The problem is both the jump and the conclusion, when you go from stopping atrocity and the genocide of 12,000 people to "we can bomb anything in your whole country, reduce it to middle-age, to the point you accept your only option that is to accept total independance, and just by a referendum within this independant region with an hostile foreign ethnic majority you lose it forever".

So here in Ukraine, lots of minister claim there root to be in the Nazi party that is guilty of the extermination of 6 millions judes (and so many other people based on race), invasion of Russia, and the claim that slavian are sub-people.

That's different starting point, no one yet killed. 12,000 people murdered is horrible. Even 1 person. But in term of magnitude, 12,000 is far nearer to zero or to an accident than to a mass systematic genocide of millions that made the word genocide and any claim to be nazy horrible. So, you have a similar situation like "prevention of genocide" on going, and if you jump to the same unilateral conclusion, except for the bombing it's a pretty similar pattern.

Omg people.  The government of the Ukraine is not illegitimate.  The ex-president of the Ukraine was legally impeached following Ukraine's constitution.  

Also you gave no reason why "If Russia's intervention is debatible, then so is them ordering a country out of its own land."  They are two very different things.  At first Russia could argue that they were there to make sure the people of the Crimea were not under threat of violence.  However they never were, and the Ukrainian soldiers out of the area was completily pre-mature.

You know the ICJ is there for a reason.  This is the type of thing they handle.  It was not Russia's call, and they had no right to do it.

1)  The chart you posted wasn't a poll of Transnistra citizens opinions.   It was a poll of the Moldovian citizens on the future of TMR.

Note how it says Moldova there... and note how other polls either say Modolva or TMR based on who was polled.

A similar poll would be if you asked what all Ukrainians outside Crimea thought should be the future of Moldovia.

So Moldovians outside of TMR, wanted TMR to leave about as much as Crimean's were polled to want Crimea to leave.

2) The poll in 2006 wasn't 98% in favor or joining russia.   It was a two part split refferendum with two optionss

1)  Renounce independence and possibly get rid of autonomy.

2)  Stay Independent and maybe later join Russa.

Captain_Tom said:

You think that's ok?  (If it's true).   Also I said they were following the 2004 constitution that allowed it.

Стаття 111. Президент України може бути усунений з поста Верховною Радою України в порядку імпічменту у разі вчинення ним державної зради або іншого злочину.

(положенню частини першої статті 111 дано офіційне тлумачення згідно з Рішенням Конституційного Суду України від 10.12.2003 р. N 19-рп/2003)

Питання про усунення Президента України з поста в порядку імпічменту ініціюється більшістю від конституційного складу (1) Верховної Ради України.

Для проведення розслідування Верховна Рада України створює спеціальну тимчасову слідчу комісію, до складу якої включаються спеціальний прокурор і спеціальні слідчі.

Висновки і пропозиції тимчасової слідчої комісії розглядаються на засіданні Верховної Ради України.

За наявності підстав Верховна Рада України не менш як двома третинами від її конституційного складу (2) приймає рішення про звинувачення Президента України.

Рішення про усунення Президента України з поста в порядку імпічменту приймається Верховною Радою України не менш як трьома четвертими від її конституційного складу (3) після перевірки справи Конституційним Судом України (4) і отримання його висновку щодо додержання конституційної процедури розслідування і розгляду справи про імпічмент та отримання висновку Верховного Суду України про те, що діяння, в яких звинувачується Президент України, містять ознаки державної зради або іншого злочину.

This brings up a lot of good points, and is a valid argument.  However I have to point out that letting Russia do this could cause NATO and the EU to lose all recognition.  

Russia (And some other countries for that matter) have been making fun of how the US/EU never follows through on its threats for a while now.  The difference this time is that Russia is actively testing if we will do anything about it.  It isn't just posturing anymore.

Unless we respond in kind, the West's legitimacy is forfeit.  I see three clear turning points that this situation can produce, and how I believe the West must respond:

1) Russia Invades Crimea and takes it from the Ukraine.  The West sanctions Russia and bans them from a few things (What is currently happening).

2) Russia invades all of the Ukraine Illegally.  The West really turns on the screws and throws every sanction and asset freezing they can at them.  Georgia is put on the track to being part of Nato, and the West moves away from as many Russian resources as it can.

3) Russia invades other countries along with the Ukraine (Poland, Georgia, or something else).  The West launches missile strikes and investigates a ground war with Russia  (Unlikely to happen unless China agrees to sit this one out).

1.  Because the refferendum will lose.   Hence why Cameron's original response was basiallly "Lets hol it tommorrow" and the SNP pushed it off.

It's just a political move to embaress the SNP.

Unless you can tell the future (I sure as hell can't!), I'm not sure if anyone should write off any future referendum result. Just because a poll says something, it don't mean shit. The actual results of the independence referendum (on the day) is what matters. I see it being very close. 

2.  Except it wasn't even disguised as anything.

Well if they were intent on annexing a region, wouldn't they have just done it? Rather than try and make it look like it was approved by the general population. The Russians were in Sevastopol anyway (a military base leased to them by Ukraine) and were actually 'invited' over by former president Yakanovich (or however you spell it). On that basis, i'm not sure if it was really an invasion to begin with. But, I'm just going to accept the will of the Crimean people. Ukraine itself is a very polarised nation (split between Russia and EU supporters). The west may say Crimea was rigged, but with so many Russian speaking people there in the first place, the result was obvious. They didn't come over night. 

3.   Only like ~100,000 people died...  Which is a small number compaired to the general pile of bodies generated by stalin's soviet Russia.

still I'm not sure if losing between 30-50% of an enthic population due to ethnic cleansing counts as "not a big" deal.

Just because something isn't your fight doesn't mean you have to support it, or want people to support it.

Show me a source please because i have never heard of this. 

That said, ethnic cleansing sort of is our buisness international law wise.  Even though rarely anything is done about it... and i'd think it's fair to argue that more then a majority vote should be needed for a group of people who suffered such penalties to be forced back into the nation that committed those acts on them.  Espiecially when they themselves are overwhelmingly against it, and a large portion of those who inflicted it opon them just so happen to ethnically be the poeple who inflicted it opon them.

The only thing that makes this "not our buisness" so to speak, is that Russia is fairly powerful.  That's a fine arguement to make, it's logical, but it should be made honestly.  It's not a matter of the US and UK "not bein a hypocrite because of iraq", or "Democratic majority."

There's plenty of wrong doing in the world beside Russia but why should it be left up to us to sort it out. Why are we that arrogant that we even think we can sort out everyone else's problems? Especially when the west likely caused today's problems by imposing empires on the less fortunate places of the world.

We are good at starting wars but crap at bring a long and prosperous peace to places we invaded like Iraq and Afghanistan, no matter our intentions.  Not like we could afford yet another war (partly why I think we stayed out of Syria) or that the public would appreciate a war when we are told to cut back on everything. 

It's just cowardice and being selfish.

Which is fine, I wouldn't start a war with Russia either.

That said, I'm not going to pretend to give false morality for the "brave" decision to basically ignore the whoe thing... or even worse, dump on the guy for basically ignoring the situation but at least mentioning so displeasure about the situation.

Where i'm from you blame people for hypocritical bad acts, and cheer them for hypocritical good ones.

The Modern era of no major wars basically boils politics to a game of "who got there first".

Yeah the Ukrainians aren't commiting Genocide.  Dear lord do you people live on the same planet as the rest of us?