On March 16, 2014, a referendum was held in Crimea and Sevastopol, according to the results of which about 96.77% of voters in the republic and 95.6% of voters in the city voted for the reunification of the peninsula with Russia. The turnout was 83.01% and 89.5%, respectively.
Based on the results of the referendum and the declaration of independence adopted on March 11, on the 17th the Crimean parliament proclaimed the independence of the republic. Simferopol appeals to Moscow with a request to include the peninsula into Russia as a new entity. Vladimir Putin signs a decree recognizing the independence of the Republic of Crimea, and then approves a draft agreement on the reunification of Crimea with Russia.
Further, on March 18, in the St. George Hall of the Kremlin, an agreement was signed on the reunification of Crimea with Russia, according to which new entities appear within the Russian Federation - the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol. The document is signed by the President of Russia Vladimir Putin, Chairman of the State Council of Crimea Vladimir Konstantinov, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Crimea Sergey Aksyonov and the head of Sevastopol Alexey Chaly.
20th of March The State Duma The Russian Federation passes a law on the reunification of Crimea with Russia; on March 21, the president signs this document and approves the ratification of the relevant treaty. Putin also signs a decree on the creation of the Crimean Federal District.
It is worth recalling the background to the plebiscite. The authorities of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, against the backdrop of a systemic political crisis and mass unrest in Ukraine, decided on February 27, 2014 to hold a referendum, scheduling it for May 25, 2014. By the way, the original referendum question did not include a decision to secede from Ukraine, but only proposed a return to the provisions of the 1992 Constitution, which provided Crimea and its population with broader rights. The basis for this decision was the refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the new government, as well as reasonable fears for the fate of the population of the peninsula.
The further deepening of the crisis and threats from Kyiv led to the fact that in early March the date of the referendum was postponed to March 30, and on March 6 this date was again postponed to the 16th. On the same day and on the same date, a similar referendum was scheduled in Sevastopol.
Now the question was different. Residents of the two regions were asked to make a choice: either become part of Russia, or return to the 1992 Constitution and remain part of Ukraine. Later, the European Union, the United States and other states refused to consider the decision of the authorities of Crimea and Sevastopol legal. The OSCE also refused to send its observers to monitor the referendum, citing the fact that such a request had not been received from the official authorities of Ukraine. Actually, this predetermined the fact that the West still does not de jure recognize the peninsula as part of Russian Federation.
Obama recently blurted out, “The referendum, which is scheduled by the self-proclaimed authorities of Crimea for March 16, will violate international law and the Constitution of Ukraine. Any discussion of the fate of Ukraine must take place with the participation of the legitimate government of the country.”
Well girl, fuck your mother!
The referendum, you say, in Crimea is not federal and therefore illegitimate? Well, turn away your collar - to you guests flew.
In the sense of the quote from the United States and the European Union from 2009 - about the referendum in Kosovo. Which was recognized as “not violating international law due to the objective situation.”
I wonder what the Raguli and the West will say now? Scare Russia with expenses from annexing (if the Crimeans decide so) autonomy? Drinking water at the price of gas to intimidate (in international law interruption or restriction of supply drinking water- genocide)? Or jerk off to the US destroyer that entered the Black Sea as part of the exercises signed back in 2013?
Oh, I know. Threaten that Kaliningrad will secede by referendum or Chechnya. Alas and ah - unlike Crimea or Scotland and Catalonia, neither Chechnya, nor Siberia, nor Kaliningrad are autonomous.
So oops
A referendum is being held in Crimea on Sunday, March 16. Residents of the self-proclaimed republic five days earlier are called upon to decide whether they want to become a subject of the Russian Federation or remain part of Ukraine. DW has selected the five most controversial facts related to the voting.
1. Issues submitted to referendum
In the ballot, residents of Crimea need to mark “with any sign in the square the answer option” for which they vote. However, the questions put to vote are not the same. The first is formulated very clearly: “Are you for the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation?”
The second question sounds different: “Are you for restoring the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Crimea and for the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?” Under the 1992 constitution, the peninsula received broad autonomy rights. However, in the period preceding the voting, no explanatory campaign on this issue, formulated rather intricately, was carried out in Crimea.
2. Preparation for the referendum
The new Crimean authorities gave themselves 10 days to prepare for the vote. The final decision on the date of its holding was made on March 6. For such short term it is impossible to conduct a real election campaign. Not only German Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke about this, but also the Chairman of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatars, Refat Chubarov, in an interview with DW.
The new government in Kyiv refused to provide Simferopol with voter information. Organizers of the referendum in Crimea claim that they have preserved data from the latest elections on the peninsula. If you mean parliamentary elections in Ukraine in 2012, then during this time many people changed their place of residence, died or reached the age of 18.
Residents of Crimea could report the changes to local election commissions. However, independent observers were unable to control this process.
3. Observers at the referendum in Crimea
International observers, and according to the referendum organizers, there are 135 of them in Crimea from 23 countries, could only conduct short-term monitoring. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the world's most recognized election monitoring organization, did not send its experts to Crimea. The OSCE could only accept an invitation from the leadership of Ukraine, but not from the leaders of the self-proclaimed republic.
It is noteworthy that many members of the European Parliament or European countries who received an invitation to the referendum in Crimea are representatives of radical and nationalist parties. For example, European parliamentarian from Hungary Bela Kovacs, who took part in a press conference in Simferopol on the eve of the vote.
He is a representative of the Jobbik party. Its members are known for their anti-Semitic and xenophobic statements. According to Austrian media, the invitation to the referendum was accepted by two members of the Austrian Freedom Party, created at one time by the far-right politician Jörg Haider.
4. Military intervention
"Where do you see the barrel of the gun under which the referendum is being held?" - the current Prime Minister of Crimea, Sergei Aksenov, told reporters in Simferopol. According to him, armed people without identification marks guard only important strategic objects on the peninsula.
However, the very decision of the current Crimean authorities, who began the process of separating the peninsula from Kyiv, was made after the military occupied the building of the Supreme Council of the Autonomy and almost secretly. Armored personnel carriers and other military equipment with armed people in full combat readiness, camouflage uniforms and masks on their heads appeared on the eve of the vote and on the streets of Simferopol.
5. Legitimacy of the referendum in Crimea
For some reason, we are very afraid of a repeat referendum in Crimea. It’s clear why: the Presidential Administration does not trust its own people, and even in a situation where mass beliefs completely coincide with what it is doing, it prefers to model the people’s will, instead of simply implementing what is objectively there. Completely in vain!
What would happen if Russia proposed a repeat Crimean referendum today? Never mind! Crimea would have voted for Russia. Let’s say Ukraine would not agree with this formulation of the question: their public figures declare that the whole of Ukraine should vote. Great! However, since Crimea is going to join Russia, it would not be amiss for Russians to vote. A wonderful, completely new “geopolitical” (we love this empty word) reality is emerging: for the first time in 25 years, the peoples of the collapsed USSR are jointly resolving some issues.
What is interesting here is not only the referendum itself, but the consequences that will arise during its preparation and conduct. Russia will have an excellent absolutely legal opportunity to directly address the citizens of Ukraine, bypassing all intermediaries represented by the Ukrainian authorities. The resources senselessly wasted on 3 Armata tanks and 2 Su aircraft could be used in this direction - and achieve what the smart guys with machine guns and beeches could not achieve. For example, the first thing that comes to mind is Gazprom’s direct sale of gas to the population of Ukraine, taking advantage of the same rules on independence of transportation and sales that Gazprom is oppressed by in Europe. Just offering it will be more than enough! You can promise some kind of indirect compensation, but anything is possible! There is room for creativity, in contrast to the situation when all creativity is limited to how to quietly carry equipment across the border.
Of course, Ukraine will also have the opportunity to operate on Russian territory. And to your health! Let their Shusters, Kiselyovs, Ganapolskys come to us - do we not know them, or what? Yes, they left us there! Let Lyashko, Tymoshenko, Klitschko, and even Saakashvili bring their own. The Ukrainian vector of independence is built on isolation from Russia, an attempt to “outgrow” Russia: there is objective reasons. Let them come to us and tell us why they need to be independent from us! And we will tell them why we should be together! Only, of course, without spiritual bonds, since quite practical aspects of the economy are sufficient.
The next argument that Ukraine could make is - why only Crimea? Let's then ask the question about Krasnodar region and the Voronezh region (they have some justification for their claims to these regions). Come on! Only - in accordance with how referendums are usually held: let them go and collect signatures in these regions to initiate such a referendum. Just let us, then, be given the opportunity to collect such signatures in Kharkov, Kherson, Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk. Yes, in the same Donetsk and Lugansk! There is no doubt that in Crimea there is a significant group of citizens advocating unification with Russia. Whether there are citizens with similar sentiments in Kherson and Voronezh - we must first find out. However, Russia wins in any case: the more regions are involved in the need to re-evaluate relations between the two peoples, the better.
The funny thing here is that you most likely won’t have to do anything. It is unlikely that our Ukrainian, European and American partners will agree: because they understand no less than we do how such a referendum will end. But we will have a powerful argument in international politics! We will speak their language, the one imposed by the international community: the language of democracy! Churkin, instead of swearing and trying to get out of it, will only have to “push through” this referendum with all his ardor - and he will have nothing to answer. Russia will finally get an idea, beyond the spirits of our ancestors: we are saving democracy from those who patented it and use it for their own interests. It will immediately become easier for our intelligence officers, lobbyists, and agents of influence to work. If now they justify their claims only with money, in the future it will be possible to put the idea first - any intelligence officer knows that in delicate matter Recruitment is the most important factor!
If it comes to a referendum, let them send their observers. As many as they want, wherever they want! Only we will send our own to Ukraine. And here we have an advantage: it is almost impossible to cover all of Russia with observers, but we, on the contrary, have enough young “activists” who are being scammed by almost every governor.
In the worst case scenario, we will lose Crimea. This is definitely a stupid way to pose the question! It’s not “we will lose,” but the citizens will express their will. In principle, Crimea today only burdens the budget, and given the uncertainty of its “geopolitical” position, this situation cannot be changed. However, I can’t imagine what needs to happen for people to vote for the return of Crimea to Ukraine. If anything, today's ambiguity poses a greater threat than repeat referendum. Or, what is very important: than clearly expressed the idea of a second referendum.
The fourth anniversary of the “referendum on the reunification of Crimea with Russia” has arrived. There is a certain kind of hysteria in the media and in social networks prompts a thorough assessment of both the fact of holding this “referendum” under the control of the “little green men” and its real results. And also remember the referendums held in Crimea. More precisely, those political actions that had such a name, but did not necessarily comply with legal norms.
If you count, then since 1990 the word “referendum” has appeared in the political life of the Crimean peninsula six times. And not at the “talk” level, but at the practical political level. Although only one of these six events, called “referendums,” turned out to be completely legitimate - December 1, 1991. All the rest, in the legal sense, are at least “bullshit,” although for different reasons. But even falsified “referendums” can sometimes give an idea of the mood of the population, if, of course, we take into account real and not fake data on voter turnout and vote distribution.
The first in chronology was the so-called proclaimed on the initiative of the regional committee of the Communist Party, carrying out the will of Moscow. “Crimean referendum” on January 20, 1991. The question was asked: “Are you for the re-establishment of the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic as a subject of the USSR and a party to the Union Treaty?” In a legal sense, this “referendum” was insignificant, since it was impossible to “reproduce” the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic as a subject of the USSR either in the historical or legal sense. The Krasnodar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, created in 1921, was a subject of the RSFSR, and that, in turn, signed the Declaration on the Formation of the USSR the following year, and in 1923 ratified the Union Treaty. It was the same with 1991: only union republics could become parties to the Union Treaty, which was clearly demonstrated by the so-called “republic” that began in April of that year. "Novoogaryovsky process".
However, Leonid Kravchuk, then head of the Supreme Council of the Ukrainian SSR, insisted on the implementation of the results of this “referendum”: before his eyes was the example of Abkhazia and Transnistria, where the Kremlin created enclaves directly controlled by it; Kravchuk, as always, hoped to “go between the droplets,” and to a certain extent he succeeded. It is impossible to establish the real results of this “referendum”, boycotted by the Crimean Tatars and controlled by the regional committee of the Communist Party.
The All-Union referendum of March 17, 1991 can also be safely “put out of brackets.” After all, supposedly in one question, according to logic experts, there were four questions at once, completely unrelated to each other, and in historical terms – absurd. Let’s read his text: “Do you consider it necessary to preserve the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics, in which the rights and freedoms of people of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?” That is, we have “preservation”, and at the same time “renewal”, “federation”, and at the same time “sovereign republics”. Rights and freedoms so-called “titular nationalities” that have their own form of national-state organization (union republic, autonomy), of course, will be more complete than those who do not have such a form. And the concept of “Soviet Socialist” a priori means inequality of worldviews, forms of ownership, political parties etc. The list of “legal bombs” deliberately planted in the referendum question can be continued, but this is enough to draw a conclusion.
Chronologically, the following is the All-Ukrainian referendum on December 1, 1991. It fully complied with the Constitution and legislation of the Ukrainian SSR; a clear and understandable question was asked: “Do you confirm the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine?”; provided, as expected in accordance with referendum law, two answer options: “yes” and “no”. It is no coincidence that the consequences of this referendum did not raise doubts in anyone (except, of course, some Russian politicians). How did Crimeans vote? Ukrainian publicists like to cite the following figures: they say that in the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, the independence of Ukraine was supported by 54.19% of voters, in Sevastopol - 57.07%. However, let’s not forget three things: firstly, many of the voting participants did not support the independence of Ukraine (42.22% and 39.39%, respectively, and among the spoiled ballots, most likely, almost all belonged to opponents of independence, who wrote there as a sign of protest that - a little censored); secondly, turnout in these regions was significantly lower than in Ukraine as a whole (84.18% - and, respectively, 67.5% and 63.74%); thirdly, those rather high “yes” numbers given above are taken from the number of voting participants, and not from all voters. If we estimate what support for Ukrainian independence was among all voters, then in both regions of Crimea it was about 37%. Also quite a lot, also a majority - but not absolute, as was the case in all other Ukrainian regions (including, by the way, Donbass).
Next comes the so-called. “referendum on the status of Crimea 1994” is also fake. Now almost forgotten Yuri Meshkov Having won the election of the “President of Crimea” on January 30, 1994, he issued a decree on holding a referendum on three issues: expanding the powers of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, introducing dual Russian-Ukrainian citizenship and equalizing the decrees of the President of Crimea and laws. Further events developed rapidly: on March 14, the Central Election Commission of Crimea declared the referendum illegal; on March 16, President of Ukraine Kravchuk stated that Meshkov had exceeded his powers by calling a referendum, and canceled it by his decree. In response, on March 21, Meshkov created a special “presidential commission for holding a referendum.” In less than a week (a world record!) the commission prepared everything, and on March 27, the “referendum on the status of Crimea” took place, bringing an “outstanding victory” to Meshkov. And already March 17 next year the position of “President of Crimea” was abolished by the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, without any “little green men” and socio-political storms...
The All-Ukrainian referendum of 2000 was also falsified - from the collection of signatures in its support to the counting of the results. But this is a plot that is not directly related to Crimea.
