Yesterday 2022 September 27, Russian state media RIA Novosti reported the results of the Russian-organized referendums in each Russian-occupied region of Ukraine.Unsurprisingly, each region overwhelmingly voted to join Russia, with "yes" allegedly averaging 94.5% of votes with turnout averaging 88.1%. In Donetsk, "yes" allegedly got 99.23% of votes with turnout of 97.51%.If it's not obvious, these referenda are bullshit. Here's why:
The "leaked report" regarding the Crimean Referendum that you're citing contains this disclaimer in an update:
**In connection with the numerous media references to the review of the "Problems of Crimeans" as an official document of the Presidential Council for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights, expressing the assessment of the Council of the Crimean referendum, we explain that it is not such.
One of its authors, member of the Council Evgeny Bobrov, made a private trip to Crimea from April 16 to 18, 2014, the result of which was an overview of the problems of local residents in various fields. The text of the review was published on April 22, 2014 by Bobrov in the materials of the Standing Committee on Migration Policy and Protection of Human Rights in the Sphere of Interethnic Relations, of which he chairs, and in his personal blog on the Council's website.
The review outlines some aspects of the problems faced by residents of Crimea in the process of integrating the new constituent entities of the Russian Federation into the economic, financial, credit and legal systems of the country. The information is divided into the topics "citizenship", "registration (registration)", "asylum", "registration of real estate rights", "food and food", "educational institutions", "international relations", "religion and church", "resonant murders, detentions and abductions of citizens", banking system. pensions and social benefits", "judicial system", "media", "business", land and situation of rural residents", "tourism", "referendum". At the same time, the review does not contain political assessments, the results of official surveys, surveys or examinations. It presents only personal observations and opinions of the authors. In particular, speaking about the Crimean referendum, the authors of the review convey exclusively the value judgments of their interlocutors, without assessing their objectivity and accuracy.
The Council requests media representatives not to pervert the content of this review.**
The “leaked” review was kept up in this form for the rest of the year (at least, see the archive record) of 2014. It was not leaked. This was not an alternative report of official polling but contained a reference to experts and the persons interviewed. Calling this leaked when it was published in this form on multiple channels is nonsense. You're either being intentionally dishonest (for example claiming this report was deleted without applying context of relevance and the time it was available) or simply didn't look into this properly.
The "leaked report" regarding the Crimean Referendum that you're citing contains this disclaimer in an update:
**In connection with the numerous media references to the review of the "Problems of Crimeans" as an official document of the Presidential Council for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights, expressing the assessment of the Council of the Crimean referendum, we explain that it is not such.
One of its authors, member of the Council Evgeny Bobrov, made a private trip to Crimea from April 16 to 18, 2014, the result of which was an overview of the problems of local residents in various fields. The text of the review was published on April 22, 2014 by Bobrov in the materials of the Standing Committee on Migration Policy and Protection of Human Rights in the Sphere of Interethnic Relations, of which he chairs, and in his personal blog on the Council's website.
The review outlines some aspects of the problems faced by residents of Crimea in the process of integrating the new constituent entities of the Russian Federation into the economic, financial, credit and legal systems of the country. The information is divided into the topics "citizenship", "registration (registration)", "asylum", "registration of real estate rights", "food and food", "educational institutions", "international relations", "religion and church", "resonant murders, detentions and abductions of citizens", banking system. pensions and social benefits", "judicial system", "media", "business", land and situation of rural residents", "tourism", "referendum". At the same time, the review does not contain political assessments, the results of official surveys, surveys or examinations. It presents only personal observations and opinions of the authors. In particular, speaking about the Crimean referendum, the authors of the review convey exclusively the value judgments of their interlocutors, without assessing their objectivity and accuracy.
The Council requests media representatives not to pervert the content of this review.**
The “leaked” review was kept up in this form for the rest of the year (at least, see the archive record) of 2014. It was not leaked. This was not an alternative report of official polling but contained a reference to experts and the persons interviewed. Calling this leaked when it was published in this form on multiple channels is nonsense. You're either being intentionally dishonest (for example claiming this report was deleted without applying context of relevance and the time it was available) or simply didn't look into this properly.