[mtrimpe]

OK. It's pretty clear that you've been heavily exposed to a single perspective of the situation.

There is no way in hell 97% of the population voted in favor with 80+% turnout; especially given that 30+% of the population is Tatar or Ukrainian. Based on leaked reports to the Kremlin the real turnout is estimated at a bit over 30%.

Regardless; the referendum was literally held at gunpoint after all Ukrainian news had been shut off and Russian television showed massive fascists uprising and murder in Kiev, which heavily scared the population and did make a large portion of the population believe they were being rescued.

Thus, even if the results were true, it still would not have been a valid referendum.

As for the protests, based on direct sources from real people the protests were organize by just that: real everyday people.

Once again though; the regime was not overthrown by the protesters, but by Yanukovich losing moral authority after ordering shooting of civilians.

If you want to argue the snipers were also a false flag operation then you'd indeed be well into conspiracy nut territory; but I can also point you to videos of Ukrainian snipers assembling if you want.

Global Research also doesn't have that good of a reputation. In [1] it explicitly mentions one of it's main reality warping effects comes from a heavy reliance on Russia Today material.

[1] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch.ca

[insuffi]

I'm sorry, but YOU are the one who is heavily exposed to a single perspective. Keep watching your CNN.

I myself am from eastern europe and have first hand witnessed russian attitude towards post soviet satellite countries. Don't teach me what I know.

Literally almost everything you say is wrong. Referendum was not held at gunpoint. I've seen western sources use that phrase, so I know where you got it from.

It is a valid referendum because Crimea has a weird legal status, look up Autonomous republic of Crimea.

No, the protest most certainly was not organized by real everyday people. Strategically taking over buildings is not what real everyday people do.

I do want to argue that the situation with snipers was not one sided. Some sources say they shot at both, rioters* and the police.

Notice how I use the term rioters - that was not a protest.

P.S. I have no reason to be biased since I don't generally like Russians, especially the ones that stayed in satellite countries after the fall of the Soviet union. They have a habit of not learning the language and not respecting the host country.

P.S.S Learn fucking Russian, so that you can get both sides of the picture, not just biased rehashes of reuters/cnn/msnbc.

[mtrimpe]

I've been following all international reporters on the ground from day one (Twitter journalism is truly a game-changer) and corroborating it by getting personal perspectives from people related to Maidan and within Crimea. My partner is Ukrainian from Russian parents and we regularly compare Russian and Western reporting, statements and propaganda.

All in all I'm quite sure I've got a pretty solid grip on the situation incorporating information from all perspectives.

As for a referendum at gunpoint; it's not really debatable as it refers to armed Russian forces having taken over Crimea during the referendum.

As for it's validity; it's not about the constitutional framework, it's about the occupation, selective media blackout, voting irregularities, lack of independent international observers etc. etc. The comparison with the internationally recognized Scottisch referendum [1] explains it well.

As for taking over buildings; I don't find it at all odd that a movement consisting mostly of the general population and also militant far-right extremists (disproportionately present due to obvious selection bias) operates strategically in a way that maximised disruption. Self-organisation is a much more likely explanation than nefarious foreign strategic advice.

As for the snipers; are you seriously arguing that the US shot these protesters as a false flag operation?

It sounds to me like, at the core, you just can't comprehend a bona-fide populist uprising lying the root of Euromaidan.

Have you considered that that might be because at some level it invalidates the learned helplessness many in post-Soviet states were raised with?

[1] https://secure.flickr.com/photos/foreignoffice/13306114335/

[guard-of-terra]

I don't have statistics but my colleague went to watch the referendum and 80% turnout is what he witnessed. Of course it was just one area of Simferopol.

http://breqwas.livejournal.com/301901.html in russian

[mtrimpe]

My Russian is not that good, but doesn't this also mention some irregularities which cast some doubt on that number?

Regardless, if a single polling station in a fairly pro-Russian area, kept on its toes by (amateur) observers, gets a 75% turnout that makes an 80% turnout overall very unlikely given the boycott of the referendum by Crimean tatars.

What's your take on the 123% turnout in Sebastopol btw?

P.S. You are talking about turnout right? Because the votes being 80+% in favor is perfectly possible.

[guard-of-terra]

You can use google translate.

Yes there were irregularities, the process was either rough or rigged. However he was seeing a voluntary 75% turnout with exit pool showing more than 75% in favour.