war in Ukraine

wendell borton

The trouble in Ukraine is looking like a Russian invasion rather than internal dissent.

waulie_palnuts

That's the trouble with Russians.

Nino Brown

wendell borton wrote: »

The trouble in Ukraine is looking like a Russian invasion rather than internal dissent.

Couldn't be, Putin says there aren't any Russian troops in Ukraine. I think we can trust the president of Russia!!

AlanS181824

I wonder why Crimea is never mentioned in the news anymore as I high doubt the situation has been sorted.

Dunny

wendell borton wrote: »

The trouble in Ukraine is looking like a Russian invasion rather than internal dissent.

No way.

entropi

wendell borton wrote: »

The trouble in Ukraine is looking like a Russian invasion rather than internal dissent.

I hear that aul Vladimir himself is a totally trustworthy guy, and would never propose to invade a democratic unitary state like that. Not at all...

Menas

AlanS181824 wrote: »

I wonder why Crimea is never mentioned in the news anymore as I high doubt the situation has been sorted.

Oh that situation is very much sorted. It has returned to Russian ownership and there is nothing anyone can, or is willing, to do about it.

moleyv

Nino Brown wrote:

Couldn't be, Putin says there aren't any Russian troops in Ukraine. I think we can trust the president of Russia!!

The Russian foreign minister came out last week and said something along the lines of:

It is no secret that there are Russian soldiers in Ukraine.

MRnotlob606

Russia is securing Russian Interests.

BoJack Horseman

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

Russia is securing Russian Interests.

...... is the worst excuse imaginable for conquering the lands of other sovereign nations.

old_aussie

The trouble in Ukraine is looking like a Russian invasion rather than internal dissent.

Looked like that from the start.

BrianDug

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

...... is the worst excuse imaginable for conquering the lands of other sovereign nations.

Yes, let's just all forget about the violent coup that started all this. Removing the democratically elected president.

BoJack Horseman

BrianDug wrote: »

Yes, let's just all forget about the violent coup that started all this. Removing the democratically elected president.

Coups happen all the time, people overthrow governments.

It isn't a legitimate excuse for a neighbouring nation to invade & conquer.

old_aussie

AlanS181824 wrote: »

I wonder why Crimea is never mentioned in the news anymore as I high doubt the situation has been sorted.

Because the Russians realised what they had got back moments after they retook the Crimea.

DeadHand

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Coups happen all the time, people overthrow governments.

It isn't a legitimate excuse for a neighbouring nation to invade & conquer.

They haven't conquered anyone.

The rebellion in the East has broad, popular support of the people in that region and had it's origins in resistance against a violent coup that overthrew a democratically elected government. Russia moved into the Crimea in much the same way that the USA might move into Florida. It was Russian anyway in all but name. The referendum results confirmed this. Generations of Russians have spilled blood over it, it's theirs.

The Crimea only found itself as part of the Ukraine because Khrushchev got drunk one evening and decided to throw his fellow Ukrainians a bone by making Crimea officially part of Ukraine. It didn't matter much at the time as they were all part of the USSR anyway. When the USSR collapsed, Russia simply rented Sevastopol and were content to let things be. When the Pro-European coup occurred, it brought with it the prospect of NATO warships in the historic, crucial Russian port of Sevastopol. Russia could no more tolerate this than Britain could tolerate Russian warships in Portsmouth or the USA could tolerate Chinese warships in Pearl Harbour.

Russia isn't expanding West, it's defending itself and it's sphere of influence against NATO and EU expansion East, an expansion occurring despite NATO's promises not to.

Of course Russia is cynically interfering in the Ukrainian conflict. That's realpolitik, the way of the world. All global powers do this. They all attempt to keep their rivals out of their sphere of influence. Look at the USA's history of changing regimes in the Americas that they didn't agree with. Look at the Bay of Pigs. If tomorrow, a Pro-Russian group seized power in Mexico American tanks would be pouring over the border in jig time. If tomorrow, North Korea installed a pro-American government it would find itself flooded with Chinese troops and armour and subject to a massive Communist counter revolution.

The hypocrisy shown by the EU and Nato over this issue is staggering. NATO complains of Russian expansionism and aggression, neatly ignoring the fact American and NATO troops are everywhere. The EU complains of Russian disdain for democracy and fixed referendums, neatly ignoring the fact no organisation in the free world does more to circumvent democracy than the EU and the EU itself has fixed referendums itself to impose their will on nations, most notably in this country.

So, yeah...

KomradeBishop

Once Ukraine was destabilized by the US-backed coup attempt, and a civil war began for control of the country, a Russian invasion (covert or overt) - as illegal and reprehensible as that is - was kind of inevitable, given how massive a thread a NATO-controlled Ukraine would be to Russia (right on Russia's doorstep, with by far the longest stretch of border shared with Russia, of any European nation).

Destabilizing Ukraine was an utterly stupid decision by the US - great way to trigger a new Cold War, and general breakdown of relations between multiple nuclear powers.

Desolation Of Smug

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Once Ukraine was destabilized by the US-backed coup attempt, and a civil war began for control of the country, a Russian invasion (covert or overt) - as illegal and reprehensible as that is - was kind of inevitable, given how massive a thread a NATO-controlled Ukraine would be to Russia (right on Russia's doorstep, with by far the longest stretch of border shared with Russia, of any European nation).

Destabilizing Ukraine was an utterly stupid decision by the US - great way to trigger a new Cold War, and general breakdown of relations between multiple nuclear powers.

Meh, there's lots of money to be made from long, drawn out minor conflict. I doubt stupidity came into the equation.

wretcheddomain

DeadHand wrote: »

They haven't conquered anyone.

The rebellion in the East has broad, popular support of the people in that region and had it's origins in resistance against a violent coup that overthrew a democratically elected government. Russia moved into the Crimea in much the same way that the USA might move into Florida. It was Russian anyway in all but name. The referendum results confirmed this. Generations of Russians have spilled blood over it, it's theirs.

Ukraine is a sovereign state, Florida is a state of a sovereign state. Big difference.

Even a US-backed coup is not sufficient justification for Russian annexation of neighbouring territory. As bad and stupid as the former may be, it pales in comparison to the illegality of the latter.

This round of Russian annexation isn't even a new phenomenon, as Putin appears to glorify the old days of the Soviet Union, fantasising about its return on the world stage.

The leftists always reach a new low by doing everything in their power to justify the actions of this backward thug.

If there were broad popular support in Cork to merge with the UK, would you support the UK holding a referendum there and annexing the territory?

Streetwalker

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

Russia is securing Russian Interests.

The thing is they know they'll achieve their goals imo. Nobody in the west has the balls to take them on. It's one thing sending troops, aircraft, drones etc.. to take out a few guys in 4x4's with swords or a joke shop army like the Iraqi's it's another confronting an army with tactical nukes in their arsenal. I honestly think we will see the old soviet union restored in 25 years time.

Also Putin is a hero in Russia and economic sanctions aren't having an effect, if anything it's having an adverse effect on Europe.

The_Valeyard

You mean a revolution that threw out a corrupt leader who is now on an Interpol arrest list?

The Russian arming and supporting of the Eastern militias is unacceptable. Those militias are probbably Russian troops in different colours.

moc moc a moc

wendell borton wrote: »

The trouble in Ukraine is looking like a Russian invasion rather than internal dissent.

You don't say! Some fine detective skills there, son.

The_Valeyard

Putin: Its not Ukraine, its Mykraine.

wretcheddomain

moc moc a moc wrote: »

You don't say! Some fine detective skills there, son.

Thanks for putin him in his place!

Egginacup

wendell borton wrote: »

The trouble in Ukraine is looking like a Russian invasion rather than internal dissent.

I thought the Russians invaded months ago. At least that's what the press and western governments were saying.

Egginacup

Streetwalker wrote: »

The thing is they know they'll achieve their goals imo. Nobody in the west has the balls to take them on. It's one thing sending troops, aircraft, drones etc.. to take out a few guys in 4x4's with swords or a joke shop army like the Iraqi's it's another confronting an army with tactical nukes in their arsenal. I honestly think we will see the old soviet union restored in 25 years time.

Also Putin is a hero in Russia and economic sanctions aren't having an effect, if anything it's having an adverse effect on Europe.

Why would Putin want to reconstitute the old Soviet Union? He was instrumental in bringing the USSR down in 1991.

Egginacup

moleyv wrote: »

The Russian foreign minister came out last week and said something along the lines of:

It is no secret that there are Russian soldiers in Ukraine.

source?

Egginacup

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

...... is the worst excuse imaginable for conquering the lands of other sovereign nations.

So why do you Americans keep using it then? Why not just say you're robbing oil instead of "securing American interests"?

irish coldplayer

Egginacup wrote: »

Why would Putin want to reconstitute the old Soviet Union? He was instrumental in bringing the USSR down in 1991.

Perhaps because he called the fall of the USSR the "greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century"

Also have you a source on how he was instrumental in bringing down the USSR?

Egginacup

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Coups happen all the time, people overthrow governments.

It isn't a legitimate excuse for a neighbouring nation to invade & conquer.

It damn well is when that western orchestrated coup results in the installation of a neo-nazi junta hell bent on genocide against the ethnic Russian population of the country.
You seem to think it's ok for the US to invade countries when IS are killing civilians or Ghadaffi is allegedly giving his troops viagra to rape people :pac: , but it's not ok for Russia to invade a country when RUSSIANS are being massacred by the scum that you installed.

You see, you can't have it both ways pal. Practice what you preach or hold your tongue.

Menas

Egginacup wrote: »

Why would Putin want to reconstitute the old Soviet Union? He was instrumental in bringing the USSR down in 1991.

No he didnt.
Putin was behind a desk in Dresden pushing data at the time of the collapse.

wretcheddomain

Egginacup wrote: »

It damn well is when that western orchestrated coup results in the installation of a neo-nazi junta hell bent on genocide against the ethnic Russian population of the country.

I assume, then, that you would be opposed to Russian intervention in Ukraine if it wasn't a "neo-Nazi junta hell bent on genocide against the ethnic Russian population"?

By the way, it's possible to be simultaneously against US intervention and Russian intervention. You seem to be erecting a false position that if one is against one form of intervention, we are somehow supportive of the other.

DeadHand

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Ukraine is a sovereign state, Florida is a state of a sovereign state. Big difference.

I wasn't talking about Ukraine. I was talking about Crimea. Culturally, ethnically and historically Crimea is as much part of Russia as Florida is part of the USA.

Even a US-backed coup is not sufficient justification for Russian annexation of neighbouring territory. As bad and stupid as the former may be, it pales in comparison to the illegality of the latter.

I never claimed it as justification for anything. I merely used it as an example of how great powers operate in their spheres of influence and the hypocrisy of the USA's stance on the entire affair. I do not believe Russia annexed the Crimea in the aggressive, expansionist sense. I believe she re-asserted herself over territory that was rightfully hers.

Ask yourself, why was the "annexation" not resisted? Why wasn't a shot fired? I believe it was because the Ukrainian military there, like almost everyone else involved, knew that the Crimea was rightfully Russian. It certainly wasn't down to cowardice. The Ukrainians are fighting like dogs elsewhere.

This round of Russian annexation isn't even a new phenomenon, as Putin appears to glorify the old days of the Soviet Union, fantasising about its return on the world stage.

Again, I see no aggressive annexation. Reasserting rightful ownership over Crimea, a core Russian territory, hardly compares with past, genuine Soviet aggression such as the invasions of Finland or Afghanistan.

Funny how an assertive attitude and refusal to kowtow to NATO is inflated into some kind of sinister Soviet revival. Pure propaganda there.

The leftists always reach a new low by doing everything in their power to justify the actions of this backward thug.

I don't know if the leftist comment was aimed at me but many who've dealt with me here would probably spill craft beer all over their skinny jeans to hear me described as a "leftist".

Certainly a lot of thug in Putin (you don't gain power in a country like Russia without being ruthless) but "backward" he isn't. He was the only world leader speaking sense and, ultimately, the truth on the Syria question, for example.

He continually out maneuvers his opponents at home and abroad.

If there were broad popular support in Cork to merge with the UK, would you support the UK holding a referendum there and annexing the territory?

If Cork was a core, home territory of Britain for centuries up until a drunken mistake a few decades ago, the vast majority of people in Cork were ethnically British, wished to rejoin Britain and voted in a referendum to do so, if Cork were strategically and prestigiously essential to Britain and the British people and was in danger of becoming a base for an organisation openly hostile toward Britain unless she acted than maybe the Crimea situation and your emotive hypothetical situation would be comparable.

It isn't and they're not.

pablomakaveli

DeadHand wrote: »

If Cork was a core, home territory of Britain for centuries up until a drunken mistake a few decades ago, the vast majority of people in Cork were ethnically British, wished to rejoin Britain and voted in a referendum to do so, if Cork were strategically and prestigiously essential to Britain and the British people and was in danger of becoming a base for an organisation openly hostile toward Britain unless she acted than maybe the Crimea situation and your emotive hypothetical situation would be comparable.

It isn't and they're not.

Northern Ireland is considered a core part of Ireland with ethnic and cultural Irish living in it.

Would it be right for Ireland to do to NI what Russia did to Crimea?(Hypothetically if that was possible)

robindch

wendell borton wrote: »

The trouble in Ukraine is looking like a Russian invasion rather than internal dissent.

In all fairness, as somebody said above, the Russian army has been there from the very start. Here's a GRU (Russian Military Intelligence) agent named Igor Girkin, aka Strelkov, who was the guy who organized the initial takeover in East Ukraine:

http://zavtra.ru/content/view/kto-tyi-strelok/

(needs translation, but google's good enough).

robindch

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Those militias are probbably Russian troops in different colours.

Not really - they don't even bother hiding any more. There are hundreds of photos from East Ukraine, with new ones added every day, of just regular Russian troops in regular Russian army vehicles, with Russian military numberplates, towing around heavy Russian military hardware.

Putin moved months ago from "plausible deniability" to "implausible deniability".

Nodin

wendell borton wrote: »

The trouble in Ukraine is looking like a Russian invasion rather than internal dissent.

It's been looking like that for a good long time.

Iwasfrozen

DeadHand wrote: »

I wasn't talking about Ukraine. I was talking about Crimea. Culturally, ethnically and historically Crimea is as much part of Russia as Florida is part of the USA.

Except it's not. Crimea hasn't been part of Russia for fifty years.

The Novorossiya region had been part of Russia until Lenin handed over to Ukraine. Should Putin invade the historical region of Novorossiya too?

Irish Praetorian

Egginacup wrote: »

It damn well is when that western orchestrated coup results in the installation of a neo-nazi junta hell bent on genocide against the ethnic Russian population of the country..

I'm sorry, but are you supposed to be a parody of some deluded Putin apologist or are you being serious?

Because if its the latter case, I must question how the hell a neo-Nazi Junta is supposed to have come to power in a government which subsequently saw an election and the utter collapse of the far-right vote? I would also like to know where the genocide has been going on, because notwithstanding a few incidents elsewhere, the only significant civilian deaths have been in those parts of the country occupied by pro-Russian militias (and Russian troops).

Its all well and good to make criticisms of a nations foreign policy, but your narrative is just an absurd caricature of Russian (and Russian apologist) tropes which anyone looking at the situation from outside should be above.

Vandango

Nino Brown wrote: »

Couldn't be, Putin says there aren't any Russian troops in Ukraine. I think we can trust the president of Russia!!

Kay Burley from Sky News.........is that you?

Nino Brown wrote: »

I think we can trust the president of Russia!!

Compared to the warmonger Obama and his love of death by drone. Putin is probably the lesser of two evils.

DeadHand

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Northern Ireland is considered a core part of Ireland with ethnic and cultural Irish living in it.

Would it be right for Ireland to do to NI what Russia did to Crimea?(Hypothetically if that was possible)

Since the majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain as part of Britain, of course not.

DeadHand

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Except it's not. Crimea hasn't been part of Russia for fifty years.

The Novorossiya region had been part of Russia until Lenin handed over to Ukraine. Should Putin invade the historical region of Novorossiya too?

Except it was for 170 years before that. It's majority is ethnic Russian, Russian speaking and want to be part of Russia. Culturally, ethnically and historically it's as Russian as Novosibirsk.

Much of Novorossiya is now in revolt against the violently installed, ultra right wing backed Kiev government. That says much about the identity of that region's population and their tolerance for perceived fascists and extreme Ukrainian Nationalists.

There are long memories in that part of the world and a primal, deep seated bitterness toward those two groups who were so sterling in their efforts to aid the Nazis in their genocide of the Russian people.

Not saying that makes it right, or that Russia never caused untold, unjust suffering to the Ukrainian people (they did) but it may go someway to explaining why the rebellion broke out in the first place and the hatred in much of the Ukraine toward the current regime.

wretcheddomain

DeadHand wrote: »

I do not believe Russia annexed the Crimea in the aggressive, expansionist sense. I believe she re-asserted herself over territory that was rightfully hers.

Again, I see no aggressive annexation. Reasserting rightful ownership over Crimea, a core Russian territory, hardly compares with past, genuine Soviet aggression such as the invasions of Finland or Afghanistan.

Whether you like it or not, or continue to deny it, the Crimea was part of a sovereign nation called the Ukraine. This is an undeniable legal fact.

This fact is true irrespective of how many Russian speakers live there, when Crimea merged with Ukraine or what cultural links they happened to have. The sovereign integrity of Ukraine involved Crimea - it was not "pseudo-Russian" territory wallowing in some sort of political limbo as you would have us believe.

To take advantage of the unrest in the Ukraine to absorb Crimea back into a state which does not exist today (Soviet Union) is, to me at least, an act of aggression. It violates the territorial integrity of the Ukraine without any legal basis whatsoever, or without consultation with any government official - irrespective of who is, or was, in power at the time.

The fact you can't see this is what's actually shocking about this discussion.

Iwasfrozen

DeadHand wrote: »

Except it was for 170 years before that. It's majority is ethnic Russian, Russian speaking and want to be part of Russia. Culturally, ethnically and historically it's as Russian as Novosibirsk.

Much of Novorossiya is now in revolt against the violently installed, ultra right wing backed Kiev government. That says much about the identity of that region's population and their tolerance for perceived fascists and extreme Ukrainian Nationalists.

There are long memories in that part of the world and a primal, deep seated bitterness toward those two groups who were so sterling in their efforts to aid the Nazis in their genocide of the Russian people.

Not saying that makes it right, or that Russia never caused untold, unjust suffering to the Ukrainian people (they did) but it may go someway to explaining why the rebellion broke out in the first place and the hatred in much of the Ukraine toward the current regime.

The majority of people in Crimea are Russian but that doesn't translate into acquiescence of joining the Russian Federation, I don't believe those referendum results were fair.

Much of Novorossiya is not in revolt. A tiny portion of Novorossiya, namely portions of the regions Lugansk and Donetsk are in revolt. To claim that much of Novorossiya is in revolt is not true.

With that in mind I'll ask you again, considering you support (or at least don't condemn) the illegal annexation of Crimea on the grounds that the territory was formerly Russian are you subsequently in favor of a theoretical annexation of the historical Novorossiya region on the same grounds?

And just to be clear here's a picture of Novorossiya.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4d/New_Russia_on_territory_of_Ukraine.png/300px-New_Russia_on_territory_of_Ukraine.png

DeadHand

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Whether you like it or not, or continue to deny it, the Crimea was part of a sovereign nation called the Ukraine. This is an undeniable legal fact

Whos law?

Why wasn't this "annexation" resisted if Crimea was such an integral part of Ukraine? Why did the Ukrainian navy and military leave without firing a shot when they've since displayed admirable tenacity?

It's Russian territory. It's transference to Ukraine was a drunken blunder, a token, throw away gesture.

All was well anyway while the Ukrainian government was friendly to Russia and Sevastopol (which is really what the Crimea question is really all about) could be rented.

This new, unelected, pro NATO government would, in Russian eyes, have seen NATO assume control over Sevastopol. That would be a national humiliation and strategic weakening that Russia could not bear or afford.

I'm not arguing that Russia is some benevolent force for good in the world, they're not, they're as cynical and morally bankrupt as any other world power, I'm merely arguing in favour of my belief that Russia had a right to occupy Crimea and trying to explain some of the reasons, as I see them, for the Ukrainian conflict.

Whether I'm doing a good job or not I know for a fact that the reasons and motivations of all factions are more nuanced than the "big evil Russia, plucky little Ukraine" narrative we are being fed by most of the Western press and often see cropping up here.

Iranoutofideas

That's a funny Ukrainian accent

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jW1JdOXdJkU

WakeUp

It looks like the Russians and the Americans/West are prepared to fight to the last Ukrainian over Ukraine be it by proxy or direct involvement. somebody needs to finish this soon before something much bigger kicks off. so this is Mariupol just after the attack that both sides are blaming each other for. are US troops already on the ground inside Ukraine or where do you think this guy is from the question that is put to him is tell me what happened here. this is a high stakes game wonder do people realise just how serious this is and unfortunately for the Ukrainians they are mere pawns in it.

wretcheddomain

DeadHand wrote: »

Whos law?
This new, unelected, pro NATO government would, in Russian eyes, have seen NATO assume control over Sevastopol. That would be a national humiliation and strategic weakening that Russia could not bear or afford.

I'm not arguing that Russia is some benevolent force for good in the world, they're not, they're as cynical and morally bankrupt as any other world power, I'm merely arguing in favour of my belief that Russia had a right to occupy Crimea and trying to explain some of the reasons, as I see them, for the Ukrainian conflict.

Yes - in Russian eyes. This still does not justify Russia absorbing the territory out of some airy-fairy national pride.

To suggest that countries have a right to occupy and annex territory merely because they fear another world power is outrageous.

This is no better than those who defend the United States when it comes to the Iraq War - it's at that depth of moral depravity.

DeadHand

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The majority of people in Crimea are Russian but that doesn't translate into acquiescence of joining the Russian Federation, I don't believe those referendum results were fair.

Much of Novorossiya is not in revolt. A tiny portion of Novorossiya, namely portions of the regions Lugansk and Donetsk are in revolt. To claim that much of Novorossiya is in revolt is not true.

With that in mind I'll ask you again, considering you support (or at least don't condemn) the illegal annexation of Crimea on the grounds that the territory was formerly Russian are you subsequently in favor of a theoretical annexation of the historical Novorossiya region on the same grounds?

Well, we disagree on the validity of the referendum then. What is for sure is the EU are total hypocrites for criticising it knowing as we do some of their antics around referenda.

Terminology issues there, fair enough you're right. Since Donetsk is, as far as I know, the largest city in the region we can safely say a significant chunk of Novorossiya is in open revolt. "Much" was probably taking it a bit far I will admit.

Of course I wouldn't support such an annexation since, unlike in Crimea, the majority in Novorossiya do not wish to rejoin Russia.

DeadHand

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Yes - in Russian eyes

Those fears were not unfounded or irrational.

To suggest that countries have a right to occupy and annex territory merely because they fear another world power is outrageous.

That was one reason, not the crucial or only one. I provided many others.

This is no better than those who defend the United States when it comes to the Iraq War - it's at that depth of moral depravity.

Iraq was never a core territory of the USA. The majority of Iraqis weren't ethnic Americans. The majority of Iraqis never wanted to join the USA. Iraq is 7,000 miles from the USA while Crimea is Russia.

The situations are incomparable.

wretcheddomain

DeadHand wrote: »

Iraq was never a core territory of the USA. The majority of Iraqis weren't ethnic Americans. The majority of Iraqis never wanted to join the USA. Iraq is 7,000 miles from the USA while Crimea is Russia.

The situations are incomparable.

I'm not making a direct comparison, of course not.

I'm comparing to those who have a moral conviction that the Iraq War was the right thing to do - even in full knowledge of the tower of lies that led to its inception.

With the osmotic transfer of Crimea into Russia we see a similar conviction - both of which are unfounded.

Iwasfrozen

DeadHand wrote: »

Well, we disagree on the validity of the referendum then. What is for sure is the EU are total hypocrites for criticising it knowing as we do some of their antics around referenda.

Terminology issues there, fair enough you're right. Since Donetsk is, as far as I know, the largest city in the region we can safely say a significant chunk of Novorossiya is in open revolt. "Much" was probably taking it a bit far I will admit.

Of course I wouldn't support such an annexation since, unlike in Crimea, the majority in Novorossiya do not wish to rejoin Russia.

Don't be so naive. There are three reasons the referendum was illegitimate.

1. The options: There was no "keep the status quo" option a referendum with no option to defeat the movement is by definition an undemocratic referendum since it is forcing change on the population regardless of their views.
2. The conditions: The referendum was carried out during occupation by a foreign country. Crimean citizens have reported to western media that they felt under duress to vote how Putin wanted them to.
3. The result: Putin won 97% of the vote. 97% of voters voting one way in any referendum is utterly unrealistic.

Until a an internationally organized and monitored referendum can take place you have no right to say the majority of people favor unification as that is an unfounded and groundless statement.