Probably. Western Ukraine would be even more eager to join Nato and have americans build bases and missle silos there.
russia wins island
loses control over rest of the Ukraine as well the pressure it had on countries like Lithuania, Poland Romania.

I wouldn't mind if you provided a link to support these claims. Thank you.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/news/special/panels/14/mar/ukrainereferendum/img/graphic_1394456042.jpg
Two options:
1) Вы за воссоединение Крыма с Россией на правах субъекта Российской Федерации?
(Do you favor the reunion of Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation?)
2) Вы за возобновление действия Конституции Республики Крым 1992 года и за статус Крыма как части Украины?
(Do you favor the restoration of 1992's Constitution of Crimean Republic and the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?)
Come again?

Just a quick uneducated guess by a non-American: isn't Fox News (as well as Ron Paul) republican, ie. against the current US government? If so, then I am not surprised at all they would blame Obama and his democratic henchmen for "stirring up trouble in Ukraine". Not anymore than Pussy Riot members complaining about Putin's actions in Ukraine (and elsewhere).

Not to say that they wouldn't have done that (depending how broadly you define "stirring up trouble"), I'm pretty sure they are at least wishing the western-minded forces in Ukraine to be on top.

any threats towards Ukraine will push Poland even more into American hands. Before Poland was USA ally but it had to respect Russia interests and treat lightly in politics when dealing with the Russia. Annexation of Crimea will be seen as hostile move... hence even closer relationship with USA and increased conflict with Russia.
I presume similar situation is happening in Lithuania and Romania.

I'll look into it in the morning. Might be true, might be not. If it is true... well, we'll see how the voting goes.
I just pray they do not invite Churov to help count the votes.
Hmm, fair enough. :-)
Probably yes. But I mean, was there really that much pressure?

Pressure as in strong relationship and ability to push for agreements which are beneficial for russia, like for example during trade agreements, discussing resources prices or other projects which involve both countries. That position will be damaged in my opinion if Crimea is annexed, making Poland more hostile towards Russia and more a lapdog for USA.

So independent of everything that happened lately or will happen, who has the best claim in an ethical sense to Crimea: Ukrainians, Russians or Tartars?

Ukrainians got Crimea as a gift 54 years ago and become it again in the early 1990s and got it's integrity guaranteed by Russia during several treaties. One quarter or all inhabitants currently are Ukrainian.

Russia conquered Crimea some 200 years ago, gave it to Ukraine but within the USSR, then lost it during a weak phase in the early 1990s but still a big majority of people on Crimea speak and feel like Russians. Crimea already has a lot of autonomy, so it not really belongs tightly into the Ukraine.

Tartars lived initially on Crimea before Russia conquered it. Tartars were the majority of people living there until 70 years ago when most of them were deported. After 1990 some returned but with only one tenth of the population they are nothing more than a strong minority now.

So, just out of curiosity: Without any external pressure and if you could decide - to whom would you give now Crimea?

Tatars arent natives in Crimea too. You could easily give it back to Greece if youll dig it far enough. Or Turkey. It simply doesnt work this way.

Well I think about 3 days later we can rename this thread in to Russian annexation of Crimea, since that is what is happening there. No observers from UN, OECD and NATO have been allowed to Crimea and have been shot at. It does really confirm that this is an illegal annexation, especially now that Russian Duma officialy confirmed the presence of Russian troops on Crimea. Reports of Russian army forces gathering on the border to eastern Ukraine are quite ominous. Hopefully this does not escalate further.

Of Crimea? It would be worse, most probably. Observers are laugh tho, what difference does they have?

Well they were sent to oversee the referendum for Anschluss off Crimea to Russia and see if it is really the will of the people that was their mission. The only problem I see at the moment are 80.000 Russian troops by last count stationed directly on the eastern Ukrainian border.

What difference they presence or not presence have, again? They opinion will matter? And theyr opinion can easily be manipulated in any case. But essentially, suppose they are there and they say - "pff, its a pure lie from Russia and clear invasion". Ok, what next? Russian will declare them biased. They can easily say all of it already, without having stepping on a soil with own boots, its modern world.

Yeah I know but the problem is you can not just ignore the observers from United Nations and you can not declare them biased since they represent every member of the UN together (Russia too). But well we all know that annexation is final and there is a big possibilty of russian annexation of eastern Ukraine also.

Surely you can, why not? UN and similar stuff is nothing when it came to big players. It just laugh. UN is some weird body what can decide what some Ghana shouldnt attack Benine or something similar. But it cant do anything to ones what are big enough. As they dont follow the rules they had set by themselves. So called "international law" is dead and non-buried long ago, now it just smell more than usual, so you recalled about it. It just returned to the universal Catch-22 - "they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing". So if those observers cant - its not matter if they are present there. And if they can - its not matter again.