Whatever one may think about the referendum on sovereignty held on May 11 in the provinces of Donetsk and Lugansk in reaction to their exclusion by the new regime born from the coup d'état of February 22 in Kiev, its declaration of war and the sending of Ukrainian armed forces on April 12 to expell their populations, its result was widely confirmed by the turnout rate at the elections of November 2.
By the way this rates sharply contrasts with the electoral desinterest shown by the population of the areas controled by the new Kievian regime, in the Western regions (Transcarpathia and Galicia) that proclaimed their independence as well as in the Eastern regions (Kharkov, Dniepropetrovsk and Zaporozhie) and the Southern ones (Odessa and Kherson) that consider themselves as occupied, and even in the Central-North (Kiev) where nevertheless an important part of the population supports the pro-germanic and anti-slavic policy, even though it doesn't really sympathise with the new regime that conducts it. In short, the abstention rate on October 26 in the regions of ex-Ukraine controlled by the BandeReich looks like the desinterest rate of Uniopean parlementary elections.
On the contrary, the turnout at the parlementary and presidential elections in Donetsk and Lugansk on November 2, certified by foreign observers, confirmed the pertinence of the new republics and the interest of their citizens to confer them an optimal legitimacy. As for the results, which from a politologic point of view are less important than the participation rate, they demonstrated the gratefulness and confidence of two thirds of the voting people towards the current authorities, not only institutions but also persons.
These elections were not necessary, first because of the situation of exception under which these regions live (institutional construction on the way, external military aggression and heavy humanitarian crisis) as we wrote on September 10, and second because of their total geographic inclusion in a military operations zone as Strelkov said on October 4. In some circumstances democracy is a luxury even for European educated peoples. Furthermore the elections were a risk because Kievian armed forces, which systematically destroyed life-supporting infrastructure (water potabilisation, electricity production and distribution, hospitals...) and then industrial installations (chimical plants) and managed to aim precisely at schools on the first day of school year, could have launched, since they did not apply the Minsk memorandum demanding the withdrawal of artillery and missiles away from their practical range, a general or punctual bombing in order to totally forbid, or at least partially invalidate, the voting; the reason why they didn't do so is unknown but may be the consequence of firm Russian threats.
In any case these elections are not all. Although they confirm the popular legitimacy and affirm the democratic legality of Donetsk and Lugansk, now doted with elected parliaments and executive powers, they let Novorussia, until now only embodied in an acclaimed governor and an union of parliaments, in a political and institutional undefined zone.
Since they decided, with success despite the circumstances, an institutional construction, the governments of Donetsk and Lugansk republics must now define the respective status of said republics and Novorussia (obviously a confederation), decide the nomination mode of its representatives (elected mandatary, commission extracted from the parliaments or secretary office appointed by the governments for example), and most importantly declare where sits the sovereignty and who is the subject of international law (republics or confederation).
Novorussia, one or united, exists and demonstrated its legitimacy. It now needs to define itself and get recognised.