it pains me that in 21 century we still have to explain that voting at gunpoint from 3rd party (armed occupation from another country) can't possibly be conside

it pains me that in 21 century we still have to explain that voting at gunpoint from 3rd party (armed occupation from another country) can't possibly be considered valid. It's the same strategy Russia used to annex neighboring countries before WW2. - first they get their military in by any means necessary - then they take down any means of mass communication, TV towers, radio etc. Any leaders of the opposition will be killed or jailed. Only censored Russian propaganda will be shown. - then occupation army will establish a puppet government which will stage a referendum which asks to join Russia in some form. At that point it's rather irrelevant how the people vote because as Stalin said, it's not important who votes but rather who does the counting. I think Anne Applebaum in one of her books has described how it went down in the countries that Russia annexed. Looked eerily like following a flowchart and evidently still works and sounds plausible to some people. Scottish independence referendum seems to be a rather good example how such independence referendums really should look like to be accepted by the world.