I'm really unclear why you linked such a biased news source. But for clarity:
The Revolution of dignity has absolutely no signs of a coup. It resulted in presidential and parlimentary elections.
Crimea was illegally annexed by Russia.
The Revolution of dignity has absolutely no signs of a coup. It resulted in presidential and parlimentary elections.
Crimea was illegally annexed by Russia.
There have been an abundance of coverage on it, even from state media... but nothing ever changes. Heck, the current head of the government was/is involved in the biggest financially scandal of Germany's history and got away with it by "forgetting" everything.
I'm not German, but have clients in Munich and have been learning German (i.e more than a remote armchair view). Have considered moving to Germany.
This last year has disappointed me. I really thought Germany was one of the most rational actors in Europe and globally.
Nowhere is perfect, and I don't expect it, but the way Germany has dithered about sending tanks (and other things) just saddens.
This is a non-sequitur; the transfer of power was extra-constitutional, so it can't be ruled out by this fact alone.
> Crimea was illegally annexed by Russia.
This is a circular argument. It was illegal insofar as it violated Ukrainian law, sure, but whether Ukrainian law should apply in Crimea in the first place is literally the whole point of contention!
"On 21 February an agreement was signed between Yanukovych and leaders of the parliamentary opposition, witnessed by representatives from European Union and Russia. which promised return to the 2004 constitution, early elections and withdrawal of security forces from the center of the capital."[0].
2. Crimea was assigned to Ukraine in 1991. It's part of Ukraine's internationally recognised borders. It's illegal according to international law.
It was taken by force[1] without the will of the people. Any referendums under occupation are illegal and invalid (also according to international law)[2]. You can't vote with a gun to your head.
[0]: https://www.bbc.com/russian/rolling_news/2014/02/140221_rn_y... [1]: https://time.com/19097/putin-crimea-russia-ukraine-aksyonov/ [2]:https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-crimean-referendum
2. This is a circular argument. It's contrary to domestic law insofar as Crimea is Ukrainian, it's contrary to international law insofar as Crimea is occupied, which it is insofar as the people don't want to be Russian, which they don't insofar as the referendum was illegitimate, which it is insofar as Crimea is Ukrainian.
You don't get anywhere with this, it's just sophistry no matter what side you're on. You have to make different arguments. What can we really say about Crimeans' wishes?
In particular: why do you mention "the will of the people", if your political position is that it should not be up to the people of Crimea? Do you believe in the general idea of referenda? If not, why?