Pavel Durov quits as VKontakte CEO

What surprises me is that a resulting figure from a so-called "referendum" (taken under foreign armed forces occupation) is taken into account and considered at all! This «not technically legal» does not even begin to describe the situation.

But as for Crimea vs. Kosovo; without international intervention the Kosovo situation would still have been explosive. Crimea was already mostly independent and had a referendum for more independence coming up already and showed no signs of destabilizing.

Also; I'm not aware of dramatically self-serving incentives for NATO's intervention in Kosovo like there clearly are in Crimea (gas reserves, lease for black-sea naval base, destabilizing post-Maidan Ukraine, nationalization of Ukrainian assets, prestige through this 'little war' and restoring former USSR glory.)

My recollection from Kosovo was that NATO intervention was done begrudgingly in an honest attempt to stabilize an explosive situation.

Once again; I'm honestly curious about your perspective on this...

Regardless, if a single polling station in a fairly pro-Russian area, kept on its toes by (amateur) observers, gets a 75% turnout that makes an 80% turnout overall very unlikely given the boycott of the referendum by Crimean tatars.

What's your take on the 123% turnout in Sebastopol btw?

P.S. You are talking about turnout right? Because the votes being 80+% in favor is perfectly possible.

I myself am from eastern europe and have first hand witnessed russian attitude towards post soviet satellite countries. Don't teach me what I know.

Literally almost everything you say is wrong. Referendum was not held at gunpoint. I've seen western sources use that phrase, so I know where you got it from.

It is a valid referendum because Crimea has a weird legal status, look up Autonomous republic of Crimea.

No, the protest most certainly was not organized by real everyday people. Strategically taking over buildings is not what real everyday people do.

I do want to argue that the situation with snipers was not one sided. Some sources say they shot at both, rioters* and the police.

Notice how I use the term rioters - that was not a protest.

P.S. I have no reason to be biased since I don't generally like Russians, especially the ones that stayed in satellite countries after the fall of the Soviet union. They have a habit of not learning the language and not respecting the host country.

P.S.S Learn fucking Russian, so that you can get both sides of the picture, not just biased rehashes of reuters/cnn/msnbc.

Communist government immediately after WWII even had plans for a wide Balkan federation with Albania as a part of Yugoslavia and maybe even Bulgaria, so they made some concession early on. As selimthegrim said we even had "nationalities" - in other countries that would be national minorities as Albania was their ethnic state, but minority term was deemed offensive so we invented another word. And after 1974 constitution in some way they had more rights than Serbs as while Kosovo was part of the Serbia it was also firsthand part of the federal state. So when some law on Serbia level had to be adopted they had a word in it, but when some other law had to be adopted just on the Kosovo level Serbia had no say in it. Even then there were strong separatist tendencies. Milosevic's rise to power was fueled by promises of curbing Kosovo's status. Of course Albanians were not happy, so to speak.

I could go on and on about this but bottom line is that they never wanted to be part of Serbia or Yugoslavia (and I don't blame them, neither would I in their place). So given that they represented almost 90% of population of Kosovo it's probably right for them to be independent.

The problem I have with this is that same rights do not universally apply to other people. As West politicians love to say Kosovo was "special case". Basically, they reserve right to arbitrary decide when will of the people should be respected and when not. They certainly can treat Serbia like that, but it looks like Russia reserved same rights as the West, and it has means to enforce them. Last week British FM said that "there can be no more re-drawing of borders in the Balkans" meaning that Bosnian Serbs cannot secede from Bosnia no matter what referendum results will be (of course there's no chance in hell to even hold a referendum as West will not allow that). But Scottish independence referendum will take place, so I'm confused again - are the Scots or the Serbs "special case".

As for NATO's enthusiasm for intervention in Kosovo please check Kissinger's take on Rambouillet Agreement [1] - and they didn't stabilize situation - they took a side in the war, won a war and final result is this [2] - Serbs are mostly expelled from Kosovo (civilians, not just military) or stuffed in small enclaves. And if you take a close look on that final result - just replace Serbs with Albanians in the previous sentence and you get instant switch from "stabilization" to war crimes. Go figure ;)

Also, compare that situation with Dayton Agreement - USA had enough leverage on all three sides and successfully forced them to sign agreement that nobody liked. On the other hand, during Kosovo crisis I can't recollect any situation where they put pressure on Albanian side and not that there were no arguments for it.

And for self-serving incentives for NATO's intervention - I have no idea. Maybe they concluded that Serbs had enough time to solve problems themselves, maybe they just didn't want to have Russian oriented spot in the middle of the new NATO countries, maybe NATO just searched for reason to keep existing (last instance of this is Crimea situation), maybe Clinton BJ was the reason. They know intervention wouldn't cost them much (they didn't expected that it would last more than a few days), so what the hell - compare that to Crimea situation where there's no consensus even on economic sanctions.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambouillet_Agreement [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_war#Aftermath