Protected from whom? I fail to understand the issue.
Also, the Ukrainian constitution is unique in that it does include a self-determination clause. One that does not require Russian troops to be on the ground. If Crimea wants to be independent, it can try and do so legally.
The presence of a foreign military forcing the vote and ensuring it goes the way they want it to.
The vote has to include all Ukraine. There is no way to get it done. The Ukraine can reinstate Yanikovich then impeach him and then elect a new President. Then they can say no to Crimea having a referendum in Crimea alone.
Right now the mob ruling in Kiev is pissing into the wind to demand respect for the Constitution they defiled from the people of Crimea.
Ah, never mind…what’s the point after all?
I’m just asking you why you would consider the coup in Egypt to be more of a constitutional act, but not what happened in Ukraine. It’s your argument, not mine. You’re the one who needs to defend it.
The presence of the foreign military is at the request of the President of Ukraine. You are engaged in typical Western biased conjecture that the vote cannot be the will of the majority of Crimeans and Putin can ensure the result comes to his favor.
That you have no concern about the violation of the Constitution in Kiev to replace an elected President shows the extent of the pro-Western bias in your commentary on these historic events.
Are you calling the events in Kiev this winter a coup d’état? Do you think the Russian Speakers in Crimea took part in it or wanted it?
Yeah, a “vote” under Russian guns and with foreign observers kicked out of the country strikes most of us “Western biased” types as unlikely to be fair.
Our “Western bias” extends to disapproving of votes in which the status quo isn’t provided as a possible answer …
We are just that biased. 
No. I’m not even sure why you would ask that since I never said it was. I don’t know what you’d call it, but it’s a purely internal issue, as oppose to what is happening in Crimea, with Russian Troops “helping” the citizens decide.
I wrote that the Crimeans where not protected by The Ukraine’s Constitution, meaning that their elected President was not protected against the violent political thugs that drove him from office. Then instead of the government filing charges against the thugs the Parliament rewarded thug lawlessness by breaking the law themselves by pissing on the Constitution and claiming to have ‘impeached’ the President and anointed a new one.
The Crimeans were not protected from that illegal thug driven
anointing. They owe no loyalty to it.
They’re not getting a chance to be loyal or not. Russia’s making that decision for Crimea.
Do you accept that there are some honest to goodness Crimeans who want the referendum vote to take place - with or without the presence of Russian troops on Crimean soil?
Do you accept that there some who don’t?
They voted to impeach the thug president. Seems like the right thing to do to me.
Your bias is extraordinarily obvious. You say the ‘coup’ is purely an internal issue disregarding tha reality that Crimeans are bound to Kiev by the Constitution that has been ransacked to form an illegal government that would forbid any moves toward independence for Crimea, if not for the presence of Russian troops making it possible to happen.
So, in your narrative, the government (i.e. the president and those who supported him) were the good guys, and the people were the thugs, and what they did was completely illegal…and because the government was good and the people who overthrew him were thugs and that means that the Crimean’s are justified in having the Russian’s come in and support their (obviously majority in Crimea) choice to secede from the Ukraine and join Russia, even though there actually does exist a mechanism that they COULD use legally to do so if they actually do have a majority…right? But they don’t need to do this, and really shouldn’t because of the thugs (a.k.a. mobs, a.k.a. parliament and interim prime minister while they set up a vote for a new government) who ousted the good government and because those thugs would, um, do something (presumably violent or underhanded, as thugs will) to prevent the Crimea from using this already existing mechanism (under the watchful eyes of the world at this point) to do so on the up and up. And Russia is justified in doing what THEY are doing because of those same thugs who ousted the good government that was there before.
And to you, this actually makes sense…right? I mean, this all hangs together logically, in your mind…right? And none of this seems circular or propaganda-ish/esque to you at all…right?
My bias? Hah!
You praise the coup in Egypt and then slam this change of government (again, I don’t know if it’s a coup or not). At least this action had the stamp of the parliament on it.
Sure I do. The Tatars don’t, even some Russian speakers don’t. So do you accept that some do?
I mean, the irony of this would be pretty much off the scale, but it’s clear that you don’t understand what the term ‘internal issue’ actually is. I mean, this is such a confused and confusing post that what we are really dealing with here is a disconnect at the language level. We all think you are speaking in English, and you think we are speaking in…well, whatever language it is that you speak and…er, well I was going to say ‘understand’ but that might be a bit presumptuous. But this post really underscores the disconnect in the discussion (or really, any discussion with you).
So let’s say some do. You think that validates a foreign occupation so that group gets their referendum?