I believe GoldState is referring to the Ukraine never allowing Crimea a say in their fate during or after the break up of the USSR. I know that the Soviets moved so many Russians to the area to become the majority, evicting the locals, but there should have been some sort of self-determination. It is different than Southern California, or South Texas as the recognized government of the time forced most of the immigration and emigration.
Oh, in that case, I agree, they do have the right for self-determination.
For the previous 20 years, Ukraine and Crimea had a compromise. Crimea had an autonomy, it’s own parliament and constitution. Central government was not only staying out but was paying the Crimean bills. (ie. Crimean Revenues < Expenses, and differences covered by Kiev) The Russians are working on that Kerch bridge, but presently, Crimea is not a self-sustaining region. Almost all electricity, water, oil/ gas, and most of the tourists are coming from the mainland Ukraine.
In return, the leaders of Crimea were not to talk succession. It is true that most Crimeans want the country of Ukraine to have closer relations with Russia, but the percentage of those favouring to secede from Ukraine was very low, somewhere in the single digits. At least that was the case before this crisis, before the evil banderites got the power.
So it’s not a question of whether Ukrainians allowed Crimean to make their choice, Crimeans didn’t push for it. Ask and you shall receive, as the good book says. Before it all, the voices of those who wanted to secede were nothing but a murmur. Whether Russian military occupation will help Crimeans with self-determination - that’s a rhetorical question