1. Russian Demand: Why should Ukraine recognize Crimea as part of Russia?
Meeting the 1st Russian Demand for Ending the War - recognition of Crimea as Russian territory is one of key Russian demands. Here is why it makes sense to do it.
Languages: UA | RU || BG | CS | DE | EL | ES | FR | HR | HU | IT | PL | RM | TR |
Reading time: enlightening 47 minutes (49 minutes with footnotes)
Welcome to the peace initiative for Ukraine in which you can contibute by raising your awareness as well as your consciousness[+] and spirit to the modes[+] of neutrality[*], decency, respectfulness, wisdom[*], objectivity, mastery of the intellect, surrender (ego and mind to God’s will), and finally peace (inner then outer). To properly grasp everything, we recommend reading the articles of this peace initiative in the order that we[*] designed it, which is listed in the CONTENTS. So if you haven’t read the previous articles, we urge you to do it, please. With this article we continue the “Meeting the Demands for Ending the War” segment
What is the legal basis of either Ukraine's or Russia's claim to own Crimea?
Even if there might be no sufficient legal basis for Russia's claim to Crimea, as peacemakers, we would advise Ukrainians to concede to this Russian demand. Ukraine should formally recognize Crimea as part of Russia – here and in the following articles, we lay out main benefits and reasons for it. Please read them before you dismiss this peace initiative, as you might discern more advantages than disadvantages by taking a deeper look at all circumstances.
Disclaimer: This peace initiative would be much too long to read if we were to present all the pro and contra arguments concerning each demand and other features, therefore in this section, we will narrow down to only the arguments supporting our advice to recognize Crimea as part of Russia. Please, don't take this as a sign of bias but as a matter of practicality and concentration on what is relevant to prove the points and make it easier for Ukrainians to make this concession. This is not a history or science or law report presenting all the historical and legal facts but a peace initiative, thus please don't take the lack of information supporting the counterarguments as partiality, unfairness, or favoritism. Just because we don't mention counterarguments, it doesn’t mean we haven’t considered them, as we in fact did in coming to this conclusion and recommendation.
Just because this part of the peace initiative seems in favor of Russia (although it is also in favor of Ukraine as the presented benefits will confirm), it would be utterly false and narrow-minded to discredit this peace initiative as pro-Russian merely on such limited information. Only by reading this peace initiative in full, one can comprehend the profound underlying behind the surface of proposed arrangements.
Some people are not willing to face the harsh reality of their or their compatriots’ wrongdoing and prefer to see themselves and their folk only in a positive light. Driven by ego, they are not strong enough to take facts as they are or admit any wrongdoing. We all make mistakes but some of us have the character to repent, confess, apologize, and make amends, while many others don't have it in themselves to do so. Such ego-driven people will not be able to take advantage of this peace initiative because we are not here to please anyone's ego. Hopefully, you are strong enough to take some harsh words or perspectives presented here, and even if you don't agree with all that is written in this peace initiative, hopefully, you are decent enough to respect other people's views as much as you expect others to respect your differing views.
To answer the question of whether Crimea belongs to Ukraine or Russia, the fairest answer would be: it depends on whom you ask. If we ask Crimeans and at least 11 countries[+], Crimea belongs to Russia. And if we ask the UN then it belongs to Ukraine. To be fair, it is Crimea people who should have the right to self-determine it.
According to Crimeans, Crimea belongs to them. They are mostly ethnic Russians who until 2014 had been President Yanukovych’s political base, so they resisted what they viewed as the illegitimate overthrow of their elected president on 22 February 2014. This as well as a threat from Neo-Nazis who came to power sparked secessionist demands in Crimea.
Why Crimeans Wanted to Secede From Ukraine and Rejoin Russia
Crimean authorities rushed to hold a referendum[+] on secession from Ukraine on 16 March 2014, which was in accordance with the wish of people, as as evident by the fact that 97% of Crimeans voted for it (83% turnout) due to the following reasons:
➡ Most of them are ethnic Russians and so, naturally, they prefer to be associated with Russia rather than the EU and NATO, but the new corrupt Kyiv regime1, which came to power by force rather than democratically in February 2014, wanted to get annexed by the EU and NATO and kick the Russian navy out of Crimea.
➡ On 18-23 February 2014, in the US-backed regime change operation a.k.a. Maidan Revolution[+], anti-Russian nationalists violently removed democratically elected government, including ethnic Russian President and Prime Minister and all other pro-Russian representatives, who preferred to keep close ties to Russia and the EEU[+], so Crimeans had no longer legal representatives in the parliament to stand for them.
➡ Neo-Nazi paramilitaries were threatening to invade Crimea right after they staged that violent, paramilitary coup in Kyiv that installed an illegal and unconstitutional far-right government. Their violence and hate speech had fueled the fear of a neo-Nazi bloodbath taking place in Crimea as it had already taken place in Kyiv and spread to the rest of Ukraine. Those violent neo-Nazis already ousted the President, Prime Minister, and other government officials by force, and were on their way to do the same with the local officials in Crimea but were stopped in their tracks by a swift response from Crimean authorities and their Russian allies. The concerns of Crimeans were also confirmed by the letter of President of Ukraine Yanukovych in which he asked[+] Putin to use force to protect the people of Ukraine from terror and violence, and were later further vindicated by the neo-Nazi crimes such as Odesa massacre[+][+][+][»] on 2 May 2014 and 8-years long shelling of Donbas, which could have happened to them in Crimea if they had not reacted preemptively by seeking protection from Russia. If western Ukrainians claim they have right to be part of NATO and the EU, then the south-eastern Ukrainians, including Crimeans had also every right to claim to be part of Russia.
➡ On 23 February 2014, the new revolutionary Ukrainian parliament proposed to revoke the State Language Policy Bill[+][+][+] (that granted regional status to the Russian language) so as to prohibit the use of their native Russian language in courts, schools, and other government institutions. Crimeans being ethnic Russians were justifiably outraged as they saw that and many other discriminatory and aggressive acts of Kyiv regime[?] as a violation of their human rights, thus they sought their right to self-determination (enshrined in the UN charter and granted previously to Kosovo and others) and held referenda seeking secession from Ukraine.
➡ On 1 March 2014, violently ousted but legitimate President of Ukraine Yanukovych asked[+] Putin to use force to save Ukraine. In a signed letter, he wrote "The country has plunged into chaos and anarchy. The country is in the grip of outright terror and violence driven by the West. People are persecuted on political and language grounds. In this context, I appeal to the President of Russia Vladimir V. Putin to use the armed forces of the Russian Federation to re-establish the rule of law, peace, order, stability and to protect the people of Ukraine." This also reaffirms the threat of the new fascist regime validating the Crimeans’ concerns and decision to seek protection from Russia as well as secede from Ukraine.
➡ On 11 March 2014, the new fascist regime that came to power by force rather than democratic means urged The National Television and Radio Broadcasting Council of Ukraine to ban broadcasting Russian TV channels[+][+] (Vesti, Russia 24, Channel One, RTR 'Planeta', and NTV Mir). This was just one of many policies of the new anti-Russian regime that evidently discriminated against Russian ethnic minorities in Crimea and the whole of Ukraine depriving all Russophone Ukrainians of news and other content in their native language, which was inadmissible in terms of juridical norms, legislation and citizens’ constitutional rights such as a violation of linguistic human rights[+]. Suspension of those TV channels was also infringement upon freedom of the media and conflicted with the rules of international law and subscribers’ interests.
Kosovo Independence precedent[+] gave them the legal right to secede from Ukraine and declare independence, as well as the fact that at the time of a revolution, Ukrainians ditched their government and Constitution, whereby all regional legislatures, including Crimean, became the only legal authorities – this made it legal to hold a referendum without the government's approval.
According to international law, Crimea belongs to Ukraine because United Nations General Assembly issued a resolution calling upon states not to recognize changes in the status of Crimea[+][+][+] (with the approval of 51.81% of total UN members – 100 out of 193 countries voted for it) declaring the Crimean referendum invalid because “the referendum had contravened international law, the United Nations Charter and Ukraine’s Constitution” but no specific reasons were given about how exactly it contravened other than the presence of Russian troops, which were in fact legally there as Ukraine agreed to it per a Treaty[+] and as per Ukrainian president Yanukovych[+] and Crimean government[+] requests for protection from anti-Russian neo-Nazis who took power in February 2014. In other words, the premise of the resolution is faulty.
The US-backed[*] violent overthrow of a democratically-elected Ukrainian President led by neo-Nazis in 2014 is constitutional but a declaration of independence placed to a general vote is not? Double standards are nothing new in the UN with the US ruling the UN. Top UN official, the Director of the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR) in New York, Craig Mokhiber, confirmed it in his resignation letter[+][+] in November 2023: “In recent decades, key parts of the UN have surrendered to the power of the US.”
In a court of law, one may debate and defend one's right to self-determination, which is part of the United Nations Charter but Crimeans have been denied this right. We may talk about the tyranny of the majority[+] and of foreign states meddling in domestic affairs. Apart from the US and EU backing the opposition to overthrow a democratically-elected President, how come foreign states assembled in the UN have any or more rights to determine the status of native people? Why should, say African or Asian or American countries, have any say in whether a European indigenous folk has the right to self-determination or not?
Ukraine owes its own existence to a process of self-determination, including referenda leading to independence in 1991, yet Ukrainians deny the same right to others such as Crimeans. This is highly hypocritical, especially considering that Ukraine has never done anything to deserve Crimea, which had been part of Ukraine state for only 23 years (1991-2014) anyway and before that it was under Moscow rule for centuries, even when Crimea was transferred to Ukraine in 1954, it was still governed by Moscow.
When it comes to Crimea's referendum and Crimeans right to self-determination as enshrined in the UN Charter and as given to many other folks (such as Kosovo Independence precedent[+], former Yugoslavia Republics, and even Ukraine in 1991), we need to set many records straight by pointing to the facts rather than succumbing to hearsay or NATO/Kyiv propaganda. In this context, there is unfounded information circulating in the Western media that Russia invaded Crimea (and so Ukraine) in 2014 and that Crimea's referendum is invalid due to the illegal presence of Russian troops. Both of these claims are categorically false. We already explained how there was no invasion of Crimea in one of previous articles on propaganda[*] and we will now explain more.
What Ukrainian & NATO authorities and their controlled media hid is that Russian troops were legally present there and that the famous “little green men” that allegedly invaded Crimea where not Russian citizens but Ukrainian! They were in fact 20.000 Ukrainian Crimean soldiers who defected to Russian side (therefore they ripped off Ukrainian patches and so had no insignia) which was so humiliating for Ukraine that they made every effort to hide it from the international public. In the aftermath of Maidan revolution, the local authorities hired them to secure peace on the peninsula, including during referendum. So, all the “voting at gunpoint” narrative is just a pathetic attempt to deceive the public and distort the reality. If Russians would have force them to vote at gunpoint, then they would surely vote against such aggressors, but as international observers also confirmed, everything was regular and people overwhelmingly voted to secede from Ukraine and join Russia.
As Jacques Baud (Swiss Colonel Chief of Staff, former secret service agent and head of Doctrine for UN peacekeeping operations in New York) explained it in his fascinating book[+] “Russian Art of War” and in this March 2024 interview[»][»], in 2014, Crimea had 22.000 Ukrainian soldiers and when right after Maidan revolution, the language issue emerged (on 23. February parliament voted to revoke the law allowing Crimea and other Russian speaking regions to use Russian language), 20.000 local Ukrainian soldiers (ethnic Russians) changed sides, renounced their allegiance to Kyiv and removed Ukrainian patches from their uniforms – so, they became “little green men” in the media because they had no insignia on their uniforms. They were not from Russia but were ethnic Russians from Crimea, Ukrainian citizens – a distinction that Kyiv and Western media omitted to mention, which is why it was easy to convince the oblivious Westerners that Russian military invaded Crimea. This was not an invasion but the local troops switching sides.
Besides ethnic Russian Ukrainian troops, Crimea has had also local Russian troops. In other words, there was no invasion of some external, additional Russian troops there.
Russian troops were there legally since 1783, and their presence in Crimea was also certified per the Treaty[+] signed in 1997, whereby Ukraine agreed to allow Russia to maintain up to 25.000 troops, 24 artillery systems, 132 armored vehicles, and 22 military planes on the Crimean Peninsula. Ukraine received $526 million in compensation and $97 million annually for leasing Crimean bases to Russia, so the presence of the Russian military was legal there – meaning, there was no invasion.
Also, Crimean authorities requested Russian armed forces to secure peace during their referendum due to the Ukrainian revolution and threats from anti-Russian extremists.
But maybe even better evidence for the Western skeptics is the statement of then-US President Obama who himself said in an interview with Amanpour on CNN[»]: “…there was no armed invasion of Crimea…”
If what Russia did in Crimea was an “invasion”, then Russia must be praised as the first and only nation in the world and in the history of humankind to have invaded another country without a single bullet being shot! How effective and impressive Russian military must be then to manage such a feat! And how cowardly was Ukrainian military then, when they didn't dare to defend Crimea! Think about that.
Here is a crucial fact that the world needs to know when judging whether to stand by Ukraine regarding its claim on Crimea: Ukraine wants Crimea back but not the Crimea people![»][+] Ponder that. Crimea is full of Russians who prefer to be part of Russia. So, if we help Ukraine take Crimea back, how do we know they will not terrorize them like they had done with Russian ethnic minorities in Donbas2[+] since 2014? NATO wants Sevastopol and that's what all this is really about.
As a matter of fact, there is plenty of evidence that in the case of the mythical “de-occupation”, Ukrainian authorities plan[+][+][+] to apply the Stalinist methods of deportation and resettlement of peoples by expelling all 800.000 of Russian citizens who moved to Crimea since 2014. They openly explained how they plan to circumvent the International law, which prohibits collective expulsion or deportation or ethnic cleansing by doing it individually rather than collectively. In 2015, as a comedian, Zelensky made a vulgar mockery[] of the inhabitants of Crimea, which clearly shows his attitude towards them and how well he would treat them if he would rule over them.
If we would prioritize human rights and allowed indigenous people the right to self-determination, this whole issue would be over at the moment when the Crimeans voted to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia. But international law seems to give more value to a select state's territorial integrity than human rights. We wonder why is that humans are less valued than states.
And why losing territory is more of a concern than losing human lives over it??
We will discuss the Crimean issue in depth from a historical and legal perspective in the following articles but from the start we want to raise a point of precedent, which in international law needs to be taken as the rule because a legal principle that has been established by a superior court should be followed in other similar cases. There is, of course, the most famous Kosovo Independence precedent[+] but even more relevant is the answer to this question: why was it not against the law when breakaway republics were internationally recognized in cases of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia but somehow the same is illegal in case of Ukraine? Why did the secession of Crimea, DPK, and LPK from Ukraine allegedly contravene international law and the UN Charter whereas all the others mentioned didn't contravene? When is the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a state at large protected under the law? Because, it was not in the cases of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union and if we should acknowledge Kyiv's claims, then, by the same token, Belgrade and Moscow could claim that the breakaway of their territories was illegal, too, right?
Also, if tomorrow some republic(s) would want to break away from Russia, would the US, UK, and EU support Russia as much as they support Ukraine to help Russia keep its territorial integrity and sovereignty? And, when Chechenia wanted to separate from Russian Federation, how come NATO states didn't provide any aid also to Russians?
According to Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister, NATO is trying “to break Russia apart”, which threatens Russia's sovereignty and territorial integrity but if that would happen, would NATO states recognize those breakaway regions as independent states despite not recognizing Ukrainian ones?
It is very important to answer all these questions to avoid being unjust or venting double standards. Whatever is expected to apply in case of some republics wanting to separate from Ukraine, it must apply in all other cases, otherwise, this thing called “international law” would not be just and should not be called international but “multinational law” when the law applies to some and not all nations as well as when a certain ruling is accepted by some nations rather than all of them. Who has the right to decide which republics are allowed to separate and which ones are not allowed? In cases of Ukrainian republics and autonomous regions that voted to secede from Ukraine, the indigenous people made their choice and there was a humanitarian crisis even greater than in the case of Kosovo that should have allowed them “remedial secession”. There is also the issue of the constitutionality and legitimacy of the 1954 transfer of Crimea to Ukraine, which we will discuss at length in the segment on the legal perspective of this demand[*].
It is understandable for states and their people who lose a part of their land to be resentful about it but like in the case of divorce, separation should be allowed by law.
Sometimes we gain more from losing than winning. Especially if we value human lives more than possessing a territory, then losing means winning rather than losing lives and preventing the destruction of the land. Like most others, Ukrainian leaders clearly don't value the lives of their people, flora, and fauna as much as possessing the land or living under the rules and laws of the EU (rather than Ukrainian or Russian).
Usually, losing toxic people is a win. By no means do we mean that Crimeans are toxic but if Ukrainians consider Russian ethnic people toxic or bad in any way, then the best would be to let them go. It can be compared to divorce – it sure hurts and one has to let go and divide estate but, in the end, it is better so than living in a toxic relationship. Like in a marriage, divorce or separation should be the last option. Ideally, the conflicted sides should go to a couple’s counselor or therapist to resolve their issues and stay together forever but in the case of the clash between Kyiv's new US-puppet regime and Crimean Russians in 2014, no one stepped forward to act as “counselor” or “therapist”, therefore “divorce” was inevitable. That was a huge omission by the UN or any other peacekeeping organization (that was equally respected by both sides). This calls for a reform in the UN to facilitate such an entity within the organization, which would be competent (well–informed, objective, neutral) and promptly ready to step in whenever similar geopolitical conflicts arise.
Losing also provides the opportunity to evaluate one’s weaknesses and where one can improve. For those with the right mindset, losing has many advantages. It can build character, resilience, determination, humbleness, modesty, and humility. Whether it's a competition or a battle, losing is the best teacher. We can learn more from our failures than from our successes and so can turn what appear to be failures into successes. Not only do we find out what doesn't work so that we can adjust, but we also learn about ourselves in the process and gain a bit of empathy toward others that might be struggling as well. Ukraine should have taken the loss of Crime as a chance to cultivate at least the virtue of humility (not to be confused with “humiliation”) as well as reflect and introspect on what have they done wrong in order to learn their lessons; however, they rather chose the path of not learning from their mistakes and playing the blame game, which is pity and comes with consequences.
Ukraine didn't lose Crimea because of Russia but because of the Ukrainian Maidan Revolution and the maltreatment of the Crimeans. If Crimeans were treated well and fairly, they would not vote for independence and seek help from Russia to peacefully secede from Ukraine. Some might not agree but just by looking at the facts and reports on how destitute and oppressed Crimeans were, there can be no doubt that Crimeans were miserable under Ukrainian rule and even more during the Euromaidan protests and Maidan Revolution with their ethnic representatives being expelled by force from their government posts and the horror prospects (new laws forbidding the use of Russian language and ban of pro-Russian television channels, further discrimination and abuse of their human rights, as well as suffering similar to their kin in Donbas[+]).
Maidan Revolution was backed by the EU as it forced Ukraine to adapt to its rules and regulations, so Ukrainian people are dying and killing not for Ukraine but for the chance to live according to the laws and rules of the EU (not Ukraine), which is evidence of the nonsense of calling this fighting “patriotic”. Unlike the EU, Russia didn't intervene in Crimea and Ukraine because it wanted to impose its laws and rules on Ukraine or to occupy Ukraine but to save its harassed people (ethnic Russians) and its interests (Black Sea Fleet). Ponder on that difference.
Surrendering or laying down arms or giving Crimeans their freedom to self-determination saves precious lives, above all, and it prevents further destruction of valuable land, nature, buildings, flora, and fauna.
In sports, there is a maxim saying that it isn't winning or losing that matters but how you played the game. War is no game but like in sports, in it, there are also rules, tactics, and strategies but above all, there are principles and values. Insisting to possess and rule Crimea, Ukrainians evidently principally value the rule of people more than the lives of people, when they are ready to sacrifice countless lives only to own and rule a piece of land that they never earned or deserved to own in the first place – Crimea was given or assigned to Ukraine in good faith, which Ukrainians obviously abused since upset Crimeans didn't want to be ruled by Ukraine any longer and when the previous patrons, the Russians, were threatened to lose their worthy fleet and the naval base that was promised to them at the beginning.
As a proverb goes, in life, you win some, you lose some. It is senseless and arrogant to expect to win everything, especially in a war, and against a superpower like Russia. Above all when Ukraine doesn't have its own resources to win the war but is totally dependent on handouts from other countries. Because of its corrupt and generally bad government, Ukraine on its own has no possibility of defending its interests, which is why the Ukrainian President must constantly beg others for military and humanitarian aid. Ukraine became a beggar, and as such, it wishes to rule over those who don't want to be ruled by a corrupt, incompetent, poor, and inadequate government. Sorry if this is perceived as offensive to those who are not willing to face the harsh reality. We don't mean to imply that beggars are any less worthy than any other human being or a nation but to point out, metaphorically speaking, that would be irrational to put a beggar from a street in a leadership role. It would be best to rely on one's own strengths, so if a nation's strength is not the military, then it should use other better means to resolve its issues with others.
Moreover, winning at someone else's expense or making someone lose is not really a true victory for any honorable human being, but also because it comes with a huge price tag – causing a loss of life to win Crimea back is not acceptable, especially when Crimeans don't want to be under Ukrainian corrupt, incompetent, and discriminatory rule that left Crimea extremely impoverished.
When you are a good person, you don't lose people, they lose you. There is an old saying that “if you love someone, set them free; if they come back to you, it was meant to be.” The same could be said to Ukrainians who love Crimea or the Crimeans – if you love them, let them go, as they might come back if the Moscow government would treat them worse than the Kyiv one. With big-picture thinking, you know it’s not over when it seems over. In the words of Lenny Kravitz: It ain't over till it’s over. And Gene Kelly has some good advice: Singin' in the Rain, if you understand the metaphor. No reason or point to resist rainy days – be happy, don't worry. Everything goes according to God's Plan and sometimes we have to lose to win. Losses are part of life, deal with it. There is no winning for those who can't accept losing.
Some things are better than winning anyway, so we use this opportunity to point to the wise words of a few champions:
· “Sometimes you win and sometimes you learn.” ― Robert T. Kiyosaki, Rich Dad, Poor Dad
· “One who wins always is not the wise one, rather wise is the one who knows where to lose.” – Abhijit Naskar, Morality Absolute
· "Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.” – Martin Luther King
· "If we are to have peace on earth, our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation; and this means we must develop a world perspective." – Martin Luther King
· "It is not enough to say 'We must not wage war.' It is necessary to love peace and sacrifice for it. We must concentrate not merely on the negative expulsion of war, but the positive affirmation of peace." – Martin Luther King
· "We must come to see that the end we seek is a society at peace with itself, a society that can live with its conscience." – Martin Luther King
Every country, including Russia before 2014, agreed that Crimea was Ukraine. Russia agreed to it only under certain conditions agreed per treaties. After Ukraine violated these agreements, under international law, Russia had the right to reciprocate.
Therefore, although this demand may infringe on Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, nevertheless it grants many benefits for Ukraine as we will explain here.
To make such a demand for Ukraine to recognize Crimea as Russia is seen by some uninformed observers as against The Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation[+][+], signed in 1997, when both countries affirmed the recognition of the inviolability of existing borders and respect for territorial integrity, but Ukraine terminated[+] this Treaty in 2018, thus it is no longer valid. By cancelling the Treaty agreements in 2018, Kyiv shot itself in the foot because since then, Russians had no obligation stick to their part of the deal – to honor Ukraine’s territorial integrity and acknowledge the inviolability of the borders. The same provision was part of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum[+][+] (on nuclear disarmament of Ukraine) but that Memorandum (not a treaty) was not legally binding[+], otherwise there would be no point to include the same provision three years later in the 1997 Treaty and make additional treaty demands of Ukraine for that. Budapest Memorandum was more about giving Ukraine security assurances but not guarantees. Russia stated that it had never been under obligation to "force any part of Ukraine's civilian population to stay in Ukraine against its will".
Looking at the facts, before the Crimean referendum[+] (on 16 March 2014, 97% of Crimeans voted to rejoin Russia with 83% voter turnout), Ukraine was also the first to violate that treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership[+][+] (Articles 6 and 12 as well as its preamble) and the Law of Treaties (Article 60(3)):
· first in 2008, by applying to join NATO (violation of the Article 6 of the Treaty[+]), which is hostile against Russia
· on 23 February 2014 (before the Crimean referendum) by making a proposal in the parliament to abolish the language law[+][+][+] (that granted regional status to the Russian language – native language of Crimea residents) so as to prohibit the use of Russian language in 30 spheres of public life3 – Ukraine violated Article 12 of that Treaty[+] by not “protecting the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious diversity of ethnic minorities in their territory and shall create conditions that encourage such diversity; and shall guarantee the right of persons belonging to ethnic minorities, individually or together with other persons belonging to ethnic minorities, freely to express, preserve and develop their ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious diversity and promote and develop their culture without being subjected to any attempts to assimilate them against their will.” Ukraine adopted several discriminatory offensive policies against the Russian language and the rights of Russian speakers in Ukraine.
· on 21 March 2014, by signing the Association Agreement[+] with the EU, which was against Russia as it prohibited Ukraine to trade with Russia (violation of the Article 6 of the Treaty[+]; before Russian annexation of Crimea on 26 March 2014).
· Also, Ukraine violated preamble of that Treaty, which states that the ‘strengthening of friendly relations, good-neighborliness and mutually beneficial cooperation corresponds to the vital interests of their peoples and serves the cause of peace and international security’ – the events of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, in particular, the hostile treatment of the Russian ethnic minority (many of whom were also Russian citizens, had dual citizenship), undeniably violated the preamble.
· Also, Ukraine violated Article 60(3) of the Law of Treaties (VCLT) – when in 2013-2014, Ukrainian opposition illegally stormed the Presidential Administration building and the Cabinet building (1 December 2013), illegally seized the Kyiv City Hall (1 December 2013 - 16 February 2014), and the parliament building, the president's administration quarters, the Cabinet building, and the Interior Ministry (since 21 February 2014) and unlawfully ousted the Prime Minister and President of Ukraine, who were of Russian ethnic minority, and for many months paraded hostility and discrimination toward Russian Ukrainians, “the violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty” has occurred.
Therefore, according to the principle of reciprocity in the Law of Treaties, Russia was not obliged to comply any longer with its obligations under that treaty, which Ukraine also terminated in 2018 and so gave Russia free rein to raise territorial disputes.
Despite Ukraine being the first to violate that treaty on not one but three counts, nonetheless, Russia was wrongly accused by Kyiv and its allies of violating that Treaty by annexing Crimea in 2014. It is curious why the UN never accused Ukraine when it violated that Treaty in the first place, which suggests unacceptable double standards.
Making this demand (for Ukraine to recognize Crimea as part of Russia) is seen by some uninformed Ukrainian backers also as against the other three agreements:
· the Agreement between Ukraine and the Russian Federation on the Ukrainian-Russian state border (2003),
· the Agreement between Ukraine and the Russian Federation on cooperation in the use of the Azov Sea and Kerch Strait (2003),
· the Agreement between Ukraine and the Russian Federation on the status and conditions of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Ukraine (1999, renewed in 2010, expires in 2042).
However, these agreements couldn't apply any longer after Ukraine violated these agreements first by starting to severely discriminate against the Russian ethnic minority denying them their human rights since February 2014. As mentioned, the principle of reciprocity in the Law of Treaties dictates that the injured party should not be called upon to comply with its obligations under the treaty when the other party fails to comply with those obligations which it undertook under the same treaty.
Ukraine violated also Partition Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet[+][+] signed in 1997 and prolonged in 2010 with the Kharkiv Pact[+][+], which determined the status of Russian military presence in Crimea based on the agreements recorded in the 1997 Treaty on Friendship[+][+]. Ukraine agreed to lease Crimean naval facilities to Russia until 2042, with an automatic 5 years renewal option in exchange for Russia to pay a $100 million annual fee, respect the sovereignty of Ukraine, and provide it with discounted Russian natural gas (30% price reduction[+]). The cost of this pact for Russia, or Ukraine's gain, was $40 billion[+]. Ukraine had no costs, just gains.
According to that Treaty, Russian military was legally in Crimea ever since 1783. In 1954, although Crimea belonged to Russia and was governed by Moscow in the Soviet Union, it was transferred[+][ꚛ] by the Soviet President Khrushchev (former President of SSR Ukraine) to Kyiv administration4 under the condition that Moscow continues to govern it (together with all other USSR territories, including the whole of Ukraine). The only reason Russia allowed Ukraine to have Russian Crimea was the naivety that Ukraine would appreciate it and honor its obligations and agreements.
Furthermore, by annexing Crimea, Russia is accused of violating not only generally recognized fundamental principles of international law as expressed in the UN Charter (1945) and Helsinki Final Act (1975) but also some other international treaties and agreements (signed by Russia), guaranteeing Ukraine’s territorial integrity, inviolability of borders and security, as well as the UN Security Council’s decision.
However, Russia annexed Crimea after Crimea declared its independence from Ukraine, without any military invasion. It must be emphasized that Russia annexed the territory with the folk that according to the UN Charter had a right to self-determination and that self-determined to be annexed by Russia (rather than being annexed by the EU in the near future as the Ukrainian self-appointed/illegitimate government of the time clearly stated the plans for that).
Moreover, considering the circumstances, apart from the Russian Navy being threatened to be forced out from Crimea, Russia did this mainly because Ukraine severely violated the rights of its Russian ethnic minority in Crimea, which asked Russia for protection and intervention.
To be clear, Russia de facto didn't violate Ukrainian territorial integrity in 2014, as it didn't invade Crimea or Ukrainian territory at the time, since Russian troops were there legally (as per treaty[+] with Ukraine) and not a single shot had been fired. It was the Crimeans who declared their independence through a referendum initiated by Crimean authorities, after which Crimea was de facto no longer Ukrainian territory, thus Russia didn't annex Ukrainian territory but the independent Republic of Crimea[+].
Russia didn't even annex “Ukrainian territory” – it annexed the independent Republic of Crimea[+] (which was no longer Ukraine) after the Crimeans themselves voted to secede from Ukraine invoke the right to self-determination enshrined in the UN Charter and Kosovo Independence precedent[+]5. The International Court of Justice, in a 2010 advisory opinion, declared that unilateral declarations of independence[+] were not illegal under international law. Nor it is illegal for a new independent territory to join another country.
The International Court of Justice declared in 2010 that unilateral declarations of independence[+]are legal under international law. Therefore, Ukrainians should direct their dissatisfaction to The International Court of Justice and Crimeans, rather than the Russian government, which just lawfully respected the will or self-determination of their fellow Crimeans (who were mainly of Russian ethnicity; not immigrants but natives as their ancestors were in Crimea since the 18th century – 1783).
We all have to act on our conscience and ask ourselves whether we want to stand for or support hypocrisy or not. The hypocrisy of Kyiv regime and Western officials on the issue of Crimea's secession from Ukraine is exposed by many statesmen, including Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov[»]: “When the US recognized the independence of Kosovo, they said it is self-determination. When Crimeans held a referendum, they said it violates territorial integrity. UN Charter is not a menu. You have to respect it in its entirety.”
Russia annexed Crimea mainly because the new illegitimate anti-Russian Kyiv regime was otherwise going to expel the Russian Navy from Crimea (which has been there ever since 1783) and (when accepted to become a member of NATO – first applied for it in 2008) allow the US and NATO Navy to station there instead, which would be a major threat to Russia both politically and economically.
Frankly, every other country's leader would do the same as the Russians – they would not allow foreign military forces to push them out of their rightful place – and Russia did it without using guns or killing anyone, which we should give them credit for. While the locals, the Crimea residents, call it “a liberation”, Ukrainians and their allies call it “an invasion” but to invade without facing any resistance and without using any bullet, it is quite an achievement.
When it comes to determining who is really guilty or who initiated the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, most people who have done no research or have vested interest quickly point the finger at Russians, while some see it as a chicken-and-egg dilemma[+] but if we only look at the facts leading to the ongoing war in Ukraine, there is clear evidence that Ukraine is not innocent and that it provoked the war, along with its Western allies who played a “divide and rule” scheme. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. This is by no means to undermine the ills of the “whirlwind”, quite the contrary, but to set the record straight for all those who are quick to judge only Russians based on the mere fact of their military intervention.
In the context of Crimea, on the topic of who is to blame for escalating a conflict into a war, it needs to be said who else needs to be held accountable: the heads of the US and Germany at the time – Obama and Merkel. By his admission, then-US President Obama said in an interview with Amanpour on CNN[»] that despite knowing that most Crimeans wanted to be part of Russia and many parliamentarians agreed with it, he and Merkel pressed “kicking and screaming” for imposing sanctions against Russia. Their agenda, apparently, was not to solve the conflict but to escalate it.
It turns out that German Chancellor Angela Merkel played a significant role in causing this war in Ukraine, not just by unlawfully feigning[+] the Minsk treaty and empowering Ukrainians for 8 years to kill over 13.000[+] ethnic Russians in Donbas and fight Russia but also by imposing sanctions on Russia. Like Obama, she knew very well that, from a legal perspective, Russians did nothing wrong by accepting Crimea peoples’ right to self-determination (enshrined in the UN Charter and validated by precedents such as Kosovo Independence precedent) and their application to join Russia and not allowing NATO leaders (like herself and Obama) to kick them out of Crimea, which was theirs ever for centuries.
There is nothing to vindicate any war, let's be clear on that, but to end a war outside the battlefield, for the sake of peace, justice, and fairness, we need to be all that we expect from the opponent – respectful, just, fair, honest, decent, and open-minded. When looking at all the facts leading to the war in Ukraine, one may come to the conclusion that after over a decade of exhausting all the diplomatic efforts and being deceived about the treacherous intentions[+] of Ukraine and their Western allies with the 2014 and 2015 Minsk agreements[+][+] (which Ukrainians never meant to implement but were just buying time to gain strength and assets to fight the Russians), Russians felt they had no choice but to use force to protect their terrorized folk in Ukraine, whose human rights were severely abused (including the ban on the use of their native language, the reported practice of unlawful deprivation of liberty and torture and other ill-treatment of individuals, abductions, and murders of journalists and activists), their representatives unlawfully expelled from the government posts, and their lives destroyed (over 50.000[+] casualties from April 2014 until December 2021) because the international community did nothing substantial to stop this humanitarian crisis that lasted for eight long years.
There are surely many heroic people and victims among the Ukrainians but in all fairness, at the same time, we should not overlook the existence of many other Ukrainians who, probably with the best intentions, did a lot of harm to the Russian ethnic minority in Ukraine, especially Ukrainian neo-Nazi battalions funded and armed by Kyiv and NATO.
As we already explained in the previous article on How Did Ukrainians Cause The War[*], Ukrainians violated several agreements with Russia, which caused the whole conflict and therefore, by law, Ukraine needs to face the consequences, one of which is losing Crimea. Since Ukraine violated several provisions of several Treaties with Russia, the principle of reciprocity in the Law of Treaties dictates that the injured party (in this case Russia) should not be called upon to comply with its obligations under the treaty when the other party (in this case Ukraine) fails to comply with those obligations which it undertook under the same treaty. In other words, legally, Russia was not obliged to comply with its obligations under the treaty as soon as Ukraine failed to comply in 2008 and in 2013-2014. By violating agreements with Russia, Kyiv shot itself in the foot because Russians then had no obligation stick to their part of the deal – to honor Ukraine’s territorial integrity and acknowledge the inviolability of the borders.
So, in 2008 (or at any time due to Ukraine's Declaration of Independence), Ukraine had no right to apply to join NATO also because part of Ukrainian territory (Crimea) was leased to Russian military (it is impossible for the two enemies or rivals to share Crimea's military bases). Also, in February 2014, the new anti-Russian US-puppet regime, which came to power by violence rather than democratic means and which ousted all ethnic Russian (Crimea's) representatives from government, signaled6 that it would reapply to join NATO and terminate that treaty, which it also followed through as it later made joining NATO a priority [+][+][+][+], proving Russia's concerns valid.
Already during the presidency of US puppet Victor Yushchenko (2005–2010), the Ukrainian government declared that the lease would not be extended and that the fleet would have to leave Crimea by 2017 but he was replaced in 2010 when the Treaty was extended until 2042 by President Yanukovych, who was then violently ousted in 2014 and forced to flee the country under death threats of US-backed nationalists.
On 26 February 2014, then-Secretary General Rasmussen reaffirmed[+] that NATO doors are open to Ukraine. Therefore, considering all these anti-Russian developments, both Crimea residents (mostly ethnic Russians) and Russians took decisive action in March 2014 to hinder NATO and US troops to be stationed there and take over their rightful place. It is, of course, impossible for the adversaries, Russia and NATO, to share military bases in the same place. Logically, Russia would not allow the US to kick it out of its rightful place, so it annexed Crimea AFTER the Crimea residents voted in a referendum to separate from Ukraine and rejoin Russia.
On 31 March 2014, couple days after the annexation of Crimea, Russia’s State Duma7 unanimously approved the repeal of these Russian-Ukrainian agreements whereby officially terminating the legal effect of the Partition Treaty, a.k.a. Kharkiv Pact. US-puppet regime had made the pact untenable after it breached the other Treaty on Friendship and failed to pay its debt to Russia for gas. As it states in the Partition Treaty's Article 1, the pact was not determined just by this Agreement but also other agreements between the Parties, which Ukraine violated first. As it states in the Kharkiv Pact “developing relations are based on the principle of strategic partnership recorded in the 1997 Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation”, which Ukraine violated first.
The threats of Ukraine joining NATO and allowing NATO troops in Crimea was inacceptable for Russia and also, pact was not fulfilled by Ukraine's side as it did not pay for gas in full as agreed per that pact. Ukraine’s debt to Russian Gazprom8 had risen to $4,5 billion[+][+]. After Ukraine's violations, the Partition Treaty or Kharkiv Pact was no longer catering to Russia’s interests, especially after annexation of Crimea, the pact became redundant, therefore, Russia terminated it right after annexation.
In all honesty, with or without Russian military presence, the Crimeans preferred a Russian protectorate and didn't want to be ruled by Ukraine because the Ukrainian government had been very incompetent and corrupt in the past, as well as discriminatory and unjust to them, especially when the new US-appointed[+][+][+][+][»] government overtook office illegally in February 2014.
NATO countries’ leaders knew all that but sided with Ukraine anyway because their commanders had designs on overtaking the Crimean naval base from the Russians – by accepting Ukraine to join NATO, Ukraine would have to expel the Russian Navy from Crimea so that the US and NATO Navy could take control.
Crimean Tatars
Respectfully, Crimean Tatars, who are the most indigenous people of Crimea, have been opposing Crimean annexation to Russia, wanting autonomy within unitary Ukraine. Crimean Tatars are not the native/indigenous people of the peninsula but are longer there than any present ethnic group there now. The peninsula has been a meeting point and to some degree a melting pot of different peoples since time immemorial. The Crimean Tatars are one of many such peoples. Their presence in Crimea is certainly significant historically, but they are far from being original inhabitants. The first known[+] Crimean population were the Cimmerians (XII century BC), mentioned in the ancient sources of Assyria. These were tribes of Iranian descent.
Tatars assume that Crimea should belong to them but due to their centuries-long extermination and discrimination (due to them being Muslims, perceived traitors, and their ancestors enslaving and killing millions of Russians), in 2014, Crimean Tatars constituted only approximately 12,6%[+] of the population of Crimea (277.336 of an overall population of 2.3 million at the time) and as a minority are legally not in a position to determine the status of Crimea (in democracy, majority rules, a.k.a. the tyranny of the majority[+]) but have the right to self-determination under the current Russian government, as long as they are not disrespectful and break Russian laws.
However, many Crimean Tatars have been acting disrespectfully and antagonistically towards the Russian government, which is why they have been faced with the consequences of them also then naturally being disrespected and oppressed. Of course, we don't approve of such actions and reactions but only point out the logicality of Tatars’ unfortunate grave situation. Also, we don't approve of antagonism based on ancestral faults (Guilt by Association fallacy), but we all need to take into consideration why there is a deep-rooted Russian hostility towards them in order to address the issue open-mindedly in a broader context rather than narrow-mindedly and so solve it. Crimean Tatars' ancestors were brutal slave traders and human traffickers who inflicted enormous suffering on millions of Russians and Ukrainians for centuries until the Russian Empire peacefully took Crimea over and abolished slavery.
A brief history lesson: according to Wikipedia's report[+], Crimean Tatars conducted slave raids in lands controlled by Russia (and Poland-Lithuania as well as other territories) between 1468-1769, mostly under the sponsorship of the Ottoman Empire but also Italian merchants. Their main purpose was the capture of slaves, most of whom were exported to the Ottoman slave markets in Constantinople or elsewhere in the Middle East as well as to Western Europe. In the 1570s close to 20.000 slaves a year went on sale in a Crimea port alone. A Crimean Tatar Khan burnt down Moscow during the 1571 campaign. Some counted up to 80.000 victims of the Tatar invasion in 1571, with 150.000 Russians taken as captives. In the last raid in 1769, Tatars captured 20.000 Russians and sold them as slaves. According to some estimates, 150.000 to 200.000 people were abducted from Russia alone in the first half of the 17th century and more than twice as many of them were slaughtered during the raids and along the way. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "It is known that for every slave the Crimeans sold in the market, they killed outright several other people during their raids, and a couple more died on the way to the slave market." That means, besides enslaving about a million Russians, a few million others were killed along the way.
Slavery is rightfully known as one of the worst evils ever perpetrated against men (and women) by their fellow men and, sorry to say, Crimean Tatars were those evildoers. They never formally apologized for it to Russia, which suggests the modern-day Tatars approve of it. No wonder, they reap what they saw. It is time to apologize and atone.
All in all, as history shows, Crimean Tatars were much crueler and inhumane to Russians than Russians to them now, so no need for playing the innocent victims, especially when to this day, Tatars have been far from innocent with their antagonistic, hostile, and disrespectful misdemeanor towards Russian authorities. Of course, we disapprove cruelty and malice from both sides equally but we felt a need to point out these facts (Tatars started the hostilities and haven’t apologized for anything) for Crimean Tatars to take their part of the responsibility in the conflict and for provoking Russian cruelty with their disrespect so that it could end.
We'd say, after a couple of centuries of Russian revenge, Tatars have paid their dues and it is time to reconcile. Of course, to spur the reconciliation process, the Tatars should officially apologize to Russians for both their ancestors’ horrific tyranny against Russians and also their disrespect toward the Russian and Crimean authorities since 2014. President Vladimir Putin already delivered[+] the official apology to the Crimean Tatar people in April 2014, which shows what a great statesman and diplomat he is. He explained the apology live on national media, saying, “I have signed a decree to rehabilitate the Crimean Tatar population, the Armenian population, Germans, Greeks – all those who suffered (in Crimea) during Stalin’s repressions.”[+] And let's not forget that Russia had already before the decency to formally apologize to Crimean Tatars for Stalin's deportation but the Tatars have never had the decency to apologize to Russians for anything they as folk have historically done to harm Russians. For the sake of reconciliation, it is time for modern Tatars to raise consciousness9[+] and have the decency to regret, repent, apologize, and atone. This would surely get Russians and the Crimean majority to treat them more fairly.
To help the Crimean Tatars, we suggest that instead of increasing their resistance, hostility, and disrespect, Crimean Tatars should work towards making peace with their government so that they could rightfully claim their right to self-determination. As long as they break the law, resist, oppose, offend, and disrespect the Russian Crimean authorities, they can't expect the authorities to respect them and their rights. The universal laws of non-resistance, causality, and reciprocity regulate reciprocal reactions to any action, so we recommend the Crimean Tatars to abide by the Golden Rule[+] – the principle of treating others as one wants to be treated.
Resistance is destructive rather than constructive. There are other constructive, smart, and democratic ways to achieve goals. When people are resisting or protesting something, they are directing negative energy to the adversary, which cannot possibly be a force for positive change. Therefore, it is pointless and unintelligent to resist anything or anyone, because the object of resistance will only fight back stronger and nothing constructive will be achieved by it. As the Law of Non-Resistance regulates it, whenever we resist something or someone, we are actually giving more power and energy to it. Therefore, it is counterproductive to resist Russian authorities since by increasing their resistance, Crimean Tatars automatically and naturally increase Russian counteractions and conflict. By resisting, it is impossible to constructively solve any issue but only escalate it.
Crimean Tatars have it better under Russian governance than they had under Ukrainian. Besides all the infrastructural and economic improvements, their linguistic right have resumed. The language status for Crimean Tatars during Ukraine was, quite simply, bad all around. The Crimean language had no official status, and therefore funding for its expression and its use in education, media and culture al expression was very low. Furthermore, the dilapidated and deteriorating state of the Ukrainian economy during the years of Ukrainian rule only amplified the social and political alienation of Crimean Tatars, who were the poorest of the poor. One of the first acts of the Crimean government following the 2014 referendum was to declare three official languages—Russian, Ukrainian and Tatar. This had been long demanded by the Russian and Tatar populations, ever since Ukraine’s 1991 secession from the Soviet Union. This act was much more than a gesture. Considerable funds and efforts have been allocated in the years since 2014 to promote and develop media and cultural outlets in the Tatar language as well as improve public education in Tatar.
As freedom and peace activists, ideally, for the sake of peace and overall prosperity in the world, we would advise all governments to graciously grant freedom to all their folks who want to claim their right to self-determination and declare either independence or autonomy. In that sense, ideally, as the indigenes, Crimean Tatars should be allowed sovereignty of around 12% territory of the Crimean Peninsula but also a part of south Ukrainian territory that was theirs before Ukrainians came. We hope for that day to come soon knowing that for that to happen all parties need to end hostilities and raise their consciousness[+] toward constructive modes of kindness, benignity, tactfulness, sensibleness, permissiveness, supportive attitude, flexibility, cordiality, niceness, honorableness, decency, considerateness, respectfulness, willingness, forgiveness, acceptance, justness, humanness, altruism, compassion, and other virtues[+]. As opposed to maintaining destructive modes of consciousness, such as possessiveness, cruelty, harshness, heartlessness, tactlessness, insensitivity, unpermissiveness, unsupportive attitude, rigidness, antagonism, unfriendliness, deviousness, indecency, inconsiderateness, disrespectfulness, unwillingness, blame, dissent, unjustness, malevolence, selfishness, cold-heartedness, mercilessness, and other flaws[+].
Moving on. Even though Crimea was part of Ukraine for 60 years and governed by Kyiv for 23 years (before that was governed by Moscow in USSR and Russian Empire for centuries), as peacemakers, we would advise Ukrainians to concede to this Russian demand.
Here is the explanation, with some major benefits plus other reasons:
As a matter of fact, Ukraine is better off without Crimea. Since the ethnic Russians are a majority in Crimea and do not want to be governed by the anti-Russian and corrupt Ukrainian majority or eventually annexed by the EU, it may serve the best interest of Ukraine to allow the secession of this community. There are at least four benefits to giving Crimea up, which we are about to reveal.
That Crimea is not that valuable to Ukrainians is evident in the fact that in 2014 or later, not enough Ukrainians wanted to fight or die for Crimea, so it was annexed to Russia without any military resistance. The fact that the Ukrainian army at the time didn't have enough firearms to resist the pro-Russian separatists and the Russian army was not a factor because just like now, Ukrainians could have gotten military aid from allies in a short time afterward. The fact that pro-Russian candidates managed to win the Ukrainian elections (parliamentary and presidential) proves how important is to let go of Crimea and its people who will always vote for the pro-Russian party and candidates.
Crimea has been predominantly ethnically Russian as well as economically poor for a very long time, and Crimeans have voted always overwhelmingly for a pro-Russian candidate in Ukrainian elections. By cutting Crimea off and recognizing it as Russian territory, Ukraine has more advantages than disadvantages:
All the benefits of ending the war – saving lives, resources, and infrastructure; preventing further suffering and destruction
With less ethnic Russians from Crimea (a.k.a. Russia’s Trojan Horse), it makes itmore difficult for pro-Russian parties to hold sway in the Ukrainian capital Kyiv. Otherwise, they would have their representatives in parliament like before and would vote against all the pro-Western laws and policies and would push for pro-Russian agenda.
Ukraine is not obliged to give any economic aid to Crimean inhabitants, ethnic Russians. Under Kyiv rule, Crimea had been so economically destitute that Ukrainians would always need to allocate enormous financial aid to that pro-Russian region to keep it stable. Justifiably, Ukrainians are not willing to pay aid for ethnic Russians but would have to if Crimea returns to Ukraine.
By making peace with Russia over Crimea issue, Ukraine is in a position to make a deal with huge discounts for oil and gas, just like they had before the conflict started in 2014.
An arrangement that leaves Ukraine without Crimea might make for a more stable and democratic Ukraine for the price of a holiday location in desperate need of financial grants. Cutting Crimea off might be a price to pay for those four benefits, one Ukraine could afford to pay.
Let's face it, Ukraine has no choice but to give up Ukraine as it has no means to retake it, either militarily or diplomatically. Russian authorities made it very clear[+][+][+][+] that they would be willing to use nuclear weapons to defend Crimea, thus there is no chance Ukraine or NATO could ever counter that, so ever attempt to occupy is not just futile but extremely dangerous and not worth it. Even if Ukraine would somehow manage to return it, it would be like swallowing a porcupine as the unfriendly residents would constantly make troubles to Kyiv.
To overcome the possessiveness of Crimea, in the next articles, we offer further reasons to give up Crimea from a historical standpoint and a legal standpoint.
Thank you for reading this article and participating in this peace initiative by raising your awareness and, hopefully, your consciousness and spirit. To properly grasp everything, we[*] recommend reading the articles of this peace initiative for Ukraine in the proper order, which is listed in the Contents. So if you haven’t read the previous articles, we recommend that you do. When you are ready, please proceed to the next article in this “Meeting the Demands for Ending the War” segment: Why should Ukraine give up Crimea — From a historical standpoint
we refer to Kyiv as a regime[+] due to its oppressive and repressive policies, corruption, and foul treatment of its ethnic minorities, such as the ethnic Russians, violating their human rights, tyrannizing, and killing them since 2014.
Donbas[+] is a coal mining region that was part of eastern Ukraine from 1922-2022 (now part of Russia) consisting of two Republics - Donetsk and Luhansk - where most residents have been Russians for centuries. In 2022, after Bolsheviks defeated the Ukrainian nationalists, Lenin gave that part of former Russian Empire with mostly ethnic Russian residents to the Soviet Republic of Ukraine under condition that it remains part of the Soviet Union and under Moscow governance (Kyiv administration) but in 1991, Ukraine violated that agreement by breaking off from the Soviet Union and from Moscow, and since 2014, Ukrainians had been demolishing all Lenin's monuments, therefore they have no rights to claim the territories he conditionally granted them. Since Ukrainians hate Lenin and Stalin so much that they demonize them, then in the Russian view[+], it is only fair to give back all the land[ꚛ] that Lenin and Stalin allocated to Soviet Ukraine, without even asking the locals’ permission (the majority were Russians in Donbas).
public administration, electoral process, referendums, courts, schools/education, science, theatres and other culture, media, economic and social life, health and care institutions, activities of political parties, and many more
geographical location made it easier for Kyiv to run the administration and logistics espacially because Ukraine provided Crimea with water and electricity. In 1954, Kakhovka Dam[+] was being built since 1950 in Ukr which was going to supply water for Crimea.
apart from Kosovo, 14 other regions gained international recognition (partial or full) since WWII, such as in Europe: Northern Cyprus, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia
not the interim government (which had no legal right to do it) signaled[+] it but the nationalists who came to power and were running campaigns for the upcoming election said they would change the legislation in which Ukraine is a non-aligned state, which they did change
Consciousness[+] is not mere awareness or wakefulness but a subtle dimension of who we are, which is the primary cause of everything that happens to us; when raised, it is a constructive force that creates everything in our life, helps us make the right decisions as well as come up with the best ideas and solutions. It is a primordial cause and fundamental force or source of creation.
Human consciousness expresses itself in a variety of modes throughout each day (as presented on an arbitrary scale of consciousness[+]), constructive and destructive ones (virtues and flaws), and the approximate average of the values of all these modes each person or a collective or a nation engages in throughout each day, amounts to what we call a level of consciousness. Consciousness Theorem[+], the level of collective consciousness determines the level of collective achievement. In other words, the higher the consciousness level of a nation, the higher its ability to achieve its goals, including peace.