Zoraptor

Meh, I'd put pretty much any amount of money that Darryl's new group are 'ruthless savages', for as much as that term has meaning in a post apoc setting. Having rules does not make anyone civilised or nice, they're the best candidates for killing that camp back in the Gov-centric eps and were distinctly and suspiciously interested in the 'clean women's shirt' back when they met Rick, let alone Bow Man's comments. I also thought it was pretty clear that Glenn was set up to as having- literal- tunnel vision and that it was a really stupid decision from a survivability stand point, and pretty much everyone including Glenn knew it from the outset. I do tend to agree on the other things though. CDC should ring alarms about claims of a cure, Woodbury should raise alarms about perfect communities. But I'm not hugely concerned by those sort of issues, as you can do similar to just about anything if you have the mind- the Wire is highly praised but the events at the end of S1 are utterly contrived*. OTOH, I do find it rather perplexing that Maggie seems to have basically forgotten she has a sister. *so the police have an obvious link to the Club they use for conducting business since the manager was a snitch who you'd just whacked for being a snitch. Bright idea to personally order your cousin to pick up a large shipment of drugs from said club, Avon. Not a mistake the real Avon would have made.

Nah, he's already down for voicing the protagonist.

Yep. Don't think I've seen anyone say that Russia is the victim, just that (1) they have reasons for doing what they have done and (2) pretty much everyone behaves the same way with the main difference being the way spin is applied depending on whether it's us or them doing it. To be scrupulously fair elements of (1) can sound like saying they are the victim if that is the message you want to hear instead of an explanation of why the Russians think the way they do.

Been playing Fahrenheit. While I'm enjoying it well enough overall it would be far better as a more or less straight adventure game without the interminable QTEs. And it feels ever so slightly creepy on occasion.

Until you want the patch.... Or buy any of the plethora of DLC, or play multiplayer, or ironman. And of course, even if that were actually drm free it would only be so if you bought direct from steam. Buy retail or from Gamersgate/ Amazon/ OtherDD and you have to plug a code in to activate and access the game- the exact same process to all practical concerns as if it were Securom or Tages.

Exactly what you saying exactly the same thing 2 weeks ago has to do with the part I asked you to provide a cite for, to whit... is a question I'm not sure I can be bothered asking at this point- since it's absolutely clear and explicit that numbersman is talking in the future ("will be begging the Russians") and isn't blaming the EU for the mess Ukraine is currently in. Though at this point it does rather look like someone is throwing BS assertions. In any case, if anyone was blaming europe for the economic mess that Ukraine is in they would be wrong, but same with Russia. It's a self made bed. Passive-aggressive armchair warriorism, if you please.

Nope, I'm afraid not, people are still disregarding their obvious wisdom. The french just had local body elections and they were riven with despicableness! They used transparent ballot boxes and printed more ballots than were used. Stop buying Citroen, Peugeot and Renault everyone to protest this hopelessly undemocratic travesty. New York hipsters can stop buying FIATs instead, I hear the F stands for France! Ah, I note you didn't link to anything to show your economic argument was not a strawman though, as I predicted. Nevermind. (I should ask you about your support for Israel and their unilateral annexations, colonial immigration policies and repression of the indigenous (as much as the tartars are) population in those regions, plus of course their hiding behind a single veto at the UNSC. But I really don't need another long post which is a long winded way of saying "it's different, because I say it is and because I like those doing it!")

Wasn't me, and I'd question if it was anyone at all. I presume no link will be forthcoming, indeed it sounds rather like strawmanning of what several people did say- that Europe offered a pittance bail out as part of its association agreement with big conditions (including ending gas subsidies which would completely trash anyone old and poor) while Russia offered a larger one with few conditions. And of course, the person who made it a one or other affair was a certain Ivan Juan Manuel Barrosovich, of Russia Europe. Still it is kind of ironic that the west of Ukraine wants the far more prosperous eastern part to both subsidise it financially and to not be able to retain their elected representatives if the west don't like them. Should fit in to the greater western fold swimmingly with that attitude. There was Libya of course, where the west 'interpreted' the resolution protecting civilians into regime change (again, with the most mealy mouthed and rubbish interpretations as justification, rather like claiming Kosovan independence had a UN mandate when it didn't) and not protecting civilians in, say, Bani Walid or Sirte- indeed, there were persistent accusations that the freedom loving Misratans used gas there. Nor should we forget presidential candidate Wesley Clark actually ordered an attack on Russia during the Kosovo crisis, an order that the British commander it was given to fortunately disregarded as utterly insane. Poor old Russia could not even gain much appreciation for bailing Obama out of the corner he'd boxed himself in to over the opposition's use of nerve gas in Syria. And, again, Russia disbanded the Warsaw Pact, its cold war alliance, while NATO, the west's cold war alliance is still going strong. But of course it's Russia that has the Cold War attitude... Nah. They just worked out that the west was perfectly happy to take advantage of any leeway given, when Russia was led by a drunken incompetent sot like Yeltsin or when lead by Putin. Took them a decade or so to do it, but there comes a point when assuming good faith from those who clearly don't have it means the old proverb applies "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice... I won't get fooled again" (there's no evidence that oby is russian, btw)

Wholesale scans are copyright infringement. That looks like Fair Use to me, and pictures may well not be copyright to any magazine but EA/ Bioware instead since they would have produced them.

Pretty much everything the UK answered was already told in this thread and if you look you can find a counter response to every paragraph. Yeah, typical propaganda trash from the people that brought us "WMDs from Iraq can hit London in 45 minutes!!!!!!". Better check turnitin to see if it's plagiarised from a Master's Thesis as well this time. Must be nice living in the warm acritical embrace of knowing that you're right because some chap who was once used as a toilet warmer or toast rack while a turd at Harrow writes a press release. Still, because I can... (tldr "everything the UK answered was already told in this thread and if you look you can find a counter response to every paragraph") Response: Not only did the change of government violate Ukraine’s constitution, it was not in line with internationally agreed democratic procedures and best practices. Right Sector armed forces had been in Kiev for several months, during which time they installed a pro-Europe puppet administration that voted through legislation via a parliamentary session under watch from armed, fascist gunmen, from which MPs opposed to Europe’s agenda were excluded or under threat. The legislation’s preparation – which was just 1 hour – was characterised by a complete lack of local electoral commissions, voters’ lists, and no ballot papers at all were issued - with no meaningful impartial observers. The circumstances of the legislation made it impossible for voters to express support for Ukraine's existing government – nor were there any questions on the legislation, nor was there a free public debate in Ukraine. There are credible reports of intimidation. The result is wildly out of kilter with the results of a representative opinion poll described as passably free and fair by international observers and OSCE, called a "Presidential Election" as recently as 2010, which indicated that only 47% of Ukrainian voters supported the Fatherland Party's candidate- and contrasts with the greater proportion who voted for Yanukovich as well as the 95% turnout for autonomy from Ukraine voted for by Crimea in 1991 and the parliamentary majority voting for independence in 1994. Response: Since President Yanukovych’s departure, the Ukrainian Parliament and interim government’s actions have been in violation of the Ukrainian Constitution. Numerous groups, including the United Nations, OSCE and the Ukrainian rabbinical association, have been completely fine with this and indeed insist that it isn't so despite it being a black and white issue. President Yanukovych’s own party, the Party of the Regions, supported measures implementing the interim Ukrainian government and calling for new elections while under threat from armed Right Sector militia providing security for the Rada. The single greatest destabilizing force in Ukraine right now is the Ukrainian 'government' whose first moves were naked triumphalism at having 'won'. Euromaidan was composed of a cross-spectrum of ordinary Ukrainians with a common agenda to demonstrate their opposition to losing a fair (per OSCE) election and their desire to see the majority rather than them disenfranchised in order to become Germany's toilet cleaners once Poles or Bulgarians become too expensive, and actively fascist militia, which also violated the Ukrainian constitution and laws. It was remarkably disciplined in their preparation for violence, barricade building, building occupying, body armour creating and molotov asterisktail production. They acted in a premeditated way to overthrow the elected government after failing to win the election that international observers like the OSCE described as passably free and fair. Response: Ukraine’s government tried as one of its first acts and under threat of violence to enact legislation limiting the use of the Russian language at regional level, and it took days for it to be vetoed after it sparked unrest and they realised it didn't play well with the FREEEEEDOM (otoh it played extremely well with the other freedom, Svoboda) narrative. That the theoretically majority parties who had no interest at all in repealing it and indeed had already defeated various attempts to could not block this underscores how much duress they were under from the Right Sector militia working as Rada security. Response: There was clear legal and executive authority in Ukraine. The abandonment of office accusations against President Yanukovych was 'confirmed' by a non constitutional vote in Parliament under circumstances earlier deplored in this very document as unfair (threat of violence, duress, lack of preparation etc)– a Rada which remained unchanged except for the expulsion and exclusion of non compliant members (deplored in this very document, again, when applied to Crimea) and which was elected in a free vote of the people in Ukraine then set aside when inconvenient by Europe. The interim government was approved by an overwhelming majority (not a single dissenting vote! Wow, and they question the Crimea vote's 90+%) in a vote in the Ukrainian Parliament under circumstances described as not free earlier in this document, including representatives of Yanukovych’s Party of the Regions being 'protected' by Rada's Right Sector security. Response: The situations in Crimea and Kosovo are not comparable. THEYRE NOT THEYRENOT THEYRENOT!!!!1!!!1111!!!! WE DID KOSOVO ITS OK WE DID IT SO ITS OKOKOK JUST BECAUSE IT DOESN"T SET A PRECEDENT BECAUSE> BECASE BEACUSE!!!!! YOU CANT USE OUR PREVIOS LOGIC AGAINST US THATS NOT FAIR!!!! meanie Kosovo’s eventual independence came about through a long, inclusive (Albanians and NATO), process under NATO occupation (this is, of course, bad and means the process is eeeevil if it's Russia doing it), under the auspices of a UN Security Council Resolution which did not specify independence the thing you're trying to justify you overbred Old Etonian muppet I know I've read the resolution, eventually reaching an agreed political settlement- we agreed, so by definition it was agreed! even if the other parties involved like Serbia and the Serbs in Kosovo didn't actually agree. The referendum in Crimea is attempting retrospectively to legitimise the unilateral action of one state which, as last weekend’s referendum and historical data shows, is acting in complete agreement with the wishes off the majority of the Crimean people just as much as it was in Kosovo. Of course, there isn't a single UNSC resolution supporting Kosovan independence, so it's actually exactly as legitimate in that sense. Oh, and no mention of the CoJ judgement this time? Could it be just a tad inconvenient in what it actually says? Of course, Europe’s position on Crimea does seem to be inconsistent, unsurprisingly goalposts shift when it isn't in our interests.

Yeah, I rather suspect he's of the opinion that whatever he says will be spun negatively in the west ("cat lovers disgusted at Putin's pro puppy stance") so he deliberately trolls for the visceral thrill of bunching morons panties, rather too many half smiles after saying something controversial for it to be coincidence. Indeed, one of his old advisors said that he basically does do it deliberately on Al-J.

Hey, Wheel of Time fans! You know how Obsidian and Red Something were planning on making a WoT game? Well, I've some good news, and some bad news... (While I feel somewhat sympathetic towards anyone who expected a big RPG class announcement the lack of hype was telling given how much overt build up there was for the P(o)E kickstarter and other game announcements)

Yep, my first thought on seeing it and so much so that I really doubt it was coincidence. Apparently it was mentioned on the Talking Dead post ep show as well, but we don't get that here. And whatever else can be said about TWD it didn't duck in that episode.

The problem with Svoboda and Right Sector, from the western propaganda perspective, is exactly what Cultist said. They aren't ashamed of what they're doing, they're proud of it and believe what they're doing will help The Cause, so are happy to document and promote it. Hanging pictures of Stepan Bandera in Kiev's city hall is a godsend for Russia's propaganda every bit as much as the language law repeal was, or forcing resignations under threat of violence- something that happened extensively during the revolution and goes to show how no votes in the Rada under the current circumstances can not be taken at face value or as being free of duress. I don't have much doubt that Fatherland and UDAR would make them disappear if they could- then again, I have little doubt that larger players in most coalitions would happily make their smaller partners disappear if they could- but they are needed and would not respond well to being marginalised. As such all they can really do is try to control and channel their more... radical inclinations and pronouncements.

It's to do with how people's brains work. I have to concentrate in order to tell Robert de Niro and Al Pacino apart and their names are dissimilar in fact if not in 'style' and they don't look particularly alike. I can also only remember one out of Alan Rickman and the guy who was in Leon/ Batman (Gary Oldman, but I seriously did have to look his name up). Why? Some mental wire crossings related to them tending to take similar roles and having moderately similar style names, most likely. Memory and associations aren't really rote/ literal things like a computer hard drive with a specific location that stores "Alan_Rickman.jpg" for comparison even if they have traced the Jennifer Aniston neuron.

Meh, Paradox is about the only company in the video game sphere that I actively and virulently loathe. And a few years ago I would have thought Paradox/ Obsidian a match made in heavan. Still, so long as they have no power to backdoor in steam or turn PoE into a glorified dlc front end like their recent products (and so long as I'm not contributing even a fraction of a cent to Paradox) I don't see any reason to care overly much who does disk pressing and marketing duties whether it be Paradox, EA, 2k or whoever.

It's actually cheaper on GOG- though you have to buy it as part of a choose your own bundle with other games. The other advantage of buying E:C on GOG is that the steam version is published by bitcomposter since they were used as a short circuit to greenlight. If you buy from there you give bitcomposer money for doing literally nothing except putting their name down as publisher, if you buy from GOG the publisher is Logic Artists themselves so the bitcomposter share goes to the people who actually made the game. Mind you, if that is your primary concern you're probably not buying it for $5 anyway...

I'm inclined not to believe it in the absence of independent confirmation- it isn't like the SBU is a disinterested party. If they had proof you'd expect them to parade it in front of the world's media, not just make a release on their own website. And if Russia were to use spetsnaz to reconnoitre you'd either dress them in civvies and have no one carrying id papers or you'd have all of them carrying them. One carrying them and them wearing uniforms is a bit Scooby Doo villain for the real world; those Russians are sneaky, but not sneaky enough! they send in their elite troops but they make a mistake you wouldn't expect a conscript to make! I'd also question the necessity of it, it isn't like Russia doesn't have military satellites and drones capable of spying and they almost certainly have sympathisers inside the Ukrainian military as well. On the other hand I would be inclined to believe that the shooting incident was the result of buzzed up locals deciding to take out some long simmering resentment on symbols of the old order- because hyped up semi organised men the world over tend to do such things when given the opportunity.

I always find it a bit weird how much more I like DS1 over DS2 when you consider how similar they actually are. DS2 felt really linear while DS1 felt a lot less so, in practical terms DS1 was linear, it just gave you some options on which bit of a given plot section you did first but that was enough to mask it better. Plus I found DS2's plot less engaging, while DS1's was nothing particularly special it was handled well. DS2 was a bit too much 'follow instructions of voice in head because you have nothing better to do'. And I found certain sections and particular enemies in DS2 very annoying, far more so than the annoying cylinder monster in DS1. Haven't played DS3, though I'll get it at some point I don't feel any strong need to.

Well now, usually when someone uses that sort of description it is because they feel they're losing an argument and are rather baffled as to why, since they cannot actually be wrong. Not exactly, I gave the rationale for not including it, ie that it was not a home grown Crimean option but one mandated and imposed from Kiev, I did not advocate it. My personal opinion, as stated, was that it should have been included, I just gave the justification for why it was done that way. It wasn't challenged. Again, the Ukrainian constitution was written explicitly so it could not be challenged- and I provided the evidence, direct from said constitution of why that was so. And it is explicitly so, with enforcement means under both Presidential and Rada control. You are, of course, invited to prove how they could have challenged it within that framework, but I'm not holding my breath for anything other than rote repetition of your unsupported point. Nope, I used the DPRK to illustrate why your engineered question failed to prove anything in the real world. Which, per the Ukrainian constitution, would have ceased to exist if it had voted any other way. Much like people would cease to exist if they voted anyone other than Dear Leader in DPRK :smug: You cannot take forced consent under existential threat as actual consent, because it is forced. You've done no such thing. Once again you mistake stating something (repeatedly) for proving something, as the onus is on you to show that the situation has changed, rather than just been suppressed or hidden. The one piece of evidence you've provided is shown to be something that simply could not have happened any other way because that is the way the rules themselves were set up. No, I illustrated how mobile the goalposts were on principles in international law when the west wants to justify something, but how rigid and anchored they are when the boot is on the other foot.

Right, so come up with anything from inside North Korea proving that people there are unhappy, some North Korean institutions going to the UN, opinion polls and whatever other yardsticks you want to apply. Can't do it? Well then, obviously North Koreans really are happy and ecstatic living in Best Korea and everything the west says about it is propaganda... You aren't using a position that has any way logical consistency but relies on circular logic- because it assumes that those institutions you want to see as proof can do the things you want to see, which they cannot, because Ukraine has made it illegal to, so you don't see them, which then becomes proof that everything is AOK in the status quo. Now, you may not end up with a lead overdose for trying in Ukraine as opposed to trying in the DPRK but you could still end up in jail and whatever official body that tried could be- and provably have been- disbanded unilaterally from Kiev. So, in effect you want to see Crimean institutions commit institutional suicide, in the past few years after both the assembly and presidency that tried got squished like a bug and after laws had been specifically (re)written to make it illegal? Not exactly surprising there are no examples. OTOH I actually do have stuff that shows that Crimea wanted separation from Ukraine, you have nothing at all to show that the situation has changed. The onus of proof is actually on you to do so, I've already established the default position. And no, the 1998 constitution does not count as it was not written in Crimea, but in Kiev, and actually proves the exact reverse of what you want. That was the point of the Ukrainian constitution clauses I posted, and why it took 3 years to get a new crimean constitution after Ukraine unilaterally revoked the old one written by the Crimeans themselves. Any attempt post 1995 to write their own constitution runs straight into Kiev's right of veto, by its very definition they cannot call for secession in the constitution or elsewhere, as it has to be approved by Kiev, who will not approve something that allows secession and may prosecute or dissolve any institution/ individual calling for it. Again, claiming that the 1998 constitution shows things have changed is circular logic, because what changed is Kiev made it illegal and impossible to contravene what Kiev wanted. So the 1998 constitution has to reflect what Kiev wants, or there is no constitution. At least until such time as the Ukrainian state apparatus is no longer in a position to impose their will, as now. And again you deflect by pleading special circumstances. The west doesn't do bad things when it abrogates agreements, it doesn't even abrogate them, it withdraws from them (note ABM was abrogated in 2002 and not in the 90s, the dissolution of the USSR did not automatically end any other treaty), due to special circumstances. But Russia withdrawing abrogating agreements is particularly bad, due to other special circumstances. Kosovan independence is OK, due to special circumstances and doesn't establish a precedent, due to special circumstances. The circumstances in Ossetia/ Abkhazia/ Crimea are special, but demand their independence not be considered, due to their extra specially bad circumstances of utter evilness and despicability. It's a pot pourri of inconsistency, a melange of Different Because, a chimeric gestalt of convenient amorphous 'principles' to be stuck to when advantageous, and ignored when not. Every single country does it, the west just has a larger cheer squad and more people who could be the Cirque du Soleil's hit logical contortionist act the knots they tie themselves in trying to justify stuff.

And I specifically pointed out why that is not a good gauge. You ask the question that way because it will give the answer you want, I answer the question that should be asked. To take an extreme example, I could not prove that there is significant political dissent in North Korea either, but that doesn't mean that there either isn't, or that people willingly support the status quo. It just means that they cannot do so overtly. It was not a Kosovo type situation where you had nine years of NATO occupation and preparation for independence allowing pro independence sentiment to flourish, the previous 9 years were occupation from Kiev- a Kiev where you now have Yatsenyuk talking about 'setting the earth on fire' in Crimea. That's not an attitude where you can have a reasoned debate and gradual, mutual movement towards anything whether it be autonomy, integration or separation; just dictated movement towards integration like last time. The previous leader to try and do it got prosecuted and his assembly and constitution were dissolved from Kiev. Seriously, everyone, literally everyone including Kiev has acknowledged that there is genuine and significant separatist sentiment, indeed Kiev has attempted to use its constitution to block it even when they no longer have the de facto power to. If they had the power to stop it, they clearly would have- and then you could still have safely claimed that there was still no separatist sentiment because where are the appeals to the UN etc. Yeah, because the Warsaw Pact still exists, whereas NATO was disbanded once the cold war ended. Whatever your views on the matter of Crimea is you have to be monumentally naive to think that the west does not have an us vs them attitude to Russia or wants Ukraine in its fold for any other primary reason than because it's a dagger at Moscow's heart. It's poor, endebted, its army and institutions are a shambles and it's riven by corruption. It has no significant natural or others resources, except a strategic position close to Moscow. Of course, this will all be dressed up in the costume of fraternal concern and uplifting of the brother hood of european nations. Let's ask Greece how those sentiments have worked out for them, a richer country which actually had less corruption... Dealt with, his removal was illegal under the Ukrainian constitution. So's the referendum of course, but you cannot conveniently grant one side a free illegality but not the other just because you like one, especially when the illegality of it is retroactive relative to the original separatist referendum. And the west violated their assurance to Russia that the break up of the WP and German reunification would not see further eastwards expansion of NATO, or over the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty. Again, treaties are mutual things, can't expect only one side to obey the ones you find convenient, same as you cannot decide arbitrarily that Kosovo is a Special Case but no other case is special, or special enough, for the same treatment.

Is there really any point, you don't exactly have a record of reading or acknowledging whatever doesn't fit your preconceived notions, per Kosovo. Nevertheless, let's run through exactly why you're wrong. 1) Crimea voted for independence from Ukraine twice previously, 1991, 1994. Their wishes were not respected either time 2) The Ukrainian response was to ignore the results, then disband the assembly/ constitution and abolish the post of president. 3) Ukraine wrote their constitution to make secession literally impossible 3a) art 73 "Issues of altering the territory of Ukraine are resolved exclusively by an All-Ukrainian referendum." 3b) art 85.29&38 (approval of constitution of Crimea by Ukraine; ability to disband assembly) 3c) art 106 presidential power to "revoke acts of the Council of Ministers of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea" 4) Crimean constitution then rewritten by Kiev 5) While under Ukrainian military occupation dissenters are subject to potential prosecution under laws of treason and sedition if advocating separation or secession. Or in other words, the lack of strong, apparent, recent secessionist sympathy means nothing because any secessionist sympathy are impossible under circumstances of Ukrainian occupation. Such moves would see the assembly dissolved, any attempt to alter the constitution of Crimea would see it rescinded by decree so normal democratic means are effectively impossible and even if they were allowed any approval would have to come by nationwide referendum. Kiev has already shown that they will apply legal sanctions to those who meaningfully try as well, eg the former Crimean President Yury Meshkov. Try anything like an appeal to the UN or legal advice and you run straight into the constructed problem that you're either doing so with no official capacity, or with your official capacity under threat of immediate revocation from Kiev. The recent pronouncements coming from Kiev on the matters actually illustrate the point rather well. I'd be careful with the Anschluss accusations though. While much like in Austria, there's very little disputation (in fact, I haven't heard any analyst say that the overall result would be different) about what the vote result would have been even if it were methodologically perfect there is literally no evidence that Crimea has ever wanted to be part of Ukraine- the exact opposite is true, there's a lot of evidence that it didn't want to be, ever. The whole thing is predicated on Nikita Krushchev moving some meaningless lines around 60 years ago, and that is literally the entirety of the argument. No 'consent of the governed' or similar here, just the whim of someone the west would otherwise regard as a dictator to be ignored.

I'd have put the status quo on the ballot, personally, but I do understand why they didn't, ie the status quo was dictated to Crimea from Kiev and was not local, unlike the 1992 constitution. They're basically reverting time to the pre 1995 situation before Kiev intervened and removed most of their autonomy (eg making all crimean laws vetoable from Kiev, removing the post of president) as they simply do not see the later constitution as valid. And not, it has to be said, without reason given that there are multiple articles in Ukraine's constitution written specifically- down to specifying that they apply to Crimea, by name- to force them into line and they did vote multiple times not to be so constrained. On a purely statistical/ methodological level most referenda try to have only two options as that is by far the easiest and most reliable/ least confusing way to write them. To illustrate, the Falklands' referendum only had a yes/ no about remaining part of the UK but not an alternative option to become fully independent. On that purely theoretical level having the third option would be better, but it would muddy the waters and it would be more difficult to enunciate the options clearly- plus there'd be questions about whether the Falklands or Crimea could reasonably be independent as an option (probably yes for Crimea, if Ukraine would accept it which they clearly won't, probably not for the Falklands as they are simply too small and could not have a hope of defending themselves).

They had two options representing the two things the actual Crimeans themselves had previously decided upon, go back to their own constitution written by them after their previous independence 95% referendum in 1991 then arbitrarily torn up by Kiev in 1995, or joining Russia. The 'missing' option was to go back to the constitution Kiev wrote for them having- arbitrarily, retroactively and without reference to the crimean people and while having their soldiers and state apparatus stationed there as enforcement- given themselves the power to do so in their own constitution and to make it impossible for Crimea to actually secede. The two options given represent the will of the Crimean people, the missing one represents only the will of Kiev. And Kiev has no one to blame but themselves, it was their own policies and insistence on forcing a region that didn't want to be part of their country to remain and continuous encroachment on their autonomy that has lead them to this result.