The presidential elections in Russia became, in fact, at the same time a referendum in Crimea, the participants of which had the opportunity, under conditions of close international monitoring, to again speak out about who should own the peninsula
A dream come true Russian oppositionists and their Western patrons about holding a repeat, “legal” referendum in Crimea, which should determine once and for all whether Crimea is Russian or “Ukrainian”. This referendum has already taken place, and very soon we will find out what answer the multinational population of Crimea gave to this question.
Of the eight candidates for the presidency of Russia, two - Grigory Yavlinsky (Yabloko) and Ksenia Sobchak (Civil Initiative) - consider Crimea to be “Ukrainian”. The first - unconditionally, the second - with reservations, but nevertheless. The remaining six candidates are convinced that Crimea was, is and will be Russian. The positions of all Russian presidential candidates on Crimea were well known to the residents of the peninsula.
Thus, those Crimeans who for some reason are nostalgic for Ukrainian times, even those who usually do not go to elections, have a unique opportunity to cast their vote and speak out about the status of Crimea. To do this, they only had to go to the polling stations and vote for either Yavlinsky or Sobchak. The total votes received in Crimea by these candidates, after simple arithmetic operations, will tell everyone how many supporters Ukraine has in Crimea. That's why presidential elections on the peninsula and became that long-awaited second referendum on its status.
Yavlinsky: Russia “annexed” Crimea
Yavlinsky especially insisted on holding this plebiscite, repeatedly declaring: “Crimea is annexed by Russia. Crimea belongs to Ukraine.” According to him, giving Crimeans the opportunity to speak out on this matter will become a sign of political strength for Russia and will allow it to take into account the “will of the people.”
“We need to give the people living in Crimea the opportunity to determine their own destiny, to give them the opportunity to hold a new referendum - one that all interested parties will believe in,” this phrase is emblazoned on Yavlinsky’s website “Is Crimea ours?”
Sobchak: Crimea is “Ukrainian”
Ksenia Sobchak, not so bluntly, but also repeatedly stated that Crimea, from the point of view of international law, is “Ukrainian”. And in general, she was very sorry for the Crimeans who decided four years ago to “return to their native harbor.” She once cried about this, in particular, on the air of the Komsomolskaya Pravda radio, debating with State Duma deputy from Crimea Natalya Poklonskaya:
“But why is there not a single branch of Sberbank on the territory of Crimea, for which you so advocate? Why can’t these people travel abroad? Why isn’t a single World Cup match being held in Crimea? Because no one will come there. Because Sberbank will be fined. Because any international company will fall under sanctions. This means that this region will be poor, that people will live poorly there, that we will spend more and more budget money on Crimea. I don’t want Russian people to have such a life. I want for them to be part big country and full-fledged residents. Now the inhabitants of Crimea are inferior in relation to the world. I'm against it".
Crimeans, if they think the same way, should have definitely voted for this pitiful candidate for the presidency of Russia.
So, we are waiting, sir. The votes of supporters of Yavlinsky plus Sobchak against the votes of all other candidates for the presidency of Russia. This will be a referendum on the status of Crimea. According to preliminary data from the Central Election Commission, Putin is gaining 91.7% in the presidential elections in Crimea and 92% in Sevastopol. This alone clearly demonstrates the choice the Crimeans made. Not like the votes of 51.9% of voters who wanted to leave, with whom 48.1% disagreed, which decided the fate of Britain in the EU. For London and the whole world, this was enough to legalize Brexit.
Observers are in place
Currently, there are at least 15 international observers with official status in Crimea, as well as representatives of parties and political movements from various countries of the world - not only European, but also such as Ukraine, Afghanistan, Malaysia and the USA.
Kryminform agency quotes observer from Finland Johan Beckman:
I was an international observer at the referendum on self-determination of Crimea four years ago and remember very well what a great holiday it was for all Crimeans. I want to say that the referendum in Crimea gives us - Western peoples- hope for true democracy. As for today's vote, this, of course, is also big celebration for Crimeans, for all of Russia. The elections are organized very well, they are as transparent, open and democratic as possible."
Another noble and honest person, observer from Sweden Christopher Walander, agrees with the Finn: “We were at three points and did not see any violations anywhere. Everything is done absolutely professionally and decently.”
Let's not be naive
However, one should not be naive. Even if 102 referendums on its status are held in Crimea, and their participants approve the return of the peninsula to Russia, they will be recognized by the West as illegitimate. The only “legitimate” one will be if the Crimeans, offended by Sberbank, decide to return to the rule of Kyiv. But this is only in theory; in practice this will never happen, because it speaks for itself. Against the backdrop of rapid destructive processes in Ukraine, which are already calling into question its immediate future, Crimea is thriving.
Despite sanctions and the Ukrainian blockade, it is recovering quickly industrial production. Most Crimean factories are taken under the wing of enterprises from other regions of Russia. Shipbuilding and ship repair, which almost died under the Ukrainian government, are being revived from scratch. Rapid housing construction began. The transport infrastructure is being transformed before our eyes. Despite the cessation of the supply of Dnieper water by Ukraine and the energy blockade, it is successfully developing Agriculture, adapting with the help of the whole country to new conditions. In 2017, the grain harvest more than doubled compared to 2013 due to the putting into circulation of previously abandoned land and the purchase of new tractors, combines, and seeders.
The energy bridge from Kuban was put into operation. The water supply problem is being successfully resolved. A new airport complex has been built International airport in Simferopol. The 19-kilometer route will open to cars in 2018. Crimean Bridge worth 228 billion rubles, trains will run along it next year. The unemployment rate in Crimea has decreased fourfold. Healthcare financing increased 2.5 times. Budget revenues are growing steadily – they grew by 25% over the year. Already now, thanks to colossal investments from the center and help from other regions, Crimea has turned into a Russian middle peasant.
But this is just the beginning. A brilliant future awaits him, and the Crimeans understand this very well. Instead of the massacre of Bandera gangs and grant-eating Islamists from the Mejlis, turning into an American base with missiles aimed at Russia, driving the Black Sea Fleet into oblivion and turning into a colony of someone unknown.
In the USA it was calculated that direct costs federal center to Crimea amount to at least 128.7 billion rubles annually. This amount does not include numerous indirect costs plus financial losses from sanctions. Why Russia is doing this is unclear only to people like Yavlinsky and Sobchak. Let's leave aside the military-strategic aspect - it is very important, but in this case, paradoxically, not the most important one. Even more important is something else that Putin told the whole world four years ago and that every Russian person feels in his heart.
Why does Russia need Crimea?
For Russia, Crimea, ancient Korsun, Chersonesos, Sevastopol have a huge civilizational and sacred meaning just like the Temple Mount in Jerusalem for those who practice Islam and Judaism. And this is how we will treat it from now on and forever,”
- said the head Russian state, addressing the Message to the Federal Assembly.
Putin emphasized that “our people live in Crimea, and the territory itself is strategically important, and because it is here that the spiritual source of the formation of the diverse, but monolithic Russian nation and the centralized Russian state is located.”
After all, it was here, in Crimea, in ancient Chersonese, or, as Russian chroniclers called it - Korsun, that Prince Vladimir was baptized, and then baptized all of Rus'," the president recalled. Putin noted that "Christianity was a powerful spiritual unifying force" and that “it was on this spiritual soil that our ancestors first and forever realized themselves as a single people.”
The West treated these words of the Russian President with contempt; they did not even want to understand them. And if so, then Russians are not obliged to listen and try to take into account Western comments and teachings, including in relation to Crimea. Spent between times repeat referendum for those who really wanted it, that’s enough. We must move forward, without looking at anyone. And the stronger and more self-confident Russia becomes, the sooner everyone will recognize that Crimea has truly returned to its native harbor, even if they do not understand that spiritually it never left it.
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 full text 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 the sovereignty of the Autonomous Republic of 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 of the Russian Federation and was nothing more than a unilateral decision of 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 their historical Motherland, where they had been for about two hundred years (starting on April 8, 1783 after Empress Catherine II signed a manifesto on the acceptance of the 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 the Russian Black Sea Fleet on the territory of Ukraine dated April 21, 2010, in 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, the Agreement between Ukraine and the Russian Federation on the parameters of division of the Black Sea Fleet dated May 28, 1997 and the agreement between the Government of Ukraine and the Government 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 in the 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 maximum amount 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 the international treaty." In addition, the President of Russia confirmed his Constitutional right in the national parliament of a state to use Russian troops abroad, but he did not use it. (Resolution of the Federation Council of the 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 security measures. 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. It was followed by an application for the entry of the independent state of Crimea into the Russian Federation, accepted in 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 it 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. The International Court of Justice stated in its decision of July 22, 2010 that “the unilateral declaration of independence by a 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
A referendum on the status of autonomy was held in Crimea; more than 90% of those who came to the polling stations were in favor of the republic joining Russia.
On February 22, a change of power took place in Ukraine, which had signs of a coup d'etat. The Verkhovna Rada removed President Viktor Yanukovych from power, changed the constitution and scheduled presidential elections for May 25. On February 23, by a resolution of the Verkhovna Rada, Rada Speaker Alexander Turchynov was appointed acting president of Ukraine.
The Sevastopol City Council for the creation of an executive committee in the city, headed by Alexey Chaly. Since February 24, Sevastopol residents began to constantly hold rallies in the city center in support of the people's mayor. Pickets were also held near Ukrainian military units with calls not to turn weapons against people.
Pro-Russian residents of Crimea began an open-ended protest near the building of the Supreme Council, demanding that deputies not recognize the new leadership of the country, which came to power after unrest and clashes in Kyiv. Participants in the Crimea action as amended in 1992, according to which the republic had its own president and independent foreign policy. In addition, those present demanded to hold a referendum in which the residents of Crimea could choose the path for further development of the region: in its current status autonomous republic as part of Ukraine, as an independent state or as part of Russia.
On February 26, Crimean Tatars also gathered near the parliament building, supporting the change of power in Ukraine. Clashes occurred between two groups of protesters, which resulted in... One man died in the stampede and another woman died in the hospital from injuries received in the crowd.
Self-defense forces of the Russian-speaking population occupied the buildings of the Supreme Council and the Council of Ministers of Crimea.
The Supreme Council of Crimea appointed the leader of the Russian Unity party Sergei Aksenov as head of the Council of Ministers (government).
(parliament) of Crimea scheduled a referendum on May 25 on expanding the powers of the autonomy with the question: “Do you support state self-determination of Crimea within Ukraine on the basis of international treaties and agreements?”
Supreme Council of Crimea, government of the autonomous republic. was formed new line-up Council of Ministers of the Autonomous Republic.
Unknown armed people tried to seize the buildings of the Council of Ministers and the Supreme Council of Crimea.
On March 1, the head of government, Sergei Aksenov, at the first meeting of the Council of Ministers of Crimea in the new composition said: “...Given difficult situation"in autonomy and understanding my responsibility for the life and peace of citizens who live on the territory of the republic, I decided to seek help from (Russian President) Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin in order to assist in establishing legal constitutional order on the territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea."
On the same day, Russian President Vladimir Putin addressed the Federation Council on the use of the Russian Armed Forces on the territory of Ukraine, in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, until the socio-political situation in this country normalizes. The upper house of parliament unanimously supported the address of the head of state, and it came into force.
The Crimean parliament decided to integrate the autonomy into Russia. It was also decided to postpone the referendum to March 16. The following questions were put to the referendum:
“Are you for the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation?”
“Are you for restoring the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Crimea and for the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?”
The Supreme Council of Crimea also Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation with a proposal to begin the procedure for joining the Russian Federation as a subject of the Russian Federation.
Sevastopol state council At an extraordinary session, he decided to join the city to the Russian Federation. In addition, the Sevastopol City Council supported the decision of the Supreme Council of Crimea to hold a Crimean referendum on March 16.
The Supreme Council of Crimea adopted a declaration in support of the region's independence from Ukraine and its intention to join the Russian Federation.
The Declaration noted that the Parliament of Crimea and the City Council of Sevastopol adopted this decision, “based on the provisions of the UN Charter and a number of other international documents establishing the right of the people to self-determination, and also taking into account the confirmation International Court of Justice UN regarding Kosovo of July 22, 2010, the fact that the unilateral declaration of independence of a part of the state does not violate any norms of international law."
A referendum was held on the peninsula on future fate region. Two questions were included in the ballot: “Are you for the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation?” and “Are you for restoring the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Crimea and for the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?” The majority of voters (96.77%) were in favor of reunification with Russia. According to the head of the Crimean referendum commission Mikhail Malyshev, the turnout was 83.1%.
The Supreme Council of Crimea, based on the results of the referendum, adopted a resolution on independence from Ukraine. Parliament also made a proposal to admit Crimea to the Russian Federation as a subject.
The Supreme Council of Crimea in the official names of the authorities of the Republic of Crimea and other bodies, instead of the words “Autonomous Republic of Crimea”, use the words “Republic of Crimea”.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, the leadership of Crimea and the mayor of the city of Sevastopol signed an agreement on the entry of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol into Russia.
The agreement was subsequently approved by the State Duma and the Federation Council.
President Vladimir Putin signed the law on the ratification of the treaty on the annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol to Russia and the federal constitutional law on the procedure for their entry into Russia.
The material was prepared based on information from RIA Novosti and open sources
On March 16, 2014, a Crimean referendum on the status of Crimea will be held in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol.
The first referendum on the territory of Crimea (the first referendum in the history of the USSR) took place on January 20, 1991. The decision to hold it was made on November 12, 1990 at an extraordinary session of the Crimean regional Council of People's Deputies. The question was put to the vote: “Are you for the re-establishment of the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic as a subject USSR and a participant in the Union Treaty?" 1,777,841 million Crimeans had the right to vote. 1,441 million people (81.3%) took part in the referendum, including residents of Sevastopol. 1,343,855 million people (93.26%) responded positively. The majority of Crimean Tatars boycotted the vote. However, On February 12, the Supreme Council of the Ukrainian SSR adopted a law on the restoration Crimean ASSR within the Ukrainian SSR. Four months later, appropriate changes were made to the 1978 Constitution of the Ukrainian SSR, and the Crimean region was transformed into the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic.
On May 5, 1992, at the session of the Crimean Parliament, an act on state independence of the Republic of Crimea was adopted, which was to come into force after its confirmation by a general Crimean referendum scheduled for August 2. Its participants had to answer two questions: “Are you for an independent Crimea in an alliance with other states?” and “Do you confirm the act of state independence of the Republic of Crimea?” On May 13, the Supreme Council of Ukraine recognized the decisions of the Crimean parliament to proclaim an act of state independence and hold a referendum as contrary to the constitution of Ukraine and suspended their action. On July 9, the Supreme Council of Crimea announced a moratorium on its own resolution on holding a referendum.
In March 1995, by decision of the Verkhovna Rada and the President of Ukraine, the constitution of the Republic of Crimea was abolished and the post of president was abolished. On April 25, the Supreme Council of Crimea decided to hold a Crimean referendum on June 25. Crimeans were asked to answer the following questions: “1. Do you approve the constitution of the Republic of Crimea, abolished by the Supreme Council of Ukraine unilaterally on March 17, 1995? 2. Do you support the law of Ukraine “On the Autonomous Republic of Crimea” of March 17, 1995?” However, on May 31, the Crimean parliament canceled its decision on the referendum, agreeing with the proposal of the Supreme Council of Ukraine to adopt the constitution of the autonomous republic on the basis of the Ukrainian law “On the delimitation of powers between Ukraine and Crimea.”
In 1998, the agenda of the session of the Supreme Council of Crimea included questions on holding a referendum, including on the issue of granting the Russian language status as a state language, as well as on lifting the moratorium on referendums on the status of Crimea. However, the deputies did not come to a consensus on holding a referendum.
On February 22, 2006, the Supreme Council of Crimea once again attempted to hold a republican referendum on the status of the Russian language on March 26. The initiative belonged to the Party of Regions of Viktor Yanukovych. The Ukrainian Central Election Commission prohibited precinct election commissions in Crimea from conducting voting on this issue.
On December 16, 2006, Crimeans voted against the political course of Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko to join NATO in an unofficial popular referendum. The Crimean authorities refused to provide premises for voting, and the organizers - the All-Crimean People's Assembly - held a referendum in the streets. 98.7% of almost 900 thousand citizens who took part in the vote spoke out against Ukraine’s membership in the North Atlantic Alliance. This referendum had no legal force.
The fourth anniversary of the “referendum on the reunification of Crimea with Russia” has arrived. There is a certain kind of hysteria in the media and in social networks prompts a thorough assessment of both the fact of holding this “referendum” under the control of the “little green men” and its real results. And also remember the referendums held in Crimea. More precisely, those political actions that had such a name, but did not necessarily comply with legal norms.
If you count, then since 1990 the word “referendum” in political life The Crimean Peninsula appeared six times. And not at the “talk” level, but at the practical political level. Although only one of these six events, called “referendums,” turned out to be completely legitimate - December 1, 1991. All the rest, in the legal sense, are at least “bullshit,” although for different reasons. But even falsified “referendums” can sometimes give an idea of the mood of the population, if, of course, we take into account real and not fake data on voter turnout and vote distribution.
The first in chronology was the so-called proclaimed on the initiative of the regional committee of the Communist Party, carrying out the will of Moscow. “Crimean referendum” on January 20, 1991. The question was asked: “Are you for the re-establishment of the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic as a subject of the USSR and a party to the Union Treaty?” In a legal sense, this “referendum” was insignificant, since it was impossible to “reproduce” the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic as a subject of the USSR either in the historical or legal sense. The Krasnodar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, created in 1921, was a subject of the RSFSR, and that, in turn, signed the Declaration on the Formation of the USSR the following year, and in 1923 ratified the Union Treaty. It was the same with 1991: only union republics could become parties to the Union Treaty, which was clearly demonstrated by the so-called “republic” that began in April of that year. "Novoogaryovsky process".
However, Leonid Kravchuk, then head of the Supreme Council of the Ukrainian SSR, insisted on the implementation of the results of this “referendum”: before his eyes was the example of Abkhazia and Transnistria, where the Kremlin created enclaves directly controlled by it; Kravchuk, as always, hoped to “go between the droplets,” and to a certain extent he succeeded. Establish the real results of this boycotted “referendum” Crimean Tatars and controlled by the regional committee of the Communist Party is impossible.
The All-Union referendum of March 17, 1991 can also be safely “put out of brackets.” After all, supposedly in one question, according to logic experts, there were four questions at once, completely unrelated to each other, and in historical terms – absurd. Let’s read its text: “Do you consider it necessary to preserve the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics, in which the rights and freedoms of people of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?” That is, we have “preservation”, and at the same time “renewal”, “federation”, and at the same time “sovereign republics”. Rights and freedoms so-called “titular nationalities” that have their own form of national-state organization (union republic, autonomy), of course, will be more complete than those who do not have such a form. And the concept of “Soviet Socialist” a priori means inequality of worldviews, forms of ownership, political parties etc. The list of “legal bombs” deliberately planted in the referendum question can be continued, but this is enough to draw a conclusion.
Chronologically, the following is the All-Ukrainian referendum on December 1, 1991. It fully complied with the Constitution and legislation of the Ukrainian SSR; a clear and understandable question was asked: “Do you confirm the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine?”; provided, as expected in accordance with referendum law, two answer options: “yes” and “no”. It is no coincidence that the consequences of this referendum did not raise doubts in anyone (except, of course, some Russian politicians). How did Crimeans vote? Ukrainian publicists like to cite the following figures: they say that in the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, the independence of Ukraine was supported by 54.19% of voters, in Sevastopol - 57.07%. However, let’s not forget three things: firstly, many of the voting participants did not support the independence of Ukraine (42.22% and 39.39%, respectively, and among the spoiled ballots, most likely, almost all belonged to opponents of independence, who wrote there as a sign of protest that - a little censored); secondly, turnout in these regions was significantly lower than in Ukraine as a whole (84.18% - and, respectively, 67.5% and 63.74%); thirdly, those rather high “yes” numbers given above are taken from the number of voting participants, and not from all voters. If we estimate what support for Ukrainian independence was among all voters, then in both regions of Crimea it was about 37%. Also quite a lot, also a majority - but not absolute, as was the case in all other Ukrainian regions (including, by the way, Donbass).
Next comes the so-called. “referendum on the status of Crimea 1994” is also fake. Now almost forgotten Yuri Meshkov Having won the election of the “President of Crimea” on January 30, 1994, he issued a decree on holding a referendum on three issues: expanding the powers of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, introducing dual Russian-Ukrainian citizenship and equalizing the decrees of the President of Crimea and laws. Further events developed rapidly: on March 14, the Central Election Commission of Crimea declared the referendum illegal; on March 16, President of Ukraine Kravchuk stated that Meshkov had exceeded his powers by calling a referendum, and canceled it by his decree. In response, on March 21, Meshkov created a special “presidential commission for holding a referendum.” Behind less than a week(a world record!) The commission prepared everything, and on March 27, the “referendum on the status of Crimea” took place, bringing an “outstanding victory” to Meshkov. And already on March 17 of the following year, the position of “President of Crimea” was abolished by the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, without any “little green men” or socio-political storms...
The All-Ukrainian referendum of 2000 was also falsified - from the collection of signatures in its support to the counting of the results. But this is a plot that is not directly related to Crimea.