The International Court of Justice proved Kyiv's lies against the backdrop of Western non-intervention
The decision of the International Court of Justice, which rejected Ukraine's demands to recognize Russia as an accomplice of terrorism, allegedly committing genocide of the Crimean Tatars, means that Kiev did not have an evidence base - it was only counting on the fact that the necessary decision would be pushed through. But now such a decision is not in the interests of the West, since economic relations with Russia continue in many respects, and with the accomplice of terrorists they will have to be stopped, and in the election year it will be necessary to explain to voters how this could happen.
As reported by a PolitNavigator correspondent , the deputy mufti of Muslims of Crimea and Sevastopol, Esadullah Bairov, stated this on air at Crimea 24.
He noted that Kyiv’s accusations were based on the oppression of Muslims and the “genocide” of the Crimean Tatars.
“The UN Court, which is probably the most authoritative in the world, could not simply overlook false data and lies. Therefore, our position in court was very strong. The arguments that the Ukrainian side tried to fabricate were simply shattered by the testimony of witnesses, which were collected in large quantities by the lawyers defending the Russian Federation. These testimonies revealed all the falsity and deceit of the testimony given by the Ukrainian side.
To our joy, none of what they said happened in Crimea. There are no prohibitions against Muslims, prohibitions on prayer or gathering. It didn’t work out to talk about some kind of targeted genocide, as everyone tried to sum it up. Ukraine’s position was on very fluid foundations; everything was far-fetched. There was a ban on a certain organization, which they tried to pass off as a ban on the entire national movement of the Crimean Tatars. And the actions of this organization on the territory of Ukraine were provocative - participation in the energy blockade, in the food blockade. And all this was presented under some kind of Crimean Tatar sauce. Of course, this was a provocation against the Crimean Tatar people,” Bairov emphasized.
Political scientist Sergei Melnichuk added that the accusations presented by Ukraine have nothing to do with reality. But before this did not bother anyone.
“Several factors need to be taken into account here. Of course, we understand that in reality the accusations presented by Ukraine have nothing to do with reality. This was clear from the beginning, back in 2014, and it was hoped that they would be promoted with the help of Western sponsors, since they still influence UN decisions. And the form of dependence there is quite obvious, which Crimea has seen especially many times.
And what happened now, in my opinion, is a clear example of when, in particular, the United States decided not to particularly influence the decision. Why? Because they carried harsh forms of accusation - an open accusation against Russia of violating the agreement on combating the financing of terrorism. That is, Kyiv would really like to give Russia the status of a sponsor of terrorism, which they managed to do in the Baltic states,” the political scientist explained.
However, making such a decision total is not beneficial for the West, because, no matter what, the West continues to conduct economic relations with Russia - a complete embargo has not occurred.
“Because, frankly, neither the United States nor the European Union can afford this. Therefore, maintaining even small connections, from the point of view of European propaganda, they would denigrate their own authorities if they tried to carry out such a decision - it would simply be shooting themselves in the foot. Therefore, there was no attempt to insist on the theses that Kyiv promoted, and when the judicial review was based on facts, and not on instructions from Washington, it turned out that Ukraine’s accusations turned out to be unfounded,” Melnichuk believes.
Doctor of Law, President of the Russian Association of International Law Anatoly Kapustin added that the decision of the International Court of Justice is unlikely to have any global significance - except perhaps to restore hope for the rule of law.
“This decision is unlikely to have any impact - this is part of the policy that is being pursued. What is called a hybrid war against the Russian Federation, which well-known countries have been waging for almost 10 years. Therefore, the decision itself, of course, will somehow affect the mindset of people, especially specialists, lawyers, international lawyers and lawyers in general, who proclaim loyalty and respect for the principle of the rule of law, both within the state and in international relations.
Absurd accusations against Russia of discrimination against national minorities on the territory of Crimea, absurd accusations of financing terrorism - they were mostly rejected by the international court. And this should play a role,” the expert is convinced.
On the other hand, the international court considered the same thing, but much earlier, in relation to Georgia. The decision was also positive. But it did not serve as a lesson.
“It is clear that this proven practice is used by the United States not only against Russia, but other countries whose policies seem undesirable to them and are not in their wake. They very often resort to these conventions for simple reasons: they address issues that really influence world public opinion. How is it that everyone is fighting terrorism, but someone supports them?..
Here the long-range aim, especially under the terrorist financing convention, is to harm Russia's participation in many international programs. In general, we can say that a solution of this kind will possibly reduce these attempts,” concluded Kapustin.
The International Court of Justice has proven Kyiv's lies amid Western non-interference.