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 occurred in Ukraine, which has signs 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 military units Ukraine 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 gathered demanded to hold a referendum in which the residents of Crimea could choose the path of further development of the region: in the current status of an autonomous republic within Ukraine, as an independent state or as part of Russia.

On February 26, Crimean Tatars also gathered at 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 party leader as head of the Council of Ministers (government) Russian unity"Sergei Aksenov.

(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: “...Taking into account 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:

"You are for the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a subject 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.

At an extraordinary session, the Sevastopol State Council decided to incorporate the city into 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 by the International Court of Justice in Kosovo on July 22, 2010 of the fact that the unilateral declaration of independence of a part of the state does not violate any or 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, a Crimean referendum was held in Crimea. Polling stations opened, as in all previous elections, at 8 a.m., 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 assumed the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation, and the second point proposed restoring the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea, adopted in 1992, and preserving the status of Crimea as 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 en masse, Crimean Tatars still 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 studies. 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. 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 there was no pressure on the voters, as the Western media are talking about. In his opinion, whenever this referendum takes place, there would still be a large turnout with good results, because people themselves wanted to express their opinions.

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 the 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 profit in large quantities and took up positions, but after some time the peninsula will again return to Ukraine. Western countries They also continue to put pressure on Moscow. The calls are becoming tougher, for example, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said that as early as Monday, the heads of foreign affairs departments of the 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. Preliminary results The referendum points to precisely this. However, the final decision is up to the Russian Federation.

A referendum is being held in Crimea on Sunday, March 16. Residents of the self-proclaimed republic five days earlier are called upon to decide whether they want to become a subject of the Russian Federation or remain part of Ukraine. DW has selected the five most controversial facts related to the voting.

1. Issues submitted for referendum

In the ballot, residents of Crimea need to mark “with any sign in the square the answer option” for which they vote. However, the issues put to vote are not the same. The first is formulated very clearly: “Are you for the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation?”

The second question sounds different: “Are you for restoring the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Crimea and for the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?” Under the 1992 constitution, the peninsula received broad autonomy rights. However, in the period preceding the voting, no explanatory campaign on this issue, formulated rather intricately, was carried out in Crimea.

2. Preparation for the referendum

The new Crimean authorities gave themselves 10 days to prepare for the vote. The final decision on the date of its holding was made on March 6. For such short term it is impossible to conduct a real election campaign. Not only German Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke about this, but also the Chairman of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatars, Refat Chubarov, in an interview with DW.

The new government in Kyiv refused to provide Simferopol with voter information. Organizers of the referendum in Crimea claim that they have preserved data last elections on the peninsula. If we mean the parliamentary elections in Ukraine in 2012, then during this time many people changed their place of residence, died or reached the age of 18.

Residents of Crimea could report the changes to local election commissions. However, independent observers were unable to control this process.

3. Observers at the referendum in Crimea

International observers, and according to the referendum organizers, there are 135 of them in Crimea from 23 countries, could only conduct short-term monitoring. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the world's most recognized election monitoring organization, did not send its experts to Crimea. The OSCE could only accept an invitation from the leadership of Ukraine, but not from the leaders of the self-proclaimed republic.

It is noteworthy that many members of the European Parliament or European countries who received an invitation to the referendum in Crimea are representatives of radical and nationalist parties. For example, European parliamentarian from Hungary Bela Kovacs, who took part in a press conference in Simferopol on the eve of the vote.

He is a representative of the Jobbik party. Its members are known for their anti-Semitic and xenophobic statements. According to Austrian media, the invitation to the referendum was accepted by two members of the Austrian Freedom Party, created at one time by the far-right politician Jörg Haider.

4. Military intervention

"Where do you see the barrel of the gun under which the referendum is being held?" - the current Prime Minister of Crimea, Sergei Aksenov, told reporters in Simferopol. According to him, armed people without identification marks guard only important strategic objects on the peninsula.

However, the very decision of the current Crimean authorities, who began the process of separating the peninsula from Kyiv, was made after the military occupied the building of the Supreme Council of the Autonomy and almost secretly. Armored personnel carriers and other military equipment with armed people in full combat readiness, camouflage uniforms and masks on their heads appeared on the eve of the vote and on the streets of Simferopol.

5. Legitimacy of the referendum in Crimea

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 encourages 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” has appeared in the political life of the Crimean peninsula 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 various 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 raised: “Are you for the re-establishment of the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic as a subject USSR and a participant in 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. It is impossible to establish the real results of this “referendum”, boycotted by the Crimean Tatars and controlled by the regional committee of the Communist Party.

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 placed 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. Then 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 Verkhovna Rada ARK, without any “little green men” and 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.

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 vote for Russia. Let’s say Ukraine would not agree with this 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 are objective reasons for this. 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 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 a powerful argument in international politics! We will speak their language, the one imposed by the 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. If anything, today's ambiguity poses a greater threat than a second referendum. Or, what is very important: than clearly expressed the idea of ​​a second referendum.