[annalex]

Legality is an end in itself. An illegal political act cannot lead to a stable result. The only way to resolve this difficult question is though a democratic process that would include a freely conducted referendum and an amendment to the Ukrainian Constitution.

Till then you don't know if "vast majority of people" want to secede from Ukraine.

You're arguing idealized concepts such as national sovereignty and territorial integrity in a situation where the terms no longer have meaning.

RF occupation and annexation of Crimea did not deprive these notions of meaning. Because a robber robbed someone and got away with it, we do not conclude that laws against robbery have no meaning.

Attempts to isolate and encircle Russia have been attempted before. They've always failed

History teaches that during the Cold War The Soviet Union and its allies was indeed successfully isolated from the Western high technology, and eventually that lead to the demise of the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact system. That is what will happen to RF, unless the annexation of Crimea is reversed.

[CodeToad]

“An illegal political act cannot lead to a stable result. “

Our own Declaration of Independence was seen as an illegal act in its day. We’re still here.

[dforest]

"History teaches that during the Cold War The Soviet Union and its allies was indeed successfully isolated from the Western high technology, and eventually that lead to the demise of the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact system. That is what will happen to RF, unless the annexation of Crimea is reversed."

See, you solved the problem with your own words. Why reverse a good thing when it hurts the bad guys in the end?

[quadrant]

Legality is an end in itself when political consensus exists that either compels or encourages people to seek ends through legal means. Remember, it isn't the judge who enforces the law, but the sheriff; the judge makes the sheriff’s actions legal.
No such situation exists with regard to the RF’s annexation of Ukraine.
I don't need to wait. The people of Crimea have spoken. Do you dispute the results of the election?
Once, I read a book about the German annexation of Austria during the 1930’s. The author was quite anti-German; but he was honest enough to admit that even if the election had been entirely fair and conducted according to Austrian law, about 80% (and perhaps more) of Austrians would have voted to join Germany.
You have a similar but not identical situation here. The vast majority of the residents of Crimea do not wish to remain as part of Ukraine. How they exercise that desire may have been irregular but was not outside the realm of decent human conduct. It was not violent nor coercive. Therefore, in my opinion, their choice should be honored. Who knows, one day they may regret it.
Who was robbed? Ukraine or Crimea? Does Ukraine own Crimea? Does it have the right to possess Crimea against the will of the residents? Do Ukrainians who live outside Crimea have the right to compel the residents of Crimea to remain within a country and a political system against their will?
Do Crimeans have the right to choose?
Its true that many parts of Western technology were “withheld” from the old Soviet Union. Yet none of this withholding caused the Soviets any great hardship. The lack of technology did not cause the downfall of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union fell because its political system was steady but not stable, and when the props that supported that steadiness were removed, the system collapsed.
If history teaches anything its the almost absolute impossibility of thwarting the spread of technology.