Russian Official Tells London to 'Have a Twix' and Rethink Crimea

Russia could have had a real referendum(and probably would have won), but they didn't. Even past that, there is a method for seceding under Ukrainian law and Crimea didn't follow it.

You clearly didn't even bother to read my post but simply are regurgitating a narrative. This is addressed in point #9, Crimea already did try to hold a referendum in 1994, voted overwhelmingly to separate, but was strong armed but Kiev and had their president forecefully replaced for talking about a referendum and had their constitution ripped up:

On 20 January 1991, Crimea regained its status as an Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. This was many months before Ukraine declared its own independence on 24th August 1991. In February 1992, it renamed itself as the "Republic of Crimea". On 5th May 1992, Crimea declared itself "Independent" pending the outcome of a referendum to be held in August 1992. On 15th May 1992, the Ukrainian parliament declared the declaration of independence to be illegal and gave Crimea one week to cancel the referendum. In June 1992, both sides reached a compromise and it was given the status of "Autonomous Republic". In May 1994, the then President of Crimea re-opened the Crimean referendum, and contrary to the wishes of Kiev who tried to stop it going ahead, voters voted in favor of the following 1: 78.4% voted in favour of Crimean Independence that had relations with Ukraine on the basis of a set of treaties. 2: 82.8% voted in favour of dual Russian/Ukrainian citizenship. 3: 77.9% voted in favor of Presidential Decrees not covered in the May 1991 constitution being made law.

Following these results, in March 1995, Kiev's Parliament tore up Crimea's constitution and permanently removed the post of "President of Crimea" and from June to September it was governed under a Presidential Decree from the Ukrainian President. In October 1995, Crimea wrote a new constitution which wasn't recognised by Ukraine.

There was not a "coup".

Yes it was. It violently took over a elected government. This was already covered in point #3.

And that only happened after Yanukovych fled the country to avoid trial for human rights abuses.

"Although the legislative removal by an impeachment procedure would have lacked the number of votes required by Ukraine's then-current constitution,[14] the resolution did not follow the impeachment procedure but instead established that Yanukovych "withdrew from his duties in an unconstitutional manner" and citing "circumstances of extreme urgency"."

You do not get to claim democratic legitimacy after destroying the ability to protest - a fundamental part of democratic opposition. Torturing and murdering your opposition is not compatible with democracy.

Please refrain from political rhetoric and post factual information with sources.

Then they should proceed in the manner prescribed by the Ukrainian constitution for seceding.

Which they already did as we already discussed, way back in 1994.,_1994

They were violently prevented from doing so, and the constitution was rewritten to prevent it from happening again.

/r/worldnews Thread Parent Link -