> Can you explain why such a thing can be called a farce?
Mostly because people were to choose between two options both of which meant that Crimea would secede from Ukraine (the first one meant outright separation, the second a disguised one).
But there are other things which made it a farce: an armed occupation of the parliament building and forcing of the MPs to vote for the referendum[1][2], the haste with which the referendum was held (two weeks notice, not allowing for the sides to prepare arguments for and against the cessation), lack of public debates discussing pros and cons of the cessation, the fact that the "referendum" was not approved by the Ukrainian parliament, growing evidence that the outcome of the "referendum" had already been decided elsewhere[1][3].
I could go on, but if you're really interested in an example of a cessation referendum which was not a farce, consider the Scottish independence referendum of 2014 and compare its particulars with the Crimean one, side by side.
ok, so non-following of the full set of details of a full-fledged democratic process makes the will of the people illegitimate. Are you kidding me? A coup of nationalist forces has just overthrown the legitimately fully democratically bells-and-whistles elected president, and now this new nationalist regime that took power through the coup is unsatisfied with the quality of democratic process a minority (primarily targeted by the new regime) used to run away from the coup. You can't be serious.
This is exactly the double standard i was talking about.
> ok, so non-following of the full set of details of a full-fledged democratic process makes the will of the people illegitimate.
It makes the referendum illegitimate and its results questionable.
> Are you kidding me?
No, I'm not. For what it's worth, I'm not opposed to the idea of referendum at all, as long as it is done legally. I'm sure that if Moscow was so bent on having Crimea, they could have come to a political agreement with Kiev, and it would be legal and Crimea wouldn't have all those problems it's having now (e.g. lack of water, power, food price surges, crippled transport connections with the mainland, etc.). And Russia would have spent a lot less compared to what it's spending now on the war, maintaining a semblance of normal life in Crimea, and the sanctions.
The problem is that was not the goal of the folks in Moscow. They wanted to create a political crisis so they seized Crimea by force. When it didn't work, they inserted Girkin in Donbass. If Ukraine had given up Donbass just like it did Crimea, the next insertion would probably be Kharkov. And so on. It's not Crimea or Donbass the Kremlin is after, it's all of Ukraine - it's practically written on the wall. The nazi scares and the rest of the Russian propaganda are just an effort to garner sympathy from abroad for the military invasion.
>> ok, so non-following of the full set of details of a full-fledged democratic process makes the will of the people illegitimate.
>It makes the referendum illegitimate and its results questionable.
by what standards? By the standards of democracy for Britain - i'd agree that you have a good case to challenge the Crimea referendum on serious technicalities. But it wasn't Britain, it was Ukraine. According to the standards of Ukraine's "democracy" a coup overthrowing a democratically elected president is a legitimate transfer of power. The Crimea separation did met and exceed very much (compare coup vs. referendum, even a flawed one) those legitimacy standards of the Ukraine democracy.
The forces that currently have power in Kiev had a choice back then - violent coup vs. fully democratic impeachment of the democratically elected president. They chose the coup and thus flushed down the toilet the democracy contract of the Ukrainian state. Their claims that Crimea separation from them wasn't fully democratic are just laughable.
> The forces that currently have power in Kiev had a choice back then - violent coup vs. fully democratic impeachment of the democratically elected president.
I don't buy the argument that it was a coup. It was a mass protest which spiralled into a political crisis when Yanukovich disappeared, which could only be resolved by appointing an acting head of state and calling new elections.
The officials who are now in power (Poroshenko/cabinet and the MPs), were elected afterwards. They weren't in power before the elections, so they couldn't impeach anybody.
>I don't buy the argument that it was a coup. It was a mass protest which spiralled into a political crisis when Yanukovich disappeared, which could only be resolved by appointing an acting head of state and calling new elections.
thanks, the best spin i've seen. Yanukovich just decided to leave. At his own will. End of story.
Mostly because people were to choose between two options both of which meant that Crimea would secede from Ukraine (the first one meant outright separation, the second a disguised one).
But there are other things which made it a farce: an armed occupation of the parliament building and forcing of the MPs to vote for the referendum[1][2], the haste with which the referendum was held (two weeks notice, not allowing for the sides to prepare arguments for and against the cessation), lack of public debates discussing pros and cons of the cessation, the fact that the "referendum" was not approved by the Ukrainian parliament, growing evidence that the outcome of the "referendum" had already been decided elsewhere[1][3].
I could go on, but if you're really interested in an example of a cessation referendum which was not a farce, consider the Scottish independence referendum of 2014 and compare its particulars with the Crimean one, side by side.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcCqrzctxH4
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUH-A3IF3h0
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_%22For_the_Return_of_Crim...