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

First Up

Godge wrote: »

The fact that you can't conceive of someone like that is interesting. Let me ask you a different question.

Can you find someone who is exercised by the Israeli annnexation, Kosovo and who also condemns Russia?

Not a matter of me being able to "conceive" it. I'm just waiting to see it.

Godge

First Up wrote: »

Not a matter of me being able to "conceive" it. I'm just waiting to see it.

You are the one accusing those on the other side to you of inconsistency.

First Up wrote: »

If you can point to someone complaining about Crimea who is also exercised by Israel's constant annexation of Palestinian land or the farce that was/is Kosovo, I'll be happy to exclude them.

Yet you won't or can't find consistency on your side of the debate.

Are you a hypocrite as well, then? Do you approve of Russia's annexation yet disapprove Kosovo's independence and Israel's annexation? Where is your consistency?

Dannyboy83

iradzen wrote: »

where did you get this info? ??

How old are you?
Do you any memory of being in Russia? Any personal experience?
Or do you only remember Ireland?

iradzen wrote: »

why Russians do not have free media? ? ?

World Press Freedom Index 2014
https://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php

56 Journalists Killed in Russia since 1992/Motive Confirmed

Russian Federation - 148th place in the World

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/russia-media-black-out-ahead-disputed-crimea-referendum-2014-03-14
Russia: Media black-out ahead of disputed Crimea referendum

The Russian authorities have launched a full-scale onslaught on the few remaining independent media in Russia, blocking a number of internet sites in the Russian Federation, Amnesty International said today.
"The blocking of these sites is a clear violation of the right to freedom of expression. It is an unashamed attack on those who still dare to question the Kremlin-dictated narrative by providing independent, impartial information and offer a platform for free debate,” said John Dalhuisen, Europe and Central Asia Programme Director at Amnesty International.

https://www.cpj.org/2014/03/in-crimea-more-journalists-report-attacks-obstruct.php

In Crimea, more journalists report attacks, obstruction
New York, March 18, 2014--At least six journalists have been assaulted, detained, or obstructed from reporting in the southern Ukrainian autonomous republic of Crimea in the past two days, according to news reports.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...ian-free-press
In 2011, three journalists dead (including newspaper editor Khadzhimurad Kamalov, shot 14 times as he left his office). In 2010, two killed; in 2009, five more (including a young reporter from Novaya Gazeta, caught in a hail of bullets). Add four for 2008, one in 2007 and then 2006 as Anna Politkovskaya, the most famous victim of them all, is murdered. But she wouldn't forget Yevgeny Gerasimenko – found in his Saratov flat with a plastic bag pulled over his head and computer missing – and nor should we.

Two Russian journalists died in 2005, and three in both 2004 and 2003; but 2002 was a wicked year, with eight lost (including Valery Ivanov, battling editor, shot in the head) and 2001 added another victim. Putin's reign of power in 2000 began with six dead reporters and editors: a grim portent, looking back, of bad things to come.

There are other countries in the world where journalists repeatedly perish in the course of duty, to be sure: Pakistan, Afghanistan, Colombia, Mexico. And Russia has terrorists and rebellions of its own to deal with as well. But the drip, drip, drip of journalists' blood, year in and year out, crimes scantily investigated and rarely brought to any conclusion, is still deeply dismaying.

and if some Western media would say you, that "poor" Russian people are "brain washed", do not have access to TV, and internet is blocked- please, please do not beleive!

No Western Media have convinced me.

I have formed this opinion based on my experience, and my Russian friends and family. Chysty Russki

(For non-Russian readers, chysty russki means 'clean Russian'. Clean Russian or White Russian or Full Russian are terms which Russians, particularly the older generation, use to refer to ethnic Russians who come from Russia, e.g. My partner's grandmother is from Smolensk, she would refer to herself as Clean Russian, while her husband, who was a Russian Ukranian from Poltava, was not )

I dare to say, that Western people are more brainwashed, as they choose to watch only one side of story...

But yet the fact that Putin's approval rating is at an all time high undermines your idea, doesn't it?

First Up

Godge wrote: »

You are the one accusing those on the other side to you of inconsistency.



Yet you won't or can't find consistency on your side of the debate.

Are you a hypocrite as well, then? Do you approve of Russia's annexation yet disapprove Kosovo's independence and Israel's annexation? Where is your consistency?

Russia hasn't "annexed" Crimea. Crimea voted to secede from Ukraine. The nub of the matter is whether or not it was entitled to do so. If you don't believe it was, then it is inconsistent to recognise Kosovo's right to vote to secede from Serbia. Of the two, Crimea has much the stronger case - having been "gifted" to Ukraine only sixty years ago, whereas Kosovo was an integral part of Serbia for centuries.

I don't think it is a good idea for states to dis-integrate into ever smaller entities in order to placate or accommodate some offended ethnicity. Kosovo is a basket case and will always be one as an independent country. Having seceded from Ukraine, it makes eminent sense for Crimea to join (or re-join) the Russian Federation. Russia has accepted its application and is on firm enough ground ethnically, historically and geographically. (Politically is another matter.)

At the time of Kosovo's secession, I was one of many people who expressed concerns that it was setting a highly dangerous precedent across the former Soviet Union, Eastern Bloc and elsewhere. There is a myriad of other scenarios - Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Checnya, Republika Srpska, Transniestra, Kaliningrad, Nagorno Karabakh, Northern Cyprus to mention but a few. Some are legacies of WW1 or WW2, others are part of the detritus of the break up of the USSR and of Yugoslavia. None are simple; some have already come back to haunt and Crimea is just the latest.

I am not in favour of unilateral secession, but I am contemptuous of those whose opinion of it depends more on who is seceding from who than on principle.

As for Israel, that is just colonialism disguised as something else. But it goes on every day.

recedite

Godge wrote: »

Using Northern Ireland then, while you would be against South Down (join)ing the Republic, the reunification of Ulster through the annexation of Donegal by the North would be ok (subject to there being a majority in Donegal in favour following a British invasion and a British-run referendum which didn't allow for Donegal remaining part of the South). Have I got your views right?

If the British held an all-Ulster referendum, including Donegal, the result might well be in favour of joining ROI. But anyway, I would not be in favour of them trying to change the status of something as small as a single county. The entity that would be up for change is the six counties; NI. At the moment the majority there are happy with the status quo.

Where are people getting this idea that Crimeans had no option in the referendum to remain a part of Ukraine? Don't tell me from Fox news

Crimea has essentially been a Free State operating under Ukrainian sovereignty since 1991 and the break up of the USSR. This meant having their own parliament and taxation, but Ukrainian army and foreign policy.
Their parliament did try for a declaration of full independence in 1992 but were forced to rescind it by Kiev, inserting a new sentence into this constitution that clarified that Crimea was part of Ukraine.

The referendum offered two choices;

Choice 1: Are you in favour of the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation? Choice 2: Are you in favour of restoring the 1992 Constitution and the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?

View

recedite wrote: »

The referendum offered two choices;

Choice 1: Are you in favour of the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation? Choice 2: Are you in favour of restoring the 1992 Constitution and the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?

There was no status quo option as can be seen above hence the referendum - even were it recognised by Ukraine - is not valid.

A single territory acting on its own does NOT have the right to force the rest of a country to alter its constitution - in this case back to the 92 constitution - nor does it have the right to operate under a seperate constitution to the rest of a country.

In the above question, the only issue is how much constitutional change you favour not do you want it - it is akin to a member of a mafia punishment crew asking you if you'd prefer your arm or your leg broken.

alaimacerc

seamus wrote: »

I don't think anyone disputes that if an autonomous region of any country decides to leave and become part of another, then they should be permitted to do so.

I'm not sure if you just mean anyone in this thread, but in facts lots of people dispute this. David Cameron, the Chinese Politburo, and all points in between... (Maybe that's not such a long distance.) Also bear in mind that "autonomy" is not something with an absolute, universal definition. Nor is it an intrinsic property of of the region in question: such status can be removed at the will of the "parent" sovereign entity. Witness what was happening in this instance.

The problem is how this was executed.

No shortage of problems there, granted.

However, to flip it around: if you were a Crimean "ethnic Russian" (or indeed an irredentist Russian nationalist elsewhere in the Federation (hi, Vlad!)), the option of "sit on your hands and see how things work out 'post mob-driven, fascist-led, Western-backed coup'" doesn't necessarily look like it's free of problems, either.

alaimacerc

View wrote: »

There was no status quo option as can be seen above hence the referendum - even were it recognised by Ukraine - is not valid.

Well, there goes the UK Tories' plans for an in-out EU referendum on the basis of their (supposed) renegotiated terms of membership, then. Thanks for clearing that up!

While somewhat dodgy, this really doesn't seem to be to be the most pressing objection to the plebiscite. If your favoured option isn't on the ballot (and I know mine generally isn't!), you vote for the least-worst option of what remains. Had "pre-'92 autonomy" won the poll, I hardly think this would have been taken as a pretext to join Russia anyway, as some have implied. (Whether the poll itself is a meaningful exercise in the circumstances is a separate question.)

Jonny7

First Up wrote: »

Russia hasn't "annexed" Crimea.

Russia has annexed Crimea, no amount of verbal gymnastics can get around that fact

Crimea voted to secede from Ukraine.

and North Korea voted for Kim Jong Un

The circumstances of the vote are as important as the vote itself

Godge

recedite wrote: »

If the British held an all-Ulster referendum, including Donegal, the result might well be in favour of joining ROI. But anyway, I would not be in favour of them trying to change the status of something as small as a single county. The entity that would be up for change is the six counties; NI. At the moment the majority there are happy with the status quo.I]

Why? What is so special about a single county or a single province? Is this the type of figleaf that people are using to say Kosovo was wrong but Crimea was right?

We should just get rid of Andorra, Lichenstein, the Vatican City, Gibraltar and San Marino because there are bigger counties in Ireland and the UK?

Why would the six counties be the entity up for change, look at a map, joining Donegal to Northern Ireland makes geographical sense?

recedite wrote: »

Where are people getting this idea that Crimeans had no option in the referendum to remain a part of Ukraine? Don't tell me from Fox news

Crimea has essentially been a Free State operating under Ukrainian sovereignty since 1991 and the break up of the USSR. This meant having their own parliament and taxation, but Ukrainian army and foreign policy.
Their parliament did try for a declaration of full independence in 1992 but were forced to rescind it by Kiev, inserting a new sentence into this constitution that clarified that Crimea was part of Ukraine.

The referendum offered two choices;

Choice 1: Are you in favour of the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation? Choice 2: Are you in favour of restoring the 1992 Constitution and the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?

That has been done to death loads of times, why are you repeating it? There was no status quo option, there were no OSCE monitors, there was a North Korean style referendum.

I am not saying that the result would have been different, it is just not legitimate. It is a bit like having a referendum in West Belfast under the auspices of the Irish army dressed as Provos and deciding the future of Northern Ireland based on two options - independence or reunification with the South, neither of which palatable to the majority of the rest of Northern Ireland.

Have a proper democratic vote with all of the options and the consent of the rest of Ukraine. Remember Northern Ireland only has the option to reunify with the South because the rest of Britain agreed as part of the Good Friday Agreement.

First Up

Godge wrote: »

Why? What is so special about a single county or a single province? Is this the type of figleaf that people are using to say Kosovo was wrong but Crimea was right?

We should just get rid of Andorra, Lichenstein, the Vatican City, Gibraltar and San Marino because there are bigger counties in Ireland and the UK?

Why would the six counties be the entity up for change, look at a map, joining Donegal to Northern Ireland makes geographical sense?





That has been done to death loads of times, why are you repeating it? There was no status quo option, there were no OSCE monitors, there was a North Korean style referendum.

I am not saying that the result would have been different, it is just not legitimate. It is a bit like having a referendum in West Belfast under the auspices of the Irish army dressed as Provos and deciding the future of Northern Ireland based on two options - independence or reunification with the South, neither of which palatable to the majority of the rest of Northern Ireland.

Have a proper democratic vote with all of the options and the consent of the rest of Ukraine. Remember Northern Ireland only has the option to reunify with the South because the rest of Britain agreed as part of the Good Friday Agreement.

In case there is a misunderstanding, I'm not saying Kosovo was wrong and Crimea is right. I'm saying that either they are both wrong or both right.

recedite

Godge wrote: »

Why? What is so special about a single county or a single province? Is this the type of figleaf that people are using to say Kosovo was wrong but Crimea was right?

We should just get rid of Andorra, Lichenstein, the Vatican City, Gibraltar and San Marino because there are bigger counties in Ireland and the UK?

Why would the six counties be the entity up for change, look at a map, joining Donegal to Northern Ireland makes geographical sense?

I suggested that the minimum size of a secessionist territory should be around the size of a "province" and definitely bigger than a county, and with some extra latitude being given to small islands. Someone said this was "arbitrary" but in fact having a definition is the opposite to arbitrary. "Arbitrary" is when people like Cameron and Obama have no actual definition but apply different rules to suit whatever their own agenda happens to be at the time, as with Kosovo and Crimea.

So Donegal, San Marino etc. are just too small to have their status challenged. If San Marino was currently part of Italy, it would be too small to secede on its own. Same with Donegal. The 6 counties would be the entity up for change simply because it is the entity with a different sovereign currently.

recedite

Choice 2: Are you in favour of restoring the 1992 Constitution and the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?

View wrote: »

There was no status quo option as can be seen above hence the referendum - even were it recognised by Ukraine - is not valid.

Can you explain in what way Choice 2 differs from the status quo?

Richard

recedite wrote: »

Can you explain in what way Choice 2 differs from the status quo?

Because if it the 1992 constitution was the status quo, you wouldn't be restoring to anything.

In any case, this wasn't the appropriate time for a referendum - when tempers were high. Any referendum should've followed negotiations.

Here's something to consider. If, in 20 years Crimea voted to become independent or to reunite with Ukraine, would Russia allow it?

Richard

recedite wrote: »

Same with Donegal. The 6 counties would be the entity up for change simply because it is the entity with a different sovereign currently.

I think if there was a big movement in Donegal yearning to rejoin the UK it'd potentially be different, but as things stand saying Donegal should be in NI because it looks nicer geographically is no reason to change its status. Borders aren't usually nice!

Dannyboy83

recedite wrote: »

Can you explain in what way Choice 2 differs from the status quo?

The 1992 constitution was drafted after the USSR imploded.
It gave (& would give) Crimea the option to decide which path to choose, including joining Russia.
That constitution was replaced in 1995.

So
Option 1.
Join Russia outright

Option 2.
Become independent, then have the Crimean Junta join Russia (unless you figure they were going to re-join the 'Ukrainian fascists')

Option 3.
Remain part of the Ukraine Nyevozmozna tovarish

View

alaimacerc wrote: »

Well, there goes the UK Tories' plans for an in-out EU referendum on the basis of their (supposed) renegotiated terms of membership, then. Thanks for clearing that up!

I can't comment on the Tories plans for their suggested referendum since they haven't outlined the various results of a yes or no vote.

I do know that a recent Tory private members bill for a referendum asking "
Should the UK be a member of the EU?" was described as being misleading by their electoral commission (if I recall the correct body). They said the question would need to be "Should the UK REMAIN a member of the EU?" for it to be a fair referendum question.

Likewise, I believe it took three seperate wordings and around 2 months to get the one for the Scottish one right, not 24 hrs as in Crimea.

alaimacerc wrote: »

While somewhat dodgy, this really doesn't seem to be to be the most pressing objection to the plebiscite. If your favoured option isn't on the ballot (and I know mine generally isn't!), you vote for the least-worst option of what remains. Had "pre-'92 autonomy" won the poll, I hardly think this would have been taken as a pretext to join Russia anyway, as some have implied. (Whether the poll itself is a meaningful exercise in the circumstances is a separate question.)

First up a part of a country can't unilaterally decide to operate a seperate "National Constitution" to the rest of a country.

Second, the 92 constitution would as reported leave it to a parliamentary vote in Crimea as to whether or not it remained part of Ukraine and is thus directly contrary to the current Ukrainian constitution.

As such, it is akin to a scenario where FG & Lab decide we should rejoin the UK and give you two options: a) vote to rejoin the UK or b) revert to the Free State 1922 constitution - where FG & Lab will then immediately take a parliamentary vote to rejoin the UK.

As I said, a choice of which limb you want broken not whether you want one broken or not.

View

recedite wrote: »

Can you explain in what way Choice 2 differs from the status quo?

The 1992 constitution is the former Ukrainian SSR constitution. Ukraine replaced it years ago.

There was no status quo option as there was no option to vote for Crimea to continue to operate using the current Ukranian constitution.

Godge

recedite wrote: »

I suggested that the minimum size of a secessionist territory should be around the size of a "province" and definitely bigger than a county, and with some extra latitude being given to small islands. Someone said this was "arbitrary" but in fact having a definition is the opposite to arbitrary. "Arbitrary" is when people like Cameron and Obama have no actual definition but apply different rules to suit whatever their own agenda happens to be at the time, as with Kosovo and Crimea.

So Donegal, San Marino etc. are just too small to have their status challenged. If San Marino was currently part of Italy, it would be too small to secede on its own. Same with Donegal. The 6 counties would be the entity up for change simply because it is the entity with a different sovereign currently.

Quebec is bigger than the British Isles. In fact some of the counties in Quebec are bigger than the British Isles.

What about the US, is California a state or a province in your definition?

Your definition is no less arbitrary than anyone elses in that you have picked it despite its flaws to suit your current argument.

alaimacerc

View wrote: »

I can't comment on the Tories plans for their suggested referendum since they haven't outlined the various results of a yes or no vote.

Granted there's an inherent difficulty in commenting on the detail of a proposal on which no detail exists. One might suspect it's all a ball of smoke designed to placate the euroskeptics; I couldn't possibly comment. But the "plan" in outline is explicitly: negotiate treaty change; put to the electorate the choice, "accept new treaty" or "withdraw

First up a part of a country can't unilaterally decide to operate a seperate "National Constitution" to the rest of a country.

Second, the 92 constitution would as reported leave it to a parliamentary vote in Crimea as to whether or not it remained part of Ukraine and is thus directly contrary to the current Ukrainian constitution.

This is simply the "tsktsk, isn't 'legal' under Ukrainian law" objection. The Ukrainian, EU and US take on "legal" amounts to "Crimean self-determination can't happen", not to "Crimean self-determination could and should have happened in some slightly different manner".

recedite

Godge wrote: »

Quebec is bigger than the British Isles. In fact some of the counties in Quebec are bigger than the British Isles.

What about the US, is California a state or a province in your definition?

Your definition is no less arbitrary than anyone elses in that you have picked it despite its flaws to suit your current argument.

I'd support secession of Californians or French Canadians if that is what they wanted. French Canadians remain because they want to; they have equal status and their language is an official language. In contrast, the first thing the right wing uber-nationalists in Kiev did after seizing power was to withdraw the status of Russian as an official language in Ukraine.
So no govt. jobs or schools for Russian speakers.

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

In contrast, the first thing the right wing uber-nationalists in Kiev did after seizing power was to withdraw the status of Russian as an official language in Ukraine.

Actually, Russian wasn't an "official language" even prior to that point. The February vote was to abolish the status of Russian as even a "regional" language.

recedite

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

The 1992 constitution was drafted after the USSR imploded.
It gave (& would give) Crimea the option to decide which path to choose, including joining Russia.
That constitution was replaced in 1995.

So
Option 1.
Join Russia outright

Option 2.
Become independent, then have the Crimean Junta join Russia (unless you figure they were going to re-join the 'Ukrainian fascists')

There have been a few constitutions in recent years, so the latest one is actually the 1998 one. Check it out here. So in a way, there is no actual status quo, the whole situation has been in a state of flux since the break up of the USSR.
They all call Crimea an "Autonomous Republic" with its own Parliament, but the 1998 one gets rid of the office of President and says that any laws are subservient to Ukraine laws, so no law made in Crimea could allow something that was normally illegal in Ukraine to be legal in Crimea.
This could be something as simple as the legal age for buying alcohol.
So it wouldn't be a very autonomous republic really, would it? Nothing could happen without permission and approval from Kiev.

An honest referendum can only really have two choices, otherwise the vote could easily be manipulated by being splitting the anti side into numerous choices. So I think its reasonable to give the Free State type choice of the 1992 constitution under Ukrainian sovereignty as one option.

If they had chosen that option, it would have required a second referendum to join the Russian Federation (something that would not be allowed to them if they had been bound by the 1998 constitution)

recedite

alaimacerc wrote: »

Actually, Russian wasn't an "official language" even prior to that point. The February vote was to abolish the status of Russian as even a "regional" language.

Well, that's a terrible way to treat the people who use it all the time in the east of the country. You can't expect to hold a country together while treating people like that.

feargale

comongethappy wrote: »

The equivalence you are trying to draw is not valid.
Kosovo voted to become independent, not simply join another nation.

I'm sort of a plague on both your houses re this one. BUT,
why should self-determination be limited to choosing independence and not rule by another country? Instance Northern Ireland 1996, Saar 1956, Gibraltar, Trieste, Sopron.

First Up

Europe's changing borders

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=890_1367106116

Dannyboy83

recedite wrote: »

There have been a few constitutions in recent years, so the latest one is actually the 1998 one. Check it out here. So in a way, there is no actual status quo, the whole situation has been in a state of flux since the break up of the USSR.

The term 'status quo' is just a Latin phrase, meaning 'the existing state of affairs'.
There is always a status quo. Even when things are in flux (and as you correctly stated, they have been)

They all call Crimea an "Autonomous Republic" with its own Parliament, but the 1998 one gets rid of the office of President and says that any laws are subservient to Ukraine laws, so no law made in Crimea could allow something that was normally illegal in Ukraine to be legal in Crimea.
This could be something as simple as the legal age for buying alcohol.
So it wouldn't be a very autonomous republic really, would it? Nothing could happen without permission and approval from Kiev.

I think you misread.

The option was not to return to the 1998 constitution, it was to return to the 1992 constitution.

An honest referendum can only really have two choices, otherwise the vote could easily be manipulated by being splitting the anti side into numerous choices. So I think its reasonable to give the Free State type choice of the 1992 constitution under Ukrainian sovereignty as one option.

That's the point.
A honest referendum should have a yes and no option.
Not a yes and yes option.

As I've already stated, I'm not against Crimea joining Russia, I support their right to reunify.
But legally and democratically.

If they had chosen that option, it would have required a second referendum to join the Russian Federation (something that would not be allowed to them if they had been bound by the 1998 constitution)

The option was to return to the 1992 constitution

Dannyboy83

recedite wrote: »

Well, that's a terrible way to treat the people who use it all the time in the east of the country. You can't expect to hold a country together while treating people like that.

I agree with this.

It was a regressive and stupid measure that was bound to promote hostility.

But it's par for the course in Eastern Europe

http://www.economist.com/node/21549987
Lithuanian law says official documents, such as passports and birth certificates, may be written only in the Lithuanian alphabet, which lacks the letter W and most of the diacritical marks of Polish.

K-9

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Ah, I misunderstood the referendum then, I assumed that restoring the 1992 constitution would effectively keep the status quo but having just read up on it, it simply gives the government the right to make the decision. So the referendum was basically "join Russia or let the government decide who we join".

That's pretty messed up, certainly. Seems bizarre that they'd do it that way as well, given that from what I've read the referendum would almost definitely have carried the motion to join Russia, so why did they feel the need to set up an incomplete referendum to do it? Jet seems like if the choices had been to join Russia or remain part of Ukraine, they'd be joining Russia anyway without accusations of a rigged referendum...

If that's the case it would be worrying as a small group of hardline Russian nationalists basically took over the Crimean parliament at gunpoint. I don't think it qualifies as a functioning parliament at the moment.

recedite wrote: »

We don't know what orders the Ukrainian troops were getting from Kiev recently. Maybe Kiev would have ordered them to take control of public buildings from civil authorities and expel the Russians. I'd say they were quite glad to be able to report back "We'd love to do that, but we can't get near our weapons at the moment, so we'll just have to sit tight here for a while"

It would seem from recent developments that the Ukranian seemed to have little or no orders from Kiev, the Ukranian troops showed remarkable restraint in fairness to them.

sparkling sea

I admit from the off that I don't know a huge amount about the Crimea, that said I was disgusted at the behaviour of senior members of the Svobada party and the assult on the Ukrainian TV boss, it was the antithesis of democracy IMO.
Democracy does not appear to exist in the Ukraine and by extension in Crimea.
The coup in the Ukraine was hardly democratic and members of Svobada were involed in this coup that is extremely worrying, if I lived in Crimea I'd be terrified.
I'd have to question why the people in the Ukraine where not given a chance to vote out their President.

If a TV boss cannot exercise the right to freedom of speech in the Ukraine and by extention Crimea then I doubt very much an ordinary citizen can.

I know Russia had agreed to Crimea being part of the Ukraine but I haven't a clue which party in all this is more at fault, Russia or Ukraine (and the west).
One thing is for sure people are being silenced by all sides, and its very difficult to gauge what most people in Crimea actually want