Crimean Russians worked to rejoin the Motherland for decades Pt. II
Apologies to the Denver Post for bogarting their title. I liked it ;-)
NOTE: In drafting Part I of this series on Crimea, I had originally intended to make it only a 1-part blog post. The “Bullet points” you see being referred to were originally in a different order as presented throughout the original post. I’ve left them in the text simply because they do a good job of summarizing the issues I’m presenting, though it does make the continuity look a little sloppy. Take the numbering order with a grain of salt.
In March of 2014, the Denver Post opened a piece about the Crimean vote to rejoin Russia in the following way:
For Vadim Mordashov, Sunday’s referendum in Crimea was a dream come true.
By midday — long before voting ended — the bespectacled separatist, a former parliamentarian and veteran of the region’s pro-Russian political scene, was already gushing with confidence.
“After 23 years, we’re finally celebrating the liberation of Crimea from Ukrainian occupation,” said the slight 58-year-old, his leather newsboy cap and neatly trimmed beard lending him the air of a Bolshevik revolutionary.
In the event, an overwhelming majority of Crimeans voted to join Russia.
Not a bad start, actually. At least compared to much of the way the MSM seems to want to represent this story. The title admits this event was the fruits of years of laboring the political landscape towards the goal of a Russian-ruled Crimea. The curious comparison to the Bolsheviks in paragraph #3 notwithstanding.
But later we’re told the vote was “dubious” and “improbable,” it was the result of a “Fringe Pro-Moscow” movement, the Russian media “convinced” people to do this, and the result of having “exploited longstanding grievances” against Kiev. No evidence is given for this characterization of the referendum, and the credulity of the reader is just assumed.
Yuri Meshkov - surprisingly - is actually mentioned here as having been Crimea’s only President, though they conveniently left out the fact that Mr. Meshkov was elected with 72.9% of the vote in 1994. Probably so they wouldn’t have explain why they accept the 72% but reject the 95% of the 2014 vote. But most MSM articles fail to place the 2014 election in the context of the years proceeding, and mentioning Yuri Meshkov is just about as rare. So that’s a good thing he was mentioned at all!
*Sigh* Exactly the type of bias in the media I drew a picture of in the previous post of this series. “No right thinking person.”
It’s interesting: Concerning the 1991 vote for Ukrainian independence, the Daily Beast touts the percentages in four different Oblasts of Ukraine. At least one - Zaporizhzhia - topping out at just over 90% for Ukrainian independence from the Soviet Union. [See a breakdown of the full results, here.] But yet many insist Crimea’s 2014 vote is outlandish by contrast? They conveniently leave out the fact that Crimea had the lowest percentage of Yes votes - 54% on a dismal 65% turnout. And btw, what was the turnout in the 4 Oblasts they mention? Did everyone feel safe enough to vote? Who, if any were the International Observers? [I’ve been trying to find out.] Also not mentioned is that the Yes votes among Ethnic Russians was only 55%! Clearly the enthusiasm among Russians living in Ukraine was low enough that they could just be voting to get out of the USSR, but were taking a wait-and-see attitude towards being a part of the newly emancipated Ukraine. It was less likely an indication of enthusiasm for Ukraine over an independent Russia. Considering the spark was according to some observers largely to be the 1991 Soviet Coup in which hardliners had placed Mikhail Gorbachev under house arrest in his vacation home in Crimea, once can easily see how circumstances drove the Independence referendum, whereas time living under the Kiev regime could’ve caused a serious change of heart by the time 2014 rolled around. What something that might cause such a change of heart? The violence of the US-engineered coup known as Euromaidan might indeed be one factor.
The Denver Post does admit this much, however:
Even for politicians who never previously advocated secession, such as Vadim Kolesnichenko, a deputy from Crimea in Ukraine’s parliament, resentment against Kiev is strong.
In a recent interview in Sevastopol, Kolesnichenko — an author of the 1992 constitution — said the peninsula’s self-governing authority has been “multiplied by zero” over the years. “Today, Crimea has an operetta government, and it has no more power than any other regional administration,” he said.
Others, like Mordashov, a top Meshkov lieutenant, point to what they say had been years of abuse by the central government in Kiev, which they allege exploited the region for its resources and gave little back. “The taxes generated by Crimea have always been snatched away by Kiev, and in the end it amounts to the pillaging of a colony,” he said. “And now we see the result.”
Meanwhile, both the Kremlin and local officials here have played heavily on the deep historical ties between Russia and Crimea, which reach back more than 200 years. Russian President Vladimir Putin hailed them in a Kremlin address on Tuesday during which he asked parliament to formalize Russia’s annexation of Crimea. [Emphasis mine.]
“To understand the reason behind such a choice,” he said, “it’s enough to know the history of Crimea and what Russia and Crimea have always meant for each other.”
Looks to me that it happened pretty much like I said: There was broad support for Ukrainian independence when extremists in Russia had attempted to depose Gorbachev. But a mere few years or less saw Crimea beating a path to the exits, and understandably so. And by that time, more water had passed under the bridge in terms of Ukrainian abusive actions towards Crimea and her people.
The title of the article? The same as the title I was inspired to give this blog post: “Crimean Russians worked to rejoin the Motherland for decades.” That speaks volumes more information in just the title than you’ll get from most biased Western media most of the time. It’s as if being neutral and factual was giving Russia too much favoritism or something.
Former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter weighs in on the topic of Ukraine’s treatment of Crimea in a post earlier this year on RT:
On March 16, 2014, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, both of which at that time were legally considered to be part of Ukraine, held a referendum on whether to join Russia or remain part of Ukraine. Over 97% of the votes cast were in favor of joining Russia. Five days later, on March 21, Crimea formally became part of the Russian Federation.
Shortly afterwards, Ukraine built a concrete dam on the North Crimean Canal, a Soviet-era conduit transporting water from the Dnieper River that provided around 85% of the peninsula’s water supply. In doing so, Ukraine effectively destroyed Crimea’s agricultural industry. Then, in November 2015, Ukrainian nationalists blew up pylons carrying power lines from Ukraine to Crimea, thrusting the peninsula into a blackout that prompted a declaration of emergency by the regional government.
The Ukrainian assault on Crimea’s water and electricity was merely an extension of the lack of regard shown to the Crimean population during the two-plus decades that Kiev ruled the peninsula. The local economy was stagnant, and the pro-Russian locals were subjected to a policy of total Ukrainization. In general, the Gross Regional Product (GRP) of Crimea was well below the average of Ukraine (43.6% less in 2000, and 29.5% less in 2013.) In short, the Kiev government made no meaningful attempt to develop Crimea culturally or infrastructurally. The Crimean Peninsula was in a state of decay perpetrated by Ukrainian governments.
The damming of the North Crimean Canal and the destruction of the electrical transmission lines were simply the radical expression of the indifference shown by Kiev.
Pay attention to the details in Scott’s OP. They will come into play as we continue to unpack the history of Crimea’s conflict with Ukraine. Also, PBS appears to have reported on the Crimean vote in the affirmative. In separate reports, The BBC and CBS News reported on the resounding “Yes” vote by the people of Crimea in their referendum to re-join Russia.
Euromaidan: Entering the story where most people begin it:
Following the Obama-administration fostered coup d'état known as Euromaidan, Ukraine was thrown into upheaval. Their Pro-Russian, Democratically-elected president at the time - Viktor Yanukovych - was exiled to Russia after his earlier decision to back out of an as-yet unsigned agreement with the European Union, and opt for stronger economic ties with Russia.
Following that, an uprising that was engineered by US covert forces began to fester and bring violence to the streets of Kiev in late 2013. In a now famous recorded phone conversation Victoria Nuland, Asst. Sec. of State for Europe in conversation with US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, let the cat out of the bag for their intentions to steer the development of Ukraine’s post Euromaidan government:
Transcript and analysis here.
Euromaidan had plunged Ukraine into becoming a nation in flames. The US government was determined to remove the democratically elected Yanukovych and his allies and replace them with a government that would kowtow to Western economic interests.
But quite frightening in all of this was the ongoing Euromaidan revolution itself. So much that Crimea - a region of Ukraine with a majority Russian population and who had resoundingly supported Viktor Yanukovych in the last election - had reason to fear the landscape being pushed to the brink of all-out civil war, and that the Euromaidan forces would be knocking on their door all too soon. I’ve created a playlist of videos documenting the violence from daily life in those days in Kiev, Ukraine that will draw a vivid picture for anyone who cares to see for themselves.
And with the recent callous, heartless attacks Ukraine has launched against Crimea, the desire of the people greatly increases to wish to see Ukraine in their collective rear view mirror. Being identified as ethnically Russian in Ukraine would seem to be hazardous to one’s long-term health. And despite Mainstream Media attempts to downplay it in recent years, the factor of Neo-NAZI influence in Ukraine’s military indeed seems very real. In the years following Euromaidan, it was not uncommon to find op-ed pieces in Western sources such as the following:
As the Trump administration mulls sending weapons to Ukraine, the question of far-right forces employed by the Kiev government has returned to the forefront. Some Western observers claim that there are no neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine, chalking the assertion up to propaganda from Moscow. Unfortunately, they are sadly mistaken.
There are indeed neo-Nazi formations in Ukraine. This has been overwhelmingly confirmed by nearly every major Western outlet. The fact that analysts are able to dismiss it as propaganda disseminated by Moscow is profoundly disturbing. It is especially disturbing given the current surge of neo-Nazis and white supremacists across the globe.
The most infamous neo-Nazi group in Ukraine is the 3,000-strong Azov Battalion, founded in 2014. Prior to creating Azov, its commander, Andriy Biletsky, headed the neo-Nazi group Patriot of Ukraine, members of which went on to form the core of Azov. Biletsky had stated that the mission of Ukraine is to “lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade for their survival … against the Semite-led Untermenschen.”
But after Russian tanks crossed the border into the Donbas region, strangely the admission of these things seems to have dried up, as the USG desperately tries to quell dissent and alarm over the types of people they are giving support to. Should we be surprised, considering the support the US has given to similarly-minded groups in Syria such as ISIS & al-Qaeda?
More recently, the analytical organization VoxUkraine has published data showing that belief is strong among the hoi polloi of widespread NAZI ideology being prevalent in Ukraine. Patrick Lancaster recently shared and reported on this very pertinent research information for us.
But of course, it’s really all Putin’s fault don’cha know?
This will get us to Bullet Point 2a:
The will of many people in Eastern Ukraine that favors Russia has been expressed in the 2010 election of Viktor Yanukovych as President of Ukraine, largely favored in the Eastern provinces [Oblasts] of Ukraine.
The BBC has quoted a UN official as saying that some 800K fled Ukraine for Russia in 2014. That number’s easily surpassed 1M since then, within 1-3 years following Euromaidan. More recently, at least another 1M are refugees Russia has taken in from Ukraine since the conflict that began in 2022. Going back much further, the 1991 referendum to restore Crimea as a Soviet Republic and the fact that most Crimeans voted for Yuri Meshkov in 1994 as part of a plebiscite that included a referendum to leave Ukraine - eventually for Russia - shows enduring support. I’d estimate we’re looking at 2.5M or greater in terms of ethnic Russians ad/or Russian speakers wanting out of Ukraine all told. [That is of course, neglecting any further documentation in different years and different parts of Ukraine that I have yet to uncover.] The canard that Russia’s 2022 crossing the border of the Donbas region to support their people was actually based on hot air claims by Russian officials are seen themselves are being purely hot air.
Why are these numbers important? Both the number of people who fled Ukraine for Russia and those living in Crimea during the 2014 referendum are larger than the margin Viktor Yanukovych beat Yulia Tymoshenko by in his 2010 election victory [see map, above.]
This will get us to Bullet Points 2b & 2c:
The will of many people in Eastern Ukraine that favors Russia has been expressed in the fact of the Refugees that have fled Ukraine for Russia immediately following Euromaidan.
The will of many people in Eastern Ukraine that favors Russia has been expressed in the Refugees that have fled the Donbas region and/or Eastern Ukraine since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February of 2022.
Why have so many fled Ukraine for Russian soil?
Clearly, we are talking about a people who fled for their lives, and had good reason to. Anti-Russian sentiment seems to be pretty strong in Ukraine, with the perception riding strong among Ukrainian citizens that since most Russians are in full support of Putin, they are just as guilty of what happens in the current Russo-Ukrainian conflict as he is. They view their struggle against Russian cultural dominance as a centuries long affair. Those who are ethnic Russians and/or Russian speakers in Ukraine probably are worried about the threat of violence from Ukrainian nationalist forces. Evidence points to Ukrainians teaching their children to hate Russians in general as a result of the current conflict. Also in recent years, Ukraine has passed laws in an attempt to suppress the Russian language.
More than one source lists Ukraine as the poorest or 2nd poorest country in all of Europe. Corruption is viewed as riding high in Ukraine in recent years, with genuine reform seen as slow to come. Even the US Government has done extensive studies to document this. Antisemitism is seen by some as a major problem in Ukraine, which makes sense if you view the history of what nations do when their backs are up against the wall of poverty.
Because of the controversy over President Biden’s support of the Ukrainian resistance in their current war with Russia, attempts to downplay Antisemitism troops in service to Ukraine are all too prevalent. Jonathan S Tobin, editor-in-chief of the Jewish News Syndicate detailed what he sees as some disturbing happenings afoot:
How important is the struggle against antisemitism to the liberal corporate media? How much of it a priority is it for the organized Jewish world? In both cases, the answer is that it is not as important as their commitment to support the war against Russia being fought by Ukraine. That’s the only conclusion to be drawn from a troubling story reported this week in The New York Times. [Link Author’s]
According to the Times, the wearing of insignia and symbols associated with the Nazis and their allies are prevalent among the troops fighting for Ukraine. It even acknowledged that antisemitism is baked deep into the history of Ukrainian nationalism—something that explains why these symbols are being worn by Kyiv’s soldiers. But as the article also made clear, it’s a bad idea to mention or discuss these facts unless you’re prepared to be labeled as a tool of Russian propaganda.” [Emphasis mine]
Mr. Tobin follows that up with trash-talking Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, no doubt in an attempt to avoid that very fate.
Quoting directly from the NYT article itself:
KYIV, Ukraine — Since Russia began its invasion of Ukraine last year, the Ukrainian government and NATO allies have posted, then quietly deleted, three seemingly innocuous photographs from their social media feeds: a soldier standing in a group, another resting in a trench and an emergency worker posing in front of a truck.
In each photograph, Ukrainians in uniform wore patches featuring symbols that were made notorious by Nazi Germany and have since become part of the iconography of far-right hate groups.
The photographs, and their deletions, highlight the Ukrainian military’s complicated relationship with Nazi imagery, a relationship forged under both Soviet and German occupation during World War II.
Also, it is believed by some that Ukraine could go on a terrorist campaign of bombing schools if Russia wins the current war. Although many point to the fact of Ukraine’s current President being of Jewish blood as a counter to claims of Antisemitism, history has shown us such things are not mutually exclusive. There were Jewish collaborators with NAZI Germany. And as counter-intuitive as it may seem, actual reported events of violence against Jews is in reality lower in countries that have a higher level of Antisemitic sentiments among the populace. So while some tout the lower figure of such violent acts in Ukraine, that doesn’t speak at all to the prevalence of Antisemitism as a litany of cherished ideals amongst the populace. Not all that long ago, the stories of Far-Right groups in Ukraine flowed freely in the mainstream media. That was until Russian troops crossed the border into the Donbas region of Ukraine. Now when talking about the “Neo-NAZI problem” [if at all] in Ukraine, the tendency is to claim that somehow it’s all Russia’s fault in biased mainstream media sources.
When I was growing up in a small town with a large rural economy that went 60-70% for the Republican in most presidential elections, I always heard how bad Russians were. When I became a young adult in the early 80s, I joined a youth missionary training program and met a lot of Ukrainian and Russian Christian women. Following my 5 months in their discipleship training schools. After returning to my hometown, I had the following phone conversation with a young Christian lady:
"Yeah, our missions trip to California was cool. We slept on the floor of an old Russian Pentecostal church in San Francisco. It was fun."
"Russian Pentecostal? Okay, I'm assuming they're Christians? I thought Russians were mainly Communist."
And that’s only one example of the BS I grew up with, and believe me Russians and Ukrainians feel it even though you might see them as White presenting and don’t think they have any place complaining about being oppressed.
These days the script has flipped. You’re more likely to hear Russophobic sentiment from Democrats than Republicans nowadays. [And they say the parties never switch sides~!]
Compounding all of this is a misguided, misbegotten system of interpreting the Bible that sentences Russians to being some part of a global conspiracy to enslave us all, and you’ve got quite a heady mix. One that seems to preclude us being able to view all people as just… People. Wretched sinners that we all may be.
Prequel: 1954 - Khrushchev shuffles the deck.
The University of Turku in Finland may have further insights to enlighten us with in the construction of the North Crimea Canal:
The fact is that water resources in Crimea are among the poorest in Europe. According to the statistical data, in 1864, fresh water was not suitable for drinking in half the settlements of the peninsula. Naturally, crop farming would be next to impossible there without additional irrigation.
On September 21, 1951, the Council of Ministers of the USSR issued the decree ‘On construction of the Kakhovka HPP on the Dnieper River, the South Ukrainian Canal and the North Crimean Canal and on irrigation of land in the South regions of Ukraine and the North regions of the Crimea.
And then Khrushchev had an idea how to fix the whole package of these administrative and economic problems: Crimean Region …should be transferred to the Republic that was closer, and that was already involved in the construction of the irrigation system... On February 19, 1954, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR issued the Decree ‘On transfer of Crimean Region from [Russia] to the [Ukraine].
However, in 2015 the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation issued a statement declaring that the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine in 1954 was illegal: As reported by the BBC:
“Neither the Constitution of the RSFSR, nor the Constitution of the USSR provided for the powers of the Presidiums of the Supreme Soviets of the RSFSR and the USSR to consider issues of changing the constitutional and legal status of the autonomous Soviet socialist republics that are part of the union republics,” says the conclusion of the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia.”
A quick check of Russian sources reveals a title that says it all re Russian feelings about the whole affair: “Nikita Khrushchev gave Russia’s Crimea away to Ukraine in only 15 minutes” As Pravda.ru put it:
“The question should have been submitted to the open discussion of the Supreme Council of the Russian SSR. Moreover, a referendum should have been conducted to find out the opinion of the residents of the two republics. Nothing of that happened. The Presidium of the Supreme Council gathered for a session on February 19, 1954 - only 13 of 27 members were present. There was no quorum, but the decision was adopted unanimously.”
So here we’ve verified Bullet point #3:
Crimea’s 1954 transfer from Russia to Ukraine was when all parties involved were a part of the USSR, and was not viewed as legal by everyone who might’ve had a say in the matter.
But what about those who chose to re-join Russia out of their own free will?
It’s a constant canard that the election held in 2014 for Crimea to finally join Russia was an orchestrated sham conducted by Putin himself. Oddly enough, the OSCE was invited to send observers to that very election, but they straight up refused.
Here are some of the Crimean people being interviewed on the day of the 2014 Referendum to re-join Russia. The reporter from VICE is obviously biased, and acts incredulous about it all. But he has to admit, the populace is of a different mindset:
What’s really rich is the VICE reporter’s last statement [Oddly enough he makes a plethora of “Statements” of his own opinion for someone supposedly reporting the news]:
“There’s no doubt in anyone’s mind here that the vote has been for joining Russia. But the question is now, what’s gonna happen to the Ukrainian military and the Ukrainian people that are still here in Crimea, and whether we’ll actually end up waking up in Russia tomorrow. Personally, I’ve never gone to bed in one country to wake up in another, but that might be happening tonight.”
Too rich. As if a significant portion of the citizenry of the former USSR didn’t do exactly that - Ukraine & Crimea included: Go to bed in one country, wake up in another. Bro, you are one privileged dude 😄
Here’s Crimea 5 years later, again with on-the-ground reporting from VICE. You can see the enthusiasm of the people as they share their joy in being re-joined to the motherland. VICE is again highly biased and will of course, try to end things on a dark note late in the video. But so far, the worst things that’s happened to Crimea since this video was made, have been the results of direct attacks on Civilian infrastructure by the Ukrainian military:
Life inside… “Putin’s Crimea” - Cue scary music 😜
If nothing else, the people spoken to here are shown to be intelligent, articulate and rationale - unlike the previous video, wherein the reporter seems determined to show the Pro-Russian voters as old and stupid. Interestingly enough, this 2nd video also admits Ukraine dammed the North Crimean Canal which resulted in an 85% loss of the water supply. Following that, we see that the Kremlin intended the building of the Kerch bridge in order to solve several problems including the water supply, tourism, etc.
So here we’ve verified Bullet Points #4 & 5:
The express will of the Crimean people in the 2014 plebiscite to join Russia has been documented.
The continued will of the people in the years hence the 2014 vote has been documented.
Since Ukraine has made no secret that they’re responsible for the attack on Civilian Infrastructure such as the Kerch Bridge, can there be any doubt that Kiev has malicious intent towards the people of Crimea? Repeated attacks on that region during the Russo/Ukrainian War would seem to indicate a tone of anger against the ethnic Russians who bolted Ukrainian rule. Certainly harboring a view of “those separatists” as separatists. Not so much as Ukrainian brothers & sisters that they need to liberate.
And isn’t it interesting… This is one of many news sources one could find detailing the Neo-NAZI problem in Ukraine before Russian forces crossed over into the Donbas region in February of 2022. After that, there seems to be a major gaslighting campaign in the media to deny such a thing has any significance, or to at least make Russia look partially at fault. However, strong voices of warning still persist, such as in a recent article published by the student newspaper at Tufts University in Massachusetts. Hear their versions of the events in terms of NAZI influence:
The origins of the Azov Battalion lie in the 2014 Euromaidan Revolution, in which demonstrators overthrew the Ukrainian government. The revolutionaries were led by Andriy Parubiy, the founder of the neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine (renamed Svoboda). After the revolution, members of Svoboda were appointed to key government positions, including minister of defense, head of the general prosecutor’s office and deputy prime minister.
After Euromaidan, Russian-speaking territories in the eastern region of Donbas launched a rebellion against the far-right government in Kyiv. Volunteer militias, including the Azov Battalion (which was formed by the neo-Nazi Patriot of Ukraine party), arose to fight the rebels.
Between 2014 and 2022, as the war in Donbas dragged on, Ukraine’s far-right government continuously passed laws glorifying Nazi collaborators. In 2018, then-president Petro Poroshenko created a national holiday for Stepan Bandera, a Nazi collaborator whose soldiers murdered up to 100,000 people during the Holocaust. Poroshenko even made it a criminal offense to denigrate Bandera’s organization, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, and a government-funded museum opened an exhibit in their honor. [Links author’s] [Emphasis mine]
Further study of the Neo-NAZI problems in Ukraine, particularly as it relates to attacks on Eastern Ukraine & the Donbas region can be found in articles by Fair.Org & The Nation.
So now we’ve touched on Bullet Point 6:
Ukraine in attacking Crimea in the way it has - a manner potentially dangerous to civilian life as well as the quality of life - shows that they regard the people of Crimea as enemies, hence a part of Russia.
And as such we’re driven to an inevitable conclusion: Any attempt at forced re-integration of Crimea back into being under Ukrainian rule would be a crime against humanity of the highest order. Akin to sending Jewish escapees back to the NAZI concentration camps or freed Slaves back to their masters. People of goodwill everywhere should oppose such a move with all their strength. We dare not allow those who rattle the Russian hobgoblin to commit such a heinous act against a people who only wanted to be a part of the nation in which they felt themselves already to be an eternal part of. There’s no crime in that whatsoever.
Furthermore, the act of cutting off the water supply from the North Crimean Canal is just further evidence that Ukraine itself is the “Abuser” I referenced in the allegory that I opened this 2-part essay with. And insisting that Crimea go back to Ukraine would be like asking an abused and unhappy wife to return to he abuser. End of.