123% voted in Sevastopol? Yeah...no, they didn't.

Xcathdra

reply to post by khimbar

 

I did, as did the other poster. The original results were released by Crimean / Russian official's. Those numbers created a 123% vote percentage in Sevastopol. When that information came to light, Russia / Crimea changed the numbers to drop the percentage.

They did not bother correcting it until they got caught themselves. To me its nothing but them covering up the rigged elections. Just as they got caught doing the same in Georgia.. Compare the 2 incidents and see just hot exact they are compared to one another.

edit on 22-3-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Oh right, of course.

The Russians changed the numbers after a blogger (who later posted a correction and a video proving the number he'd posted was incorrect) rumbled them?

And then they went back in time, and made Malyshev make the speech again this time giving the right number so no one would notice?

This is the only reference to 1,724,563 people voting.

www.gazeta.ru...

This is the number the blogger originally used.

This number is proven, on video, to be wrong. He even says so on his blog with the link to the actual announcement.

reply to post by Xcathdra


What you have done is label me Pro-Russia...
Which okay if it's the West or Russia, I trust Russia more and would never deny it!!!

But in this particular instance, I am Pro-Crimea...

& if the tables turned and Russia backed a Nazi coup, and US Soldiers left their base to protect their Citizens I'd be sticking up for the West!!!

But this isn't about the West & Russia as so many would love it to be...
It's about what the Crimean's wanted...


Now as for your query, Crimea was under Ukrainian Law & Constitution...
But they also have their own Constitution for times like this...
& via that Constitution they can call for a referendum!!!

Now as for Russian invasion, that's an impossibility when they have Bases in Crimea...
Their incursion into Ukraine & Kiev is harder to defend, & I wouldn't want to anyways, they can fight their own battles!!!

My point has solely been about the legality of Crimea's decision to break away!!!

I won't go into too much detail with hypotheticals, I'll keep it short...
The US has Bases within England, now if tonight for any reason the Far Right of the spectrum took over in a Coup, I wouldn't only defend US troops leaving their bases to defend this Land... I'd be pleading with them to do so!!!
It just so happens the shoe is on the other foot, so I respect what Crimea have done, & Russia for defending them!!!


I have detailed as to why it was legal previously, not to debate, & not to repeat every time somebody disagrees with International Law...
I did it to state my opinion, & to actually define International Law...
Unlike the Media & Politicians who keep saying the words... But haven't mentioned which International Law once... Not once!!!


Peace X!

khimbar
Oh right, of course.

The Russians changed the numbers after a blogger (who later posted a correction and a video proving the number he'd posted was incorrect) rumbled them?

The first batch of numbers came from Russian / Crimean officials did it not (yes)? It was not an issue until the percentages were checked, resulting in the over 100%. When that started making rounds, the Russians / Crimean's went back and changed the numbers. Without the breakdown we don't know what percentage of Tartars actually voted, since they boycotted the vote.

Also, maybe you can answer this - What voting registration system was used for valid voters? I ask because Ukraine refused to allow Crimea to use the system in place. That means the Crimean's either opened the door for all or older records had to be used, which, again does not accurately reflect what occurred.

khimbar
And then they went back in time, and made Malyshev make the speech again this time giving the right number so no one would notice?

Sure - Russia has done it before, that is if people don't continually ignore history. Could he have misspoke to a reporter? Sure, he is human. I don't buy it though since Russian media is superb at presenting the "entire story" right from the start.

Besides, its only in history that we will find vote percentages of this magnitude, with the bulk in former Soviet occupied countries. The same level occurred in Georgia as well.


What does the UN have to say about the vote in Crimea?

reply to post by Xcathdra

Why would Russia care about a coup in Ukraine if their sole issue was with Crimea?

Missed this part!

Russia didn't, neither do I care if they did!!!

Crimea did care & refused to be left under the rule of those who took over...
Hence the Declaration of Independence, the call for Referendum & finally the Referendum itself...
All Crimean Security Council doing, not Russia!!!

Peace X!

reply to post by Xcathdra


Of course.

One last question?

The video of Malyshev in a room full of reporters which is widely available and in the opening post?

And here? The one where he announced 1,524,536 not 1,724,536?

www.ntv.ru...

I presume they told all the reporters and the people filming it, 'We're going again, ok don't tell anyone we changed the numbers?'

I postulate a different theory.

Someone mistyped a 7 for a 5. A blogger read the mistake, and made a post suggesting 123% voted.

He watched the video of the actual announcement and corrected it.

It was too late, the meme of 123% was born, and no one thought to check the facts.

★ better learn the truth late than never

CharlieSpeirs
What you have done is label me Pro-Russia...
Which okay if it's the West or Russia, I trust Russia more and would never deny it!!!

But in this particular instance, I am Pro-Crimea...

& if the tables turned and Russia backed a Nazi coup, and US Soldiers left their base to protect their Citizens I'd be sticking up for the West!!!

Since they, Crimea, are starting to tell Tartars they are illegally squatting and must be moved. If they suffer the same treatment they did under the Soviet Union, you would be ok with Turkey invading Crimea to protect Ethnic Tartars?

CharlieSpeirs
But this isn't about the West & Russia as so many would love it to be...
It's about what the Crimean's wanted...

To an extent - without detailed information we don't really know what Crimea wanted because we don't know who was allowed to vote in the Crimean referendum. We don't know what law was used as the base for the referendum.

CharlieSpeirs
Now as for your query, Crimea was under Ukrainian Law & Constitution...
But they also have their own Constitution for times like this...
& via that Constitution they can call for a referendum!!!

Crimea has a special section of its own in the Ukraine Constitution that recognized certain areas crimea had control over. LOCAL elections and federal elections are specified. Any Crimean law that conflicts with Ukraine's, Ukraine's supersedes it (just like the supremacy clause in our Constitution here in the US).

Crimea is prohibited from holding a referendum that affects the territorial integrity of Ukraine. The referendum they held affects the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Crimea was autonomous, NOT independent.
Crimea is prohibited from requesting outside military assistance - only Kiev can request it.

Here is the flaw though in your position - If Crimea had their own constitution that allowed them to have this referendum, why did they wait until now? If Ukraine's Constitution does not apply, as some argue, then why was Ukraine's constitution used as justification by Putin?

From day 1 his justification was based on Ukraine's constitution and supposed violations of it. If the argument you give for Crimea were valid, then Ukraine's constitution, let alone events in Kiev, would never have been a factor in his decision.

Can you please clarify that conundrum for me?

CharlieSpeirs
Now as for Russian invasion, that's an impossibility when they have Bases in Crimea...
Their incursion into Ukraine & Kiev is harder to defend, & I wouldn't want to anyways, they can fight their own battles!!!

The agreement between Ukraine and Russia is specific when it comes to military in Crimea. Any increase in those numbers by Russia, even if its within the number agreed, MUST be reviewed and approved by Ukraine. That never occurred.

Secondly, if Crimea was in fact not part of Ukraine as some argue, then the agreement to use the port would not have been between Russian and Ukraine. It would have been between Crimea and Ukraine. Since the Ukraine constitution states they, and not Crimea, are responsible for foreign relations and the agreement deals with Crimea, the argument people are making about Crimea are once again undermined by the treaty.

That agreement also prevents Russian military from being deployed outside those bases. that was violated when the non insignia people took control.

I noticed you left our East and South Ukraine - Are you ok with Russia invading those areas?

CharlieSpeirs
My point has solely been about the legality of Crimea's decision to break away!!!

Which had 2 referendums on the topic and in both they lost.

CharlieSpeirs
I won't go into too much detail with hypotheticals, I'll keep it short...
The US has Bases within England, now if tonight for any reason the Far Right of the spectrum took over in a Coup, I wouldn't only defend US troops leaving their bases to defend this Land... I'd be pleading with them to do so!!!
It just so happens the shoe is on the other foot, so I respect what Crimea have done, & Russia for defending them!!!p

Actually your analogy is.... flawed.

What occurred in Crimea would be along the lines of the US announcing that ethnic English speaking people in the UK are coming under threat from the Scots and invading and occupying parts of the UK for "protection" against the scots, holding a vote under the barrel of a gun and then annexing the place.

As for the hypothetical that is exactly what I am talking about. You tell me you wont engage in a hypothetical, then you give me a hypothetical. Thank you for proving my point about the double standard and when things don't support that side of the fence.

CharlieSpeirs
I have detailed as to why it was legal previously, not to debate, & not to repeat every time somebody disagrees with International Law...
I did it to state my opinion, & to actually define International Law...
Unlike the Media & Politicians who keep saying the words... But haven't mentioned which International Law once... Not once!!!Peace X!

I have detailed as to why its illegal - Feel free to read / review and tell me what you think in that thread or by PM. I am curious as to your thoughts.

CharlieSpeirs
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Why would Russia care about a coup in Ukraine if their sole issue was with Crimea?

Missed this part!

Russia didn't, neither do I care if they did!!!

Crimea did care & refused to be left under the rule of those who took over...
Hence the Declaration of Independence, the call for Referendum & finally the Referendum itself...
All Crimean Security Council doing, not Russia!!!

Peace X!

Russia did care.. They have used Ukrainian constitutional violations as a justification. If Crimea, as you and others claim, has its own constitution and can do what it wants, then Russia had no reason to even use that incident as a justification.

Secondly, you undermined your own position by stating they did not want to be left under the rule of those who took over. That should never had been an issue if Crimea was not subject to Ukraine's constitution.

Are you now saying Crimea was subject to the Ukrainian constitution?

reply to post by khimbar


Are you suggesting that Russian media wont do what the Russian government tells them? Do you think Russian media will refuse to comply with orders given from Moscow as to what they can and cannot report, let alone how that report is done?

If that were possible, we would not have this debate as the numbers could have been checked and cross checked by different media groups in different countries with different ideologies.

That did not occur. Only Russian media had inside access.

Yes I believe if they are told to report something they will no questions asked. If they are told to fix an error, they will. As they did in this case and just as north Korea did when the uncle was executed. North Korean media removed his from all previous archive footage. North Korea was one of the countries that supported Russian actions in Crimea.

mangust69
★ better learn the truth late than never

edit on 22/3/14 by mangust69 because: (no reason given)

What is the truth in this case being both sides lie about it.

Xcathdra
reply to post by khimbar

 

Are you suggesting that Russian media wont do what the Russian government tells them? Do you think Russian media will refuse to comply with orders given from Moscow as to what they can and cannot report, let alone how that report is done?

If that were possible, we would not have this debate as the numbers could have been checked and cross checked by different media groups in different countries with different ideologies.

That did not occur. Only Russian media had inside access.

Yes I believe if they are told to report something they will no questions asked. If they are told to fix an error, they will. As they did in this case and just as north Korea did when the uncle was executed. North Korean media removed his from all previous archive footage. North Korea was one of the countries that supported Russian actions in Crimea.

Of course. If only that one pesky blogger hadn't see it eh?

reply to post by Xcathdra

Since they, Crimea, are starting to tell Tartars they are illegally squatting and must be moved. If they suffer the same treatment they did under the Soviet Union, you would be ok with Turkey invading Crimea to protect Ethnic Tartars?

Yes I would if this is in fact the case and they are under threat...
I've ears contrary though that all Crimean's will be treated fairly including Ukrainian troops still in Crimea!!!

To an extent - without detailed information we don't really know what Crimea wanted because we don't know who was allowed to vote in the Crimean referendum. We don't know what law was used as the base for the referendum.

We do know, the Security Council didn't want to be under the rule of the unelected Coup leaders of Ukraine...
The law is from their Constitution which can at anytime call for a Republic Referendum!

Crimea has a special section of its own in the Ukraine Constitution that recognized certain areas crimea had control over. LOCAL elections and federal elections are specified. Any Crimean law that conflicts with Ukraine's, Ukraine's supersedes it (just like the supremacy clause in our Constitution here in the US).

The Ukrainian Constitution is contradictory within its first Chapter...
But that aside Crimea has a separate Constitution as an Autonomous Republic...

Yes it would be the case that Ukrainian Law supersedes Crimean... if the Government hadn't been overthrown...
Those who took power... Crimea refused to recognise them as the Authority...
Hence their Declaration of Independence!!! In line with the UN Charter re:Kosovo!!!

Crimea is prohibited from requesting outside military assistance - only Kiev can request it.

Right, so Texas cannot call for Military Assistance unless D.C does it for them???
No of course not which is why Russian military left base to protect a Republic which has been more than 50% Russian since before 2001!!!

From day 1 his justification was based on Ukraine's constitution and supposed violations of it. If the argument you give for Crimea were valid, then Ukraine's constitution, let alone events in Kiev, would never have been a factor in his decision.

The best I can do is tell you Ukraine's Constitution, Chapter 1 says specifically the People can change Constitutional problems and the State cannot tell them no, it cannot be usurped... But a month long protests was fruitless and in fact led to the bloodshed of many people...
If that's not unconstitutional I can't help I'm afraid!!!

I noticed you left our East and South Ukraine - Are you ok with Russia invading those areas?

No... And so far as I know they're not inhabited by more than 50% Russian people!!!

I never said I wouldn't engage in hypotheticals...
I said I would keep mine as short as possible!!!

& it wasn't flawed either...
I spoke for England specifically, not the UK... But both analogies are exactly the same you just switched the Far Right for the Scots!!!

We'll never agree on everything, but it's ATS so I don't expect to

I do however look forward to reading your Thread, thanks!!!


Peace X!

Wish I didn't suck at math, but given the scarcity of real numbers, and ceding the point that it may not have been 123%, the abstention of Tartar votes (10-12%) and with all Russian ethnics voting yes (58% possible), the over 90% number still doesn't add up. That leaves a wide net for questioning.

CharlieSpeirs
Yes I would if this is in fact the case and they are under threat...

I will hold you to that then.

CharlieSpeirs
I've ears contrary though that all Crimean's will be treated fairly including Ukrainian troops still in Crimea!!!

The Crimean / Russian government has already announced Tartars who are "squatting" will be moved elsewhere, although they did not elaborate in the announcement of where that will be.

CharlieSpeirs
We do know, the Security Council didn't want to be under the rule of the unelected Coup leaders of Ukraine...
The law is from their Constitution which can at anytime call for a Republic Referendum!

We don't know... If we did we would not be trying to answer this question. I want to see the actual law itself. Stating you don't want to be ruled by the people in Kiev does not elaborate on who is allowed to vote in the Crimean referendum. Secondly, if Crimea was as people are trying to make it out to be, they would not need to hold a referendum, as they would already be a seperat entity not subject to Ukrainian law.

Thank you though, again, for reaffirming Crimea was subject to the Ukraine constitution. That being said, Crimea's constitution was subordinate - The referendum was illegal.

CharlieSpeirs
The Ukrainian Constitution is contradictory within its first Chapter...
But that aside Crimea has a separate Constitution as an Autonomous Republic...

Not really no its not contradictory. Secondly there is a complete section for Crimea including what they can and cannot do. I recommend people read it. Autonomous Republic is spelled out in the constitution. Since Crimea is a part of Ukraine, the referendum was illegal.

CharlieSpeirs
Yes it would be the case that Ukrainian Law supersedes Crimean... if the Government hadn't been overthrown...
Those who took power... Crimea refused to recognize them as the Authority...

It was not illegal... That has been proven time and again by reading the agreement that reinstated the 2004 Constitution, including simplified impeachment process. Russia did not like the fact the president was lawfully removed, and since then they have been lying about what the constitution states. Its like the lie when they stated Crimea could be a part or Russia or remain in Ukraine. The issue there is the ballot was to return to the 1992 constitution that was in place for a year before being removed and redone.

Simply stating the government action in Ukraine was illegal does not cut it. Read the Constitution being used then decide.

CharlieSpeirs
Hence their Declaration of Independence!!! In line with the UN Charter re:Kosovo!!!

Again no - Its not the same as Kosovo. First and foremost, again, you are admitting they are a part of Ukraine by the vote for independence. Since it violates Ukraine law, the declarations is unlawful.

Secondly, Kosovo was recognized by the UN and had UN involvement... Crimea - not so much. Its not recognized, a key requirements for UN to act on it.

CharlieSpeirs
Right, so Texas cannot call for Military Assistance unless D.C does it for them???
No of course not which is why Russian military left base to protect a Republic which has been more than 50% Russian since before 2001!!!

Again this is what happens when people do not know what they are talking about. Texas is a State in the United states of America. They, like all other states, is a separate sovereign from the federal government. As such Texas, in addition to all other states, have a state militia.

With that being said Texas cannot create alliances with foreign governments.
Texas cannot request foreign military assistance.

Why?

Because just like Ukraine's Constitution, it specifically spells out what the state can do and cannot do in addition to what the federal government can and cannot do.

As for Russian protecting... No civilians were in danger, at least not until Russia invaded Crimea. That would be the other lie Moscow is trying to get away with. The protests were in Kiev, where as Russian media took footage from Kiev and started reporting it as occurring in cities all across Ukraine, which is untrue.

That is further reinforced by Russian shutting down all media. Kind of hard for outside observers to confirm / deny Russia's accusations... go figure.

CharlieSpeirs
The best I can do is tell you Ukraine's Constitution, Chapter 1 says specifically the People can change Constitutional problems and the State cannot tell them no, it cannot be usurped... But a month long protests was fruitless and in fact led to the bloodshed of many people...
If that's not unconstitutional I can't help I'm afraid!!!

Your argument undermines your position.

Constitution of Ukraine

TITLE I - ARTICLE 5

Article 5. Ukraine shall be a republic.

The people shall be the bearer of sovereignty and the sole source of power in Ukraine. The people shall exercise power directly or through the state authorities and local self-government bodies.

The right to determine and change the constitutional order in Ukraine shall belong exclusively to the people and shall not be usurped by the State, its bodies, or officials.

No one shall usurp the State power.

The actions of the Crimean government did in fact violate this section.
Here is Crimea under the Ukrainian Constitution - Title X. The argument you and others are making are not even in line with the Constitution.

CharlieSpeirs
No... And so far as I know they're not inhabited by more than 50% Russian people!!!

Even if they were it would be irrelevant.... Its Ukrainian land.

CharlieSpeirs
I never said I wouldn't engage in hypotheticals...
I said I would keep mine as short as possible!!!

Yet you refused to answer my hypothetical and substituted your own.

CharlieSpeirs
& it wasn't flawed either...
I spoke for England specifically, not the UK... But both analogies are exactly the same you just switched the Far Right for the Scots!!!

I disagree but that's fine...

CharlieSpeirs
We'll never agree on everything, but it's ATS so I don't expect to

I do however look forward to reading your Thread, thanks!!!
Peace X!

If everyone agreed then life would be no fun. I actually enjoy the counter arguments as I always learn something from the exchange.

So long as communication occurs, then there is a chance of a peaceful outcome. Both here on ATS and in the world as a whole.

khimbar
Of course. If only that one pesky blogger hadn't see it eh?

You would be surprised....

Dalai Lama, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Adolph Hitler, Winston Churchill, Mikhail Gorbachev, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh....

All individuals... all changed history because of their actions.

100 people who changed the world

However, what would of happened had the blogger not noticed the 123% and the numbers aren't changed?

reply to post by Xcathdra

I will hold you to that then.

Sweet as pal,

The Crimean / Russian government has already announced Tartars who are "squatting" will be moved elsewhere, although they did not elaborate in the announcement of where that will be.

Literally just finished page 7 of your Thread regarding this...
Although it drifted a little, so I will have to wait for more details before I can make a judgement!
Let me say that the timing isn't great though, could've at least waited for the ink to dry before they started shifting people around!!!

The referendum was illegal.

This would be valid if the Crimean Constitution didn't have the clause for a Republic Referendum!!!
All in Crimea who were eligible could vote... Tatars boycotted, but some probably voted!!!

Secondly, if Crimea was as people are trying to make it out to be, they would not need to hold a referendum

If it was just about disbanding from Ukraine probably not...
But it wasn't, it was choice between Russia & the 1992 Crimean Constitution.

Not really no its not contradictory. Secondly there is a complete section for Crimea including what they can and cannot do. I recommend people read it. Autonomous Republic is spelled out in the constitution. Since Crimea is a part of Ukraine, the referendum was illegal.

Read Chapter 1 & you'll see the contradiction... It's huge!!!
Crimea has it's own separate Constitution & they can hold a Republic Referendum... It's not illegal at all, especially when the Coup is brought into it!!!

It was not illegal...

I haven't said it was an illegal Coup... I'm saying that Crimean Parliament would not recognise the new Government... & they are well within their right to feel this way & act upon it!!!
Hence the Declaration of Independence re: UN Charter!!!

Again no - Its not the same as Kosovo. First and foremost, again, you are admitting they are a part of Ukraine by the vote for independence. Since it violates Ukraine law, the declarations is unlawful.

I'm not comparing the situation, very different, I'm saying the UN Charter that recognised Kosovo set precedent for future reference...
Circumstances for this part of the Charter do not have to be identical, as with International Law & interpretation it will be looked into!!!
& Crimea are still awaiting recognition, it hasn't been denied yet... which tells me it won't be denied either or the UN would have done so immediately IMO!!!
As for the DoI... as an Autonomous Republic that won't recognise the Coup leadership it's again perfectly legal push for Independence, despite Ukrainian Law, if that Law is overseen by a Government they have every right not to recognise, the next logical step is to reach out to the UN!!!

With that being said Texas cannot create alliances with foreign governments.
Texas cannot request foreign military assistance.

Forging an alliance & pleading for help are not the same thing...
What you're saying is they'd (realistically Crimea, hypothetically Texas) have to sit back and accept their fate, that's not part of International Law!!!

More so the only lie is the one the West continues to throw around of "Russian Invasion"!!!
Russia were based in Crimea, & once Crimea called for help to prevent catastrophe like we saw in Kiev with innocent people being Murdered by the Government, Russian troops had every right to do so... Without consent, as accepted by International Law that I already shared in my second post on this Thread!!!


You saved me time a pasted the contradiction... Right underneath the Bold part you highlighted...
Is it the people who cannot be "usurped" or the State???

Now allow me to share this!!!

The Council also have broads powers to:
3) passing of a resolution upon holding of a republican (local) referendum

1 & 2 were rather lengthy so I shared No.3!!!

If everyone agreed then life would be no fun. I actually enjoy the counter arguments as I always learn something from the exchange.

So long as communication occurs, then there is a chance of a peaceful outcome. Both here on ATS and in the world as a whole.

Couldn't agree more pal, your clearly done your research & given me things to think about, that's always appreciated!!!
A worthy opponent in debate you are


Peace X!

it was not a mistake it a lie & propaganda

CharlieSpeirs
This would be valid if the Crimean Constitution didn't have the clause for a Republic Referendum!!!
All in Crimea who were eligible could vote... Tatars boycotted, but some probably voted!!!

It doesn't allow for it. This is what I'm talking about when we discuss the status of Crimea. If it were as simple as Crimea just up and telling Ukraine they are leaving, it would have occurred already. The argument does not all of a sudden become valid by simply ignoring the laws that don't support the point.

CharlieSpeirs
If it was just about disbanding from Ukraine probably not...
But it wasn't, it was choice between Russia & the 1992 Crimean Constitution.

There in lies the problem. It was about removing Crimea from Ukraine. The 1992 Constitution was flawed in numerous areas. It also allowed Crimea a different status than they are now. Its one of the reasons the referendum used the language it did. On the surface it looks as if they have the choice of Russia or Ukraine. If you read the 1992 Constitution you would see Crimea would have been its own entity with little to no attachment to Ukraine. If the referendum was on the up and up there would be no need to mislead the public with shifty referendum questions. There was NO option to remain a part of Ukraine. Yet another point that supports Crimea being a part of Ukraine.

CharlieSpeirs
Read Chapter 1 & you'll see the contradiction... It's huge!!!
Crimea has it's own separate Constitution & they can hold a Republic Referendum... It's not illegal at all, especially when the Coup is brought into it!!!

I did, and I posted it in my response. The Ukrainian constitution spells out what Crimea can and cannot do. Needless to say, Crimea chose the can't do, which is why there are "issues" wit their action.

CharlieSpeirs
I haven't said it was an illegal Coup... I'm saying that Crimean Parliament would not recognise the new Government... & they are well within their right to feel this way & act upon it!!!
Hence the Declaration of Independence re: UN Charter!!!

From your source -

The Crimean Parliament is the regional and unicameral parliament of Crimea; a territory currently under dispute by Russia and Ukraine. In Ukrainian context, the parliament is referred to as Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (sometimes translated as Verkhovna Rada of Crimea or as Supreme Rada of Crimea) while in Russian context it is referred to as State Council of the Republic of Crimea (Ukrainian: Верховна Рада Автономної Республіки Крим; Russian: Верховный Совет Автономной Республики Крым; Crimean Tatar: Qırım Muhtar Cumhuriyetiniñ Yuqarı Radası, Къырым Мухтар Джумхуриетининъ Юкъары Радасы).[3] The Parliament is housed in the Parliament building in the center of Simferopol.

During the period of time in which Crimea was controlled by Ukraine, the Parliament was unable to appoint the Prime Minister of Crimea on its own, being able to appoint him only with the advice and consent of the President of Ukraine. This restriction did not sit well with the Parliament and its constituents, creating a long standing rift between them and the national government of Ukraine.

As the Crimean crisis unfolded, the building of the Parliament came under control of unidentified pro-Russian gunmen. Under this control, the Parliament bucked[awkward] Ukrainian authorities by removing the incumbent Ukrainian-consented Prime Minister of Crimea and unilaterally appointing Sergey Aksyonov in his stead. The Ukrainian Parliament responded to this act by disbanding the Crimean Parliament within Ukraine's legal system.[4] The disbandment was also caused by the belief that the Crimean Parliament collaborated with Russian troops in the region against Ukrainian authorities.[5] Days later, the Crimean Parliament reunified its territorial jurisdiction with the city of Sevastopol into a single united nation and unilaterally declared their independence from Ukraine following a referendum that reflected such desire. This newly formed nation then acceded to Russia which ultimately transferred the Crimean Parliament under a newly formed federal subject of Russia.

However, Ukraine and the majority of the international community do not recognize the formation of this newly formed federal subject and continue to consider the Crimean Parliament as an entity under Ukraine's jurisdiction, even after it disbanded it.

A coup occurred in Crimea, per your source. The actions of Crimea are illegal and a violation of Ukraine's AND Crimea's Constitution.

CharlieSpeirs
I'm not comparing the situation, very different, I'm saying the UN Charter that recognised Kosovo set precedent for future reference...

Actually it did not. Kosovo and Crimea are not even close to being the same. The UN cannot set "precedence" on anything. The bulk of the UN charter relies on the fact that a nation is sovereign and is in control of what occurs within its boundaries. If you read the UN charter / criteria for recognizing new nations, it spells it out. Its one of the main reasons the UN could not send a formal delegation. The request was made by Crimea, and per the UN, Crimea is not "independent" and could not formally make the request.

CharlieSpeirs
Circumstances for this part of the Charter do not have to be identical, as with International Law & interpretation it will be looked into!!!

There is a major difference between international law and its applications inside a sovereign nation. International law does not set precedence for national laws / actions. Even the UN charter states this point. Read the criteria in place for the UN when it comes to recognition. If its as simple as you say, then Palestine would be its own separate state.

CharlieSpeirs
& Crimea are still awaiting recognition, it hasn't been denied yet... which tells me it won't be denied either or the UN would have done so immediately IMO!!!

It has been denied. That occurred when they were told they could not make a formal request for the UN to visit Crimea.

CharlieSpeirs
As for the DoI... as an Autonomous Republic that won't recognise the Coup leadership it's again perfectly legal push for Independence, despite Ukrainian Law, if that Law is overseen by a Government they have every right not to recognise, the next logical step is to reach out to the UN!!!

Full formal recognition of a nation requires a Security Council resolution and vote. Its not going to happen.
Secondly, Ukrainian law has a process for redress of grievances, which is something the UN does look at when it comes to considering action / requests.

Since the transition in the Crimean government was also a coup (per your source), it resorts back to Ukrainian Constitution. I state that because the impeachment was lawful and valid under Ukrainian law.
Transition of Power and not a coup in Ukraine

CharlieSpeirs
Forging an alliance & pleading for help are not the same thing...
What you're saying is they'd (realistically Crimea, hypothetically Texas) have to sit back and accept their fate, that's not part of International Law!!!

I am saying that with Texas being a part of the US, its subject to the Federal Constitution. The constitution states what is reserved to the federal government and what is reserved to the state government. Just as Ukraine and Crimea are the same country.

It would be closer to say Mexico invaded Texas because at one point it belonged to Mexico and there is a large percentage who speak Spanish.

What you and the others keep substituting is Crimea being "independent" and Crimea being "autonomous". They are not interchangeable. 1 of those terms would allow Texas to do what it wants while the other would require Texas to seek consent from the Federal government for certain actions, like a referendum to leave the US.

What occurred in Crimea was a coup within the Crimean government, Russia taking advantage of the federal problems in kiev, and invading Crimea to seize the land.

CharlieSpeirs
More so the only lie is the one the West continues to throw around of "Russian Invasion"!!!
Russia were based in Crimea, & once Crimea called for help to prevent catastrophe like we saw in Kiev with innocent people being Murdered by the Government, Russian troops had every right to do so... Without consent, as accepted by International Law that I already shared in my second post on this Thread!!!

The agreement was between Ukraine and Russia - not Russia and Crimea.
The agreement specified what troops levels and types of weapons are allowed in bases in Ukraine/Crimea.
Any increase must be submitted to Ukraine and Ukraine must agree - Russia did not do this.
Russia forces are not allowed into the countryside - they deployed outside the bases.
If Crimea declared its "independence", it means Russia invaded Ukrainian territory - An act of war.
As for the "death in "Kiev" - that was caused by the former President.
The upheaval only occurred in the western part of Ukraine.
Russia lied by stating ethnic Russians were being targeted in east Ukraine / Crimea.
They are still lying by pushing that BS propaganda.
Russian troops had no lawful mandate to act inside of Ukraine.

Talk about setting a precedent though - What Russia did opens the door -
* - for Germany to reclaim Kaliningrad and annex it.
* - for Muslim nations to invade Chechnya to protect Chechens from Russia mistreatment of the citizens there (95% are Chechen and about 2% are Russian.
* - For Muslim countries to invade Dagestan to protect Muslims.
* - for Turkey to invade Crimea to protect Tartars from Russian reprisal / forced population resettlement.
* - For China to intervene in Moscow since there are over 100k ethnic Chinese located there.
* - for China to essentially invade large swaths of Siberia to protect ethnic Chinese living in Russia.

In total Russia has in excess of 40 different ethnic groups, who are NOT "Russian" currently residing in the country of Russia. If common sense is not applied, then Russia just swung the door wide open for countries to take the very actions against Russia, that it took against Ukraine.

CharlieSpeirs
You saved me time a pasted the contradiction... Right underneath the Bold part you highlighted...
Is it the people who cannot be "usurped" or the State???

And since the government of Crimea was overthrown by armed masked men, the actions of the Crimean government are unlawful.
Secondly, Crimea is a part of Ukraine, and any action to change the territory must start at the federal level and must be a nationwide referendum.

CharlieSpeirs
Now allow me to share this!!!

The Council also have broads powers to:
3) passing of a resolution upon holding of a republican (local) referendum

1 & 2 were rather lengthy so I shared No.3!!!

See my response above / few paragraphs above.

CharlieSpeirs
Couldn't agree more pal, your clearly done your research & given me things to think about, that's always appreciated!!!
A worthy opponent in debate you are

Peace X!

The feeling is mutual. For what it is worth if I come across as an ass I apologize. Its not my intent at all.