So much so that basically every Ukranian AND a lot of the Tatars who voted... voted to join Russia?

The Crimeans said 40% of Tatars voted... which alone would be ~5% of the vote.

First point, I'm not arguing that 97% is correct, I'm telling than your poll is before this events, and that is meaningless for a comparison or trend. So you can't tell it could not change that much, because it could... in fact it should change a lot. As an exemple, stats about pro and anti war before and after pearl harbor totally changed in the USA. So you are just not proving your point with your pre-event poll.

What happens is that Ukrainians as a whole voted for a pro-Russia governement. Right now, Ukraine is a mess. The economy is bad, the governement is not elected and is suspected for a part to be fascist, their is a push against minorities (regional language rights), it just had a civil-war, Russia is pushing, Europe is doing nothing, gazolin prices got higher, and there are high doubts about the pension system.

So Russia offers stability, security, higher and guaranted pensions, some money right now, expensive development projects, debt cancel, growth and a cheaper gazolin... or to go back to the mess Ukraine is. Could you think it's an offer good enough for your assumption that most Tatar (within the 40%) are voting against it to be false ?

We can argue about it but my real point, my second point is : with this offer and a large majority of russian... what ever the percent is, Russia would win by referendum, right ? What do you think a realistic percent would be ? 70% ? What does it change ?

Yeah I know it is debatible whether or not it was wrong for Russia to send in troops.  However it was illegal for them to order the Ukrainian soldiers to leave with an ultimatum.  An ultimatum signals a declaration of war under international custom law.  You would know this if you studied it, but you don't.  Still you and others will continue to spout nonsense...

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

So, being genocided is a prerequisite before such action is taken ? Is it based on an international regulation or law ? "Sorry you are not dead enough, it would be illegal".

No, I generally don't think there is enough money in the world to erase the fears of ethnic cleansing and the memories of the past.   Russia is the country that threatens the stability of the tatars.

As for what the voting percentage changes?  A whole lot.

Afterall, they wouldn't of bothered to fix it to be a higher percentage anyway right?

The specific Tatar fears are one of them.  That's why they specifically mention tatar voting percentages.  It's to try and cover up Tatar fears of genocide.

Also, it wasn't that 40% of Tatar's voted to join russia.  It's that 40% of tatars voted.

So it'd be more that a MAJORITY of Tatars voted to join Russia.

A very high majority if you assume everyone didn't vote.  Which is actually probably the case even with a vote as important as it.

Though even 70% does seem high.  60-65% seems about right.

Sorry but no. As russia's occupation there is debatible, so is the decision to order them to leave. If assume that the ukrainian government is illegitimate then Crimea government being the only legitmate government (and by extension Russia) do absolutely have the right to order them to leave. I don't study law, but I fortunately/unfortunately work with a whole room full of people that do.

Pretty much.

If you'll note, the main protests for the actions in Kosovo are to doubt the ethnic cleansing, argueing that it didn't happen.

Outside which, that's an actual you know... differentiation point.

and definitly a more credible position then "ceding due to ethnic cleansing, no....edeing to join us... yes."

(Not that such a thing is actual Russia's position.)

At least now Ukraine have a decent candidate for president elections...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10736246/Darth-Vader-to-run-for-election-in-Ukraines-presidential-race.html

We can argue all day about who has the moral and or legal high ground in this case and cases in the past but when it comes down to it, it is simply a matter of real politik. Russia has interests in Ukraine and is willing to do what it takes to preserve them.

The west rolled the dice when they supported the coup in Kiev in spite of the fact that they had previously backed an agreement between the then Ukranian government and the opposition. It was extremely foolhardy to believe that Russia would stand idly by while a coup installed anti Russian government came to power in Ukraine and then was deemed legitimate by the west.
The fact that the west is seemingly determined to push NATO right on Russia's border and crossing the proverbial red line by attempting to incorporate the Ukraine into a military alliance designed to contain Russia made the Russian reaction totally predictable if not necessarily legal.

So here we stand unfortunately on the precipace of a major confrontation in Europe and one which should never have even come close to this point. Personally I think that Ukraine is not a fundemental interest of the west and they should recognise that it is Russia's red line. Unless they want to risk sparking a conflict in continental Europe the western powers should pursue a compromise agreement with Russia and should not be playing a zero sum game where the benefits are totally outweighed by the risks.

My 2 cents.