Russia. Crimea. History. Nikolay Starikov
the Crimea gained autonomy. But the referendum raised the question in the other way. There was talk of granting the Crimea an equal status within the Union. In other words, the Crimea and Ukraine were to become equal. As well as the city of Sevastopol, which have a special status, and the rest of the Crimea which are equal today. But despite the results of the referendum, “federal status” was not granted to the Crimea. Meantime, according to Article 2 of the above-mentioned law the Crimean Regional Council of People’s Deputies, which was transformed into the Supreme Council of the Crimean ASSR on March 22, 1991, was temporarily (until adoption of the Constitution) declared as a supreme body of the state authority within the Crimean ASSR. It was this body, which developed the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea adopted on May 6, 1992. The Supreme Council will also play its role in the events of winter and spring 2014, when being completely legitimate authority (as opposed to Kiev’s putschists), it would be able to launch the referendum and subsequent reunification with Russia. But before that, in the mid-1990s, the Constitution of the Crimea was abolished by the Ukrainian authorities, and the position of the president of the Crimea was annihilated.
In 1991 Ukraine held its own referendum. It was held on December 1st, and according to the opinion of the Ukrainian leaders it affirmed “Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine”, which was hastily adopted by the Supreme Council of the Ukranian SSR on August 24, 1991. Which, sort of, added legitimacy to Kravchuk’s actions. But in accordance with the law of the USSR “Concerning the procedure for secession of a union republic from the USSR” № 1409–1 dated April 3, 1990, the Republic of Crimea had full authority to conduct its own referendum to decide – whether to stay within the USSR or to leave the Union, together with the Ukrainian SSR. Crimeans boycotted the Ukrainian referendum, whereon Kiev involved soldiers to the voting – Ukraine descents – and other categories of citizens of Ukraine, who were on vacation in the Crimea at that time. The result was 62 % voters’ turnout, of which only 54 % voted for “the Act”. In fact, only 33 % of the total number of Crimean voters supported it. And if you also subtract Ukrainians, who originally “not from the Crimea”, but who voted in the referendum, you get even less. It is illustrative that Ukraine wanted to terminate the alliance with USSR and held a referendum, but did not let do the same to the Crimea[138].
The struggle of Crimeans for the right to remain Russians began. For this reason, it was vital for them to preserve the autonomy and status of the republic. In response to “the Act” signatures with a clear statement of the question posed: “Are you for the independent Republic of Crimea in the Union with other states?” were collected for a new referendum on the peninsula in 1992. In reply, the Kiev authorities declared a moratorium on the referendum by the decree of the Supreme Council of Ukraine on May 13, 1992. Trying to help the Crimea, the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation adopted a resolution on May 21, 1992 “Concerning legal evaluation of the decisions, taken by the supreme bodies of the state authorities of the Russian SFSR in connection with changing the status of the Crimea, adopted in 1954,” declares Khrushchev’s decisions on handing the Crimea over to Ukraine illegal:
“1. Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet RSFSR dated February 5, 1954 “Concerning the transfer of the Crimean region of the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR” as adopted with violation of the Constitution (Fundamental Law) and legislative procedure of the RSFSR invalidating to declare invalid from the moment of adoption.
2. For want of institutionalization of this fact by subsequent legislation of the RSFSR and signing a bilateral agreement between Ukraine and Russia dated November 19, 1990, in which the parties renounce territorial claims, and formalize the principle in treaties and agreements between the CIS states, consider it necessary to settle the Crimea case by interstate negotiations between Russia and Ukraine with the participation of Crimea, based on the will of its people.
The next day the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR issued the statement to the Supreme Council of Ukraine, in which Russian parliamentarians expressed concern that Ukraine was trying to grab the Black Sea Fleet and clearly conducted an unfriendly policy towards Russia. How could this happen? Just a while ago we were one fraternal nation in one country. Amicable divorce without blood and gunfire, and conflicts right after the collapse of the USSR? The fact that Ukraine was trying to grab the Soviet Black Sea Fleet for no reason, is demonstrated by today’s reality. The ships that eventually merged into the Navy of independent Ukraine have turned into a pile of junk now, with minor exceptions. It is very expensive to maintain fleet. Having no money even for gas, Ukraine simply would have destroyed the entire Black Sea Fleet, as most of the ships of the Ukrainian fleet were brought to ruin. Who was behind all of this? Today, the answer is obvious – the forces that try to kick Russia away from the Black Sea region.
There are several ways to achieve this: to deprive the Navy of the base in the Crimea, which would be the result of the coup in Kiev. But this happened in 2014. Should Russia have remained in the Black Sea region without fleet in 1992, the issue of displacing it from the Black Sea would have been settled long ago. Where this insatiable and unaffordable from the point of view of budget itch to possess the colossal Black Sea Fleet comes from. President Kravchuk was the first to announce that the Black Sea Fleet had to be taken under the jurisdiction of Kiev in 1992. In response, the fleet commander Admiral I. Katasonov stated that the fleet would remain to be Russian. A conflict fraught with bloodshed was about to impend. Ukraine even tried to enter troops to settle the problem in “non-amicable way”. Collision could occur, because the Black Sea fleet – a robust military force that has always been able to stand up for itself, and acted as a guarantor of security of the whole peninsula in the situation of 2014…
President Kravchuk enacted complete elimination of references to the USSR from the Constitution of Ukraine on June 19, 1992. Everything that once united us should have been deleted or distorted. It was not only about seven decades of the Soviet system. In the first “year of independence” – 1992 – unified Slavic people were split spiritually as well. A schismatic Kiev Patriarchate was established by active support of Kravchuk as opposed to the Russian Orthodox Church. Two months later, on August 22, 1992, the state regalia were solemnly given to Kravchuk by the former President of UPR in exile as well as the certificate, that the Republic of Ukraine was the successor of the Ukrainian People’s Republic. This state, established by Petlyura immediately after the October Revolution of the Bolsheviks, existed in 1917– 1921 years. The continuity of the regime, chosen by the leaders of new Ukraine for themselves, was demonstrated this way.
As for the personality of Petlyura, his closest political “analog” in the Russian history is Kerensky. Petlyura, same “democrat” and babbler but of nationalistic character, who was in close contact with the geopolitical rivals of Russia, like all the Ukrainian separatists in our history (both of the past and present). He took an advantage of Russian immersion into chaos and seized the moment to tear Ukraine off. In this respect, Kravchuk was his direct successor. However, Petlyura did no good for Ukraine. Few people know now that “Kiev Democrats” signed another Brest peace with Germany almost three weeks earlier than Bolsheviks[140]. The occupation by Germans occurred then, in which they discarded Petlyura as useless and established a puppet “monarchical” regime, led by hetman Skoropadsky carrying away food (milk, eggs) to the Second Reich. Mikhail Bulgakov vividly described the return of Petlyura to power in the novel «The Days of the Turbins». Chaos, murders, violence against Russian officers in the Russian city of Kiev. Persistent struggle against Russia followed. Not only against the Red Army, but also the White. The apotheosis of this struggle was his agreement with the Poles, when he agreed to establish a border between Poland and Ukraine on the Zbruch in exchange for UPR support. In other words, he accepted the fact that Galicia and Volyn became parts of Poland. Such a “patriot” of “independent” Ukraine! In this respect, the present rulers of “the Independent Ukraine” are already about to hand Ukraine over to the West. Better not have any relations with Russia. It should be noted that there was no Ukraine as a state in 1918. And had never been before. In 1654 the
Similar situation took place within the former Soviet Union repeatedly, when stating an “infringement” in the USSR, union republics really began to undermine and limit a portion of the constituent territories. The most striking examples were: Crimea – Ukraine, Transnistria – Gagauzia – Moldova, Abkhazia – South Ossetia – Georgia.
Ref.: http://sevkrimrus.narod.ru/ZAKON/o1954.htm
After the Ukrainian delegation (January 20, 1918) returned to Kiev from the first negotiations with the Germans, the Central Rada announced the independence of Ukraine on January 22, 1918. The delegation of the “independent” UPR signed a peace treaty with Germany and its allies on February 9, 1918. In the apt words of Trotsky, the Ukrainian delegation is the room they lived in Brest by that time. The Red Army troops entered Ukraine, pro-Bolshevik uprisings broke out everywhere. The matter was that there were no progressive and independent TV channels the citizens of today’s Ukraine watch now. And consequently did not know that they were the descendants of the ancient ukrs other than Russian people. Their grandchildren will know about that…