[heartbeats]

1. That's not the definition of a coup or a revolution. What happened was an extra-constitutional transition of power, which is a technical term of art, and this is the case regardless of whether its final ends were good or evil.

2. This is a circular argument. It's contrary to domestic law insofar as Crimea is Ukrainian, it's contrary to international law insofar as Crimea is occupied, which it is insofar as the people don't want to be Russian, which they don't insofar as the referendum was illegitimate, which it is insofar as Crimea is Ukrainian.

You don't get anywhere with this, it's just sophistry no matter what side you're on. You have to make different arguments. What can we really say about Crimeans' wishes?

In particular: why do you mention "the will of the people", if your political position is that it should not be up to the people of Crimea? Do you believe in the general idea of referenda? If not, why?