By: Kayhan Int’l
Similar to any geopolitical phenomenon, the Ukraine crisis has multiple roots, but the most important one is the involvement of the US and European powers in Ukraine’s coup, which overthrew the democratically-elected Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych on 22 February 2014.
Following overthrow of the elected government in Kiev, people in largely Russophone eastern and southern Ukraine, the bases of support for Yanukovych and his ‘Party of the Regions’, opposed the foreign-engineered coup and began to call for closer ties with Russia. As a result various demonstrations were held in Crimea in favour of leaving Ukraine and accession to the Russian Federation.
Crimea and large parts of southern Ukraine came under Islamic rule in the 13th century with establishment of the power of the golden horde, which in the early 15th century evolved into the Crimean Khanate, with its distinctively rich Muslim culture and the Perso-Arabic alphabet in which the local language was written.
Towards the end of the 15th century the Crimean Khanate became a vassal state of the expanding Ottoman Empire, a status that lasted till the closing years of the 18th century and Russian encroachment upon it.
The Russian Tsars tussled with the Ottoman Sultans for control of the region, and from 1853 to 1856, the peninsula was the site of the principal engagements of the famous Crimean War, which ended in victory for Russia, despite the support of France and Britain for the Turks.
Following the Revolution in Russia in 1917, the military and political situation in Crimea was chaotic like that in much of Russia. During the ensuing Russian Civil War, Crimea changed hands numerous times and was for a time a stronghold of the anti-Bolshevik White Army. The White Army controlled Crimea before remnants were finally driven out by the Red Army in November 1920.
Crimea became part of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic in 1921 as the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, which became part of the Soviet Union in 1922.
On 19 February 1954, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR issued a decree on the transfer of the Crimean region of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (SFSR) to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR). This Supreme Soviet Decree states that this transfer was motivated by "the commonality of the economy, the proximity, and close economic and cultural relations between the Crimean region and the Ukrainian SSR”. At that time no vote or referendum took place, and Crimean population had no say in the transfer.
On 19 February 1954, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR issued a decree on the transfer of the Crimean region of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (SFSR) to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR). This Supreme Soviet Decree states that this transfer was motivated by "the commonality of the economy, the proximity, and close economic and cultural relations between the Crimean region and the Ukrainian SSR”. At that time no vote or referendum took place, and Crimean population had no say in the transfer.
The transfer was described as a "symbolic gesture”, marking the 300th anniversary of Ukraine becoming a part of the Tsardom of Russia.
On 27 June 2015 the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation accepted the request of the leader of ‘A Just Russia Party’, Sergey Mironov, to evaluate legitimacy of the 1954 transfer of Crimea and stated that it violated both the Constitution of the Russian SFSR and the Constitution of the Soviet Union.
The text of the document signed by Russian Deputy Prosecutor General Sabir Kehlerova Mironov stated: "Neither the Constitution of the RSFSR or the USSR Constitution provide powers of the Presidium Supreme Soviet of the USSR for the consideration of the changes in the constitutional legal status of the Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, members of the union republics. In view of the above, the decision adopted in 1954 by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviets of the RSFSR and the Soviet on the transfer of the Crimean region of the RSFSR to the USSR, did not correspond to the Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the RSFSR and the Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the USSR.”
Thus, in view of these facts and the meddling of NATO states in Ukraine following the disintegration of the Soviet Union, elements seized power in Kiev which were hostile to Moscow, although they lacked popular support.
Thus, in view of these facts and the meddling of NATO states in Ukraine following the disintegration of the Soviet Union, elements seized power in Kiev which were hostile to Moscow, although they lacked popular support.
The West wanted to politicize and militarize the whole issues, and the destabilization of Ukraine gathered speed following the defeats of the western-backed takfiri terrorists in Syria. The US and its allies wanted an excuse to provoke Moscow nearer at home.
This week when the regime in Kiev wanted to test the patience of Moscow by sending naval vessels through the sensitive waterway connecting the Sea of Azov with the Black Sea, it was but natural of Russia to seize the three vessels.
In response, the regime in Ukraine lacking popular support, declared martial law, and even threatened Russia with war, banking on the support of the US.
Against this backdrop, Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday, Nov 28 said Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is orchestrating a naval provocation in a bid to boost his flagging popularity ratings before election next year.
The onus is now on the western backers of the regime in Kiev to defuse the crisis, and although Moscow does not want war between the two Slavic nations, Russia is determined to thwart NATO’s encroachment in Ukraine.
No comments:
Post a Comment