In current rhetoric about the Ukraine War peace negotiations, a lot's being reported about Crimea. But it's worth questioning how much of it is truthful or accurate.
Ukraine says Crimea is an integral part of Ukraine that was taken by force, and wants it back from Russian occupation.
At the same time Russia says the transfer away from Ukraine was done fairly by the residents themselves in a referendum. Russia contends the residents voted to attach Crimea to Russia, and that Russia intends to keep it.
The issue is considered an important factor in negotiations for a peaceful settlement of the Ukraine war.
But actually both arguments are bogus. Neither side seems to understand what actually happened regarding Crimea.
The answer can be found back in 2014. That's when a revolution took place in Ukraine. It changed the nature of Ukrainian sovereignty in a way that neither side seems to have recognized.
A significant result is that post-revolution Ukraine has never exercised sovereignty over Crimea. It never occupied it and never governed it. That leaves present-day Ukraine with no legitimate claim to the territory.
Most of the rest of pre-revolution Ukraine had acceded to the control-by-force imposed by the unelected revolutionaries. It was they who also ended the democracy that Ukraine had enjoyed before the revolution. They chased the democratically-elected president out of the country. They replaced the democratically promulgated constitution with one of their own choosing. And they ruled by force.
You wouldn't have known that from news reports of the era. They made the takeover sound like the opening of new vistas for freedom and democracy in Ukraine. But if examined honestly, all of that can be seen as outright propaganda. It is really quite astonishing how observers on both sides of this issue lined up with the propaganda narrative.
There never was any substantial invasion of Crimea by Russia as was reported. It is true that 15,000 Russian troops were there. But they were there before the revolution. Their presence was provided for in a treaty signed by Ukraine. It covered the operation of the large Russian naval facility that was there since Soviet times.
The inhabitants of Crimea are largely ethnic Russians. The self-appointed revolutionary leaders had shown an early indication of anti-Russian bigotry. I suspect it generated fear among the Crimean people. That in turn might have biased their decision to stay out of post-revolution Ukraine. If so, that fear was prophetic. It turns out that post-revolution Ukraine has carried out a program of cultural and linguistic cleansing of things Russian.
A careful study of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States even suggests that pre- and post-revolution Ukraine are not even the same country in terms of statehood and sovereignty. I covered that in greater detail in my article titled, "Peace Plans, Schmese Plans: Key Path to Ukraine Peace Long Ignored by All." (It can be found online by googling the title.)
Altogether, the above analysis suggests that it would be outright foolishness for the matter of Crimea to be on the bargaining table for a peace settlement. It is a bogus issue. The matter is already settled. Both sides just need to acknowledge the truth of the matter.
1
1
Post Article Comment and Rate This Article
