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.
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.
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
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.
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). 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. The disbandment was also caused by the belief that the Crimean Parliament collaborated with Russian troops in the region against Ukrainian
authorities. 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.
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.
Circumstances for this part of the Charter do not have to be identical, as with International Law & interpretation it will be looked
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.
& 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
It has been denied. That occurred when they were told they could not make a formal request for the UN to visit Crimea.
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
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 /
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
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
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.
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
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
* - 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.
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.
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.
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
The feeling is mutual. For what it is worth if I come across as an ass I apologize. Its not my intent at all.