I don't even know where to begin with this
The referendum — whoever called it — was illegal on its premise: only the entire country can decide on territorial changes. It was called by a tiny sliver of the "democratically elected" legislature — without there being a quorum. Mere two weeks were given for campaigning — and the invaders promptly stopped rebroadcasts of Ukraine's TV over Crimea, talk about propaganda.
How on earth do you envision a minority population of a country which constitutes a large majority in one area of the country ever being able to detach from it for any reason what so ever (be it feeling threatened, not wanting to go the same way the rest of the country is going, being oppressed or persecuted or just plain wanting a country of their own) if the entirety of the country has to say yes? Seriously ? Are you that deluded in thinking that say tomorrow the basque or the catalan asked for a referendum on detaching the parts of spain in which they have a majority anyone would let them even ask the entire country let alone that the rest of the country would vote to let them go ? ... Where is the democracy in the majority always having the power to keep the minority where they want them ? ... It's like claiming the US had no rights to declare independence from the British empire unless all of the empire was asked to vote on it ... Don't just quote the media ... think about the copy before you paste it ...
by a tiny sliver of the "democratically elected" legislature
Why do you put the democratically elected in quotes? The entire assembly of crimea was democratically elected in 2010 in elections verified and sanctioned by the Vrhonva Rada which is the Ukranian Assembly in Kiev. No irregularities were reported and everyone who was in that assembly was there for 4 years before this crisis blew ... so why the quotes ? Is it maybe because you are buying into the whole "there was no quorum" bull which came from, surprise surprise Leonid Pilunsky a high ranking member of the Qurultay-Rukh which happens to be representing the one faction in crimea that has historical reasons not to join russia since they were deported under Soviet rule to Siberia in the 50's. The crimean Tatars. What would be funny if it weren't so ironic is that a huge majority of the Tatars actually turned up to vote on the referendum ... and not only them ... the ethnic makeup of crimea is 58.32% Russian, 24.32% Ukrainian and 12.10% Crimean Tatars ... the turnout for the vote was way above 80% (verified by OSCE mission representatives from several countries including some from Spain and other EU countries) ... which means that ALL the russians voted ... and nearly ALL the ukrainians voted ... and at least some Tatars voted ... and out of all who voted 97% chose to join Russia. You can pretend it didn't happen and you can dream up nonsense like this:
There was pro-Russian sentiment in Crimea, I'll grant you that, but Russia was not sure of the success — or they would not have poured 30 thousands special forces troops into peninsula before the annexation.
but the fact remains that Russia has a sizable nuclear maritime arsenal and significant strategic hardware and interests (oil pipelines and the only non-oceanic military port for it's fleet) in Crimea and if that part of the Ukraine is preparing to secede from it don't you think there was a high probability that the government in Kiev would have intervened if the Russians hadn't beaten them to the punch ? If you think otherwise you are seriously lacking knowledge in the ways things have been done in the past and are still being done in that part of the world.
Kosovo-shomosovo. Milosevic — a client of Russia, BTW — actually was engaging in ethnic cleansings and outright genocide in Kosovo and Bosnia. That is what justified the European intervention first, and then, only after the "Gayropeans" demonstrated their impotence [wikipedia.org] did the US intervene to stop the humanitarian catastrophe.
Love it how you dismiss the event that gave precedent to the crisis in the Ukraine as a joke. If this part was any longer I'd probably have puked a bit.
Your knowledge of the Balkan conflict apparently amounts to news headlines heard in passing.
Milosevic (as power hungry and dictatorial as he was) was not a client of russia ... if he were they wouldn't have let NATO bomb the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (the then name for Serbia and Montenegro up until 2003) without so much as a peep ... but they did their very best to look the other way and punch the gas on an armored convoy from their contingent based in Bosnia to reach the Pristina airport before the US did to dismantle all the equipment they've been selling the former Yugoslavia and then take a hike back to Russia as soon as they got all their gear out nearly starting a shooting war with NATO in the process (well actually it was general Wesley Clarke on the NATO side who ordered that the Russians be 'overpowered' but then again it can't possibly have been him ... it must be propaganda from the Kremlin right?) .
Also if you still believe everything the media told you about Kosovo you probably still think Bin Laden hid in Afghanistan and not Pakistan, that Sadam had weapons of mass destruction (which vanished with a poof as soon as the oil was secured) ... that the Libyan government was overthrown from the inside and not because it wouldn't sign the oil deals that were coming up for renewal and that the interim government that was set up for a period of a few weeks in which the only piece of work it did was to renew the oil treaties with US, UK and French companies and was then left to fend with a civil war.
When was the first time you ever heard about the strife in Kosovo ? ... The strife that lasted since the early 70's (if you don't count the constant back and forth of landgrabbing between Serbia and Albania during the world wars) ... or was it when CNN and the likes started telling you about that humanitarian crisis without caring to mention what came before it ... perhaps you should read up on the nearly half a century of strife and conflict which ended in NATO building it's second largest european base in Kosovo (after trying to force it self onto Serbian territory through the Rambouillet 'accord' appendix B ).
That is what justified the European intervention first, and then, only after the "Gayropeans" demonstrated their impotence [wikipedia.org] did the US intervene to stop the humanitarian catastrophe.
Ok, you seriously need to read up on this stuff before you write things like this ... you are justifying the NATO bombings (which included a quite hefty amount of European military hardware, pilots and resources) of a sovereign nation (including civilian targets) in 1999 that sidestepped and broke just about every international organization and law, by the incompetence of the "Gayropeans" (awesome term there mate ... real classy) in the UNPROFOR (UNITED NATIONS Protection Force) to prevent a genocide in another country 4 years prior? Really ? Bosnia is a completely different subject matter relating to a completely different war between completely different people and I really don't have any desire to go into without writing half a novel worth of history even before getting to the start of the war.
Now Putin very much wants a similar catastrophe to unfold in Ukraine — that's why his TV is constantly blasting viewers with carefully-calculated lies about the country, and why his spetznas units are actively inciting violence. But they aren't very successful — exactly because Ukraine's new government are not the crazy "nazis".
Where do I start with this ... so ... the Euromaidan 'opposition' backed by the US and the EU and almost every major news network in the western world (and before you even think they might be independent have a look at who owns them and just how big their stake in the industry and economics of said countries is) takes to the streets for 'peaceful' protests and 2 months later there are nearly 100 dead, 600 wounded, 130 of those are police officers ...
On the other hand there's Putin ... I love it how it seems that one man runs all of russia but the US is only run by Obama if he's doing something wrong ... otherwise it's the us government not him alone) ... so 'Putin' annexes an entire peninsula, confiscates half the Ukranian navy, both their major army bases in the crimea and with his '30000 invaders, a relentless propaganda campaign using his one Russia Today network and 'Spetznas units actively inciting violence' he INVADES crimea and the results is:
2 deaths (and another one unconfirmed), and half a dozen injured in scuffles. Yeah ... he's such a monster ... now have a looong hard look at the wars waged in the past 3 decades and see how many of those involved Putin and the russian military .... two ... Abkhazia / Georgia conflict ... and Chechnya ... now take a look at the rest of the dozen or so conflicts and see who the major contributor of military force there is ... Putin doesn't seem that evil now does he? And believe me when I say he really is a nasty power-player with a very ruthless fist and a knack for oppression but the crowd he's playing against leaves so much for him to be desired in terms of body-count, unlawful imprisonment, rendition, covert surveillance and intrusion, illegal aerial strikes as well as violation of sovereignty, international law and the UN charter ...
Blah-blah... To all such claims, I say this: would the US accept a "referendum" on secession in any of its States (such as California)? Would Russia accept Sahalin and/or Kurill islands voting to secede — even if Japanese "peacekeepers" weren't there to "help" people vote the right way? Of course, the answer is no — what legitimized Kosovo's referendum was the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the government, from which they decided to break.
legally speaking the International Court in the Hague is the highest instance on the planet and the only one authorized to rule in disputes between sovereign nations ... your Blah Blah comment goest to show just how serious you take international law ... as for Kosovo ... there is legal and then there is justified ... they are neither mutually exclusive nor do they always mean the same ... The court specifically ruled without citing reason or situation because for reason to change the meaning of the word of the law would be to invite the need for a higher arbitrary who decides what is the right reason to secede and what is the wrong reason ... and since that falls under a completely different topic the ruling still remains the same ... if Kosovo was a legal referendum then by any possible definitions of the law so is the one in Crimea ... the fact is just that this one is inconvenient for the US and EU ... Kosovo wasn't ...
Nothing of the kind is happening in Ukraine, so quit this "America is the worst" nonsense already.
... as soon as you start making sense in terms of what is actually happening in the Ukraine and not repeat everything you get fed by mainstream media at prime time I will stop pointing out all the obvious flaws and hypocrisies on the other side of the argument.