Voting fraud secured pro-Russian majority in Crimean parliament
I think this is a pretty interesting article as "Aftenposten’s correspondent interviewed a dozen members of the regional assembly, and talked to a number of central players and eyewitnesses. The conclusion is that the people’s will is far from deciding events in the Crimea. "
If one looks at how the events unfolded the Crimea (rump) parliament only called for Russian 'help' after Russian troops had already infiltrated and invaded. Under huge pressure, armed Russian gunmen only a minority was present when the voted.
Those informations fill in some detail into the story of Russian aggression to make the processes and events of the invasions clearer. In at least another article I read how a Crimean parliamentarian considered pro-Urkainian was denied entry into the house. The big story does of course not change, but the case against the aggressor only becomes clearer.Too few present
Rules require that at least 51 representatives be present in order to hold a qualified vote. The new goverment says 61 members of parliament took part. Aftenposten’s research shows, however, that only 36 were present.
- The system which registers who voted, and what we voted for or against, shows I did cast a vote. But I was not there. Neither were a large majority of my colleagues, says Sumulidi. Representative Irina Klyuyeva also participated in the vote, according to the official records, but she was not present either.
- I didn’t want to go, because I knew what was going to happen. Only pro-Russia representatives were present, and they numbered far below 50. In other words, a legal vote was not possible, she tells Aftenposten.
This BBC article does also fit into the pictures on the streets, with pro-Soviet/Russia crowds being generally considerably older then the pro-Ukraine ones. It is of course difficult ot know the average age of the Russian 'tourists'.
@kaur: I will try to look at it if time permits.
Bookmarks