Russia's actions in taking over Crimea, right or wrong?

[The Magistrate]

11. This May Be The Most Ignorant Post I Have Seen On The Subject In the Last Several Weeks, Sir

Granted, the competition is stiff, and there have been some splendid efforts in the ignorance line from others in that time, but this one really does take the mustard. It packs more swill into fewer syllables than anyone has a right to expect: many people try and pack a gallon of crap into a quart jar, but you have actually succeeded in it.

The government in Kiev is not a government of 'bona fide Nazis', nor is that government one which is 'literally Nazi'. There is more than enough evidence in current, credible news reports of actions by the Kiev government against far right elements, including arrests, even killing of a major leader by police, to demonstrate these are far from in charge. There is, further, the non-violent way in which the government at Kiev is conducting itself, in the face of serious domestic provocation: a government 'literally Nazi' would have already been engaged in mass arrests of dissidents in the eastern portion of the country, and would have broken occupation of government buildings in several towns with violent assaults by police and military forces. Since your 'Ukraine was taken over by bona fide Nazis' claim is false on its face, your claim that Crimea was 'liberated by Russians' is nonesense of a positively Rumsfeldian caliber. The closest match to it is your claim that Crimeans 'chose Russians over Nazis': it is true that a vote was held, while Russian troops held the streets, and that the reported tally of that vote was decidedly in favor of Russia annexing Crimea, but why anyone should presume that count was honest escapes me. It may well be that a majority of persons in the Crimea desire to be under rule from Moscow and not Kiev, but the vote held hardly suffices to prove that to be so.