Crimean referendum

IN Sunday's controversial referendum, the majority ethnic Russian population of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea has overwhelmingly voiced their support for secession from Ukraine and joining the Russian Federation. It may be noted that the exercise has not only excluded Crimea's non-Russian  minority  consisting of ethnic Ukrainians and Tatars, but  is also in apparent breach of the Ukrainian constitution under which the republic operated. Needless to say, this has raised many eyebrows, especially in the West.
Coming as it did on the heels of the three-month-long popular uprising in Ukrainian capital Kiev that toppled the former Russian-backed government of President Viktor Yanukovych, the Russian speaking population of Crimea rather hurriedly started their secessionist campaign and sought the referendum with active support of Russia.
How should we in this part of the world look at the Crimean event?  Since the referendum did not offer any clear-cut alternative choice to voters, it led to a predictable outcome. Thus it eroded territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine.
The international community led by western Europe and the USA, which were opposed to  holding of the referendum,  have rejected outright the outcome of the 'referendum'. Moreover, they have imposed sanctions on Crimean and Russian leaders thought to have been behind the referendum drama. All this creates tension in the region.
Kremlin through its open support to the referendum followed by immediate recognition to its outcome has struck a rather discordant note in the post-détente state of equilibrium.
It is hoped that Russia and the West would immediately hold a dialogue on the Crimean crisis, reduce tension and resolve the issue keeping the wishes and interests of the people of Ukraine and Crimea uppermost in their mind.