crimea to also condemn what happened with Kosovo.

Dannyboy83 · 21-03-2014 4:01pm

First Up wrote: »

Marginally closer I'd say but we are agreed on the outcome.
For sure it could have been handled better, although no process that allowed Crimea decide it's future would have been acceptable to Kiev.

That's the thing.
I thing Kiev would have sold Crimea in a heartbeat, & the Russian economy would have benefited, not suffered.

Whether the "West" could have been brought on board is debatable

The West only had right to intervene when it became illegal and undemocratic.
Belgium and the little countries etc.

Otherwise the Monroe doctrine applies.
When the referendum was announced, I said the US should butt out, because I believed it would be democratic.
I didn't think Russia could lose, so I didn't believe they had any reason to rig this.

- even if it could, the process would have taken months if not years and things on the ground would have been potentially nasty.

Ukraine is screwed.
I think they would have agreed to sell the place in a matter of weeks

The Russian speakers in Crimea were never going to quietly accept the downgrading of their language and what that might lead to.

Or worse; potentially being made non-citizens, like in Latvia.

Ukraine is a very divided country and this is not helping. But like you I have sympathy for the Russian position and I find much of the western reaction deeply hypocritical.

Yep, that's why I'm disappointed in the Russians.
They are too absolute.

It's ok to criticize your country and your policies.
In fact, it's essential. That's how reform happens.

Edward Snowden is doing more to help reform the US than Obama.

Russia had a chance to show the West - "We can handle our own affairs - butt out".
Instead they walked themselves straight into an international incident.

It should be recognised that the people most affected - the Crimeans - seem to be the happiest of anybody. That should tell us something.

The Russians are thrilled certainly.
There are reports that the Tatars are being forcibly removed from their lands and Turkey is threatening to intervene if they are maltreated.

And I'm still waiting for someone who is condemning Crimea to also condemn what happened with Kosovo.

Kosovo isn't on my radar.
Those people have been killing each other for generations.
And will continue to.

Russia and Ukraine were blood brothers. It's a tragedy.

Godge · 21-03-2014 4:17pm

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

...what did you expect the Russians UK to do? Allow a lawless wahhabi Catholicstate which hated them to exist on their doorstep and churn out suicide bombers at MoscowLondon?

Amazing if you just change the locations.

That sentence could be used to justify internment and Bloody Sunday if it also justifies Russian intervention in Chechnya.

djpbarry · 21-03-2014 5:38pm

recedite wrote: »

I had to laugh when I saw the Sky news anchorman at the scene, muttering something along those lines. And in the background, a huge crowd of people dancing and celebrating. Maybe you think Putin has put something in the drinking water now that causes the people to go out and dance in the streets?

There were big crowds of drunken people in London dancing around the place on Paddy’s Day. Does that mean the whole of London is Irish?

djpbarry · 21-03-2014 5:38pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Is a referendum required in Scotland, England and Wales as well if NI ways to secede? If so, that's undemocratic and BS. The referenda should concern the territory which wants to secede and, if applicable, the territory they want to join. Nobody should have the right to tell people they can't have independence though,

Suppose London wanted to become independent from the rest of the UK (we’ll ignore for a moment that in many ways, it already is). Should the rest of the UK not have their say on such a matter?

djpbarry · 21-03-2014 5:38pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

You seem to find it considerably preferable to argue against a cobbled together series of straw men than anything I've actually said.

…

So you're in fact quite happy (in principle, under different circumstances, properly conducted and independently observed, etc, etc), with Crimean unilateral self-determination….

Who has objected to Crimean self-determination in principle?

And you’re accusing others of constructing straw men?

djpbarry · 21-03-2014 5:39pm

First Up wrote: »

I don't think that can be open ended - it would be a recipe for chaos in many places, as minorities endlessly sought their own patch. However some cases are stronger than others. Ukraine's claim on Crimea is one of the weaker ones knocking around...

Claiming a region to be part of your country because, well, it’s part of your country, is somehow a weak claim?

First Up wrote: »

That still doesn't explain why 83% of the electorate voted 96-4 to join Russia.

Well, I can certainly think of one scenario that explains why “official” figures show virtually every single Russian in Crimea not only voted, but voted for the same option on the ballot paper.

I’m genuinely amazed that several posters are trying to argue that there is nothing in any way suspicious about the referendum result.

Jonny7 · 21-03-2014 5:50pm

recedite wrote: »

OK, so now you are saying they were foolish to vote for the "join Russia" option, because there is no way back.
But they knew that. They also knew wages and salaries would rise.
They decided it was worth the risk, and took the plunge. Their decision.

I pointed out the potential benefits and drawbacks.

They didn't take any decision.

If Svodoba pushed for a vote in Kiev in 2 weeks, with their own "observers", their members operating, running and recording the vote - it wouldn't be a real election/vote either, we both know that

First Up · 21-03-2014 6:20pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

I pointed out the potential benefits and drawbacks.

They didn't take any decision.

If Svodoba pushed for a vote in Kiev in 2 weeks, with their own "observers", their members operating, running and recording the vote - it wouldn't be a real election/vote either, we both know that

Of course they took a decision. You just don't like the way it was done, or what they decided. Pretending that the pro Russian sentiments of the great majority of Crimeans (Russian and Ukrainian) are not an obvious and frequently expressed reality is just nonsense. The other day you were quoting the ridiculous 123% voter thing, even though it was already clearly explained and acknowledged as just a mistake by a news agency and not something ever claimed by the Crimean authorities.
If you want to argue, please find something more sensible to base it on.

Jonny7 · 21-03-2014 6:48pm

First Up wrote: »

Of course they took a decision. You just don't like the way it was done, or what they decided.

They didn't take any decision - the referendum is not generally viewed as valid

We all know it's highly possible a majority of people in Crimea would like a union with Russia, how big or small that majority is? we have no idea. It could even be a minority as projected in previous survey's in 2013 and 2011

I don't have an issue with the people of Crimea having a genuine referendum to join the country - I do have a problem with a false/dubious referendum under those conditions

I'm not the only one, virtually the entire international community does

Pretending that the pro Russian sentiments of the great majority of Crimeans (Russian and Ukrainian) are not an obvious and frequently expressed reality is just nonsense.

Which isn't my position - I am interested in the truth, not a false referendum

The other day you were quoting the ridiculous 123% voter thing

No I wasn't that was another poster

, even though it was already clearly explained and acknowledged as just a mistake by a news agency and not something ever claimed by the Crimean authorities.
If you want to argue, please find something more sensible to base it on.

As above

First Up · 21-03-2014 7:06pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

They didn't take any decision - the referendum is not generally viewed as valid

We all know it's highly possible a majority of people in Crimea would like a union with Russia, how big or small that majority is? we have no idea. It could even be a minority as projected in previous survey's in 2013 and 2011

I don't have an issue with the people of Crimea having a genuine referendum to join the country - I do have a problem with a false/dubious referendum under those conditions

I'm not the only one, virtually the entire international community does

Which isn't my position - I am interested in the truth, not a false referendum

No I wasn't that was another poster

As above

OK - you are absolved on the 123%

Opinion polls are not referenda and the ones you mention weren't conducted after the Russian language had been downgraded, or the president they elected run out of town. Two opinion polls running up to last week's vote showed huge majorities voting yes.

But it's good that you favour a "legitimate" referendum. Do you think that Kiev might agree?

Jonny7 · 21-03-2014 7:25pm

Polls can produce wild results, especially based on emotive conditions and other factors - as evidenced in Crimea - the swing is as much as 40% or 50% in the space of one year

On paper, and internationally, Crimea is still an autonomous part of Ukraine - in reality, it's Russian

Ukraine has no choice but to accept, I highly doubt any sane people in that country want to go down the Georgian route

First Up · 21-03-2014 7:59pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

Polls can produce wild results, especially based on emotive conditions and other factors - as evidenced in Crimea - the swing is as much as 40% or 50% in the space of one year

On paper, and internationally, Crimea is still an autonomous part of Ukraine - in reality, it's Russian

Ukraine has no choice but to accept, I highly doubt any sane people in that country want to go down the Georgian route

Well a poll in 2008 showed 65% support for joining (sorry - re-joining) Russia but the one that mattered was last week's.

SamHarris · 21-03-2014 9:36pm

It's terribly ironic that the people that hate the US the most take it's actions (often cherry picked from it's worst and distant past) is the line everyone else should toe to be moral. Of course I'm sure if it were an action from a Western state that were being defended here there would be a very different tune if someone tried to use

Also pretty ironic that the people that seem to get most worked up about America's "hypocrisy" are often the most hypocritical themselves in their evaluation of international event. If they, as an individual, can barely keep the same opinion about similar events why would a nation constituting hundreds of millions of people, over multiple administrations find it possible, much less feasible.

Further, why is any other states "hypocrisy" any less evident? It's very strange to me that people who seem to want to hate the US/American's the most, to the point of seeing CIA agents under their bed, hold them to a far higher standard than they would dare hold even our own country, let alone a place like Russia.

SamHarris · 21-03-2014 9:43pm

As regards the poll there is only one reason a state would not allow international observers. The amount of people that voted in the capitol was 4 times more than THE POPULATION, that is to say many times more the voting base.

It is laughable how often the people to first start scoffing at others being "American stooges" or "faux news" viewers are the first to swallow hook line and sinker any statement from the Kremlin, then quickly switch to RT to get the "truth". As though the definition of what is true is the news that best aligns with how they believe the world should be. They are exactly the same people as the worst fox news viewers, exactly the same failures in critical thinking with added arrogance, that they somehow hope will replace the need for well informed views.

I'm curious how many defending these polls would say that a poll in Cuba, were US troops to move out of Gitmo and occupy the country, then refuse any international observers in had any validity. I don't think it takes much thought to see they would be the most up in arms about such an action. And yet it's everyone else who is the "hypocrite" .

SamHarris · 21-03-2014 9:46pm

First Up wrote: »

Well a poll in 2008 showed 65% support for joining (sorry - re-joining) Russia but the one that mattered was last week's.

Even if it were the case that a majority supported joining Russia, this particular poll was a complete fraud to anyone with an eye towards reality. I'm going to go ahead and assume that anyone who believes it is completely free and fair does not have a "neutral" view towards the West in general and the US in particular. That should set alarm bells ringing to anyone on the lookout for bias.

Regardless, far more is needed for a poll to be legitimate than "most people voted for it". This is always the case, the other criteria only dissapears when the observers desperately want it to be so, dictated by their politics.

First Up · 21-03-2014 10:37pm

SamHarris wrote: »

As regards the poll there is only one reason a state would not allow international observers. The amount of people that voted in the capitol was 4 times more than THE POPULATION, that is to say many times more the voting base.

It is laughable how often the people to first start scoffing at others being "American stooges" or "faux news" viewers are the first to swallow hook line and sinker any statement from the Kremlin, then quickly switch to RT to get the "truth". As though the definition of what is true is the news that best aligns with how they believe the world should be. They are exactly the same people as the worst fox news viewers, exactly the same failures in critical thinking with added arrogance, that they somehow hope will replace the need for well informed views.

I'm curious how many defending these polls would say that a poll in Cuba, were US troops to move out of Gitmo and occupy the country, then refuse any international observers in had any validity. I don't think it takes much thought to see they would be the most up in arms about such an action. And yet it's everyone else who is the "hypocrite" .

The OSCE was invited. They declined.

Dannyboy83 · 21-03-2014 10:40pm

SamHarris wrote: »

It's terribly ironic that the people that hate the US the most take it's actions (often cherry picked from it's worst and distant past) is the line everyone else should toe to be moral. Of course I'm sure if it were an action from a Western state that were being defended here there would be a very different tune if someone tried to use

Also pretty ironic that the people that seem to get most worked up about America's "hypocrisy" are often the most hypocritical themselves in their evaluation of international event. If they, as an individual, can barely keep the same opinion about similar events why would a nation constituting hundreds of millions of people, over multiple administrations find it possible, much less feasible.

Further, why is any other states "hypocrisy" any less evident? It's very strange to me that people who seem to want to hate the US/American's the most, to the point of seeing CIA agents under their bed, hold them to a far higher standard than they would dare hold even our own country, let alone a place like Russia.

Most of the anti-Americanism is not real. It's mostly a debating tactic.

I'm fairly sure it's down to cultural misunderstanding/isolation on behalf of the Kremlin bots*.

They have as little grasp on Irish mentality as we have on Uzbek mentality.
They don't understand about our own irredentist claims or about our neutrality.

They assume that the way to argue with Irish people is as a rival - as part of 'The West!', the same as they would argue with an American.

They don't understand that we do not even conceive of ourselves as rivals, with the EU or without it.
Or that Irish people don't have a jingoistic bone in our bodies. Actually culturally we're quite similar to the Russians in many ways, but without the jingoism/xenophobia.

They cannot understand that what we care about is the law, fairness, justice - Or why that would matter to a small and defenseless country like ours.

So you get a lot of really weird arguments that could bait an American or a Brit, but just seem completely silly to us.

*I'm not accusing anyone of being a Kremlin bot - but it's pretty obvious they are operating on Boards.ie

http://www.sptimes.ru/story/38052
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/asia/article3891720.ece

First Up · 21-03-2014 10:47pm

SamHarris wrote: »

As regards the poll there is only one reason a state would not allow international observers. The amount of people that voted in the capitol was 4 times more than THE POPULATION, that is to say many times more the voting base.

It is laughable how often the people to first start scoffing at others being "American stooges" or "faux news" viewers are the first to swallow hook line and sinker any statement from the Kremlin, then quickly switch to RT to get the "truth". As though the definition of what is true is the news that best aligns with how they believe the world should be. They are exactly the same people as the worst fox news viewers, exactly the same failures in critical thinking with added arrogance, that they somehow hope will replace the need for well informed views.

I'm curious how many defending these polls would say that a poll in Cuba, were US troops to move out of Gitmo and occupy the country, then refuse any international observers in had any validity. I don't think it takes much thought to see they would be the most up in arms about such an action. And yet it's everyone else who is the "hypocrite" .

Where did you get your four times the population figure? A complete and utter fabrication.

recedite · 21-03-2014 10:57pm

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

That's not correct -

Option 2 on the ballot paper explicitly revokes Your First option a) Remain as an autonomous region within Ukraine......

How does Option 2 revoke the idea of "an autonomous region within Ukraine" ??
The '92 constitution describes an autonomous republic within Ukraine.

On 5 May 1992 parliament declared Crimea independent (which was yet to be approved by a referendum to be held 2 August 1992) and passed the first Crimean constitution the same day. On 6 May 1992 the same parliament inserted a new sentence into this constitution that declared that Crimea was part of Ukraine. On 13 May 1992 the Verkhovna Rada (the Ukrainian parliament) annulled Crimea's independence declaration and gave its Crimean counterpart one week to do the same. In June 1992 the parties reached a compromise and Crimea was given the status of "Autonomous Republic".

From wiki.
So they were forced to retract their Declaration of Independence, and they accepted being an "autonomous" region instead. The amended '92 constitution applied then.
Option 2 on the ballot paper refers to this. In case their was any doubt (considering there was an amendment to that constitution) the ballot paper specifically includes the words "a part of Ukraine". Which you translated for us.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

You're assuming that Option 2 offers membership of Ukraine under the 98 constitution (the status quo).
Unfortunately, it explicitly says part of the Ukraine under the 92 constitution.

No, I am not assuming that. The '98 constitution does not offer autonomy. It forbids Crimea from having different laws to Ukraine.

View · 21-03-2014 11:42pm

First Up wrote: »

The OSCE was invited. They declined.

No, the OCSE wasn't invited. Territories of a country have no legal authority to invite them nor do the OCSE have a legal basis to either accept or decline such an illegal attempt to involve them in an illegal action in one of their member countries.

Dannyboy83 · 22-03-2014 12:15am

recedite wrote: »

How does Option 2 revoke the idea of "an autonomous region within Ukraine" ??
The '92 constitution describes an autonomous republic within Ukraine.

You actually answer this yourself in the following section:

From wiki.
So they were forced to retract their Declaration of Independence, and they accepted being an "autonomous" region instead.

In June 1992 the parties reached a compromise and Crimea was given the status of "Autonomous Republic"

May 1994. The Crimean parliament voted to restore the May 1992 Constitution.

Further reading, if you're interested:
http://books.google.ie/books?id=i1C2MHgujb4C&pg=PA194&dq=26+February+1992++Crimean+constitution&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=b1RUUaWcMMGxPPibgagD&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=26%20February%201992%20%20Crimean%20constitution&f=false

No, I am not assuming that. The '98 constitution does not offer autonomy. It forbids Crimea from having different laws to Ukraine.

"After an interim constitution lasting from 4 April 1996 to 23 December 1998, the current constitution was put into effect, changing the territory's name to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea."

The constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (Ukrainian: Конституція Автономної Республіки Крим; Russian: Конституция Автономной Республики Крым) is the basic law of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, a republic within southern Ukraine. The constitution establishes the republic's status and authority within Ukraine. It grants Crimea the right to draft a budget and manage its own property.[1]

View · 22-03-2014 12:19am

recedite wrote: »

The '98 constitution does not offer autonomy. It forbids Crimea from having different laws to Ukraine.

So, did the Crimean parliament vote in favour of this constitution? YES.

Have they operated in Crimea under this constitution for over 15 years? YES.

Did the local or general election results in Crimea show strong support for a regional separatist or pro-Russian unification? NO.

How many seats did the pro-Russian unification party achieve in the last election there? 3/100.

Who did the Crimeans tend to vote for? Well, they were so disaffected, they voted for the largest party in the Ukrainian parliament (the one most Ukrainians voted for).

Who formed the government in Crimea before this external intervention? The largest Ukrainian party, the one the Crimeans largely voted for.

Who formed the government in Crimea after the external intervention?? That small pro-Russian unification party, the one the Crimeans largely did NOT vote for.

Oh, and whatever happened to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea? Well, it no longer exists as it that small pro-Russian unification party voted to abolish their autonomy as soon as they could.

So, so much for the "deep concern" for Crimea's autonomy.

What specifically about the Crimea referendum is "illegitimate" in the eyes of the in

Comments