Ukrainians, read: Why the issue with Crimea is closed
A little more than 1.5 years have passed since the reunification of Crimea with Russia, but there is still controversy surrounding the “illegal annexation” of the Peninsula and there is a certain misunderstanding. Let's take a brief excursion into the relationship between Crimea and Ukraine over the past 24 years.
While Crimea was part of the Ukrainian SSR as a region, no special questions arose. Yes, during the transfer of Crimea to the administrative structure of the Ukrainian SSR, N.S. Khrushchev violated a lot of laws, no one asked the opinions of its residents, but the transfer took place within a single state and for economic reasons.
But since 1989, when in the republics of the then still unified USSR, various “popular fronts” and “popular movements” began to raise their heads, which were circles of local nationalists concerned with obtaining first economic isolation, and then political one.
Interest groups were supported by part of the local sprat-shavarno-skullcap intelligentsia and the politicized public of ordinary people. Against the backdrop of a weakening, increasingly irresponsible central government that had fallen into impenetrable non-resistance, “popular fronts” began to seem to residents of individual republics, if not a panacea, then at least some way out of the situation.
In terms of the politicization of the national issue, Ukraine could easily compete with the then Baltic locomotives that were tearing apart a single country into national little rooms.
As a result of elections to various councils, loudmouths and aggravated national holy fools began to come to power. The public of Crimea could not indifferently observe how the newly-minted Kyiv embroiderers, who are actively replacing the decrepit and lost authority of the CPSU, begin to openly voice the future program of the wholesale Ukrainization of the population and the right of the Ukrainian nation to the fullest.
In order to insure for the future, a referendum was held in the Crimean region at the beginning of 1991, as a result of which the region received the status of an autonomous SSR, moreover, a subject of the USSR, and not of Ukraine. The next referendum, but this time on the independence of Ukraine, did not arouse any enthusiasm in Crimea; from a quarter to a third of the residents of Crimea participated in it (according to various sources).
Conducting the Ukrainian referendum in Crimea in the form in which it was held was a clear violation of the law. Not only did the referendum for Crimea have to be held separately, but the new Ukrainian political elite allowed everyone to take part in the voting: military personnel, vacationers and guests of the Peninsula - you could write any numbers based on the result. In fact, the results of the referendum on the independence of Crimea were falsified and presented as official.
Then, with the collapse of the USSR, the most interesting things began. The USSR ceased to exist and the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic had a choice: to become an independent republic within the CIS, to become part of the Russian Federation or Ukraine.
It was clear that the lack of water for irrigated agriculture and significant dependence on electricity supplies were forcing Crimea to join the new and larger independent republics of the xUSSR, but this time no one asked the Crimeans.
Behind-the-scenes negotiations began between the Crimean administration headed by Bagrov, and the Ukrainian side, taking advantage of the passivity of Yeltsin’s team, began to bully the Crimeans in the stupidest manner of “whose sausage do you prefer?”
The result of behind-the-scenes manipulations was a compromise that Crimea remains part of Ukraine, but Ukraine undertakes to comply with the laws and constitution of the Crimean autonomy.
But making a beautiful promise does not mean keeping it in the future. It was clear to the Ukrainian unitarians who came to power that, in fact, Crimea and Ukraine, if the agreements were observed, were in confederal relations. And, if the majority of Crimeans decide in the referendum, Crimea can easily wave a handkerchief to Ukraine and set off on a free search.
No one was going to let go of such a tasty piece of territory for robbery and seizure of various goodies.
“Friendship trains” began visiting Crimea and putting pressure on the republican authorities through inciting “friendship of peoples” among the Crimean Tatars returning to Crimea.
But “democrat” Kravchuk and Kuchma at least tried to maintain a semblance of decency in the first year of their presidency. 1995 was a milestone year, in which President Kuchma, who had become comfortable in power, terminated the operation of the Crimean constitution by a personal strong-willed decision and abolished the republic’s own president, elected by the Crimeans. No matter how you treat him.
After this, the autonomy and self-government of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea became a dull fiction. Kyiv sent its overseer, the representative of the president, and installed buddies in key positions to extort geshefts from the Peninsula, which the Ukrainian government never considered its own, judging by what it turned it into following the results of its reign.
On February 22, 2014, as a result of a coup d'etat under the control of Western powers and the expulsion of the legally elected President-Vegetable, Ukraine ceased to exist as a subject of international law.
The blood of Crimeans was shed in the night massacre near Korsun; on February 26, Maidan and Right Sector activists who arrived in Crimea with the support of militants from the illegal “Majlis of the Crimean Tatar people” disrupted a rally in support of the current Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and blood was shed again, which created a non-illusory the threat of an outbreak of widespread and uncontrolled violence on the Peninsula.
Russia intervened, using the permission of the still legitimate, albeit fugitive, Ukrainian president. The Zradniks were so carried away by the division of portfolios and powers that they did not even think about removing Yanukovych from the presidency, even with the appearance of legal action.
In Crimea, a whole bunch of legal measures were used. This includes the restoration of the violated Crimean constitution back in 1995, and the right of nations to self-determination, and the Kosovo precedent, and a referendum as the final point.
In response to Svidomo's whining about the illegal withdrawal of Crimea, I just want to say that life and laws are structured in such a way that if some thugs can freely burn down the center of the capital, organize a massacre with murder and kidnapping, seize administrative buildings, weapons warehouses and replace the legitimate authorities, then they must be prepared that a significant part of the people will not want to live with them in the same country or will take up arms in order to protect and defend their rights and lives.
Ukrainians, read : Why the Crimea issue is closed