What questions were at the Crimean referendum. Five controversial facts about the referendum in Crimea
On March 16, a Crimean referendum was held in Crimea. Polling stations opened at 8 a.m., as in all previous elections, and closed at 8 p.m. Voting for Crimeans was ensured by 1,024 precinct commissions, as well as 27 regional commissions.
Questions at the referendum in Crimea
According to official data, 1.5 million ballots were printed for the referendum, in which it was proposed in three languages to answer positively to one of two questions. The first option involved the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a subject Russian Federation, and on the second point it was proposed to restore the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea, adopted in 1992, and maintain the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine. 
While the entire peninsula was asked two questions in the referendum, for Sevastopol, as a city with a special status, one question was proposed - the first one, which had to be answered yes or no. Accordingly, by answering “yes,” the voter cast a vote for Crimea’s entry into the Russian Federation; by answering “no,” he voted for the autonomy of Crimea within Ukraine.
Forecasts for the referendum in Crimea
Around this event, various information appeared in the information field, both inviting and agitating, and frightening citizens. Western politicians even doubted that the referendum would take place at all. For example, the Crimean Tatar Mejlis announced in advance that this referendum was illegal, and also that the Tatars would not take part in it. However, in the process it turned out that, although not massively, but Crimean Tatars Still, they went to the polling stations and voted. As the Crimean authorities noted, the result of the referendum will be considered invalid if the voter turnout is less than 50%. At the same time, the Crimean government predicted in advance a high turnout, as well as high voting results for the first point, according to which Crimea should become part of the Russian Federation. At the exit from the polling stations, voters were met by representatives of sociologists. Permission to conduct an exit poll in Crimea was granted only to the Republican Institute of Sociological and Political Research. The Crimean authorities also announced that all journalists who express a desire and register will be able to work at the referendum.
In total, more than 600 journalists representing almost 200 media arrived and were accredited to cover the events mass media, as well as 135 observers from 23 states. Deputies of parliaments of the countries of Eastern and Eastern Europe were also present as observers. Western Europe and European parliamentarians. The Russian State Duma also sent 20 of its observers. At the press conference, observers expressed surprise at such a high level of activity among voters who came to the polling stations. Thus, in an interview, a member of the Spanish Parliament said that he visited three polling stations where there were many people wanting to vote, and, nevertheless, the process itself went quite normally. The progress of the voting in Yalta was monitored by Member of the European Parliament Johan Evalstadner, who emphasized that no pressure was exerted on the voters, as they say Western media. In his opinion, whenever this referendum was held, there would still be a large turnout with high results, since people themselves wanted to express their opinion.
The highest turnout traditionally occurred in the morning. Almost a third of citizens voted in the first two to three hours after the opening. At some sites there were queues even before they opened. As the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Crimea notes, no violations or provocations were identified during the voting. Crimean police officers are always ready to ensure law and order during and after the referendum and promise not to allow violations in the future. Similar statements were made by the Crimean authorities, who noted that they had taken various actions to prevent disruption of the voting or provocations.
Crimean Prime Minister Sergei Aksenov made his forecast for the referendum in Crimea, suggesting that the turnout will be 80%. The fact that the majority of Crimeans would support the first point was immediately obvious, since pro-Russian sentiments are very strong in Crimea. And from the very morning, people rushed to their polling stations to express their long-standing desire to join Russia.
Legality of the referendum in Crimea
Despite this, Western states, as well as the new Ukrainian government, refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the referendum held in Crimea. In particular, in Kyiv they said that the result of this referendum had long been written in Moscow. In addition, Kyiv politicians note that, despite the referendum, Crimea will remain a territory of Ukraine, which is under occupation, and refer to the support of this opinion from the international community. Thus, Deputy Prime Minister Vitaly Yarema noted that the current situation in Crimea may last for some time, since Russian troops arrived in large quantities and took up positions, but after some time the peninsula will again return to Ukraine. Western countries also continue to put pressure on Moscow. The calls are becoming increasingly harsh, for example, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said that already on Monday the heads of foreign policy departments EU countries are ready to give a decisive response.
Legitimacy of the referendum
Let us recall that even before the referendum, a draft resolution was proposed for voting in the UN Security Council, declaring the Crimean referendum illegitimate and calling on other states not to recognize its results. This document was put to a vote by the United States, and 13 countries included in the Security Council voted for it. China abstained from voting, and Russia vetoed.
What will happen after the referendum in Crimea
According to the exit poll on the evening of March 16, it is already known that more than 82% of voters voted, of which 93% were in favor of Crimea joining Russia. In total, more than 1 million 250 thousand people took part in the referendum.
As of 8 a.m. on March 17, according to Mikhail Malyshev, chairman of the commission for organizing and holding the Crimean referendum, 75% of the ballots had been processed. 95.7% of voters voted for the annexation of Crimea to the Russian Federation.
It should be noted that in case the clause on joining Russia is adopted at the referendum, the Crimean parliament has already made a corresponding request to the Russian Federation. Speaker of the Crimean parliament Vladimir Konstantinov clarified that if this option is approved in a referendum, the issue will be submitted to the State Duma, whose decision must be approved by the Federation Council and signed by the president. Crimean authorities expect this entire process to take two weeks.
While in Ukraine they assume that the peninsula will soon return back to it, in Crimea itself they hope for full inclusion in Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation. The preliminary results of the referendum indicate precisely this. However, the final decision is up to the Russian Federation.
The referendum in Crimea has passed. Photo from the site ru.tsn.ua
The Crimean referendum, which the world and Ukraine did not recognize, but which Russia recognized, took place.
Its results are more than eloquent: according to official data, 96.6% of voters voted in favor of joining Russia. But will this referendum affect anything? Of course yes, he will give his beloved “brother” another argument with which to put pressure on Ukraine.
By the way, if one of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation wanted to express their opinion in exactly the same way, then in Russia it would be called separatism. And in Ukraine, the Kremlin calls this referendum “the will of the people.”
A referendum is beyond any legal norms
The Supreme Council Crimea does not have the authority to resolve territorial issues. This is according to the law of Ukraine.
According to international norms, the question of separating one part of the state from another is carried out when peaceful coexistence becomes impossible. Not a single fact of threat to the population of Crimea from “nationalist radicals” was provided.
How it should have been
The issue of the borders of the state can only be resolved in an all-Ukrainian referendum and in no other way. The Supreme Council of Crimea had to appeal to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine with a request to hold an all-Ukrainian referendum. Instead, the deputies of the Crimean parliament organized a referendum for themselves, not obeying the demands of Kyiv. By the way, back in early March unrecognized by Crimea Kyiv authorities allocated 400 million hryvnia to stabilize the banking sector on the peninsula. They took the money there, but the new government was still not recognized.
There were no polling stations in other Ukrainian cities
Precisely because the referendum was illegal - there were no polling stations either in Kyiv or in any other place in Ukraine except Crimea. And what would polling stations look like in the capital of Ukraine, which does not recognize the referendum? It turns out that it is illegal, but if you want, vote?
Technical inconsistencies
Initially, March 30 was announced as the date for the referendum, but a new date was set on March 6 – March 16. That is, for preparation the most important event it was only 10 days. During this time, it was necessary to check the voter lists, send out invitations to vote, prepare polling stations, and recruit commissions. After all, international observers must be present at civilized elections or referendums. But they were not there. Regarding the lists, we generally need to speak separately; the Central Election Commission blocked access to this information for the new authorities of Crimea, but they were not bothered by this. The lists were “sketched” approximate; those who were not on them were added separately, by hand.
The fate of Ukraine was not decided by Ukrainian citizens
A very indicative case is that of a journalist from Russia who, in the Crimean referendum, having only a temporary residence permit in Sevastopol, voted using a Russian passport. Nobody asked any special questions there; if you want to vote, vote. If you don't want to, vote too. Right on the street" polite people" will help.
According to official data, voter turnout in Crimea as of 20:00 was 81.36%, said Mikhail Malyshev, Chairman of the Commission of the Supreme Council of Crimea for organizing and conducting the referendum. Here's exactly what he said:
But what if you count it? 1,724,563 people, let’s subtract 1,250,426 from them, then 474,137 people from Sevastopol voted in the referendum. At the same time, the website of the statistics department in the city of Sevastopol indicates that according to the latest data (end of 2013), 359,702 people lived in the city (according to the demographic passport of the city of Sevastopol). This includes minors who are not allowed to vote. Attention to the question: where did the other 114 thousand people who voted in Sevastopol come from? This is almost a third of the city’s population. And this is only in Sevastopol.
For some reason, we are very afraid of a repeat referendum in Crimea. It’s clear why: the Presidential Administration does not trust its own people, and even in a situation where mass beliefs completely coincide with what it is doing, it prefers to model the people’s will, instead of simply implementing what is objectively there. Completely in vain!
What would happen if Russia proposed a repeat Crimean referendum today? Never mind! Crimea would have voted for Russia. Let’s say Ukraine would not agree with such a formulation of the question: their public figures declare that the whole of Ukraine should vote. Great! However, since Crimea is going to join Russia, it would not be amiss for Russians to vote. A wonderful, completely new “geopolitical” (we love this empty word) reality is emerging: for the first time in 25 years, the peoples of the collapsed USSR are jointly resolving some issues.
What is interesting here is not only the referendum itself, but the consequences that will arise during its preparation and conduct. Russia will have an excellent absolutely legal opportunity to directly address the citizens of Ukraine, bypassing all intermediaries represented by the Ukrainian authorities. The resources senselessly wasted on 3 Armata tanks and 2 Su aircraft could be used in this direction - and achieve what the smart guys with machine guns and beeches could not achieve. For example, the first thing that comes to mind is Gazprom’s direct sale of gas to the population of Ukraine, taking advantage of the same rules on independence of transportation and sales that Gazprom is oppressed by in Europe. Just offering it will be more than enough! You can promise some kind of indirect compensation, but anything is possible! There is room for creativity, in contrast to the situation when all creativity is limited to how to quietly carry equipment across the border.
Of course, Ukraine will also have the opportunity to operate on Russian territory. And to your health! Let their Shusters, Kiselyovs, Ganapolskys come to us - do we not know them, or what? Yes, they left us there! Let Lyashko, Tymoshenko, Klitschko, and even Saakashvili bring their own. The Ukrainian vector of independence is built on isolation from Russia, an attempt to “outgrow” Russia: there is objective reasons. Let them come to us and tell us why they need to be independent from us! And we will tell them why we should be together! Only, of course, without spiritual bonds, since it is quite enough practical aspects economy.
The next argument that Ukraine could make is - why only Crimea? Let's then ask the question about Krasnodar region and the Voronezh region (they have some justification for their claims to these regions). Come on! Only - in accordance with how referendums are usually held: let them go and collect signatures in these regions to initiate such a referendum. Just let us, then, be given the opportunity to collect such signatures in Kharkov, Kherson, Odessa, and Dnepropetrovsk. Yes, in the same Donetsk and Lugansk! There is no doubt that in Crimea there is a significant group of citizens in favor of unification with Russia. Whether there are citizens with similar sentiments in Kherson and Voronezh - we must first find out. However, Russia wins in any case: the more regions are involved in the need to re-evaluate relations between the two peoples, the better.
The funny thing here is that you most likely won’t have to do anything. It is unlikely that our Ukrainian, European and American partners will agree: because they understand no less than we do how such a referendum will end. But we will have most powerful argument V international politics! We will speak their language, the one that is being imposed international community: the language of democracy! Churkin, instead of swearing and trying to get out of it, will only have to “push through” this referendum with all his ardor - and he will have nothing to answer. Russia will finally get an idea, beyond the spirits of our ancestors: we are saving democracy from those who patented it and use it for their own interests. It will immediately become easier for our intelligence officers, lobbyists, and agents of influence to work. If now they justify their claims only with money, in the future it will be possible to put the idea first - any intelligence officer knows that in delicate matter Recruitment is the most important factor!
If it comes to a referendum, let them send their observers. As many as they want, wherever they want! Only we will send our own to Ukraine. And here we have an advantage: it is almost impossible to cover all of Russia with observers, but we, on the contrary, have enough young “activists” who are being scammed by almost every governor.
In the worst case scenario, we will lose Crimea. This is definitely a stupid way to pose the question! It’s not “we will lose,” but the citizens will express their will. In principle, Crimea today only burdens the budget, and given the uncertainty of its “geopolitical” position, this situation cannot be changed. However, I can’t imagine what needs to happen for people to vote for the return of Crimea to Ukraine. In any case, today's ambiguity represents big threat, how repeat referendum. Or, what is very important: than clearly expressed the idea of a second referendum.
A very significant legal firm in the EU is AALEP. Association of Accredited Lawyers for Relations with Authorities state power under the European Union. They published a report where they legally proved Russia was right. Here is the full text of the document:
Three years have passed since the reunification of Crimea with Russia, however Western countries continue to dispute the fact of the “annexation” of Crimea by the Russian Federation, ignoring the legitimate will of the people of Crimea, which they expressed on March 16, 2014.
It should be borne in mind that sovereignty Autonomous Republic Crimea was proclaimed in September 1991. According to Article 10 of the 1996 Constitution of Ukraine, an autonomous legal status prevails on the territory of Crimea, which legally applies to the rights of peoples. According to Article 138.2 of this section of the Constitution of Ukraine, the jurisdiction of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea includes the organization and conduct of local referendums.
The actions of the Crimean authorities, taking into account the conditions prevailing in Ukraine at that time, were of a legal nature. On March 17, 2014, based on a referendum (96.77% with a turnout of 83.1% voted for the reunification of Crimea with Russia), the independence of the sovereign Republic of Crimea was proclaimed.
As for Sevastopol, it should be noted that on October 29, 1948, it was separated from the Crimean region and subordinated directly to Soviet power by the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic). The Crimean region, in violation of the Constitution of the USSR, RSFSR and Ukraine, was illegally transferred to Ukraine in 1954. The de facto inclusion of the city of Sevastopol (Article 133 of the Constitution of Ukraine) into Ukraine was not based on any regulations The Russian Federation was nothing more than a unilateral decision by Ukraine, which should be considered from a legal point of view as the seizure of foreign territory by Ukraine. The referendum held on March 16, 2017 in Sevastopol confirmed (95.6% with a turnout of 89.5% voted for the reunification of Crimea with Russia) its special status.
The referendum, held on March 16, 2014, with the presence of more than 150 international observers in connection with the coup d'etat and seizure of power in Kyiv, became the realization of the people's right to self-determination. Until March 16, 2014, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea existed as an autonomy within Ukraine and had its own Constitution, adopted on October 21, 1998. Article 48 of the Constitution establishes the right, guarantees and provision of status and powers of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, and assumes that these guarantees are ensured by the democratic institutions of society, including when holding a referendum on the main issue for citizens.
In addition, it should be borne in mind that the preamble of the Constitution of Ukraine also refers to the recognition and establishment of the right of the Ukrainian people to self-determination. This Constitution also guarantees the expression of the people's will through a referendum in accordance with Article 69, while the purpose of a referendum is defined as the manifestation of a form of direct democracy.
The people of Crimea saw protection only in self-determination and reunification with historical homeland, where he was for about two hundred years (starting on April 8, 1783 after Empress Catherine II signed the manifesto on the adoption Crimean peninsula into the Russian Empire).
Crimeans were faced with the conditions of a coup d'etat; the population's right to self-defense was realized through the creation of self-defense forces with the participation of Cossacks, police, along with part of the local police. The number of militia was about 10,000.
In violation of the requirements of Part 4 of Article 17 of the Constitution of Ukraine on the prohibition of the use of the country's armed forces to restrict the rights and freedoms of citizens, the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine was preparing a landing to disrupt the referendum.
According to the US and EU countries, the referendum was illegitimate and unconstitutional due to the presence of Russian armed forces during its holding in Crimea. At that time, Russia acted in full compliance with international law. The military presence in Crimea (Black Sea Fleet) was due to the presence of bilateral international treaties that provide legal grounds for the deployment of Russian military contingent on the territory of Ukraine (Agreement between Ukraine and the Russian Federation on the presence of Black Sea Fleet Russia on the territory of Ukraine dated April 21, 2010, including the Agreement between Ukraine and the Russian Federation on the status and presence of the Russian Black Sea Fleet on the territory of Ukraine dated May 28, 1997, Agreement between Ukraine and the Russian Federation on the parameters of division of the Black Sea Fleet dated May 28, 1997 year and agreement between the Government of Ukraine and the Government of the Russian Federation on mutual settlements related to the division of the Black Sea Fleet and the presence of the Russian Black Sea Fleet on the territory of Ukraine dated May 28, 1997). The Russian Armed Forces could move freely throughout the territory of Crimea, as provided for international treaty between Russia and Ukraine, which was ratified by the Verkhovna Rada.
The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation did not participate in the voting and could not influence its outcome. Ensuring law and order at the polling stations was ensured by self-defense forces and volunteers from among the citizens of Crimea, and these actions also do not affect the vote count.
On March 18, 2014, the President of Russia in his speech emphasized that “Russia did not send troops into Crimea, but only strengthened its group, without exceeding the maximum number of personnel provided for in the international treaty of 1997.” Such measures were taken to protect “the lives of citizens of the Russian Federation, our compatriots and the military contingent of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation stationed on the territory of Ukraine in accordance with an international treaty.” In addition, the President of Russia confirmed his Constitutional law in the national parliament of the state for use Russian troops abroad, but he did not use it. (Resolution of the Federation Council Federal year No. 48-SF assembly dated 03/01/2014). Thus, accusations of the use of the Russian Armed Forces before, during and after the referendum in Crimea are legally untenable.
The opinion of the Venice Commission on the Crimean referendum of March 21, 2014 No. 762/2014 KDL-AD (2014) 002 explains that “... there are a number of provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine that clearly indicate that the separation of part of the country’s territory cannot be the subject of a local referendum ” looks unconvincing, since the constitutional norms on the functioning of the Ukrainian government, which functioned before the coup, were destroyed and emergency circumstances in Crimea (threat to people's lives, unleashing civil war) made it impossible to hold a referendum without special measures security. Taking such measures is legal for the legitimate government of Crimea.
To summarize, it is necessary to state that Crimea faced secession (i.e., voluntary secession from the state), the declaration of state independence by the legitimate representative body of power represented by the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea confirmed secession from Ukraine in a referendum. This was followed by an application for membership independent state Crimea into the Russian Federation, accepted into Russia, and reunification, which fundamentally excludes annexation, that is, the annexation of one state into another. Thus, in such a case, it is inevitable to distinguish between the legal terms “secession” and “annexation”.
In this regard, the reaction of some politicians to the Crimean referendum violates international law and seems absurd. UN General Assembly Resolution A/res/68/262 of 27 March 2014 regarding " territorial integrity"Ukraine was adopted in haste, without a properly formalized legal analysis.
The Declaration of Independence does not violate international law. international Court The UN stated in its decision of July 22, 2010 that “the unilateral declaration of independence by part of a state does not violate any rules of international law... general international law does not contain any applicable prohibition on the declaration of independence.”
The legitimacy of the Crimean referendum of March 16, 2014 is reinforced by the fact that Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation of May 21, 1992 No. 2809-1 recognizes the Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR of 02/05/1954 on the transfer of the Crimean region from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR as having no legal force and in violation of the Constitution (Basic Law) of the RSFSR and legislative procedure.
The Supreme Council of the Russian Federation decided to restore illegally lost territories without establishing a protectorate over Crimea. This decision was based on the future expression of the will of the citizens of Crimea. The legal vacuum and legal uncertainty of the status of Crimea were overcome after 22 years on the basis of the democratic will of citizens. Thus, the referendum in Crimea and Sevastopol on March 16, 2014, which was used by the peoples inhabiting the Crimean peninsula to independently and democratically determine their destiny, was legitimate and should be recognized as such by foreign states.
TNS Global, an independent research company with offices in more than 80 countries, conducted a survey of Europeans on their perceptions of the situation around the Crimean Peninsula, which included approximately 5,138 respondents from France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States. At least 34 percent of Italians and 36 percent of Germans said Crimea was an integral part of Russia, while about a quarter of Britons, Americans and French thought so. In France, older respondents believe that Crimea was Russian territory, while in Germany, mostly young people consider Crimea to be part of Russia. The most popular answer was “I don’t know.” Some 51% of Americans, 48% of French and 44% of Britons said they didn't know. The survey was conducted from February 16 to February 22, 2017.
Follow us
Obama recently blurted out, “The referendum, which is scheduled by the self-proclaimed authorities of Crimea for March 16, will violate international law and the Constitution of Ukraine. Any discussion of the fate of Ukraine must take place with the participation of the legitimate government of the country.”
Well girl, fuck your mother!
The referendum, you say, in Crimea is not federal and therefore illegitimate? Well, turn away your collar - to you guests flew.
In the sense of the quote from the United States and the European Union from 2009 - about the referendum in Kosovo. Which was recognized as “not violating international law due to the objective situation.”
I wonder what the Raguli and the West will say now? Scare Russia with expenses from annexing (if the Crimeans decide so) autonomy? Drinking water at the price of gas to intimidate (in international law interruption or restriction of supply drinking water- genocide)? Or jerk off to the US destroyer that entered the Black Sea as part of the exercises signed back in 2013?
Oh, I know. Threaten that Kaliningrad will secede by referendum or Chechnya. Alas and ah - unlike Crimea or Scotland and Catalonia, neither Chechnya, nor Siberia, nor Kaliningrad are autonomous.
So oops