#2014 crimean status referendum

[athis333]

In 1942, answering a pacifist opponent of British involvement in the Second World War, George Orwell replied that “pacifism is objectively pro-fascist.” There have of course been many times in human history when opposition to war has been morally justified, intellectually coherent, and, in the end, vindicated. But the war to defeat fascism during the middle part of the past century was simply not one of them. “This is elementary common sense,” Orwell wrote at the time. “If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other.”

Eight decades later, as a fascistic Russian regime wages war against Ukraine, a motley collection of voices from across the political spectrum has called upon the United States and its allies to adopt neutrality as their position. Ranging from anti-imperialists on the left to isolationists on the right and more respectable “realists” in between, these critics are not pacifists in the strict sense of the term. Few if any oppose the use of force as a matter of principle. But nor are they neutral. It is not sufficient, they say, for the West to cut off its supply of defensive weaponry to Ukraine. It must also atone for “provoking” Russia to attack its smaller, peaceful, democratic neighbor, and work at finding a resolution that satisfies what Moscow calls its “legitimate security interests.” In this, today’s anti-war caucus is objectively pro-fascist.

To appreciate the bizarrely kaleidoscopic nature of this caucus, consider the career of a catchphrase. “Is Washington Fighting Russia Down to the Last Ukrainian?” asked the headline of a column self-published in March by Ron Paul, the former Republican congressman and presidential candidate. It was a strange question for Paul to be posing just three weeks into President Vladimir Putin’s unjustifiable and unforgivable invasion, especially considering the extraordinary lengths to which the Biden administration had gone to avoid “fighting Russia.”

Even stranger than Paul’s assertion that the U.S. was goading Ukrainians into sacrificing themselves on the altar of its Russophobic bloodlust, though, has been the proliferation of his specious talking point across the ideological spectrum.

Ten days after Paul accused his country of treating Ukrainians as cannon fodder, the retired American diplomat Chas Freeman repeated the quip. “We will fight to the last Ukrainian for Ukrainian independence,” Freeman declared sarcastically—even as he excused Russia’s “special military operation” as an understandable reaction to being “stiff-armed” by the West on the “28-year-old demands that NATO stop enlarging in the direction of Russia.” Freeman, a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia and a senior fellow at Brown University’s Watson Institute, made these remarks in an interview with The GrayZone, a self-described “independent news website dedicated to original investigative journalism and analysis on politics and empire.”

Although The GrayZone would characterize itself as an “anti-imperialist” news source, the opaquely financed publication is highly selective in the empires it chooses to scrutinize; it is difficult to find criticism of Russia or China—or any other American adversary—on its site. A more accurate descriptor of its ideological outlook is “campist,” denoting a segment of the sectarian far left that sees the world as divided into two camps: the imperialist West and the anti-imperialist rest.

Freeman, who served as Richard Nixon’s interpreter during his 1972 visit to China, seemed to feel at home in The GrayZone. In that Manichaean domain—one that lacks, naturally, any shades of gray—no anti-Western tyrant is too brutal for fawning adulation, and America is always to blame. A Republican foreign-policy hand in conversation with a fringe leftist website might seem like an odd pairing, but Freeman has a fondness for dictators.

In 2009, when Freeman was appointed to serve on the National Intelligence Council during the first year of the Obama administration, a series of leaked emails revealed a window into his worldview. Observing the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, Freeman praised the Chinese Communist Party for its bloody crackdown on peaceful student demonstrators; his only criticism of its dispersal of this “mob scene” was that it had been “overly cautious” in displaying “ill-conceived restraint.” It is quite something to read a retired American diplomat criticizing the Chinese regime for being too soft during the Tiananmen massacre, but such views are not as aberrational as they sound. Within the school of foreign-policy “realism,” notions of morality are seen as quaint distractions from the real business of great-power politics.

In April, it was Noam Chomsky’s turn to recite the Pauline mantra in a podcast with the editor of Current Affairs, a leftist magazine. Going out of his way to praise Freeman as “one of the most astute and respected figures in current U.S. diplomatic circles,” the world’s most famous radical intellectual endorsed the crusty veteran of realist GOP administrations for characterizing American policy in Eastern Europe as “fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian.”

From Chomsky’s mouth to Putin’s ears.

“A great deal is being said about the United States’ intention to fight against Russia ‘to the last Ukrainian’—they say it there and they say it here,” the Russian president mused the following week, prefacing his mention of the gibe with his own version of that Trumpian rhetorical flourish, “A lot of people are saying.” That same month, an American Conservative article by Doug Bandow of the libertarian Cato Institute was headlined “Washington Will Fight Russia to the Last Ukrainian,” denying Ukrainians any agency in their own struggle by answering the question Paul had rhetorically asked.

Soon after, the dean of realist international-relations theorists, the University of Chicago scholar  John Mearsheimer, used the line as though he’d just thought of it. By then, the argument that America was “fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian” had ping-ponged between both ends of the ideological spectrum an astonishing number of times. The point for the anti-imperialist left and the isolationist right, as well as the realist fellow travelers hitched to each side, was that blame for the conflict lies mainly with the U.S., which is using Ukraine as a proxy for its nefarious interventionism in Moscow’s backyard.

That the fringe left would blame America—which it views as the source of all capitalist exploitation, military aggression, and imperialist evil in the world—for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is predictable. It blames America for everything. When, two days after the Russian invasion began on February 24, the Democratic Socialists of America called upon “the US to withdraw from NATO and to end the imperialist expansionism that set the stage for this conflict,” mainstream Democrats condemned the statement. More significant has been the position taken by mainstream realists, who similarly fault the West for somehow “provoking” Russia into waging war on its neighbor. These politically disparate forces share more than a talking point. They also have a worldview in common.

Consider America’s leading realist think tank, the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. This “transpartisan” group enjoyed great fanfare upon its founding, in 2019, with seed funding from the libertarian Charles Koch and the left-wing George Soros. After two decades of “forever wars,” here at last was an ideologically diverse assortment of reasonable, sober-minded experts committed to pursuing a “foreign policy of restraint.” But counseling restraint as a rapacious, revisionist dictatorship wages total war on its smaller, democratic neighbor had a whiff of appeasement for at least one of Quincy’s fellows, leading to a split within the organization.

“The institute is ignoring the dangers and the horrors of Russia’s invasion and occupation,” Joe Cirincione, a nuclear non-proliferation expert and one of the group’s leading left-of-center scholars, said upon his resignation this summer, adding that Quincy “focuses almost exclusively on criticism of the United States, NATO, and Ukraine. They excuse Russia’s military threats and actions because they believe that they have been provoked by U.S. policies.”

The moral myopia Cirincione identifies is an essential trait of the new online magazine Compact, where self-styled anti-woke Marxists and Catholic theocrats unite in their loathing of classical liberal values at home and their opposition to defending those values abroad. In an article titled “Fueling Zelensky’s War Hurts America,” the left-wing writer Batya Ungar-Sargon took issue with the U.S. supplying defensive weaponry to Kyiv, arguing that resources devoted to supporting Ukrainians would be better spent helping economically disadvantaged Americans.

Pushing the United States to prioritize the needs of its poorest citizens, even if that means forgoing its responsibilities for maintaining the European security order, is at least an intellectually defensible position (if a shortsighted and reductive one). But Ungar-Sargon also went out of her way to give credence to Russia’s specious territorial claims.

“If Ukraine’s territorial integrity were of such immense national interest,” she wrote, “surely we would have climbed the rapid-escalation ladder back in 2014, when Moscow invaded and annexed Crimea—a move that a referendum found was popular among Crimeans.” The plebiscite Ungar-Sargon endorsed was held under Russian gunpoint to provide a legal fig leaf for the first armed annexation of territory on the European continent since World War II. She also identified Donetsk and Luhansk—the two Russian-backed separatist enclaves in Eastern Ukraine that Putin recognized as puppet states on the eve of his invasion and where he has now held similarly meaningless referenda annexing them to Russia—as “independent republics,” conferring a legitimacy that was in marked contrast to the way she referred dismissively to “the United States and its European satrapies.”

Many commentators have likened Volodymyr Zelensky to Winston Churchill for his charismatic resistance to foreign invaders and his ability to raise the morale of his people. In light of this popular association, the headline that the editors of Compact devised for Ungar-Sargon’s apologia—“Zelensky’s War”—is nauseating, blaming the victim while seeming to evoke the title of a notorious book by the Holocaust-denying historian David Irving, Churchill’s War.

Condemning the U.S. and its allies for the unfolding tragedy in Ukraine requires one to ignore or downplay a great deal of Russian misbehavior. This is a characteristic that unites left-wing anti-imperialists, right-wing isolationists, and the ostensibly more respectable “realists.”

“Russian President Vladimir Putin, the argument goes, annexed Crimea out of a long-standing desire to resuscitate the Soviet Empire, and he may eventually go after the rest of Ukraine as well as other countries in Eastern Europe,” Mearsheimer wrote in a 2014 essay titled “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault.” “But this account is wrong.” Eight years on, as Russian forces marched toward Kyiv and Putin issued vague threats of nuclear escalation, Mearsheimer made no acknowledgment of how very wrong his own earlier, sanguine assessment of Putin’s intentions had been.

“We invented this story that Putin is highly aggressive and he’s principally responsible for this crisis in Ukraine,” he told The New Yorker a week into the invasion. Putin’s apparent goal of overthrowing Zelensky and installing a puppet regime would not be an example of “imperialism,” Mearsheimer argued, and was meaningfully different from “conquering and holding onto Kyiv.” All of this linguistic legerdemain would surely come as news to the Czechs, Poles, Slovaks, and other peoples of the region who once suffered under the Russian imperial yoke.

As evidence of Russian war crimes against Ukrainian civilians mounts, Mearsheimer has cleaved to his position that NATO enlargement is to blame for the war. “I think all the trouble in this case really started in April, 2008, at the NATO Summit in Bucharest, where afterward NATO issued a statement that said Ukraine and Georgia would become part of NATO,” he also told The New Yorker. Although the NATO communiqué did express the alliance’s hope that the two former Soviet republics would become members at some indefinite point in the future, it came after France and Germany had successfully blocked a proposal by the Bush administration to offer Ukraine and Georgia an actual path to membership. But even if the U.S. had made such a promise, how would that justify the invasion and occupation of Ukraine? Mearsheimer also ignores the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, according to which the United States, Britain, and Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine surrendering its nuclear weapons. This concord lasted for 20 years, until Putin abrogated it by invading and occupying Crimea.

Even more obtuse are the excuses for Russian aggression made by Mearsheimer’s fellow academic realist, the Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs. Sachs has worked as an adviser to a host of international institutions, such as the World Health Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank, as a development economist. Unlike Mearsheimer, he has no particular expertise in foreign political affairs, but this has not stopped him from pronouncing on geopolitical issues. Last December, as Russia was amassing its forces on Ukraine’s border, Sachs suggested that “NATO should take Ukraine’s membership off the table, and Russia should forswear any invasion.” This ignored the fact that Russia had already invaded the country in 2014.

Seeking to explain “the West’s false narrative” about Ukraine after the war began, Sachs noted, “Since 1980 the US has been in at least 15 overseas wars of choice (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Panama, Serbia, Syria and Yemen to name just a few), while China has been in none, and Russia only in one (Syria) beyond the former Soviet Union.” This sentence contains two significant qualifications. First, Sachs’s counting only those “wars of choice” that Russia waged “beyond the former Soviet Union” implies that its invasion of Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 were permissible through some sort of Cold War–continuity droit de seigneur. Second, Sachs’s selection of 1980 as the starting point for his comparison conveniently excludes the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which began in December 1979 and became the Red Army’s own forever war, lasting almost 10 years and playing a crucial role in the Soviet Union’s demise.

Russia’s war against Ukraine has exposed the incompetence of the Russian military and the hubris of President Putin. It has also revealed the bravery and resilience of the Ukrainian people, who, contrary to Ron Paul’s ambulatory talking point, had no need of any American to prod or gull them into defending their homeland. Here in the U.S., the war has also exposed the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of an ideologically diverse set of foreign-policy commentators: the “anti-imperialists” who routinely justify blatant acts of imperial conquest, and the “realists” who make arguments unmoored from reality.

[starseedpatriot]

Let’s get the facts right:

‼️Fact 1. In February 2014, a coup overthrew the Ukrainian government which came to power in an election certified by the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation). The president, Viktor Yanukovich, was forced to flee for his life.

‼️Fact 2. The coup was instigated by United States officials. Neo-conservatives such as Victoria Nuland and John McCain actively supported the protests. As confirmed in a secretly recorded phone call, Nuland had determined the post-coup power composition weeks in advance. She bragged they had spent $5 billion in this campaign over two decades. Nuland managed the coup but Vice President Biden was overall in charge. Subsequently, Joe Biden’s son personally benefited from the coup.

‼️Fact 3. The coup government immediately acted with hostility toward its Russian speaking citizens, which make up 30% of the population. On the first day in power, the coup regime acted to make Russian no longer an official state language. This was followed by more actions of hostility. As documented in the video “Crimes of the Euromaidan Nazis”, a convoy of buses going back to Crimea was attacked. In Odessa, over thirty  opponents of the coup government died when they were attacked and the trade union hall set afire.

‼️Fact 4. During World War 2, there were Nazi sympathizers in western Ukraine when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union.  This element continues today in the form of Svoboda and other far right nationalist parties. The Ukrainian government has even passed legislation heroizing Nazi collaborators while removing statues honoring anti-Nazi patriots.  The situation was described three years ago in an article “Neo-nazis and the far right are on the march in Ukraine”.  The author questioned why the US is supporting this.

‼️Fact 5. The secession of Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk are a direct result of the 2014 coup. In Crimea, a referendum vote was rapidly organized. With 83% turnout and 97% voting in favor, Crimeans decided to secede from Ukraine and re-unify with Russia. Crimea was part of Russia since 1783.  When the administration of Crimea was transferred to the Ukraine in 1954 they were all part of the Soviet Union. This was done without consulting the population.

In the provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk on the border with Russia, the majority of the population speaks Russian and had no hostility to Russia. The Kiev coup regime was hostile and enacting policies they vehemently disagreed with.  In spring 2014,  the Luhansk and Donetsk Peoples Republics declared their independence from the Kiev regime.

‼️Fact 6. The Minsk Agreements of 2014 and 2015 were signed by Ukraine, Ukrainian rebels, Russia and other European authorities.  They were designed to stop the bloodshed in eastern Ukraine and retain the territorial integrity of Ukraine while granting a measure of autonomy to Luhansk and  Donetsk. This is not abnormal; there are 17 autonomous zones in Europe. These agreements were later rebuffed by the Kiev government and Washington. This led to the decision by Russia on 21 February 2022 to recognize the Peoples Republics of Donetsk (DPR) and Luhansk (LPR).

But isn’t secession illegal under international law? The US and NATO have little credibility to oppose secession since they promoted the breakup of Yugoslavia, secession of Kosovo from Serbia,  secession of South Sudan from Sudan, and Kurdish secessionist efforts in Iraq and Syria, etc.. The secession of Crimea is justified by its unique history and overwhelming popular support. The secession of Luhansk and Donetsk may be justified by the illegal 2014 Kiev coup.

US intervention, both open and secret, has been a major driver of the events in Ukraine. The US has been the major instigator of the conflict.

https://t.me/LauraAbolichannel

[mariacallous]

It’s been one year since Russia launched its full-scale war against Ukraine, but residents of Crimea have been living under Russian occupation for nearly a decade. And while Moscow’s oppressive policies and arbitrary arrests have affected people of all stripes, there’s no question that the peninsula’s Crimean Tatar population has been disproportionately targeted. Dozens of Crimean Tatars have been arrested on charges of “extremism,” while many more have been forced to leave the peninsula altogether. After Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Moscow’s proxies in Crimea cracked down on local Tatars even harder; human rights advocates have compared the mobilization campaign there to genocide. Meduza explains how nine years of Russian occupation have affected the Crimean Tatar population, and how Moscow is forcing this group to fight a war against the country it considers its own.

Chapter 1

Occupation

A standoff on the eve of the invasion

On February 26, 2014, less than a month before the annexation of Crimea, two groups of roughly the same size met outside of the Crimean Parliament building in Simferopol. Altogether, there were more than 12,000 people in the crowd. The first group, headed by then-Crimean State Council deputy Sergey Aksyonov (now the head of Russian-occupied Crimea), contained supporters of the pro-Moscow party Russian Unity who wanted a referendum on the peninsula’s status. Their opponents, led by the Crimean Tatar Mejlis (an official representative body of Crimean Tatars in Ukraine, along with the Qurultay), had come to prevent the parliament from meeting to discuss the republic’s secession from Ukraine.

“We said, ‘Don’t schedule a [parliamentary] session, don’t blow up the situation in Crimea,’ because it was clear yesterday that the session had been scheduled with a single goal in mind: to initiate Crimea’s withdrawal from Ukraine,” Mejlis Chairman Refat Chubarov said that day.

At that point, a massive influx of Russian troops had arrived in Crimea six days earlier, while residents who supported Russia had joined the “Crimean self-defense forces” — volunteer units that Aksyonov had created with Russia’s support. Their main goal was to keep supporters of the Maidan Revolution away from government buildings. A cordon of Ukrainian police officers was also stationed outside of the Crimean parliament building to maintain order.

Nonetheless, the gathering turned violent. Approximately 30 people were injured, and two people died: 21-year-old Igor Postny had a heart attack during the demonstration, and senior citizen Valentina Korneva was trampled by the crowd. Both were advocates of Crimea joining Russia. Four years later, Crimea’s Russian-installed parliament would posthumously award Postny and Korneva “for defending the Crimean Republic.”

Many Crimeans consider the February 26 demonstration to mark the start of their resistance against Russian occupation. The scheduled parliamentary session didn’t occur that day; not enough deputies were present to constitute a quorum. The following day, however, Russian soldiers without identifying insignia seized control of Crimea’s government buildings. Sergey Aksyonov was declared the speaker of Crimea’s Council of Ministers, and less than a month later, on March 17, he became the head of the region. Crimean Tatars have been facing repressions from the Russian authorities ever since.

Schism

According to human rights advocate Afize Karimova (whose name has been changed at her request), Crimea Tatars’ disloyalty to the Russian authorities is “linked to historical memory” — memory of the Crimean Khanate’s economic collapse that was artificially induced by the Russian Empire in the late 18th century, the pressure on Muslim clergy and the forced emigration of Crimean Tatars to Turkey in the early 20th century, and the 1944 mass deportation and the execution of the Tatar intelligentsia under the Stalin regime. For Crimea Tatars, the 2014 annexation of Crimea was not an anomaly but a continuation of centuries of oppression.

Still, some Crimean Tatars supported Russia even after the annexation, including, for example, Russian State Duma deputy and former Crimean Tatar Qurultay member Ruslan Balbek. In 2019, he went as far as to say that Crimean Tatars are still faithful to the oath they pledged to Catherine the Great in 1783, when Russia first annexed the Crimean Peninsula. Balbek called the oath a “precursor” to the 2014 referendum.

Pro-Ukrainian Crimean officials have essentially disowned Crimeans who have taken the side of the Russian authorities. Permanent Ukrainian Presidential Representative in Crimea Tamila Tasheva told Meduza that people like Balbek are “collaborators” who don’t deserve any dialogue. “They’ve betrayed their people, and [they’ve betrayed] those whom the occupiers killed, tortured, or imprisoned,” she said.

In addition to local politicians, the Russian authorities have received support from the Spiritual Directorate of Crimean Muslims, a religious organization that selects Crimean Tatars’ religious leader. The position is currently held by Mufti Emirali Ablayev, who first took the post in 1999, and retained his position after Crimea’s 2014 annexation. “For 30 years, we lived and moved in the same direction, and now we find ourselves in a different system. Some people like it, and some people don’t. But on the whole, there are no problems. There are misunderstandings, but that’s inevitable. These problems are fixable,” Ablayaev said in a 2016 interview about repressions against Crimean Tatars.

Crimea has effectively undergone a religious schism: Mustafa Dzhemilev, who served from 2014–2019 as the Ukrainian president’s commissioner for the affairs of the Crimean Tatar people, has accused the Spiritual Directorate of Crimean Muslims of betraying the “aspirations and ideas of Crimea’s Muslims.” At a meeting in Kyiv in November 2016, a group of delegates from various Crimean Tatar organizations decided to create a new Spiritual Directorate of Crimean Muslims and elected Aider Rustemov, a former editor from a Ukrainian Muslim publishing house, as the new mufti. Unsurprisingly, the pro-Russian Spiritual Directorate called the new organization illegitimate.

Rustemov said the same thing about his accusers. “By definition, there can’t be [mufti] elections in occupied Crimea, because it’s occupied territory. Emirali Ablayev isn’t reelected — he’s appointed by the [Russian] FSB. All of this is illegal from a legal perspective and from a religious perspective. Emirali Ablayev is a traitor to his own people,” said Rustemov after Ablayev retained his post in 2018.

The repressions begin

About a year after the February stand-off, eight Crimean Tatars were arrested in Simferopol for taking part in the demonstrations. Among them was Mejlis Deputy Chairman Akhtem Chiigoz, who was charged with organizing mass riots and sentenced to eight years in prison. In 2017, after he had spent three years in behind bars, Chiigoz was extradited along with fellow Mejlis leader Ilmi Umerov to Turkey, which has long supported Crimean Tatars and considered them compatriots due to their Turkic roots. According to Mustafa Dzhemilev, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan personally lobbied for Chiigoz and Umerov’s release, though Erdogan hasn’t commented publicly.

By the time Chiigoz and Umerov left prison, the Crimean Tatar Mejlis had been declared an “extremist organization” by the Russian-installed Crimean Supreme Court. At one court session, Crimean Prosecutor General Natalia Poklonskaya called Mejlis leaders “puppets” and claimed that “big Western puppeteers” were using Crimean Tatars as a “bargaining chip.”

The “extremist” designation gave Russian security forces free rein to repress Crimean Tatars. According to Mejlis First Deputy Speaker Nariman Dzhelyalov, approximately 15 activists from the organization have disappeared since 2016, and to this day, none of them has been found. Crimea’s Russian-installed Investigation Committee has claimed that “there is no mass disappearance of Crimean Tatars on the peninsula.”

In 2017, Mejlis leaders filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights, and it began reviewing the case in 2021. Also in 2017, in a response to a claim from Ukraine, the International Court of Justice demanded an end to Russia’s persecution of Crimean Tatars, but the Russian authorities ignored the ruling.

A majority of Mejlis members were forced to flee Crimea. Many of them managed to go to Ukrainian-controlled territory, including former Mejlis Chairman Refat Chubarov. “In Kyiv, they maintained their composition, and they continue to work. They actively collaborate with the Ukrainian authorities on issues related to their people’s rights,” Permanent Ukrainian Presidential Representative in Crimea Tamila Tasheva told Meduza.

The pipeline explosion case

One of the roles of Tasheva’s office, which was first established in 1992, is to provide support to Ukrainians who have stayed in Crimea despite the repressions from Russia. One of those people is Mejlis First Deputy Speaker Nariman Dzhelyalov. According to Tasheva, he worked for years to support political prisoners on the peninsula, including by attending their trials. “In 2021, [however], after he visited the Crimea Platform summit in Kyiv, Russian security forces arrested him and charged him with sabotage,” Tasheva said.

In late September 2022, Crimea’s Supreme Court sentenced Dzhelyalov to 17 years in prison. Prosecutors claimed he orchestrated an attack on a gas pipeline in southeastern Crimea in August 2021. Initially, Crimea’s Interior Ministry reported that a pipeline had been “damaged,” but on September 4, the authorities accused Dzhelyalov and two other activists of “blowing up” the line. That same day, 60 Crimean Tatars staged a protest outside of the Crimean FSB building in Simferopol. Police arrested 40 of them.

Lawyer Nikolai Polozov, who represented Dzhelyalov in court, stressed to Meduza that prosecutors didn’t offer a single piece of firm evidence in the “sabotage” trial. According to investigators, Dzhelyalov organized the attack, while the other two activists planted the explosive device and detonated it.

To support their case, prosecutors relied in part on testimonies from Dzhelyalov’s co-defendants, brothers Asan and Aziz Akhtemov, who later reported that FSB agents had tortured them with electric shocks to extract confessions.

Nariman Dzhelyalov said the following in his closing statement:

The criminal proceedings against me, an activist of the Crimean Tatar National Movement, a Qurultay delegate, and the first deputy speaker of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People, are intended to outlaw and label as “terrorism” Crimean Tatars’ entire system of representative institutions. And, in so doing, to open the way to mass repressions against Ukraine’s indigenous people.

Nikolai Polozov said that he, too, believes the Russian authorities intend to declare the Crimean Tatar Mejlis a “terrorist organization” — rather than just “extremist” — in the foreseeable future:

The Mejlis isn’t just a few dozen people who are elected to serve as a governing body. It’s a system that has regional, city, and village divisions; it’s several thousand people, all of whom will be categorized as “terrorists” if the Mejlis is declared a “terrorist organization.” The [full-scale] war has interrupted these plans somewhat, but it hasn’t affected the work of the repression apparatus.

According to Polozov, the case against Dzhelyalov and the Akhtemov brothers was fabricated for one purpose: to intensify the pressure against Crimean Tatars, who have shown a lack of loyalty to the Kremlin since the start of the occupation. Meanwhile, the Kremlin began opening numerous cases related to another Islamic movement, which, unlike the Mejlis, has already been declared a “terrorist” organization: Hizb ut-Tahrir. The Russian authorities have sentenced dozens of Crimean Tatars to jail time on terrorism charges for allegedly being active members of the organization.

chapter 2

‘Terrorists’ and lawyers

No weapons, no explosives

Russia’s Supreme Court first banned Hizb ut-Tahrir back in 2003, putting it in the same category as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Moscow’s not alone in considering the organization a terrorist group; it’s also banned in Germany and multiple Arab countries. At the same time, Hizb ut-Tahrir rejects violence as an acceptable means of achieving its goals and has never taken part in even a single known terrorist attack anywhere in the world.

In Ukraine, Hizb ut-Tahrir remains legal, and members regularly held public events in Crimea until 2014, including conferences, seminars, and training sessions about religious and political topics. As a result, human rights advocate Afize Karimova told Meduza, it’s fairly easy for the Russian authorities to find Crimean residents with connections to the group. “Furthermore, we [human rights advocates] are certain that many intelligence officers who previously worked in Ukraine’s security forces switched over to the FSB after 2014, which caused Ukrainian Security Service materials to end up in the hands of Russian intelligence agencies.”

Of the 106 Crimea residents arrested since 2015 on charges of cooperating with Hizb ut-Tahrir, 104 have been Crimean Tatars. Not one of the defendants was in possession of any weapons or explosives.

The Russian-controlled Spiritual Directorate of Crimean Muslims has supported Moscow’s policy regarding Hizb ut-Tahrir. Its press secretary, Zera Emirusein, has called the pan-Islamist organization “a cancerous tumor on the body of the Crimean Tatar people,” and he has accused its participants of “destroying the national identity, language, and culture of the Crimean Tatars”:

In 2014, when the first arrests began, Mufti [Emirali Ablayev] asked the security forces to implement a moratorium [on prosecuting Hizb ut-Tahrir members]. They gave them two years, and during that time, the [pro-Russian] Muftiate conducted outreach work with adherents [of Hizb ut-Tahrir]; [they explained to them] that in Russia, the party had been declared a terrorist organization and that they could be jailed for it. Some people went to the mainland, to Ukraine, others went underground, and others continued their activities in the open. Naturally, arrests followed.

Human rights activists and lawyers divide the cases against Crimea residents for Hizb ut-Tahrir affiliation by region: law enforcement often arrest a group of residents in a certain part of Crimea and call them “a local terrorist cell.” In some cases, multiple groups have been “found” in the same area; in 2017–2018, for example, eight people were arrested for their alleged membership in the “second Bakhchysarai group” and given prison sentences between 13 and 19 years. The group included teachers, activists, and business owners.

The largest group of alleged Hizb ut-Tahrir members so far has been the “second Simferopol group.” The case against them has 29 defendants, four of whom are still being sought by the authorities; the other 25 have already been convicted. Because the group is so large, the case was divided into five subgroups. The first subgroup includes the alleged “organizers” of “terrorist activity”: journalist Remzi Bekirov, attorney Riza Izetov, construction workers Farkhod Bazarov and Shaban Umerov, and plumber Raim Ayvazov (who was charged only with “participation” in the organization).

All five defendants denied the charges and called the case politically motivated. Raim Ayvazov has claimed that in April 2019, as he tried to leave Crimea, FSB agents caught him and tortured him. The officers who arrested Aivazov haven’t commented on the allegations.

“The powers that be, hiding behind anti-terrorism and anti-extremism laws, destroy all dissent. Our politically motivated case, just like the cases against hundreds of other Crimean Tatars and Crimean Muslims who have either been convicted or who are in prison awaiting sentencing, are prime examples of that,” said Remzi Bekirov in his closing statement in March 2022.

All of the defendants from the Remzi Bekirov’s subgroup were given between 15 and 19 years in prison. The last sentences in the case against the “second Simferopol group” were handed down in January 2023; all five of those defendants were given 13 years in prison each. One of them, 62-year-old Servet Gaziyev, had a stroke before her sentence and now requires constant medical care, which she hasn’t received in prison. Another defendant, a 60-year-old disabled man named Djemil Gafarov, died in prison on February 10, 2023.

Since the Russian authorities began prosecuting Crimean Tatars for alleged involvement in the Hizb ut-Tahrir movement, only one person has been acquitted: journalist Ernes Ametov, a defendant from the “second Bakhchysarai group.” His case was subsequently returned to the courts, however, and the police arrested him again on the same charges in May 2022. Seven months later, Ametov was sentenced to 11 years in prison.

In 2021, the peninsula witnessed its first known case in which the attempted arrest of a Crimea resident on charges of involvement with Hizb ut-Tahrir turned deadly. Simferopol FSB agents broke into the home of Uzbek citizen Nabi Rakhimov. According to law enforcement, Rakhimov opened fire first, forcing the officers to use their weapons in self-defense. The lawyer representing Rakhimov’s wife, Sokhiba Burkhanova, later told journalists that during an interrogation, police tried to blame Rakhimov’s death on the couple’s 15-year-old child.

Rakhimov’s body hasn’t been returned to the family, and the officers who shot him are reportedly now fighting in the war. After Rakhimov’s death, Sokhiba Burkhanova was arrested for violating Russian immigration rules, and she’s currently being held in a deportation center in Krasnodar. Her children are living with family friends.

The most recent arrests of Crimean Tatars on Hizb ut-Tahrir-related charges came on January 24, 2023, in Crimea’s northern Dzhankoi district. The following day, six defendants appeared before a Simferopol court, which placed them in pretrial detention centers for two months, pending hearings. When more than 30 Crimean Tatars gathered outside the courthouse in a show of support, police officers arrested them, and a judge jailed everyone for 10 days on charges of “the mass simultaneous presence of citizens in public places resulting in a violation of public order.”

Streets with no men

The widespread persecution of Crimean Tatars that began after Russia annexed Crimea has affected women in distinct ways. In 2018, Anastasia Moiseyeva, a lawyer from the group CrimeaSOS, said the authorities’ targeting of women was on the rise, calling it a “new trend in Crimea.” In August of that year, for example, Crimean Tatar poet Aliya Kenzhalieva was charged with “rehabilitating Nazism” for poems that criticized the war in the Donbas. Several days later, she was released due to a lack of evidence.

A more common charge against Crimean Tatar women is “inciting hatred or enmity.” For example, the Russian authorities opened a case against a woman named Gulsum Aliyeva in 2018, flagging her Facebook posts about Crimean political prisoners. The case was dismissed in January 2019, but Aliyev has since been arrested multiple times on the same charges.

But many more Crimean Tatar women have suffered from the Russian repressions without being the target of criminal charges themselves. When Crimean men are arrested, they leave their families without fathers, husbands, brothers, and sons — and often, as a result, with no income. In parts of the peninsula with large Crimean Tatar populations, human rights advocate Afize Karimova told Meduza, there are entire streets with no men left.

Meduza spoke to several Crimean Tatar women whose husbands were convicted of alleged involvement in the Hizb ut-Tahrir movement about how their lives have changed. Their names have been changed for security reasons.

A woman named Emine recounted how her husband’s arrest negatively impacted her entire family’s health. She says her father-in-law was hospitalized in February 2023, though doctors have been unable to reach a definitive diagnosis. At the same time, her mother-in-law’s diabetes has gotten markedly worse in recent months, and traveling to Rostov-on-Don, where her son’s trial is taking place, is difficult for her.

“We wanted a child for a long time; we went from doctor to doctor,” Emine continued. “When our dream finally came true [and I got pregnant], FSB agents stormed into our home. The stress caused me to lose the baby. My husband didn’t know until we saw each other briefly in the remand prison.” Emine is currently awaiting her husband’s sentencing.

The husband of Dilyara, another woman who spoke to Meduza, was sentenced to 17 years in prison in 2021. Since then, she’s been raising four children on her own.

“When they arrested my husband, our youngest daughter wasn’t even a year old yet. Before that, I kept our house running and cared for our children, and my husband worked to support us. The rest of the time, he tried to help me out however he could. After his arrest, that arrangement was destroyed: [now I have] four children in my arms, a husband in prison to worry about, work, and elderly parents [both mine and my husband’s] to support,” said Dilyara.

At first, she says, the “constant pressure” kept her from falling into despair, but she was always exhausted, sometimes even falling asleep while driving. Before her husband’s arrest, the family spent a lot more money on their children’s education, but after she became the family’s sole breadwinner, she had to remove the kids from most of their after-school programs.

All of the women who spoke to Meduza said that Crimean Tatars have provided each other with moral, material, and legal support since the start of Russia’s occupation. The Crimean Solidarity movement, an organization of activists, lawyers, and family members working to assist political prisoners on the peninsula, has launched the Crimean Childhood project, where volunteers help Tatar children whose fathers are incarcerated by taking them on vacation and running clubs and art classes for them.

Chapter 3

Mobilization

‘I didn’t wait to become cannon fodder’

Seidamet Mustafayev is a 49-year-old psychology professor and a Crimean Tatar activist from Simferopol. In 2014, he was fired from the university where he taught for expressing his pro-Ukrainian beliefs, but he nonetheless chose to remain in Crimea. Mustafayev told Meduza that he’s been threatened multiple times in the years since Russia annexed Crimea — “not just with criminal prosecution, but with physical violence.” Most of the threats, he said, have come from “bots on social media,” but not all of them. “There was one situation where some people drove up to me, opened the window [of their car, and] promised they would ‘take me out’ if I didn’t shut up,” he told Meduza.

After losing his job, Mustafayev created a Facebook page to connect with other Crimeans who opposed Russian occupation. Mustafeyev says he had no desire to leave the peninsula; like thousands of other Crimean Tatars, he’d already lived the first part of his life in exile in Uzbekistan, where the Soviet authorities deported his ancestors.

In 2022, however, he was forced to emigrate. In the summer, he and his 21-year-old nephew were summoned to a local military enlistment office for medical exams. They ignored the orders and remained in Simferopol. On September 21, however, when Vladimir Putin announced mobilization in Russia, Mustafayev and his nephew felt they had no choice but to flee. They left through Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, ultimately reaching Germany.

“When I found out that I might be sent to serve as cannon fodder in a war against my native country, I didn’t wait around for a draft order. I got my nephew out, too. They definitely would have taken him — he fit all of their requirements,” Mustafayev told Meduza.

Mustafayev said that practically all of the Crimean Tatar men he knows have received draft orders since the start of mobilization. “They even tried to take 60-year-olds, but their lawyers managed to defend them,” he said, adding that most of the people he knows managed to “get out in time.” Several days after the start of the draft, leaving Crimea effectively became impossible due to police checkpoints on the roads.

The Russian authorities haven’t released official data about the number of people drafted from Crimea, but local activists told Meduza that Crimean Tatars received a disproportionate number of draft orders compared to other Crimeans.

Crimea’s Russian-backed authorities have vehemently denied these claims. On September 24, Crimean Military Commissar Evgeny Kutuzov said that reports of “only one nationality” being drafted were false and had been “planted by Ukraine.” Two days later, Sevastopol Governor Mikhail Razvozhayev reported that about 2,000 people in Crimea had been called up, and that they had served in the army “while still under Ukraine.”

According to calculations by CrimeaSOS, however, approximately 90 percent of the draft orders issued in Crimea went to Crimean Tatars. It’s unclear how many of those people were sent to the front. Meduza was unable to find other specific data about the number of draft orders sent to Crimean Tatars, and the Russian authorities haven’t commented on mobilization among the peninsula’s Crimean Tatar population.

But Permanent Ukrainian Presidential Representative in Crimea Tamila Tasheva’s description of Russia’s mobilization process is consistent with the data provided by CrimeaSOS. She told Meduza that “hundreds” of draft orders were issued in areas with high concentrations of Crimean Tatar residents. “For the already small Crimean Tatar population, these kinds of steps by the occupiers could be disastrous. To avoid mobilization, people have gone into hiding or left Crimea for other countries,” she said.

‘Shells don’t choose their victims’

According to human rights advocate Afize Karimova, many Crimean Tatars view mobilization as a new stage of oppression by the Russian state. Lawyer Nikolai Polozov calls the draft a violation of Article 51 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, which prohibits occupying powers from using the population of an occupied territory for military purposes during wartime:

This speaks to the systemic actions of the Russian authorities, and of the genocide against the Crimean Tatars who for nine years have refused to accept the occupation and who have remained loyal to Ukraine. The same pattern can be seen in Russia’s other regions — in the Far East and in Siberia, where it’s predominantly ethnic minorities who are being mobilized.

Mobilization in Crimea effectively ended in mid-October, and many Crimean Tatars have returned home, Tamila Tasheva told Meduza. She also noted that the total number of people who have left the region since 2014 isn’t especially high — according to her office. “Only a few thousand” moved away, she said.

“During the mobilization declared by Russia, the number of people who fled Crimea increased, but not for long. I’m certain that as soon as the danger of being drafted into the army passes, people will return. Crimean Tatars always return home — we don’t have another motherland outside of Crimea,” Tasheva said.

Activist Seidamet Mustafayev told Meduza that he won’t return to Crimea until it’s been liberated by Ukraine — something that many have begun to see as a possibility since Ukrainian forces retook control of the Kherson region.

Even Crimea’s occupation authorities have begun preparing for potential combat on the peninsula itself by conducting inspections of basements and bomb shelters. But the idea of Russian and Ukrainian troops fighting in Crimea makes many residents uneasy. Human rights advocate Afize Karimova told Meduza that she wants Ukraine to regain control of the region but stressed that “you should never be enthusiastic about war or see it as something inspiring.” “Combat on the peninsula will mean a great loss of human life. Shells don’t select their victims based on political or civic views; they don’t take into account how a person viewed the annexation of Crimea,” she said.

But at the same time, she said, real change won’t be possible until Crimea is liberated:

If you imagine [the repressions] continuing at roughly the same rate for several more years, then the most active segment of the Crimean Tatar people will be destroyed. People understand that the only thing capable of fundamentally changing the situation is political change on the peninsula. And despite the threats and the risks that war will bring, people are waiting for these changes.

[alexsmitposts]

The West Resolutely Refuses to Face the Facts in Crimea One of the more tiresome aspects of the mainstream media is the way they ignore history and treats all modern systems as though they were devoid of historical context. Nowhere is this more obviously the case then in the presentation of the current situation in Crimea. Western politicians and reporters seem completely bereft of historical context when discussing the current friction between Russia and Ukraine over the status of Crimea. Worse than that, they consistently misrepresent the situation in Crimea, consistently referring to Russia’s “annexation” of the territory. The mainstream media, which astonishingly seems eager to see a war break out between Russia and Ukraine over Crimea (They also consistently misrepresent Russian support for the two Russian speaking breakaway regions of Donetsk and Lugansk). All students in the English-speaking world are raised on British history of fighting in various foreign wars. One of those is the Crimean war, fought between Russia and England (among others) between 1853 and 1856. The legend of Florence Nightingale known to every English language school child, emanates from that war. Crimea at that time had been part of the Russian Empire since 1774 when Catherine the Great defeated the Ottoman empire and Crimea was part of the spoils of that war. In 1921 Crimea became an autonomous socialist republic. That Republic was dissolved in 1945 when Crimea became an Oblest in the Russian Soviet republic. In 1954 the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev himself a Ukrainian, passed Crimea to Ukraine, where it remained until 2014, although from 1991 it was an autonomous republic within Ukraine. This latter fact is completely disregarded in western commentary on Crimea. In 2014 there was a political uprising in Ukraine which resulted in the fleeing of the then president Yanukovich in February 2014 and his replacement by a junta. The Americans were heavily involved in that coup that took place at that time. Following disagreements between the Crimean government and the political leadership in Kiev, it led to Crimea declaring itself independent from Ukraine on 17 March 2014. A referendum on re-joining Russia was subsequently held and received overwhelming popular support. On 3 April 2014 Crimea became part of Russia once again. In June is adopted the Russian rouble as its currency and in May 2015 it switched its telephone code from Ukraine to Russia. It is clear from this brief history that Crimea has been part of Russia since the 18th century and even during the 1954–2014 period when it was part of Ukraine, it retained significant independence. To refer to the change over from being a region of Ukraine to re-joining Russia as “annexation” by the latter is a complete distortion of the historical facts. It is the right of regions under the United Nations Charter to freely decide whether or not they wish to remain part of the country to which they are attached. An historical precedent can be seen in the case of Kosovo that in 2008 declared its independence from Serbia. In Kosovo’s case its declaration of independence from Serbia was referred to the International Court of Justice by the United Nations General Assembly. In July 2010 the court declared its opinion. By a vote of 10:4 it cleared that “the adoption of the declaration of independence of 17th February 2008 did not violate general international law because international law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence.” It is difficult to see any difference between the situation in Kosovo and that of the Crimea. In Crimea’s case it has the added advantage of a long history as part of Russia, which its population voted overwhelmingly to re-join. The difference in the treatment of the two situations by western countries is therefore a classic illustration of their hypocrisy. The animus towards Russia and the constant references to Russia’s “annexation” of Crimea tells one more about the hypocrisy of the West than it does about the reality of the situation for the

people of Crimea. Notwithstanding the legal position and the clearly expressed wishes of the people of Crimea to be once again a part of Russia, the president of Ukraine persists in making threats about forcibly re-joining Crimea to Ukraine. That is never going to happen, and any military action by Ukraine to give effect to its desire would inevitably result in a crushing military loss for Ukraine. There is more at stake however, than Ukraine’s sense of having lost part of its territory. Crimea is an important Russian naval base, as it was for years preceding Crimea’s departure from Ukraine. It is no secret, yet rarely mentioned in western media accounts of the situation, that the Americans covet taking over the naval facilities from Russia in the event of Crimea returning to Ukraine. That also is never going to happen, but the United States’ desire to both remove a major Russian military asset and to give themselves that asset is an important factor in fermenting the ongoing dispute. It is difficult to see a peaceful resolution of this problem. The Ukrainian government is clearly not interested in settling the dispute in an amicable manner. They are ignoring the provisions of the Minsk agreement signed in February 2015, which was brokered by the presidents of France and Germany and was signed by Ukraine and representatives of the two breakaway republics and Russia. Ukraine has never followed the terms of the agreement and continues military actions against the two breakaway regions. The experience with this agreement is a clear warning about the Ukrainian attitude toward any resolution of the issue with Crimea. The Ukrainians feel they have the support of the United States in confronting Russia over Crimea, although the depth of that support is an open question. The Russians are clearly under no illusions about Ukrainian sincerity. Russian foreign minister Lavrov recently issued a blunt warning that any inappropriate Ukrainian action would be met with a decisive response. There is no reason to disbelieve him. In the meantime, the Ukrainian economy continues its downward movement. Their president is now treated as little more than a joke and his statements widely disbelieved or ignored. It is frankly difficult to see any peaceful resolution of the problem.

[wiilly03-blog]

Regional and global implications of Russia’s annexation of Crimea

The Crimea peninsula was a semi-autonomous state with affiliations to both Russia and Ukraine, ownership of Crimea and its sovereignty has bounced back and forth, it was part of the ottoman empire before it was ceded to russia in 1783 during Catherine the great’s reign, the Russian forces of queen Catherine had defeated the armies of the Ottoman empire in the russian-turkish war, further down the road, it was made an autonomous state within the then soviet union during the russian revolution. In 1954, Crimea was transferred to the Ukrainian government by Nikita Khrushchev the then secretary to the Soviet Union’s Communist party. Reasons for doing so were not implicitly stated but many people were of the notion that it was a ploy to appease the Ukrainian arm of the Soviet Union communist party. This transfer was met with dissatisfaction by native Russians residents in Crimea since its population is majorly russians with crimea tartas and Ukrainian minorities. Since its absorption from the Ottoman Empire, Crimea served as an important navy base for Russian, the city of Sevastopol in Crimea housed the black sea fleet of the then soviet union and also as an important battle ground for the Russian navy. Crimea was the site of integration of orthodox Christianity into Russia hence Crimea and Sevastopol held very important political and sentimental value to the Russians. When the soviet union fell, Crimea remained under Kyiv administration. Until early 2014 when tensions rose as a result of the Ukrainian president Viktor yanukovich’s refusal to sign Ukraine into the EU, he was ousted and Ukraine fell into political turmoil. With the breakdown of order, Russian troops stepped into Crimea and weeks later a highly disputed referendum was held wherein about 95% of crimeans voted to join Russian, the annexation of Crimea was announced by Putin citing Crimea’s right to self determination as the basis for the takeover. While local support was high, this action by Putin has been frowned upon by both the US and other States.

The annexing of Crimea and the city of sevastopol by Russia has had a lot of impact on both Russia, Ukraine and Crimea.

IMPACT ON RUSSIA

The major implications

Annexing Crimea for Russia was an expensive venture. This venture has cost Russia billions of dollars. The cost of mobilization of troops and logistics inclusive. Taking over Crimea meant that Russia  inherited the burden of paying workers wages and pension benefits of Crimea citizens, there was also the issue of upgrading Crimea’s salary structure to reflect its new status as a russian state and with Crimea having a population of about 2 million with about 26% retirees and another 20% of its population as state workers this cost. Crimea is vastly dependent on Ukraine for power and water with most of the power plants and water canals supplying Crimea situated in ukraine, in a bid to cut crimea  ties with Ukraine and reduce her dependence, russia has had to build power plants in Crimea, Russia had to resize the budgets for other regions in order to meet up with these costs. With Crimea being a peninsula that has no geographical connection with russia, a bridge was built over the Kerch Strait connecting Crimea and Russia together Russia (the crimean bridge),there is also the issue of border control and currency change,  in summary a lot of money will be spent to upgrade crimea to russia’s specification. Crimea annexation is not without benefits to russia, she stands to gain because by taking Crimea and Sevastopol the money remunerated by Russia to Ukraine for use of Sevastopol as a base of Russia naval fleet will cease, this money is about a 100 million dollars(Tadeusz A. Olszański, 2014)  Also the Crimea peninsula being strategically located, has given moscow’s military an edgein both the Mediterranean region and the Black Sea. Tensions between russia and ukraine are at all time high, russia acting rashly has gone against the Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership that existed between both parties, this has several ramifications ; ukraine has decided not to renew the treaty and has proposed to declare war on russia as soon as the present treaty expires

The actions of Russia in crimea has soiled her international image. Russia to the wider world is now seen as a predatory imperialist, and a power grabber ready to pounce on any available and weakened region within its borders without a single regard for the implications. The UN has condemned the annexation of crimea and Russia faces sanctions from both UN and the EU. Also several restrictions have been placed on russia, the G8 (now G7) has suspended russia from all its activities, russia has lost all voting rights in the council of Europe although Russia has responded by boycotting and cutting off their financial contribution to the council. Some russian citizen with ties to crimea have been refused visas in the US and Canada, also Japan has suspended talks with Russian in light of the crimea situation. There has also been a call for a boycott of Russian oil and gas with other EU countries seeking alternatives to russia’s oil.

IMPACT ON UKRAINE

For ukraine , the loss of the crimean peninsula has been colossal, it came at a time when Ukraine was undergoing a difficult transition in government and hence couldn’t withstand russia. It had to call out to the west for help

Losing crimea has left ukraine with reduced military strength with its navy admiral defecting to Russian and its naval ships seized by russia

There also exist on crimea, local ukrainian energy and mining industries which have been lost to the russians, Ukraine’s bid to explore the black sea shelf for hydrocarbons has also be set back due to the region being under russia’s control. Russia has also reduced its involvement in Ukraine’s foreign trade

The loss of Crimea has dented ukraine’s nationalism and sovereignty it has weaken the national identity and created  divisions between members of ukraine and russia. the state’s loss of control over part of its territory and population renders ukraine a weak sovereign state without means of protecting its sovereignty, this has gone a long way in hampering its international image, its parliamentary house is now left with 423 seats as against 450 due to the exclusion of crimea parliamentarians. Ukraine seeks an outright war but a war with Russia who is

 IMPACT ON CRIMEA

Since its annexation, a large population of crimea tartas have moved away from crimea due to the political unrest, the others who have remained have been subjected to harsh conditions by the much significant russian populace, they are seen ukrainian loyalists, this has the effect of reduced workforce. Also annexation has left crimea  with fresh problems such as how to reestablish relations with ukraine seeing that the peninsula greatly relies on ukraine for water and power although Ukraine will be hesitant to sever all services provided to crimea because do so will be in violation of its duty as a sovereign head to provide for its ____ .there is also the issue of banks present in crimea but with headquarters in Ukraine being affected as there is a change in the currency from ukrainian hryvnia to russian ruble

In addition to civic unrest, Crimea as a tourist site with tourist pouring in mostly from ukraine has seen a marked reduction in tourist due to its status as a disputed site and ukraine’s ongoing strife with moscow, its people are now seen by the Ukrainians as backstabbers who traded nationalism for regionalism.

From russia’s standpoint the annexation is but a step in the revival of russia to its pre soviet glory, while ukraine is incensed at russia’s apparent lack of dignity and use of underhand tactics to undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty, other former soviet union republics are watching with care at Russia’s expansion quest and may seek assistance from the west.  With Ukraine’s growing relationship  and Russia’s continued alienation from the west, the stage has been set for a blown out war

   Hutcheson DS., Peterson B 2016, Shortcut to legitimacy: popularity in putin’s russia, “europe-asia studies”, Vol. 68, No.7.

Forsberg, T, Pursiainen CH 2017, The psychological dimension of Russian foreign policy: Putin and the annexation of Crimea, Vol. 31 No. 2.

Gardner, H 2016, The Russia’s annexation of Crimea: Regional and global ramifications, “Europe politics and society”, vol. 17, No. 4.

Gardner, H 2015, Crimea, Global rivalry, and the vengeance of history vol. 1

Kofman, M, Micgacheva, K, Nichipourk, B, Radin, A, Tkacheca, O & Oberholtzer, J 2017, Lessons from russia’s operations in crimea and eastern Ukraine, Rand corporation, California.

Rebecca M, Damon C 2017, NATO’s return to Europe.

Tadeusz, AO, Arkadiusz, SA & Wierzbowska, M 2014, The consequences of the annexation of crimea, viewed 12 March 2019, http://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/analysis/2014-03-19/consequences-annexation-crimea

Wilson, A 2014, Ukraine crisis: what it means for the west, Yale university press, Connecticut.

Larrabee, FS, Pezard S, Radin, A, Chandler, N, Crane, K, Szayna, S 2017, Russian and the west after the ukrainian crisis, Rand corporation, California.

Petro NN 2017, Ukraine in crisis, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, England.

 Saluschev, S, Annexation of crimea: causes, analysis & global implications 2014, viewed 12 March 2019, http://escholarship.org/uc/item/5vb3n9tc

Paul, A 2015, Crimea one year after Russian annexation, pp.1

[alistairlane]

The Humanitarian Charade

              Ukraine was occupied for nearly all of the 20th century.  The Holodomor occurred in Ukraine under Josef Stalin.  Kiev was occupied by Nazi Germany during the Second World War.  An estimated one and a half million Jews were killed in Ukraine during the Holocaust. The Chernobyl Disaster occurred near the city of Pripyat on the 26th of April in 1986.  The atrocities that occurred in the country have left its citizens with bitter ethnic rivalries and intransigent national loyalties.

               On the 16th of July in 1990, The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic adopted The Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine.  On the 24th of August in 1991, following the failed August Coup, the Supreme Council of Ukraine adopted The Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine which established Ukraine as an independent state.  During the 2004 presidential election in Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko suddenly became gravely ill and was reported by multiple toxicologists to have been poisoned by TCDD dioxin.  On the 23rd of November in 2004, The Central Election Commission of Ukraine announced for Viktor Yanukovych to be the winner of the presidential election.    The election results were challenged by Viktor Yushchenko and his supporters.  This led to a series of nonviolent protests which later became known as the Orange Revolution.  The Orange Revolution would result in another round of ballots.  Viktor Yushchenko won 52 percent of the vote in December and became president on the 23rd of January in 2005.  Viktor Yanukovych returned to power as Prime Minister in 2006 until the early elections of 2007 re-established Yulia Tymoshenko.   Tymoshenko would lose the 2010 presidential election to Yanukoych who would remain power up until 2014.  He has since been exiled to Russia and was convicted of high treason on the 24th of January in 2019.

               The Euromaidan protests began on the night of the 21st of November in 2013.  The protests began in response to The Supreme Council of Ukraine’s decision to suspend the signing of The Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement. Flags were flown over Independence Square in Kiev, protestors held mirrors up to the riot squads, and, a catapult was built when the protests turned to rioting.  All of this was spectacularly covered by the associated press. What was noticeably omitted was the presence of the far-Right at the protests.  The All-Ukrainian Union “Freedom” party began as a modernization of the Neo-Nazi organization, The Social-National Party of Ukraine.  Oleh Tyahnybok, who co-founded SPNU, was expelled from the Our Ukraine–People's Self-Defense Bloc in 2004 for giving a speech urging Ukrainians to fight against a "Muscovite-Jewish mafia". The party did abandon their Wolfsangel logo, but, Polish lawyer and political scientist, Tadeusz A. Olszański, alleges that the changes were largely cosmetic.  In spite of having expelled a number of Neo-Nazi and other far-Right fringe groups from the party, Freedom would continue to maintain ties a number of Neo-Fascist organizations, and, factions of the party would still pursue the cause of extreme nationalism.  Freedom is as much of an attempt to reform the far-Right as it is a front for it. Such organizations should not be defended by the likes of The New York Times or Amnesty International regardless as to what Radio Free Europe’s opinions are on the subject matter.  Such facts can also not be reasonably omitted from an article written by any responsible journalist.  To my recollection, Vice News was the only media outlet who was willing to bring up the fact that the far-Right was present at the protests on Independence Square, aside from, of course, Libcom, who, by my estimation, broke the story to the world.  You will find better coverage on the political situation in Ukraine on Reddit, Wikipedia, the comments section of Vice News, and, the forums of Libcom, than you will in all of established journalism.  Perhaps this could be seen as indicative of the emergence of the Fifth Estate, but, I would rather like to point out that what it indicates to me is that the associated press had failed not succumb to the neoliberal pressures of Empire.  The political situation in Ukraine is indicative of the limits of Liberalism. One need only to look at the political parties in the country to discover that the choice is between any number of Fascist factions, the great white light of the centre-right, and, what, aside from a few deeply concerned democratic socialists, basically comprises a Russian mob.  The choice between one pair of combat boots and another is like asking a person who it is that they would like to have stomp their skull in.  I signed an international declaration against the ethnic conflict in Ukraine put forth by a Russian section of the International Worker’s Association.  I would suggest that people around the globe have no right to speculate upon which side to take in an ethnic conflict that has no reason to exist in the first place. The political parties whom the protestors were protesting are corrupt.  Vladimir Putin’s media dominance has long been justifiably lambasted by human rights organizations.  Let us not forget, however, that Putin came up under Boris Yeltsin.  The Reaganite plan for the post-Soviet economy paved precisely the way for the form of corrupt autocratic rule in Russia today that neoconservatives so gleefully castigate.  While a number of the demands put forth by the protestors on Independence Square were quite reasonable, what is not reasonable is that the lingering remnants of Soviet oligarchy should be countered by an alliance, comfortable or not, with the far-Right.  One form of totalitarianism should not be made to replace another.  The attempt to co-opt the discourse of human rights so that they better serve Western business interests and better cover up the disgraceful history of Fascist collaboration on the part of neoliberals and the Intelligence community, is a travesty that should not be let to occur.  The right-wing campaign in Ukraine is similar to the one that now exists in Venezuela.  I should not need to state that Neo-Fascism is not an alternative to autocracy.  Should people anywhere in the world need to protest the abuse of power on the part of left-wing regimes than they should be let to do so without the prying interloping of the far-Right.  The presence of Fascists at sincere protests discredits their demands.  Only a Liberal project that is free of Fascist collusion is capable of prevailing with its ideals intact.  In so far that any Liberal could behave otherwise indicates that they are just simply insincere.  While I am an Anarchist, I do agree with the Liberal principles of liberty and equality.  Such virtues should not be sacrificed in a crusade against a now totally illusory Communist adversary.  

               In February of 2014, Russia invaded Ukraine. The Crimean status referendum which was passed by The Autonomous Republic of Crimea on the 16th of March in 2014 led to the Russian annexation of the territory.  The referendum was deemed to be unlawful by most of the European Union.  The Russian military intervention was criticized by Amnesty International for violating international law.  Due to the fact that there were troops on the ground in Ukraine before the referendum took place, it is likely that the referendum was, in fact, unlawful.  The Russian Federation was involved in a land grab over a territory that oil pipelines run through and not defending its borders.  In the aftermath of the Ukrainian Revolution which established Arseniy Yatsenyuk as the head of a new interim government, a wave of pro-Russian protests swept over the Donbass region of Ukraine.  Pro-Russian separatists established  The Donetsk People's Republic and The Luhansk People's Republic in what became an ethnic civil war.  The War in Donbass is a low intensity conflict that was born out of Western competition with Russia.  Such meddling has led to extreme forms of Ukrainian nationalism which threaten to blight the cause of the Ukrainian Revolution.  The conflict has resulted in 13, 138 casualties and has displaced 2,340,298 Ukrainians.  Such a calamity never should have been incited by the West, provoked by reactionaries in Ukraine, or wrought by the Russian Federation.  Both the Russian Federation and the United States of America should be attempting to bring an end to the conflict and should not be sending military aid to combatants.  The conflict began in only a couple of months.  Let us hope that it can end now in just as quick of a time.  

               As much as any person may agree with some of the tenets of the Ukranian Revolution, I would be warry of support for sending military aid to the Ukrainian government.  Some of the aid will almost certainly go to the Azov Battalion who police their own populace as much as they do terrorists as all Fascists do. Real support for the Ukrainian populace means to actively disengage from the trappings of ethnic racism and to see beyond the confines of nationalism.  Such axioms are the only ones with which a third-party can effect positive change in the region.    

[prayagraj]

No agreement with #US forbidding #attack on #Crimea – #Kiev Western #weapon systems can be used to strike the #peninsula, a senior #Ukrainian #military official has claimed Ukraine’s pledge not to attack #Russian territory with Western-provided weapons does not cover Crimea, Ukrainian Defense Minister Aleksey Reznikov said on Tuesday. Western nations have claimed that their supplies of advanced weapons to Ukraine were conditional on their non-use against targets in Russia, but officials in Kiev have long suggested that Crimea does not fall under that rule, as it considers the peninsula to be its own territory. In an interview with US government-funded broadcaster Voice of America, Reznikov said the US has not objected to strikes on the territory, which Russia views as its own. “We have an agreement with the US that we will not use weapons provided by the US and partners against the territory of the Russian Federation. But if we discuss de-occupying… Ukrainian land where the enemy is now, there are no such restrictions,” he said, after being asked about possible attacks against Crimea. The minister stated that the limiting factor in such strikes would be the range of the weapons it receives from foreign allies. In the same interview, he expressed hope that Ukraine would soon receive MGM-140 ATACMS tactical ballistic missiles. The Lockheed Martin-made projectiles can be fired by the M142 HIMARS and the M270 MLRS rocket systems, which Ukraine already has, and have a range of up to 300 km, significantly further than the types of ammunition provided by the US so far. Crimea broke away from Ukraine after the 2014 armed coup in Kiev, which ousted the democratically elected government. Crimeans overwhelmingly voted in a referendum to join Russia, which accepted the bid and enshrined the peninsula’s new status in its constitution. The move was not recognized by Kiev, which has said it will only seek a peaceful resolution to the crisis after defeating Russia militarily and ousting it from all captured territories, including Crimea. https://www.instagram.com/p/ChYn7rFrsae/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

[newjerseyprelawland-blog]

Why Is Russia Invading Ukraine?

By Ashley Bhandari, Rutgers University Class of 2025

August 17, 2022

As of August 7th, 2022, the Russian Federation is still in an ongoing invasion of the Ukrainian country. Ukraine and Russia have been in conflict since 2014, the start of the Russo-Ukrainian War. Before the Russo-Ukrainian War (2014), the Revolution of Dignity took place following the Euromaidan Protests, a series of protests (2013) that demanded a response to post-Soviet political corruptions and Ukraine’s relationship status with the European Union (President Yanukovych’s refusal to sign the European Union-Ukraine Association Agreement, containing the ability to strengthen Ukraine’s economic presence) . [2] The Revolution of Dignity became a series of violent and deathly protests that took over Ukraine’s presidential buildings which resulted in President Yanukovych’s fleeing to Russia in February 2014.

On February 27th and 28th, during Ukraine protests, pro-Russian gunmen stormed in buildings of Crimea and seized the Crimean Peninsula, whom Moscow denied being Russian soldiers. [2] To clarify, Crimea is a territory connected to Ukraine’s mainland, which stayed with Ukraine’s country beginnings after the dismantlement of the Soviet Union. On March 16th-18th, “Crimea’s accession to Russia” was “after a referendum in the former Soviet republic, which was accused of fraud by obtaining 97% of votes in favor to incorporate it into the Kremlin”. [3] Western nation’s accusations of fraudulent voting within the Soviet Republic increased territorial tensions between Russia and Ukraine. Activists began making a dam with sandbags on the North Crimean Canal, in order to halt the majority of water flowing into Crimea. [4] The Ukrainian Government refused to open the Canal until Russia “ends its occupations” which “means that Russia must transport water over the Kerch Strait Bridge that connects mainland Russia to the Crimean Peninsula, which has been a cause of huge financial strain over the last few years”. [4]

Another major layer to the start of the Russo-Ukrainian War (2014) was the sudden conflict in Eastern Ukraine that followed two months after Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Pro-Russian separatists, a Russian minority population in Ukraine who believe in unifying the republics of Donetsk and Luhansk to create a “New Russia”, decided to occupy the cities of Donetsk and Luhansk, declaring independence from Ukraine. [5] The Ukrainian Government tried an unsuccessful attempt to take back the occupation of both cities, however, the Pro-Russian separatists had already obtained Russian supply and funding. With this sudden occupation, an undeclared war between Ukraine and Russian separatists and supporting forces began, although Russia claimed to be uninvolved. [6] Many attempts since 2014 have been made to settle conflicts including the 2015 Minsk agreements, a series of agreements signed by Russia and Ukraine to end the war in the Donbas region of Ukraine. [7] However, these attempts have never fully relieved the tensions between Russia and Ukraine due to numerous followed conflicts.

Fast-forward to February 24th,2022, Russia launched a major-scale invasion, where Russian forces attacked Ukraine from several angles with shelling and air strikes, killing dozens of troops on both sides. [8] On the morning of the invasion, Putin claims that the invasion is a response to NATO’s (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) consideration for Ukraine to become an active member, as Putin believes that NATO expansion on Russian borders provoked the invasion. [8] Putin also claims that the objective of this invasion is to “de-Nazify Ukraine” and respond to Ukraine’s “genocide” these years during the Russo-Ukrainian war (2014). [9] Many western countries respond to the invasion by isolating Russia and its resources. As of August 14th, 2022, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is ongoing. As of 2022, Russia occupies 126,610 sq km of Ukraine. [10]  

______________________________________________________________

Ashley Bhandari is an Economics major at Rutgers University New Brunswick. Her passions include reading world events that impact American’s daily lives. She hopes to be able to attend law school in the near future.

______________________________________________________________

[1] Kuzio, Taras, and About The Author(s) Taras Kuzio is a Research Fellow at the Henry Jackson Society. “Impact of War and Prospects for Peace between Russia and Ukraine.” E, 30 Nov. 2020, https://www.e-ir.info/2020/11/30/impact-of-war-and-prospects-for-peace-between-russia-and-ukraine/.

[2] “A 5-Minute Guide to Understanding Ukraine's Euromaidan Protests.” Open Society Foundations, https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/understanding-ukraines-euromaidan-protests.

[3] Admin. “Russia and Ukraine at War: What Is the Origin of the Conflict.” SHKMGMCNUH, 25 Feb. 2022, https://www.shkmgmcnuh.org/russia-and-ukraine-at-war-what-is-the-origin-of-the-conflict/2197132022/.

[4] Al Hakam. “The Russo-Ukrainian War – How We Got Here.” Al Hakam, 24 July 2022, https://www.alhakam.org/russia-ukraine-nato-war-europe/.

[5] Who Are the pro-Russian Rebel Separatists? 10 Questions Answered about ... https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/who-are-the-prorussian-rebel-separatists-10-questions-answered-about-the-history-of-ukraine-and-the-tragedy-of-mh17/news-story/413876d1b0883b529e24e9d64438a25d.

[6] “Conflict in Ukraine | Global Conflict Tracker.” Council on Foreign Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/conflict-ukraine.

[7] Person. “Factbox: What Are the Minsk Agreements on the Ukraine Conflict?” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 6 Dec. 2021, https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-are-minsk-agreements-ukraine-conflict-2021-12-06/.

[8] “Why Is Russia Attacking Ukraine? Here Are 5 Reasons Putin and Others Have given for the Invasion.” Yahoo! News, Yahoo!, https://news.yahoo.com/why-russia-attacking-ukraine-5-035515249.html.

[9] Kirby, Paul. “Why Has Russia Invaded Ukraine and What Does Putin Want?” BBC News, BBC, 9 May 2022, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56720589.

[10] Calcea, Nicu, et al. “How Big Is Occupied Ukraine? Use This Interactive Map to Find Out.” New Statesman, 29 July 2022, https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/ukraine/2022/07/ukraine-war-map-occupied-territory-interactive.

[political-affairs]

Crimean referendum

A referendum on the status of Crimea (Russian: общекрымский референдум, Ukrainian: загальнокримський референдум, Crimean Tatar: Umum Qırım referendumu) is scheduled to be held on 16 March 2014 by the legislature of Crimea as well as by the local government of Sevastopol—subdivisions of Ukraine. Regionally, Crimea has a long and complex history whose demographics have undergone dramatic changes. The referendum will ask the people of these regions whether they want to join Russia as a federal subject, or if they want to restore the 1992 Crimean constitution which, according to analysts cited by Reuters, "only offers a slightly longer route to shifting the peninsula back under Russian control" since the 1992 constitution gives the Crimean assembly powers to choose relations with whom it wants and the assembly has already stated it wants to return Crimea to Russia.[2] The available choices do not include keeping status quo as a part of the Ukraine. Regardless of this, media outlets expect the choice to join Russia to be declared as winner under questionable circumstances.[a][b][c][d]

The referendum is polarized by a divide in the international community regarding its legitimacy and the events surrounding it. Furthermore, both the Crimean parliament and the city council of Sevastopol consider the referendum legitimate as they consider the ousting of the former President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, to be illegal, arguing that it did not follow due process. Because of this, the bodies argue that they must inquire of its people what they want of their future. The European Union, Germany, France, and several other nations, in contrast, recognize the newly appointed interim government in Ukraine and condemn the actions taken by Crimea and Sevastopol, including the referendum. In addition, the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People—the body that represents the Crimean Tatars living in Crimea— has called for a boycott of the referendum.[4][5]

During the period of the Soviet Union, the Crimean Oblast was a subdivision of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic until the 1954 transfer of Crimea into the Ukrainian SSR. Crimea became part of independent Ukraine after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, shortly after Crimea had re-gained its autonomy following a 1991 referendum.[6] Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine abolished the 1992 Crimean Constitution[7] and the office of President of Crimea in 1995 when separatist Yuriy Meshkov was banned from the country.[8] The post of President of Crimea has lasted one year. Crimea gained a new constitution in 1998 that granted less autonomy; notably, any legislation passed by the Crimean parliament could be vetoed by the Ukrainian parliament.[6]

In February 2014 polling found about 41% of Crimean people wanted Ukraine to unite with Russia. In 2013 only 35.9% of Crimean people shared the same opinion.[9] 77% of Crimea's and 94% of Sevastopol's population are native speakers of Russian.[citation needed]According to the 2001 Ukrainian population census 58.5% of the population of Crimea are ethnic Russians, 24.4% are ethnic Ukrainians and 12.1% are Crimean Tatars.[10] All Tatars were deported from Crimea and many killed in May 1944 by Soviet leader Stalin's order.[citation needed] Only after 1991 were they able to return in greater numbers to Crimea.[citation needed]

Crimea and Sevastopol are neighboring subdivisions of Ukraine located in the Crimean peninsula, a region with a long and complex history.[11][12] Demographically, the region is currently populated by Russian-speaking majorities but with such demographics undergoing dramatic changes for the past 200 years that have shifted the ethnic majorities from Crimean Tatars to ethnic Russians, due in part to the their deportation 70 years ago.[e][f][g][4]The interim Ukrainian government, United States, European Union, and several other nations state that any referendum held by the local government of Crimea without the express authority of Ukraine is unconstitutional and illegitimate; and that the local Crimean government lacks under authority under Ukrainian law.[4][5] Additionally, the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (a representative body of Crimean Tatars) has called for a boycott of the elections.[4][5]

Russia and the Crimean parliament argue that the referendum is legal, citing the UN recognized right of self-determination and the advisory opinion on Kosovo in which the International Court of Justice declared that international law contains no prohibition against declarations of independence.[16][17][18] Western legal scholars have disputed the validity of the Kosovo analogy.[h]The Associated Press described the referendum as, "essentially a declaration of independence from Ukraine".[i][j] The approval to hold a referendum, however, was taken under a highly diffused environment polarized by uncertainty that lacked external diplomatic observers while Crimea was under a military intervention by Russia. Five days before voting day the OSCE chair, Switzerland's Foreign Minister Didier Burkhalter, declared the referendum as illegal under Ukrainian law and because of that the OSCE will not send observers.[22][23]

On March 11, 2014 the Supreme Council of Crimea and the Sevastopol City Council adopted a resolution expressing their intent to declare independence following the referendum, and on March 14 the Crimean parliament removed the coat of arms of Ukraine from its building.[24]On 27 February 2014, amidst tensions in the region during the Ukrainian revolution, the Crimean Council voted to hold a referendum on the status of Crimea on 25 May 2014.[k][26] Olha Sulnikova, head of information and analysis department of parliament, reported on the phone from inside the parliamentary building that 61 of the registered 64 deputies had voted for the referendum resolution and 55 for the resolution to dismiss the government.[27]Interfax-Ukraine reported that, "it is impossible to find out whether all the 64 members of the 100-member legislature who were registered as present, when the two decisions were voted on or whether someone else used the plastic voting cards of some of them" because due to the armed occupation of parliament it was unclear how many members of parliament were present.[27]

Enver Abduraimov, member of the parliament presidium, said that he did not go inside when he saw that armed guards who secured the building were confiscating all communications devices from deputies. Andriy Krysko, head of the Crimean branch of the Voters Committee of Ukraine, announced that no one from the parliament secretariat was in the building when voting took place.[27]

[interkomitet]

Leonid Slutsky: MEPs observing the vote in the Crimea, put Russia a round "five"

The head of the State Duma Committee on International Affairs, the chairman of the board of the Russian Peace Foundation, is on the air of Radio Komsomolskaya Pravda.

The fact that international observers will look very closely at the vote on constitutional amendments could be easily predicted.

As well as the fact that they are particularly meticulous, they will begin to evaluate the procedure in the Crimea.

Indeed, until now, the leaders of the EU countries have been stubbornly clinging to the bike that the legal referendum on reunification with Russia in 2014 was held “at gunpoint”.

A solid delegation of European Parliament deputies from France, experts from Germany, Sweden, and Bulgaria arrived in Crimea from the European Union.

The voting results on the peninsula were stunning: turnout here became one of the highest in Russia – 81.75 percent.

More than 90 percent of Tauris citizens who participated in the vote approved the amendments. Crimeans once again confirmed: Crimea was Russian, Russian and will remain. This is the will of the people.

The head of the EU delegation, member of the European Parliament’s committee on international affairs, Thierry Mariani, at a press conference following the results of the procedure, stated: the vote was held flawlessly. There is simply no reason to doubt the legitimacy of its outcome.

The results of voting on the peninsula at the request of KP were commented by the head of the State Duma Committee on International Affairs Leonid Slutsky

– Leonid Eduardovich, you did a lot to ensure that the Crimea sailed to its harbor. I understand that European observers arrived here, including at your invitation?

The head of the State Duma Committee on International Affairs Leonid Slutsky: “The deputies of the European Parliament, who watched the vote in the Crimea, put Russia a round five.”

– Yes, and it is absolutely symbolic and significant that the head of this delegation, Thierry Mariani, who had previously been to the Russian Crimea as a deputy of the French National Assembly, has now arrived here as an observer already in the status of a European Parliament deputy from France along with his colleagues, members of the European Parliament.

They visited polling stations, talked with residents in different parts of the Republic of Crimea, visited the largest military cemetery in France abroad – in Sevastopol. This is not the first time, by the way. And they were, in a good sense of the word, amazed at its exemplary content.

Our French friends at the time were the first to break various designs due to a lack of confidence in the “Crimean spring”. They brought down the opinion in Europe that an enslaved, oppressed Russia population lives in Crimea. It was with them that the march through the world informational and political space of the absolutely true thesis about that rejoicing, that happiness experienced by the Crimeans, Sevastopol residents, returning to their native harbor – to the Russian Federation.

– As I understand it, the members of the delegation are very skilled in voting issues?

– Yes, these are real experts. From countries with vast historical experience in conducting democratic procedures. Their assessments are again absolutely positive, although these people are very objective and strict, especially to how polling stations are organized and how the expression of will is carried out. Moreover, now – in the difficult conditions of the coronavirus epidemic.

And the way in which we managed to hold a referendum, while completely eliminating any possibility of contracting a dangerous infection, international observers rated extremely highly, along with the highest rating for transparency, reliability, and objectivity of the expression of will.

– Leonid Eduardovich, on the eve of the vote in an interview with Komsomolskaya Pravda, you were confident in the positive outcome of the vote. Your forecast came true …

“Even more than that.” These are triumphant results, you cannot say otherwise. Very high turnout.

The people are united in supporting the Constitution to become modern, so that the Basic Law for many decades will be truly responsive to the thoughts and aspirations of our citizens.

So that our code of laws becomes in its strength higher than any international documents, as described in article 79 …

– Thank. Good luck

– Mutually.

http://interkomitet.com/live/leonid-slutsky-meps-observing-the-vote-in-the-crimea-put-russia-a-round-five/

[vioncentral-blog]

Crimea Chose to Join Russia, Compensation to Kiev 'Out of Question' - German MP

https://www.vionafrica.cf/crimea-chose-to-join-russia-compensation-to-kiev-out-of-question-german-mp/

Crimea Chose to Join Russia, Compensation to Kiev 'Out of Question' - German MP

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Crimea's reunification with Russia was based on the decision of its residents, so Ukraine should not receive any compensation for the territory that seceded after a referendum, Maurer told Sputnik on Wednesday.

"Compensation is out of the question. The topic should be closed once and forever," Maurer, who has been on a week-long visit to a peninsula, said.

© AP Photo/ Erdogan’s Position on Crimea Unable to Alter Status of Peninsula - Russian LawmakerMaurer's comment comes in response to Czech President Milos Zeman's suggestion that Moscow could compensate Kiev with either currency or energy resources for the loss of the peninsula.

Zaur Smirnov, the head of Crimean Government’s Committee for Ethnic Relations, told Sputnik on Tuesday that the "Crimean issue" was closed when asked about Zeman's proposal.

Economic Potential of Crimea

Maurer has traveled to Crimea as part of a delegation that includes another German lawmaker and 11 Norwegian politicians and businessmen. The visit ends on Thursday, October 12.

German delegation meets with #Crimea's parliamentarians in #Simferopol https://t.co/peymtn0HWW pic.twitter.com/e90rVymdVy

— Sputnik (@SputnikInt) 29 марта 2017 г.

​The lawmaker underlined that he and the businessmen in the delegation see "big potential" in the development of tourism, healthcare, construction of roads and huge infrastructure projects in Crimea.

"I see many opportunities for German business, both large and small. I am sure companies in Germany are suffering big losses and to miss out on the Crimean market in the future would be a big mistake," Maurer, who is also the chairman of the Left Party faction in the City Council of Quakenbruck, added.

Andrei Melnikov, Crimea's minister for economic development, told Sputnik in early October that the authorities were planning to open an investors' club to attract investment from Russia and abroad.

© Sputnik/ Mikhail FomichevNordic Countries Interested in Improving, Maintaining Ties With Russia - Finnish LawmakerThe Crimean peninsula seceded from Ukraine and reunified with Russia after 97 percent of local voters supported the move in a referendum in March 2014. Ukraine, as well as the European Union, the United States and their allies, did not recognize the move and consider the peninsula to be an occupied territory. Nevertheless, delegations from dozens of countries, including France, Italy, Germany, and Jordan, have visited Crimea since then, defying Western restrictions.

In late September, Crimean Deputy Prime Minister Georgy Muradov said that over 100 foreign delegations alongside prominent political and public persons have visited Crimea over the past year and a half.

[55551236]

Subtext No. 5122017. https://youtu.be/f9m2yReECak After having extensive roles within the Russian government, Surkov was tabbed to be Putin’s top aide in September 2013. Soon enough, Surkov became influential in Putin’s views on relationships with Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Ukraine. After the Crimean status referendum in March 2014, Surkov was one of the first 11 people that were handed down sanctions as part of an executive order signed by President Barack Obama. Surkov was added to the Specially Designated Nationals List, which froze his assets inside of the U.S. and also banned his entry into the country. Surkov made a statement after the sanctions were handed down that seemed as if he were mocking the process. He said that he has no interest in the U.S. and doesn’t need to enter the country in order to fulfill his needs. The only things that interest me in the US are Tupac Shakur, Allen Ginsberg, and Jackson Pollock. I don’t need a visa to access their work. A similar sanction was made by the European Union in 2014, adding him to its sanction list, freezing his assets and barring entry to Europe. - kenneth rst vick - (at Harlem)

[deniseyallen]

Portman, Brown Lead Bipartisan Resolution Condemning Russian Aggression in Ukraine

Resolution Follows Three-Year Anniversary of Annexation of Crimea this Month, Calls on the President to Maintain Sanctions 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sens. Rob Portman (R-OH) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) this week introduced a resolution on behalf of Ohio’s Ukrainian community condemning illegal Russian aggression in Ukraine and urging the president to maintain sanctions on Russia as long as it continues its military aggression in the country. The resolution follows the three-year anniversary of the annexation of Crimea earlier this month.

“The United States must stand with Ukraine against Russian aggression,” said Portman, the co-chair of the Senate Ukraine Caucus and a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. “The anniversary of Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea is an opportunity to highlight the continued challenges Ukraine faces, as well as the fundamental principles of the U.S.-led international system at stake. The United States and its allies must renew their political, economic, and military support for Ukraine and, at a minimum, continue to maintain sanctions on Russia until its behavior changes. Ukraine deserves our support, and as the conflict enters its third year, we must leave no doubt about where the U.S. stands.”

“Ohio’s Ukrainian community knows the dangers of unchecked Russian aggression, which is why we must use every opportunity to speak out against Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and continued presence in Ukraine,” said Brown. “This resolution is one small way to condemn Russia’s continued military presence – but we must also take action. That’s why I’m working to maintain and strengthen sanctions on Russia.” 

The resolution is cosponsored by U.S. Sens. John McCain  (R-AZ), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Richard Durbin (D-IL), John Cornyn (R-TX), Bob Casey (D-PA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Chris Coons (D-DE), Pat Toomey (R-PA), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Cory Gardner (R-CO).

Full text of the resolution is below.

Whereas the illegal Russian military occupation of the Crimea region of Ukraine is an affront to international norms, an unprovoked aggression, and a threat to regional stability;

Whereas Russian President Vladimir V. Putin has a history of regional aggression, including the Russian invasion of the South Ossetia and Abkhazia regions of the Georgia in 2008 and intervention in favor of the breakaway region of Transnistria in Moldova in 1991-1992;

Whereas Article II of the Charter of the United Nations states that “all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”;

Whereas, in 1994, the United States, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and Ukraine signed the Budapest Memorandum, in which all parties pledged to respect and uphold Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine voluntarily giving up the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal, which it inherited following the collapse of the Soviet Union;

Whereas a failure of the United States to uphold the terms of the Budapest Memorandum would have significant consequences for the credibility of United States guarantees related to nuclear nonproliferation and undermine America’s commitment to the principle of the inviolability of national borders;

Whereas an association agreement between Ukraine and the European Union was signed in 2014, a move which will strengthen ties with Europe and which President Poroshenko described as Ukraine’s “most important day” since it secured its independence in 1991;

Whereas, on February 28, 2014, Russian forces in unmarked uniforms occupied strategic civil and military infrastructure in Crimea and provided support to pro-Russian militias and activists as part of a coordinated strategy to seize control of Crimea and create the illusion of an organic, local rebellion against oppressive Ukrainian authorities;

Whereas, on March 18, 2014, following a fraudulent public referendum that was boycotted by most Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians and conducted under the shadow of Russian military forces, President Putin signed a treaty annexing Ukraine’s Crimea region, which was immediately met with condemnation by the United States and the international community;

Whereas, on July 17, 2014, Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down near the village of Grabove over rebel-held territory, killing the nearly 300 people onboard, an attack for which the Dutch Safety Board concluded that the Russian-backed separatists were responsible;

Whereas the Government of Ukraine and Russian-backed rebels agreed to a now-failed cease-fire (“Minsk I”) on September 5, 2014, which called for the withdrawal of “illegal armed groups as well as militants and mercenaries from the territory of Ukraine”;

Whereas a Memorandum was signed by parties to Minsk I on September 19, 2014, outlining their understanding of and obligations to the agreement;

Whereas the fragile cease-fire established by the Minsk I agreement deteriorated following heavy fighting in the Donetsk region, which included operations by Russian-led separatists and regular Russian forces;

Whereas the Minsk II Agreement signed on February 12, 2015, by the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Germany, and France, included the withdrawal of all foreign armed groups, weapons, and mercenaries;

Whereas, on February 25, 2015, General Philip Breedlove, NATO Supreme Allied Commander, said that the state of affairs in Ukraine is “getting worse every day” and the Russian Federation has no intention of retreating from Ukraine until its “objectives are accomplished”;

Whereas Russian-backed separatists continue to shell parts of Ukraine and separatists have executed Ukrainian servicemembers, both in direct violation of the negotiated cease-fire;

Whereas aggression by Russian-led separatist forces in Avdiivka in early February 2017 sparked the worst fighting since 2015 and resulted in significant damage to civilian infrastructure and the displacement of thousands of civilians;

Whereas, despite President Poroshenko’s statement that Crimea is still Ukraine, and in the face of Resolution 68/262 adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on March 27, 2014, which reiterated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and stated that the referendum held on March 16, 2014, had “no validity [and] cannot form the basis for any alteration of the status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea or of the city of Sevastopol,” the Government of the Russian Federation continues to refer to Crimea as a “region of the Russian Federation,” declaring that “of course the subject of our region is not up for discussion”;

Whereas the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 71/205, which condemned the “abuses, measures and practices of discrimination against the residents of the temporarily occupied Crimea, including Crimean Tatars, as well as Ukrainians and persons belonging to other ethnic and religious groups, by the Russian occupation authorities”;

Whereas, during a hearing held by the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate on March 10, 2015, former United States Ambassador to Ukraine John E. Herbst cautioned that President Putin is attempting to “overturn the post-Cold War order established in Europe and Eurasia”;

Whereas the Government of the Russian Federation has previously cut off natural gas to Ukraine as a bargaining chip;

Whereas the Government of the Russian Federation has gone to great lengths to hide evidence of its military support, including deploying mobile crematoriums to dispose of the bodies of servicemembers and classifying the deaths of its servicemembers during peacetime a state secret;

Whereas the Government of the Russian Federation is directly arming, training, supplying, and commanding separatist forces in eastern Ukraine, and Russian military personnel maintain a regular presence inside the territory of Ukraine;

Whereas Russia vetoed United Nations Security Council Resolution 2015/562, which would have established an international tribunal to prosecute those responsible for the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17;

Whereas OSCE vehicles have been attacked in an attempt to intimidate Special Monitoring Mission (SSM) personnel, with the deputy head of mission Alexander Hug noting the attacks seemed to be “aimed at stopping the OSCE from reporting what is going on [in Donetsk]”;

Whereas Ukraine’s National Security Council outlined a new military doctrine in September 2015 that declared Ukraine’s intention to achieve the criteria for joining NATO;

Whereas Ukrainian leaders, including President Petro Poroshenko, have stated the Government of Ukraine’s desire to pursue closer cooperation with NATO with the goal of potentially joining NATO in the future, with Rada Speaker Andriy Parubiy stating in June 2016 that he is “convinced that for Ukraine, at the time of Russian aggression, NATO membership is the strategic direction of our development”;

Whereas the United Nations has reported that, since the beginning of the conflict, almost 10,000 people have been killed, including more than 2,000 civilians;

Whereas the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) reports that nearly 600,000 children living in eastern Ukraine have been deeply affected by the conflict and that 1,000,000 children in Ukraine are in “urgent need” of humanitarian assistance, and the European Union reports that a total of 3,800,000 people are in need of humanitarian assistance;

Whereas the United Nations Working Group on Mercenaries in March 2016 raised “deep concern” about the conflict in Ukraine and called on Ukraine to “ensure accountability for human rights violations committed by foreign armed actors”;

Whereas the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights reports several instances of pro-unity supporters and Crimean Tatar activists being abducted or “found dead in circumstances resembling a summary execution” alleged to be committed by “the de facto authorities of Crimea, or with their authorization, support or acquiescence”;

Whereas journalists have come under attack or arrest for speaking out against Russian aggression, such as Pavel G. Sheremet, who was killed by a car bomb in July 2016, and Mykola Semena, a reporter for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty arrested in Crimea and currently on trial for writing that Crimea was part of Ukraine;

Whereas NATO pledged, during the July 2016 NATO summit in Warsaw, to provide additional training and technical support to the Ukrainian military and re-endorsed a Comprehensive Assistance Package that will ensure the Government of Ukraine receives further advisory support, enhanced defense capabilities, and military training;

Whereas the United States Government has committed over $600,000,000 in security assistance to Ukraine since 2014;

Whereas Congress has authorized the provision of defensive lethal assistance to Ukraine in the Ukraine Freedom Support Act (Public Law 113–272), the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92), and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328);

Whereas, in 2014, President Barack Obama issued Executive Orders 13660, 13661, 13662, and 13685, which imposed sanctions blocking property of certain persons and prohibiting transactions with respect to the Crimea Region of Ukraine as a result of Russia’s illegal annexation and military aggression in Ukraine;

Whereas NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stated on November 21, 2016, that NATO “will never recognize the illegal annexation of Crimea, and [NATO] continue[s] supporting the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine”;

Whereas, on February 3, 2017, United States Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley stated, “Crimea is a part of Ukraine. Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control over the peninsula to Ukraine.”;

Whereas, on February 16, 2017, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson stated, “As we search for new common ground we expect Russia to honor its commitment to the Minsk agreements and work to de-escalate violence in Ukraine.”;

Whereas, on March 13, 2017, the European Union extended sanctions against Russian individuals and entities imposed because of the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation;

Whereas United Nations Secretary-General Anto1nio Guterres on February 21, 2017, stated that the United Nations “remains committed to supporting the peaceful resolution of the conflict in a manner that fully upholds the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence of Ukraine”;

Whereas President Putin has made alarming claims about his views on Russian territoriality, stating that Russia’s border “doesn’t end anywhere,” and has since announced that he “[does not] regret anything” about annexing Crimea; and

Whereas Ukraine celebrated its 25th year of independence on August 24, 2016: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate—

(1) condemns the Government of the Russian Federation’s illegal, unprovoked military occupation of the Crimea region of Ukraine and continued aggression in eastern Ukraine, and reiterates that it is the policy of the United States not to recognize the de jure or de facto sovereignty of the Russian Federation over Crimea or any other seized area in Ukraine, its airspace, or its territorial waters;

(2) supports the vigorous enforcement of sanctions and opposes the lifting of sanctions as long as Russia continues its military aggression in Ukraine in violation of the Minsk II Agreement;

(3) calls on the Government of the Russian Federation to immediately end its support for the separatists in eastern Ukraine, allow Ukraine to regain control of its internationally recognized borders, and withdraw its military presence in eastern Ukraine, including Crimea;

(4) declares that the United States Government must never recognize the illegal annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation;

(5) urges the President of the United States, in coordination with United States allies, to stand by Ukraine, condemn continued Russian aggression, and use all possible tools to combat Russian belligerence, including increased economic sanctions, defensive lethal assistance, and democracy and humanitarian assistance, as authorized by the Ukraine Freedom Support Act, the Fiscal Year 2016 National Defense Authorization Act, and the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act;

(6) urges the President of the United States to continue United States support for the Ukrainian economy and civil society, including continued support by international financial institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund;

(7) condemns efforts by the Government of the Russian Federation to intimidate and coerce nations in Eastern Europe from strengthening their ties with NATO and the European Union;

(8) supports efforts by the United States Government and United States allies to strengthen the energy sector in Ukraine in order to reduce Ukraine’s dependence on natural gas imported from the Russian Federation;

(9) acknowledges the Government of Ukraine for its commitment to reform and encourages it to continue implementation of key reforms, including judicial reform, greater parliamentary oversight, further implementation of anti-corruption initiatives, including prosecutions and convictions of major figures involved in corruption schemes, budget and procurement transparency and accountability across government, civilian control of the military, and improved end-use monitoring and sustainment plans for United States security assistance items;

(10) urges the President of the United States not to agree to any final settlement of the conflict in Ukraine without the consent of the Government of Ukraine;

(11) pledges continued support for all democratic allies and partners of the United States facing increased Russian aggression;

(12) reaffirms the commitment of the United States to the Budapest Memorandum on security assurances;

(13) reiterates the obligation of all nations under the United Nations Charter to respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of other nations;

(14) encourages United States allies in Europe to continue their coordinated efforts to counter Russian aggression in the region, including economic sanctions, increased defense spending, and greater action against Russian disinformation and propaganda in order to make clear that Russian efforts will not go unchecked;

(15) calls on the Government of the Russian Federation to provide greater access to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s (OSCE) Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) in order to ensure credible international monitoring of compliance with the Minsk agreement; and

(16) calls on the Government of the Russian Federation to engage seriously in dialogue with the Government of Ukraine—in coordination with key international partners—in order to come to an agreement that respects Ukraine’s sovereignty, ensures regional stability, and puts both nations on the path towards a permanent ceasefire.

###

from Rob Portman http://www.portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=B85714D3-6BF2-447C-9977-C836DEB59D17

[newstfionline]

Life Under Russia Not All It Was Cracked Up to Be: Crimean Ex-Leader

Reuters, March 27, 2017

SEVASTOPOL, Crimea--The pro-Moscow Crimean politician who signed a document handing control over the Ukrainian peninsula to Russia in March 2014 said the three years since had been a time of disappointment for many people in the region.

Alexei Chaliy, who at the time of Russia’s annexation was the self-proclaimed governor of Crimea’s biggest city Sevastopol, said he has no regrets about the region becoming part of Russia--a status that Ukraine and most other countries do not recognize.

But he took issue with the way the region had been run since, saying local leaders who took over from him were ineffective, plans to develop the economy had gone nowhere, and prices for consumer goods had shot up.

“If we’re talking about changes linked to quality of life in the region, then here--we have to acknowledge--in a significant way things don’t correspond to what was expected,” Chaliy said.

Russia’s annexation of Crimea, in the days after an uprising installed pro-Western leaders in the Ukrainian capital, prompted Europe and the United States to impose sanctions on Russia and dragged east-West relations to their lowest level since the Cold War.

Chaliy, a 55-year-old businessman, played a major role in events on the ground leading up to the annexation.

While Russian soldiers appeared on the streets, and many officials loyal to Kiev fled, Chaliy took de facto control of the local administration in the city of Sevastopol. Crimea voted to join Russia in a referendum that is regarded as illegitimate by Ukraine and Western states.

Soon after the vote, Chaliy, dressed in his trademark tight black sweater, attended a March 18 Kremlin ceremony with Russian President Vladimir Putin to co-sign a document on Crimea’s status within Russia.

Afterwards, he served briefly as the Moscow-backed governor of Sevastopol before stepping aside for new leaders. He is now a member of the Sevastopol legislative assembly.

In an interview in his office in the city--three years after the annexation--Chaliy said that Sergei Menyailo, who took over from him as Moscow-backed governor of Sevastopol, had failed to follow up on a strategy for economic development.

“Why didn’t it work out? Because the executive arm which came in ... turned out to be incompetent and unwilling,” Chaliy said. “Therefore if we’re talking about expectations, then a lot of expectations were not fulfilled.”

He also said that funds injected from Moscow were misspent by the local administration.

Menyailo was moved from the post last year and is now the presidential plenipotentiary for Siberia. He did not respond to a Reuters request for comment. Chaliy said he supported the new governor.

Chaliy said many people in Crimea had hankered for the certainties of life in the Soviet Union, the last time the peninsula was ruled from Moscow.

“There are lots of people who are disappointed because ... it wasn’t Russia they were joining but, for many of them, it was the Soviet Union. Back to 1988 or 1989, when factories were operating and there were loads of specialists and jobs.”

“They don’t understand that this won’t happen, and cannot happen.”

Soon after Russian’s annexation, pensions and public sector wages rose dramatically because they were brought into line with Russian levels, higher than in Ukraine.

This though was offset by a rise in prices in stores, partly the result of difficulties of getting goods to the peninsula--which is not connected by land to Russia.

“For us, 2015 and 2016 were very difficult from the point of view of inflation. Now the process has stabilized. As a whole, prices are at a high level. In Sevastopol they’re higher than anywhere else,” said Chaliy.

“Of course, if you compare this with people’s expectations, then in this sense a lot of people are disappointed.”

The private sector, heavily dependent on tourism, has suffered. Ukrainian tourists stopped visiting, and major companies, including some Russian ones, suspended investments because of the risk of being hit by sanctions.

“Businessmen are accustomed to going skiing in Europe and nobody wants to leave themselves open” to being included on a list of people barred from entering the European Union, Chaliy said.

He saw no prospect of the sanctions being lifted any time soon, and offered advice to his fellow Crimeans: “Breathe slowly, relax, and live under a state of sanctions.”

[politicalfilth-blog]

One Question Nobody Is Asking: ‘What Exactly Has Trump Done For Putin?’

We Are Change

Here’s Why The Trump-Putin ‘Bromance’ Is A Farce.

Article via Geopolitics Alert

As Jeff Sessions becomes the latest victim of the establishment witch hunt for Russian influence, the one question nobody seems to be asking is ‘what exactly has Trump done for Putin?’

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is the latest victim of the neo-Mcarthyism sweeping through Washington. The accusations leveled against him are that he lied during his confirmation hearing about having contact with Russian officials before Trump actually assumed the White House.

Unlike Michael Flynn, Sessions can’t be accused of his conversations being illegal since he was a sitting senator prior to becoming the nation’s top prosecutor. In response to this, Democrats have decided to instead try and hang him on charges of perjury.

All of this has proven to be excellent bait for the Democrats liberal base who is buying into the frenzy that, god forbid, the Trump team was trying to make peace with Russia. Yet no matter how many signs liberals make of Trump with the hammer and sickle or as a marionette propped up by Putin, they’ve failed to actually ask what putin could want from the US and if Trump is delivering any of it.

There are a few key areas that candidate Trump said he’d deliver that made the establishment in the US nervous. Yet now nobody seems to be discussing that Trump is continuing the same policies that brought Russian relations to this point in the first place. Let’s reflect on some of the key issues causing tension between the two nations.

The War in Syria

The first thing that riled up establishment politicians in the US was Trump’s talk on possibly changing their failed policy in Syria to one of non-intervention against Assad and cooperation with Russia against the Islamic State. Since his inauguration though, Trump has continued (or even accelerated) the policies that caused all the hostility with Russia over Syria to begin with.

After criticizing Hillary Clinton’s plans for no fly/safe zones in Syria as likely “to start world war three,” Trump has revived this idea. He’s even taken the neoliberal “humanitarian” mask off the plan by stating outright that these zones would be managed by the Sunni kingdoms in the Arabian peninsula, I.e. the countries who fund the actual jihadis Trump pledged to eliminate.

Another point of contention in Syria is the fact that, contrary to what candidate Trump said, the US seems to be contemplating ways to increase their role in the war. Trump’s plan for the safe zones also involved increasing the role of NATO ally – and country that pledged to topple Assad – Turkey. Turkey was also invited to increase their role in fighting jihadis in eastern Syria, despite not being invited in and primarily fighting Kurdish forces upon their arrival.

There’s also the issue that Trump’s top cabinet members seem to have an even more ambitious plan for Syria than Hillary probably would have. Under Trump, the Pentagon has drawn up plans to possibly increase the role of regular US ground troops in Syria to bolster allies like the Kurds, Turks and ‘Syrian opposition.’ Despite his promise to change the functions of the empire, Trump is operating along the same lines the military brass was encouraging in their criticisms that Obama ‘wasn’t doing enough’ in the region.

This is all in opposition to Syria’s primary ally in their ongoing war: Russia. As stated above (by Trump himself), Russia is opposed to safe zones, especially those that are likely to become havens for jihadists and their collaborators under the protection of nations like Saudi Arabia. Russia may be partnered with Turkey to an extent but they also don’t approve of a full on invasion by Turkish soldiers. Most of all, Russia wants Assad to remain in power and it’s unlikely this will be a goal shared by the US if they essentially invade the country.

Trump’s Iran Policy

Another issue likely to raise tensions between the US and Russia is the renewed saber rattling between the Trump administration and Russia’s key Middle East ally Iran.

Iran is one of Russia’s top economic and military trading partners in the region. They’re also one of the strongest countries opposed to the increasing influence of Turkey (and therefore NATO) in the region. Beyond their role in Syria, Iran has also helped to curtail the damage done by terror organizations funded by countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar in the region.

Trump’s moves to strengthen ties between countries that destabilize the Middle East such as Israel and the gulf states has led to Iran playing a more crucial role in combatting their influence in places like Syria and Iraq.

Trump’s ambitions to further cripple the Iranian economy and military is damaging to Russian interests. Western liberals (as well as Trump himself) have asserted correctly that a lot of the geopolitics surrounding the Middle East involve oil yet fail to realize how talking tough on Iran is tied into this.

As one of the only possible regional competitors to gulf oil, Iran is the beneficiary of support from Russia’s most crucial state run industry – energy production, making it unlikely that Russia would sacrifice their heavy investments in the country just because Trump doesn’t like them. If anything Trump’s rhetoric on Iran is only strengthening the ties they have with Russia.

The Ukraine Question

This topic is possibly the most important to Russia, and is really what started the long downward spiral between Putin and the west. Starting with Russia’s annexation of the Crimean peninsula in 2014 via a popular referendum, the Obama administration placed harsh sanctions on a host of Russian businesses and individuals.

While Trump said on the campaign trail that he didn’t see an issue with the annexation, this is becoming a point of contention once again with the new administration parroting the lines of Obama’s state department. Liberals continue to accuse Trump of having some ‘secret plan’ to ‘give Crimea to Russia’ yet now his administration is publicly doubling down on keeping the sanctions in place until, in Trump’s words “Crimea is returned to Ukraine.”

Even as Trump’s new ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, designates the annexation of Crimea as an “invasion and occupation” this overlooks several key facts. Primarily, the Crimean peninsula always had special status as an autonomous region of Ukraine, which gave its population of primarily ethnic Russians the right to vote to leave Ukraine. The peninsula also plays a key role in Russia’s military planning since it’s home to their only warm water port.

Despite these factors, the Trump administration continues to tow the imperialist line about how everything in Ukraine is Putin’s fault; and not just Crimea but also the fighting between Kiev and separatist rebels in the eastern part of the county. The west continues to scream about Russia’s “escalation in the Donbas” while offering almost no evidence that the Kremlin controls the rebels.

Even now, the Trump administration continues to blame Russia for the renewed violence in east Ukraine despite ample evidence of violence being coordinated by Kiev and the multiple right wing paramilitaries along the civil war’s front lines. This is unlikely to bring the two nations together in any meaningful way on the geopolitical issue most important to Russia.

So in summation, the next time a liberal tells you that Trump is some kind of Russian puppet, ask them what exactly he’s done to make them come to this conclusion. Trump may have been the preferred candidate of Putin but only to an extent that he was seen as the lesser of two evils.

Trump’s talk on friendlier geopolitical relations with Russia seemed like a possibility for peace on the campaign trail, but it should’ve been clear as soon as he started announcing cabinet picks, that this isn’t the case. The things Putin would’ve actually wanted from a ‘friendly’ US administration aren’t materializing through Trump. So make sure to tell your liberal friends to take a deep breath and then ask them: how do you trust a party who can’t even give you a fair primary election to say we’re “at war with Russia” and only use this for political sniping instead of any real action a claim like this warrants?

This article first appeared on GeopoliticsAlert.com and was authored by Jim Carey.

The post One Question Nobody Is Asking: ‘What Exactly Has Trump Done For Putin?’ appeared first on We Are Change.

from We Are Change https://wearechange.org/trump-putin/