41
1 Batangas State University College of Law In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements In Public International Law Prepared For: Hon. Petronila Tañas-Arguelles Prepared By: Aguilar-Faytaren, Maricel M. BSU Law M2008-03335 Term Paper: Russian’s Annexation of Crimea in Ukraine and the Continuation of Cessation of Pro-Russian Rebels in the East

Term Paper in Russia Crimea and Ukraine Conflict

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Conflict or Russia, Crimea and Ukraine

Citation preview

1

Batangas State UniversityCollege of Law

In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements In Public International Law

Prepared For:

Hon. Petronila Tañas-Arguelles

Prepared By:

Aguilar-Faytaren, Maricel M.BSU Law

M2008-03335

Term Paper: Russian’s Annexation of Crimea in Ukraine and the Continuation of Cessation of Pro-Russian Rebels in the East

1

Prologue

The Crimean Conflict refers to a geo-political dispute regarding the autonomous southern Ukrainian Peninsula of the same name. Historically, post-Cold War political tensions in Ukraine revolved around Ukrainian and Russian sympathies; these are the two major ethnic groups and are divided into northern and southern regions respectively. Most recently, anti-Russian activism in the North led to widespread violent uprisings against Russian sympathizing politicians. In response to these uprisings, paramilitary forces bearing a strong resemblance to Russian forces surrounded Ukrainian military posts of Crimea in the early morning hours of March 1, 2014. The Ukrainian interim leadership received public support from the United States the same day. Crimea is bordered on three sides by the Black Sea and by virtue, presents a economic and military vantage point. It was ceded to Ukraine by Russia at the end of the Soviet Era as reparations following 300 years of Russian rule, briefly interrupted.

Due to Russia’s intervention interpreting recent events in Ukraine has led to real confusion which has far too often enabled propaganda, inaccuracy and references to the past to prevail over a rational analysis. In a bid to provide a better understanding of the issues at stake this paper will restrict itself to the legal aspects only of the question, which is also an eminently political one. It does not aim to ignore Russian resentment or the Ukrainians’ will to free themselves of the tutelage of their powerful neighbour or the national interests in question, it simply analyses the impact on international law. Indeed Russian diplomacy has been committed to the strict and formal respect of the rules of international law, and they have sometimes “clung to it” in defiance of claims made by certain populations. Even in the post-USSR period this constant was adhered to. But Russian Foreign Minister S. Lavrov’s discourse at the Munich Security Conference – its provocative aspects aside, which are of the political domain, mark a deep break with traditional Russian diplomacy. Since the Second World War the continent of Europe has not experienced as dramatic a challenge as Russia’s questioning of the borders defined post 1945, which were notably confirmed by the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference in 1975. Neither the collapse of the Soviet Union, nor the German reunification – two events of capital importance – caused a Russian turnaround like the one we are seeing now. Infringements of international law, the treaties and agreements signed by Russia, implied by the annexation of Crimea on 21st March 2014, then the war in the East of Ukraine following the conflict in Georgia in 2008, have led to a deep change in paradigm for the European Union and its Member States’ external policy. For whatever reasons, the recurrence in 2008 and 2014 on the European Union’s periphery of the use of armed force and methods that have been outlawed on the continent was an extremely violent warning, since the latter has been built according to the law and by the law. Europe functions, including in times of difficulty, thanks to the law, which is accepted and respected. And this has enabled it to enjoy

Term Paper: Russian’s Annexation of Crimea in Ukraine and the Continuation of Cessation of Pro-Russian Rebels in the East

1

exceptional stability in view of its painful past. By annexing Crimea, Vladimir Putin has violated the fundamental texts of the United Nations, the statutes of the Council of Europe of which Russia is a member, at least two regional treaties that established peace in Europe and two bilateral treaties signed with Ukraine, as well as the Constitutions of Ukraine and Crimea.

Article 2 §4 of the Charter of the United Nations founds the principles of the inviolability of the States’ territorial integrity and the prohibition of the use of force. Several acts, declarations and agreements concluded within the Organization’s framework recall the imperative of the peaceful settlement of disputes, non-interference and the ban on using threats in international relations. We might notably quote resolution 2625 “Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations” adopted on 24th October 1970 by the General Assembly. This text even anticipates the “hybrid war” in quite precise terms. On 14th December 1974 by way of a resolution the UN defined the concept of aggression, including in this several acts which Russia has evidently committed in Crimea and in the East of Ukraine [4] (military occupation, invasion, bombardments, the dispatch of armed bands). On reading this document we also understand why Russia, a member of the Security Council refuses to admit the presence of several thousand of its troops in Ukraine, which would inevitably lead to condemnation by the UN in virtue of the number of texts it has signed. But these precautions were not even enough for Crimea whose occupation will, in all likelihood, never been recognized by the UN, nor by most of its members.

Milieu

Crimea became part of the Russian Empire in 1783, when the Crimean Khanate was annexed. It was incorporated into the Empire as Taurida Oblast. In 1795, Crimea was merged into Novorossiysk Governorate, and in 1803, it was again separated from it into Taurida Governorate. A series of short-lived governments (Crimean People's Republic, Crimean Regional Government, Crimean SSR) were established during first stages of the Russian Civil War, but they were followed by White Russian (General Command of the Armed Forces of South Russia, later South Russian Government) and, finally, Soviet (Crimean ASSR) incorporations of Crimea into their own states. After the Second World War and the subsequent deportation of all of the indigenous Crimean Tatars, the Crimean ASSR was stripped of its autonomy in 1946 and was downgraded to the status of an oblast.

In 1954, the Crimean Oblast was transferred from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR by decree of the Presidium of the Supreme

Term Paper: Russian’s Annexation of Crimea in Ukraine and the Continuation of Cessation of Pro-Russian Rebels in the East

1

Soviet of the Soviet Union. However, it was unclear whether the transfer affected the peninsula's largest city of Sevastopol, which enjoyed a special status in the postwar Soviet Union, and in 1993, the Supreme Soviet of Russia claimed Sevastopol was part of Russia, resulting in a territorial dispute with Ukraine.

In 1989, under perestroika, the Supreme Soviet declared the deportation of the Crimean Tatars under Stalin had been illegal, and the mostly Muslim ethnic group was allowed to return to Crimea.

In 1990, the Crimean Oblast Soviet proposed the restoration of the Crimean ASSR.[48] The oblast conducted a referendumin 1991, which asked whether Crimea should be elevated into a signatory of the New Union Treaty (that is, became a union republic on its own). By that time, though, the dissolution of the Soviet Union was well underway. The Crimean ASSR was restored for less than a year as part of Soviet Ukraine before Ukrainian independence. Newly independent Ukraine maintained Crimea's autonomous status, while the Supreme Council of Crimea affirmed the peninsula's "state sovereignty".

On 21 May 1992, the Supreme Soviet of Russia adopted a resolution, which declared Crimea's 1954 transfer invalid and called for trilateral negotiations on the peninsula's status. Confrontation between the president and parliament of Russia, which later erupted into armed conflict in Moscow, prevented this declaration from having any actual effect in Crimea or Ukraine.

From 1992 to 1994, various pro-Russian political movements attempted to separate Crimea from Ukraine. The 1994 regional elections represented a high point for pro-Russian political factions in Crimea. But the elections came at a difficult time for Crimeans who wanted to rejoin Russia, as the Russian government was engaged in a rapprochement with the Western world and the Ukrainian government was determined to safeguard its sovereignty. These factors enabled Ukrainian authorities to abolish the Crimean presidency and constitution by 1995, without any meaningful interference or protest from Ukraine's eastern neighbour. Afterwards, pro-Russian movements largely waned, and in 1998, the separatists lost the Crimean Supreme Council election.

During the 2000s, as tensions between Russia and several of its neighbours rose, the likelihood of Russian-Ukrainian conflict around Crimea increased. A Council on Foreign Relations report released in 2009 outlined a scenario under which Russia could intervene in Crimea to protect "Russian compatriots", potentially with the backing of Crimean Tatars.

Term Paper: Russian’s Annexation of Crimea in Ukraine and the Continuation of Cessation of Pro-Russian Rebels in the East

1

Euromaidan and the Ukrainian revolution

The Euromaidan movement began in late November 2013 with protests in Kiev against pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych, who won election in 2010 with strong support in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and southern andeastern Ukraine. The Crimean government strongly supported Yanukovych and condemned the protests, saying they were "threatening political stability in the country". The Supreme Council of Crimea supported the government's decision to suspend negotiations on the pending Ukraine-EU Association Agreement and urged Crimeans to "strengthen friendly ties with Russian regions".

On 4 February 2014, the Presidium of the Supreme Council considered holding a referendum on the peninsula's status and asking the government of Russia to guarantee the vote. The Security Service of Ukraine responded by opening a criminal case to investigate the possible "subversion" of Ukraine's territorial integrity.

The Euromaidan protests reached a fever pitch in February 2014, and Yanukovych and many of his ministers fled the capital. After opposition factions and defectors from Yanukovych's Party of Regions cobbled together a parliamentary quorum in the Verkhovna Rada, the national legislature voted on 22 February to remove Viktor Yanukovych from his post on the grounds that he was unable to fulfill his duties, although the legislative removal lacked the required three quarter vote of sitting MPs according to the constitution in effect at the time, which the Rada also voted to nullify. This move was regarded as a coup d'état by many within Ukraine and Russia, although it was widely recognized internationally.

II. Crimean Crisis Begins

The revolution that ousted Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, driven by the Euromaidan movement, sparked a political crisis in Crimea, which initially manifested as demonstrations against the new interim Ukrainian government, but rapidly escalated due to Russia's overt support for separatist political factions.

Crimean parliament members called for an extraordinary meeting on 21 February. Crimean Tatar Mejlis chairman Mustafa Dzhemilev said that he suspected that the meeting was arranged to call for Russian military intervention in Crimea, stating "Tomorrow may be a decision that will bring

Term Paper: Russian’s Annexation of Crimea in Ukraine and the Continuation of Cessation of Pro-Russian Rebels in the East

1

chaos and disaster to Crimea". Several scholars previously discussed the possibility of Russian military intervention in Crimea, due to its unique geopolitical nature and demographics. In response to this, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) said that it would "use severe measures to prevent any action taken against diminishing the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine". The party with the largest number of seats in the Crimean parliament (80 of 100), the Party of Regions of Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, did not discuss Crimean secession, and were supportive of an agreement between President Yanukovych and Euromaidan activists to end the unrest that was struck on the same day in Kiev.

Crimean prime minister Anatolii Mohyliov said that his government recognised the new provisional government in Kiev, and that the Crimean autonomous government would carry out all laws passed by the Ukrainian parliament. In Simferopol, a pro-Euromaidan rally of between 5,000–15,000 was held in support of the new government, and demanding the resignation of the Crimean parliament; attendees waved Ukrainian, Tatar, and European Union flags. Meanwhile in Sevastopol, thousands protested against the new Ukrainian government, voted to establish a parallel administration, and created civil defence squads with the support of the Russian Night Wolves motorcycle club. Protesters waved Russian flags, chanted "Putin is our president!", and claimed they would refuse to further pay taxes to the Ukrainian state. Russian military convoys were also alleged to be seen in the area. In Kerch, pro-Russian protesters attempted to remove the Ukrainian flag from atop city hall and replace it with the flag of Russia. Over 200 attended, waving Russian, orange-and-black St. George, and the Russian Unity party flags. Mayor Oleh Osadchy attempted to disperse the crowd and police eventually arrived to defend the flag. The mayor said "This is the territory of Ukraine, Crimea. Here's a flag of Crimea", but was accused of treason and a fight ensued over the flagpole. On 24 February, more rallied outside the Sevastopol city state administration. Pro-Russian demonstrators accompanied by neo-Cossacks demanded the election of a Russian citizen as mayor and hoisted Russian flags around the city administration; they also handed out leaflets to sign up for a self-defence militia, warning that the "Blue-Brown Europlague is knocking."

On 25 February, several hundred pro-Russian protesters blocked the Crimean parliament demanding a referendum on Crimea's independence. On the same day, Sevastopol illegally elected Alexei Chaly, a Russian citizen, as mayor. Under the law of Ukraine, it was not possible for Sevastopol to elect a mayor, as the Chairman of the Sevastopol City State Administration, appointed by the President of Ukraine, functions as its mayor. A thousand protesters present chanted "A Russian mayor for a Russian city." Crowds gathered again outside Sevastopol's city hall again on Tuesday as rumours spread that security forces could arrest Chaly, but police chief Alexander Goncharov said that his officers would refuse to carry out "criminal orders"

Term Paper: Russian’s Annexation of Crimea in Ukraine and the Continuation of Cessation of Pro-Russian Rebels in the East

1

issued by Kiev. Viktor Neganov, a Sevastopol-based adviser to the Internal Affairs Minister, condemned the events in the city as a coup. "Chaly represents the interests of the Kremlin which likely gave its tacit approval," he said. Sevastopol City State Administration chairman Vladimir Yatsuba was booed and heckled on 23 February, when he told a pro-Russian rally that Crimea was a part of Ukraine. He resigned the next day.[82] In Simferopol, the Regional State Administration building was blockaded with hundreds of protesters, including neo-Cossacks, demanding a referendum of separation; the rally was organized by the Crimean Front.

On 26 February, thousands clashed during opposing rallies in imferopol. Near the Supreme Council of Crimea building 4,000 and 5,000 Crimean Tatars and supporters of the Euromaidan-Crimea movement faced 600-700 supporters of pro-Russian organizations and the Russian Unity Party. Supreme Council Chairman Vladimir Konstantinov said that the Crimean parliament would not consider separation from Ukraine, and that earlier reports that parliament would hold a debate on the matter were provocations. Tatars created self-defense groups, encouraged collaboration with Russians, Ukrainians, and people of other nationalities, and called for the protection of churches, mosques, synagogues, and other important sites. By nightfall the Crimean Tatars had left; several hundred Russian Unity supporters rallied on. The new Ukrainian government's acting Internal Affairs Minister Arsen Avakov tasked Crimean law enforcement agencies not to provoke conflicts and to do whatever necessary to prevent clashes with pro-Russian forces; and he added "I think, that way - through a dialogue - we shall achieve much more than with standoffs". New Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) chief Valentyn Nalyvaichenko requested that the United Nations provide around-the-clock monitoring of the security situation in Crimea.[90] Russian troops took control of the main route to Sevastopol on orders from Russian president Vladimir Putin. A military checkpoint, with a Russian flag and Russian military vehicles, was set up on the main highway between the city and Simferopol.

On 27 February, unidentified troops widely suspected of being Russian special forces seized the building of the Supreme Council of Crimea (the regional parliament) and the building of the Council of Ministers in Simferopol. Russian flags were raised over these buildings, and barricades were erected outside them. Whilst the "little green men" were occupying the Crimean parliament building, the parliament held an emergency session. It voted to terminate the Crimean government, and replace Prime Minister Anatolii Mohyliov with Sergey Aksyonov. Aksyonov belonged to theRussian Unity party, which received 4% of the vote in the last election. According to the Constitution of Ukraine, the Prime Minister of Crimea is appointed by the Supreme Council of Crimea in consultation with the President of Ukraine. Both Aksyonov and speaker Vladimir Konstantinov stated that they viewed Viktor Yanukovych

Term Paper: Russian’s Annexation of Crimea in Ukraine and the Continuation of Cessation of Pro-Russian Rebels in the East

1

as the de jure president of Ukraine, through whom they were able to ask Russia for assistance.

The parliament also voted to hold a referendum on greater autonomy on 25 May. The troops had cut all of the building's communications, and took MPs' phones as they entered. No independent journalists were allowed inside the building while the votes were taking place. Some MPs claimed they were being threatened and that votes were cast for them and other MPs, even though they were not in the chamber. Interfax-Ukraine reported "it is impossible to find out whether all the 64 members of the 100-member legislature who were registered as present at when the two decisions were voted on or whether someone else used the plastic voting cards of some of them" because due to the armed occupation of parliament it was unclear how many MPs were present. The head of parliament's information and analysis department, Olha Sulnikova, had phoned from inside the parliamentary building to journalists and had told them 61 of the registered 64 deputies had voted for the referendum resolution and 55 for the resolution to dismiss the government.[102] Donetsk People's Republic separatist Igor Girkin said in January 2015 that Crimean members of parliament were held at gunpoint, and were forced to support the annexation. These actions were immediately declared illegal by the Ukrainian interim government.

On the same day, more troops in unmarked uniforms, assisted this time by Crimean riot police known as Berkut, established security checkpoints on the Isthmus of Perekop and the Chonhar Peninsula, which separate Crimea from the Ukrainian mainland. Within hours, Ukraine had effectively been cut off from Crimea.

On 1 March 2014, Aksyonov declared Crimea's new de facto authorities would exercise control of all Ukrainian military installations on the peninsula. He also asked Russian President Vladimir Putin, who had been Yanukovych's primary international backer and guarantor, for "assistance in ensuring peace and public order" in Crimea. Putin promptly received authorisation from theFederation Council of Russia for a Russian military intervention in Ukraine "until normalization of a socio-political environment in the country". Putin's swift manoeuvre prompted protests of intelligentsia and demonstrations in Moscow against a Russian military campaign in Crimea. By 2 March, Russian troops moving from the country's naval base in Sevastopol and reinforced by troops, armour, and helicopters from mainland Russia exercised complete control over the Crimean Peninsula. Russian troops operated in Crimea without insignia. Despite numerous media reports and statements by the Ukrainian and foreign governments describing the unmarked troops as Russian soldiers, government officials concealed the identity of their forces, claiming they were local "self-defense" units over whom they had no authority. As

Term Paper: Russian’s Annexation of Crimea in Ukraine and the Continuation of Cessation of Pro-Russian Rebels in the East

1

late as 17 April, Russian foreign minister Lavrov claimed that there are no spare armed forces in the territory of Crimea.

Russian officials eventually admitted to their troops' presence. On 17 April 2014, Putin acknowledged the Russian military backed Crimean separatist militias, stating that Russia's intervention was necessary "to ensure proper conditions for the people of Crimea to be able to freely express their will". Defence Minister Serger Shoygu said the country's military actions in Crimea were undertaken by forces of the Black Sea Fleet and were justified by "threat to lives of Crimeancivilians" and danger of "takeover of Russian military infrastructure by extremists". Ukraine complained that by increasing its troop presence in Crimea, Russia violated the agreement under which it headquartered its Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol and violated the country's sovereignty. The United States and United Kingdom also accused Russia of breaking the terms of the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, by which Russia, the US, and the UK had reaffirmed their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.[120] The Russian government said the Budapest Memorandum did not apply due to "complicated internal processes" in Crimea. In March 2015 retired Russian Admiral Igor Kasatonov stated that according to his information the Russian troop deployment in Crimea included six helicopter landings and three landings of IL-76 with 500 people.

Aftermath

The number of tourists visiting Crimea in the 2014 season is expected to be lower than in the previous years due to worries about the political situation. The Crimean government members hope that Russian tourists will flow in. The Russian government is planning to promote Crimea as a resort and provide subsidised holidays to the peninsula for children and state workers.

The Sofia news agency Novinite claims that according to the German newspaper Die Welt, the annexation of Crimea is economically disadvantageous for the Russian Federation. Russia will have to spend billions of euros a year to pay salaries and pensions. Moreover, Russia will have to undertake costly projects to connect Crimea to the Russian water supply and power system because Crimea has no land connection to Russia and at present gets water, gas and electricity from mainland Ukraine. This will require building a bridge and a pipeline across the Kerch Strait. Also, Novinite claims that a Ukrainian expert told Die Welt that Crimea "will not be able to attract tourists".

The first Deputy to Minister of Finance of Russian Federation Tatyana Nesterenko said in her interview to Forbes Woman that decision to annexe

Term Paper: Russian’s Annexation of Crimea in Ukraine and the Continuation of Cessation of Pro-Russian Rebels in the East

1

Crimea was made by Russian President Vladimir Putin exclusively without consulting Russia's Finance Ministry.

The Russian business newspaper Kommersant expresses an opinion that Russia will not acquire anything economically from "accessing" Crimea, which is not very developed industrially, having just a few big factories, and whose yearly gross product is only $4 billion. The newspaper also says that everything from Russia will have to be delivered by sea, higher costs of transportation will result in higher prices for everything, and to avoid a decline in living standards Russia will have to subsidize Crimean people for a few months. In total, Kommersant estimates the costs of integrating Crimea into Russia in $30 billion over the next decade, i.e. $3 billion per year.

On the other hand western oil experts estimate that Russia's seizing of Crimea, and the associated control of an area of Black Sea more than three times its land area gives it access to oil and gas reserves potentially worth trillions of dollars. It also deprives Ukraine of its chances of energy independence. Most immediately however, analysts say, Moscow's acquisition may alter the route along which the South Streampipeline would be built, saving Russia money, time and engineering challenges. It would also allow Russia to avoid building in Turkish territorial waters, which was necessary in the original route to avoid Ukrainian territory.[202][203]

Russian/Chechen businessman Ruslan Baisarov announced he is ready to invest 12 billion rubles into the construction of a modern sea resort in Crimea, which is expected to create about 1,300 jobs. Ramzan Kadyrov, the Head of Chechnya, said that other Chechen businessmen are planning to invest into Crimea as well.

The Russian Federal Service for Communications (Roskomnadzor) warned about a transition period as Russian operators have to change the numbering capacity and subscribers. Country code will be replaced from the Ukrainian +380 to Russian +7. Codes in Crimea start with 65, but in the area of "7" the 6 is given to Kazakhstan which shares former Soviet Union +7 with Russia, so city codes have to change. The regulator assigned 869 dialling code to Sevastopol and the rest of the peninsula received a 365 code.[205] At the time of the unification with Russia, telephone operators and Internet service providers in Crimea and Sevastopol are connected to the outside world through the territory of Ukraine.[206] Minister of Communications of Russia, Nikolai Nikiforov announced on his Twitter account that postal codes in Crimea will now have six-figures: to the existing five-digit number the number two will be added at the beginning. For example, the Simferopol postal code 95000 will become 295000.

Term Paper: Russian’s Annexation of Crimea in Ukraine and the Continuation of Cessation of Pro-Russian Rebels in the East

1

Regarding Crimea's borders, the head of Russian Federal Agency for the Development of the State Border Facilities (Rosgranitsa) Konstantin Busygin, who was speaking at a meeting led by Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin inSimferopol, the capital of Crimea said the Russian state border in the north of Crimea which, according to his claims, now forms part of the Russian-Ukrainian border, will be fully equipped with necessary facilities. In the area that now forms the border between Crimea and Ukraine mining the salt lake inlets from the sea that constitute the natural borders, and in the spit of land left over stretches of no-man's-land with wire on either side was created. On early June that year Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev signed a Government resolution №961 dated 5 June 2014 establishing air, sea, road and railway checkpoints. The adopted decisions create a legal basis for the functioning of a checkpoint system at the Russian state border in the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol.

In the year following the annexation, armed men seized various Crimean businesses, including banks, hotels, shipyards, farms, gas stations, a bakery, a dairy, and Yalta Film Studio.

Human rights situation

On 9 May 2014 the new "anti-extremist" amendment to the Criminal Code of Russia, passed in December 2013, came into force. Article 280.1 designated incitement of violation of territorial integrity of the Russian Federation (incl. calls for secession of Crimea from Russia as a criminal offence in Russia, punishable by a fine of 300 thousand roubles or imprisonment up to 3 years. If such statements are made in public media or the internet, the punishment could be obligatory works up to 480 hours or imprisonment up to five years.

Following the annexation of Crimea, according to report released on the Russian government run President of Russia's Council on Civil Society and Human Rights website, Tatars who were opposed to Russian rule have been persecuted, Russian law restricting freedom of speech has been imposed, and the new pro-Russian authorities "liquidated" the Kiev Patriarchate Orthodox church on the peninsula.

After the annexation, on 16 May the new Russian authorities of Crimea issued a ban on the annual commemorations of the anniversary of the Deportation of the Crimean Tatars by Stalin in 1944, citing "possibility of provocation by extremists" as a reason. Previously, when Crimea was controlled by Ukraine, these commemorations had taken place every year. The pro-Russian Crimean authorities also banned Mustafa Jemilev, a human

Term Paper: Russian’s Annexation of Crimea in Ukraine and the Continuation of Cessation of Pro-Russian Rebels in the East

1

rights activist, Soviet dissent, member of the Ukrainian parliament, and former Chairman of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatars from entering Crimea.[218] Additionally, Mejlis reported, that officers of Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB) raided Tatar homes in the same week, on the pretense of "suspicion of terrorist activity". The Tatar community eventually did hold commemorative rallies in defiance of the ban. In response Russian authorities flew helicopters over the rallies in an attempt to disrupt them.

Crimean public opinion

A joint survey by American government agency Broadcasting Board of Governors and polling firm Gallup was taken during April 2014. It polled 500 residents of Crimea. The survey found that 82.8% of those polled believed that the results of the Crimean status referendum reflected the views of most Crimeans, whereas 6.7% said that it did not. 73.9% of those polled said that they thought that the annexation would have a positive impact on their lives, whereas 5.5% said that it would not. 13.6% said that they did not know.

A comprehensive poll released on 8 May 2014 by the Pew Research Centre surveyed Crimean opinions on the annexation. Despite international criticism of 16 March referendum on Crimean status, 91% of those Crimeans polled thought that the vote was free and fair, and 88% said that the Ukrainian government should recognize the results.

Ukranian Response

Immediately after the treaty of accession was signed in March, the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned the Provisional Principal of Russia in Ukraine to present note verbale of protest against Russia's recognition of the Republic of Crimea and its subsequent annexation. Two days later, the Verkhovna Rada condemned the treaty and called Russia's actions "a gross violation of international law". The Rada called on the international community to avoid recognition of the "so-called Republic of Crimea" or the annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol by Russia as new federal subjects.

On 15 April 2014, the Verkhovna Rada declared the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol to be under "provisional occupation" by the Russian military and imposed travel restrictions on Ukrainians visiting Crimea. The territories were also deemed "inalienable parts of Ukraine" subject to Ukrainian law. Among other things, the special law approved by the Rada restricted foreign citizens' movements to and from the Crimean Peninsula and forbade certain types of entrepreneurship. The law also

Term Paper: Russian’s Annexation of Crimea in Ukraine and the Continuation of Cessation of Pro-Russian Rebels in the East

1

forbade activity of government bodies formed in violation of Ukrainian law and designated their acts as null and void. The voting rights of Crimea in national Ukrainian elections were also suspended. The law had little to no actual effect in Crimea itself due to the mutual non-recognition between Kiev and Simferopol.

Ukrainian authorities greatly reduced the volume of water flowing into Crimea via the North Crimean Canal, threatening the viability of the peninsula's agricultural crops, which are heavily dependent on irrigation.

The Ukrainian National Council for TV and Radio Broadcasting instructed all cable operators on March 11 to stop transmitting a number of Russian channels, including the international versions of the main state-controlled stationsRossiya-1, Channel One and NTV, as well as news channel Rossiya-24.

In March 2014, activists began organizing flash mobs in supermarkets to urge customers not to buy Russian goods and to boycott Russian gas stations, banks, and concerts. In April 2014, some cinemas in Kiev, Lviv, and Odessa began shunning Russian films.

In December 2014, Ukraine halted all train and bus services to Crimea.

Russian Response

In a poll published on 24 February by the state-owned Russian Public Opinion Research Center, only 15% of those Russians polled said 'yes' to the question: "Should Russia react to the overthrow of the legally elected authorities in Ukraine?".

The State Duma Committee on Commonwealth of Independent States Affairs, headed by Leonid Slutsky, visited Simferopol on 25 February 2014 and said: "If the parliament of the Crimean autonomy or its residents express the wish to join the Russian Federation, Russia will be prepared to consider this sort of application. We will be examining the situation and doing so fast." They also stated that in the event of a referendum for Crimea region joining Russian Federation they would consider its results "very fast". Later Slutsky announced that he was misunderstood by Crimean press and no decision regarding simplifying the process of acquiring Russian citizenship for people in Crimea has been made yet. And added that if "fellow Russian citizens are in jeopardy you understand that we do not stay away". On 25 February, in a meeting with Crimean politicians he stated that Viktor Yanukovych was still the legitimate president of Ukraine. That same

Term Paper: Russian’s Annexation of Crimea in Ukraine and the Continuation of Cessation of Pro-Russian Rebels in the East

1

day in the Russian Duma, they announced they were determining measures so that Russians in Ukraine who "did not want to break from the Russian World" could acquire Russian citizenship.

On 26 February, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian Armed Forces to be "put on alert in the Western Military District as well as units stationed with the 2nd Army Central Military District Command involved in aerospace defence, airborne troops and long-range military transport." Despite media speculation it was for in reaction to the events in Ukraine Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said it was in separate consideration from the unrest in Ukraine. On 27 February 2014, the Russian government dismissed accusations about violation by the Russian side of the basic agreements in regards of the Black Sea Fleet: "All movements of armored vehicles are undertaken in full compliance with the basic agreements and did not require any approvals".

On 27 February, the Russian governing agencies presented the new law project on granting citizenship.

The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs called on the West and particularly NATO to "abandon the provocative statements and respect the neutral status of Ukraine". In its statement the ministry claims that agreement on settlement of the crisis which was signed on 21 February and was witnessed by foreign ministries from Germany, Poland and France has to this date, not been implemented (Vladimir Lukin from Russia had not signed it).

On 28 February, according to ITAR-TASS, the Russian Ministry of Transport discontinued its further talks with Ukraine in regards to the Kerch Strait Bridge project. However, on 3 March Dmitry Medvedev, the Prime Minister of Russia, signed a decree creating a subsidiary of Russian Highways (Avtodor) to build a bridge at an unspecified location along the Kerch strait.

On Russian social networks there is a movement to gather volunteers who served in the Russian army to go to Ukraine.

On 28 February President Putin stated it was of "extreme importance of not allowing a further escalation of violence and the necessity of a rapid normalisation of the situation in Ukraine" in telephone calls with key EU leaders.[251] Already on 19 February the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs referred to the Euromaidan revolution as the "Brown revolution".

Term Paper: Russian’s Annexation of Crimea in Ukraine and the Continuation of Cessation of Pro-Russian Rebels in the East

1

The Federation Council approved that Russia may introduce a limited contingent of Russian troops in Crimea for the security of the Black Sea Fleet and the Russians.

In Moscow, on 2 March, an estimated 27,000 rallied in support of the Russian government's decision to intervene in Ukraine. The rallies received considerable attention on Russian state TV and were officially sanctioned by the government.

Meanwhile, on 1 March, five people who were picketing next to the Federation Council building against the invasion of Ukraine were arrested.[256] The next day about 200 people protested at the building of the Russian Ministry of Defence in Moscow against Russian military involvement. About 500 people also gathered to protest on the Manezhnaya Square in Moscow and the same number of people on the Saint Isaac's Square in Saint Petersburg. On 2 March, about eleven protesters demonstrated in Yekaterinburg against Russian involvement, with some wrapped in the Ukrainian flag. Protests were also held in Chelyabinsk on the same day. The opposition to the military intervention was also expressed by rock musician Andrey Makarevich, who wrote in particular: "You want war with Ukraine? It will not be the way it was with Abkhazia: the folks on the Maidan have been hardened and know what they are fighting for – for their country, their independence. We have to live with them. Still neighborly. And preferably in friendship. But it's up to them how they want to live". The Professor of the Department of Philosophy at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations Andrey Zubov  was fired for his article in Vedomosti, criticising Russian military intervention.

On 2 March, one Moscow resident protested against Russian intervention by holding "Stop the war" banner, but he was immediately harassed by passers-by and when the police was arresting him, a woman offered them fabricating a serious charge (beating up a child) against him; however, the proposal was rejected by the police. Andrei Zubov, a professor at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, who compared Russian actions in Crimea to the Anschluss of Austria, was threatened. Akexander Chuyev, the leader of the pro-Kremlin Spravedlivaya Rossiya party, also objected to Russian intervention in Ukraine. Boris Akunin, popular Russian writer, predicted that Russia's moves would lead to political and economic isolation.

President Putin's approval rating among the Russian public has increased by nearly 10% since the crisis began, up to 71.6%, the highest in three years, according to a poll conducted by the All-Russian Center for Public Opinion Research, released on 19 March. Additionally, the same poll

Term Paper: Russian’s Annexation of Crimea in Ukraine and the Continuation of Cessation of Pro-Russian Rebels in the East

1

showed that more than 90% of Russians supported unification with the Crimean Republic.

On 4 March, at press conference in Novo-Ogaryovo President Putin expressed his view on the situation that if a revolution took place in Ukraine, it is a new country with which Russia did not conclude any treaties. He brought up an analogy with events of 1917 in Russia, when as a result of the revolution the Russian Empire fell apart and a new state was created. However, he stated Ukraine would still have to honour its debts.

Russian politicians have speculated that there are already 143,000 Ukrainian refugees in Russia. The Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs refuted those claims of refugees increase in Russia. At a briefing on 4 March 2014, the director of department of information policy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Yevhen Perebiynisclaimed that Russia was misinforming its own citizens as well as the entire international community to justify its own actions in the Crimea.

On 5 March, an anchor of the Russian-owned international news channelRT America, Abby Martin, in an interview with Piers Morgan, said she "did not agree" with how her employer RT was covering the Ukrainian crisis, but claims RT still supports her despite her differences of opinion. Also on 5 March 2014, another RT America anchor, Liz Wahl, of the network's Washington, DC bureau, resigned on air, explaining that she could not be "part of a network that whitewashes the actions of Putin" and citing her Hungarian ancestry and the memory of the Soviet repression of the Hungarian Uprising as a factor in her decision.

In early March, Igor Andreyev, a 75-year-old survivor of the Siege of Leningrad, attended an anti-war rally against the Russian intervention in Crimea and was holding a sign that read "Peace to the World". The riot police arrested him and a local pro-government lawyer then accused him of being a supporter of "fascism". The retiree, who lived on a 6,500-ruble monthly pension, was fined 10,000 rubles.

Prominent dissident Mikhail Khodorkovsky said that Crimea should stay within Ukraine with broader autonomy.

Tatarstan, a republic within Russia populated by Volga Tatars, has sought to alleviate concerns about treatment of Tatars by Russia, as Tatarstan is a gas-rich and economically successful republic in Russia. On 5 March, President of Tatarstan Rustam Minnikhanov signed an agreement on co-operation between Tatarstan and the Aksyonov government in Crimea

Term Paper: Russian’s Annexation of Crimea in Ukraine and the Continuation of Cessation of Pro-Russian Rebels in the East

1

that implied collaboration between ten government institutions as well as significant financial aid to Crimea from Tatarstan businesses. On 11 March, Minnikhanov was in Crimea on his second visit and attended as a guest present in the Crimean parliament chamber during the vote on the declaration of sovereignty pending the 16 March referendum. The Tatarstan's Mufti Kamil Samigullin invited Crimean Tatars to study in madrasas in Kazan and declared support for their "brothers in faith and blood". Mustafa Dzhemilev, a former leader of the Crimean Tatar Majlis believes that forces that are suspected to be Russian forces should leave the Crimean peninsula, and has asked the UN Security Council to send peacekeepers into the region.

On 13 March, Russian President Vladimir Putin made a comparison between Crimea and Kosovo in a phone call with US President Barack Obama.

On 15 March, thousands of protesters (estimates varying from 3,000 by official sources up to 50,000 claimed by opposition) in Moscow marched against Russian involvement in Ukraine, many waving Ukrainian flags. At the same time a pro government (and pro-referendum) rally, occurred across the street, counted thousands as well (officials claiming 27,000 with opposition claiming about 10,000).

In February 2015, the leading independent Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta reported that it obtained documents, allegedly written by oligarch Konstantin Malofayev and others, which provided the Russian government with a strategy in the event of Viktor Yanukovych's removal from power and the break-up of Ukraine, which were considered likely. The documents outline plans for annexation of Crimea and the eastern portions of the country, closely describing the events that actually followed after Yanukovych's fall. The documents also describe plans for a public relations campaign which would seek to justify Russian actions.

International Response

There has been a range of international reactions to the annexation. A U.N. General Assembly passed a non-binding resolution 100 in favour, 11 against and 58 abstentions in the 193-nation assembly that declared invalid Crimea's Moscow-backed referendum. In a move supported by the Lithuanian President, the United States government imposed sanctions against persons they deem to have violated or assisted in the violation of Ukraine's sovereignty. The European Union suspended talks with Russia on economic and visa-related matters; and is considering more stringent sanctions against Russia in the near future, including asset freezes. While Japan announced sanctions which include suspension of talks relating to

Term Paper: Russian’s Annexation of Crimea in Ukraine and the Continuation of Cessation of Pro-Russian Rebels in the East

1

military, space, investment, and visa requirements. The EU Commission decided on 11 March to enter into a full free-trade agreement with Ukraine this year. On 12 March, the European Parliament rejected the upcoming referendum on independence in Crimea, which they saw as manipulated and contrary to international and Ukrainian law. The G7 bloc of developed nations (the G8 minus Russia) made a joint statement condemning Russia and announced that they will suspend preparations for the upcoming G8 summit in Sochi in June. NATO condemned Russia's military escalation in Crimea and stated that it was breach of international law while the Council of Europe expressed its full support for the territorial integrity and national unity of Ukraine. TheVisegrád Group has issued a joint statement urging Russia to respe ct Ukraine's territorial integrity and for Ukraine to take into account its minority groups to not further break fragile relations. It has urged for Russia to respect Ukrainian and international law and in line with the provisions of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.

China said "We respect the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine". A spokesman restated China's belief of non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations and urged dialogue.

National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon of India stated that Russia has legitimate interests in Crimea and called for "sustained diplomatic efforts" and "constructive dialogue" to resolve the crisis. However, the National Security Advisor is not a part of the Cabinet of India and, as such, Menon's statement was not an official statement issued by the government of India. However, India subsequently made it clear that it will not support any "unilateral measures" against Russian government. "India has never supported unilateral sanctions against any country. Therefore, we will also not support any unilateral measures by a country or a group of countries against Russia." Both Syria and Venezuela openly support Russian military action. Syrian President Bashar al Assad said that he supports Putin's efforts to "restore security and stability in the friendly country of Ukraine", while Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro condemned Ukraine's "ultra-nationalist" coup. Sri Lanka described Yanukovych's removal as unconstitutional and considered Russia's concerns in Crimea as justified.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk called for change in EU energy policy as Germany's dependence on Russian gas poses risks for Europe.

On 13 March, German Chancellor Angela Merkel warned Moscow it risks massive damage to Russia, economically and politically, if it refuses to change course on Ukraine, though close economic links between Germany

Term Paper: Russian’s Annexation of Crimea in Ukraine and the Continuation of Cessation of Pro-Russian Rebels in the East

1

and Russia significantly reduce the scope for Berlin to sanction the Eurasian giant.

After Russia moved to formally incorporate Crimea, some worried whether it may not do the same in other regions. US deputy national security advisor Tony Blinken said that the Russian troops massed on the eastern Ukrainian border may be preparing to enter the country's eastern regions. Russian officials stated that Russian troops would not enter other areas. US Air Force Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, NATO's supreme allied commander in Europe, warned that the same troops were in a position to take over the separatist Russian-speaking Moldovan province of Transnistria.

On 9 April, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe deprived Russia of voting rights.

On 14 August, while visiting Crimea, Vladimir Putin ruled out pushing beyond Crimea. He undertook to do everything he could to end the conflict in Ukraine, saying Russia needed to build calmly and with dignity, not by confrontation and war which isolated it from the rest of the world.

UN Resolution

On 15 March 2014 a US-sponsored resolution was put forward to vote in the UN Security Council to reaffirm council's commitment to Ukraine's "sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity." A total of 13 council members voted in favour of the resolution, China abstained, while Russia vetoed the U.N. resolution declaring Crimean referendum, 2014, on the future of Crimean Peninsula, as illegal.

General Assembly resolution

On 27 March 2014, The UN General Assembly approved a resolution describing the referendum leading to annexation of Crimea by Russia as illegal. The draft resolution, which was titled 'Territorial integrity of Ukraine' was co-sponsored by Canada, Costa Rica, Germany, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine and the US. It affirmed council's commitment to the "sovereignty, political independence, unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders." The resolution tried to underscore that the 16 March referendum held in Crimea and the city of Sevastopol has no validity and cannot form the basis for any alteration of the status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea or of the city of Sevastopol. The resolution got 100 votes in its favour, while 11 nations voted against and 58 countries abstained from the vote. The resolution was non-binding and the vote was largely symbolic.

Term Paper: Russian’s Annexation of Crimea in Ukraine and the Continuation of Cessation of Pro-Russian Rebels in the East

1

Recognition

The vast majority of the international community has not recognized the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol as part of Russia. Most nations located in North America, Central America, Europe, Oceania, Africa, as well as non-former-Soviet-Union Asia have openly rejected the referendum and the accession, and instead consider Crimea and Sevastopol to be administrative divisions of Ukraine. The remainder have largely remained neutral. The vote on United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262 (supporting the position that Crimea and Sevastopol remain part of Ukraine) was 100 to 11 in favour, with 58 states abstaining and a further 24 of the 193 member states not voting through being absent when the vote took place. The 100 states voting in favour represented about 34% of the world's population, the 11 against represented about 4.5%, the 58 abstentions represented about 58%, and the 24 absents represented about 3.5%.

Several members of the United Nations have made statements about their recognition of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol as federal subjects of Russia:

 Afghanistan  Cuba

 Nicaragua

 North Korea

 Russia

 Syria

 Venezuela

The position of Belarus is vague: it includes statements made by Alexander Lukashenko that "Ukraine should remain an integral, indivisible, non-aligned state" and "As for Crimea, I do not like it when the integrity and independence of a country are broken", on the one hand, and "Today Crimea is part of the Russian Federation. No matter whether you recognize it or not, the fact remains." and "Whether Crimea will be recognized as a region of the Russian Federation de-jure does not really matter", on the other hand.

Three non-UN member states recognised the results of the referendum: Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Nagorno-Karabakh. A

Term Paper: Russian’s Annexation of Crimea in Ukraine and the Continuation of Cessation of Pro-Russian Rebels in the East

1

fourth, Transnistria, sent a request on 18 March 2014 to join the Russian Federation following the Crimean example and in compliance with the Admission Law provisions. On 16 April 2014 Transnistria urged Russia and the United Nations to recognize its independence. Putin is aware of Transnistria's recognition request, according to Dmitry Peskov.

Ukraine has been seen as a part of the sphere of the privileged interest by Russia. In regard to Ukraine, Moscow pursues a modernized version of Brezhnev Doctrine on “limited sovereignty”, that dicates that the sovereignty of Ukraine can not be larger that of the Warsaw Pact prior to the demise of the Soviet share of influence.

After the collapse of the Soviet union both nations retained very close ties, however conflict began almost immediately. There were several sticking points, most importantly Ukraine’s significant nuclear arsenal, which Ukraines in the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances agreed to abandon on the ground that Russia (and other signatories) would issue an insurance against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine. This would prove worthless in 2014, a second point was the division of the black sea Fleet, Ukraine agreed to lease the Sevastool port so that the Russian Black sea Fleet could continue to occupy it together with Ukraine. Later through he 1990s and 2000s Ukriane and Russia engaged in several gas disputes, which started as early as 1993. In 2001 Ukraine along with Gerogia, Azerbaijan and Moldova formed a group titled GUAM Organization for Democracy and Economic Development, which by Moscow was seen as a direct challenge to the CIS and the Russian denominated trade group established after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Moscow was further irritated by the Orange Revolution of 2004 which saw the Ukranian populist Viktor Yushchenko installed as president instead of the pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovich. Moreover, Ukraine also continued to increase its cooperation with NATO, deploying the third largest contingent of troops to Iraq in 2004, as well as dedicating peace to NATO missions such as the ISAF force in Afghanistan and KFOR in Kosovo.

III. Perception

My response to what has been happening in Ukraine and the reactions of various governments, may depend on how we view the politics of the region and the moral claims being made. The rule of law is also of direct relevance, as ‘we believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not.’ These words are those of President Putin, written

Term Paper: Russian’s Annexation of Crimea in Ukraine and the Continuation of Cessation of Pro-Russian Rebels in the East

1

a few months ago in order to prevent the US, UK and other governments from intervening in Syria. International law is crucial to the situation in the Ukraine. It is of particular relevance to the right of self-determination of the people of Crimea and whether Russia can lawfully intervene on the territory of Ukraine.

The right of self-determination, as enshrined in the UN Charter and international human rights treaties, enables the people to determine for themselves their political, economic, social and cultural status. It has been applied in recent years in the former Yugoslavia, East Timor and South Sudan.  It is certainly arguable that the people in the Crimea have a distinct identity and territory, created over centuries and fostered by decisions of the USSR, Russia and Ukraine. This includes its status as an autonomous region within the state of Ukraine and by specific agreements about it between Russia and Ukraine.  It is not unlawful for it to have a referendum and declare itself independent (or that it wishes to merge with Russia), as this was allowed by the International Court of Justice in its (poorly reasoned) advisory opinion on the declaration of independence by Kosovo.

However, such a declaration of independence or merging is not effective in international law by itself. There are two key factors that are relevant: the actions of the state within whose borders the people live; and the responses of the international community. In relation to the first factor, if that state is oppressing the people, discriminating against them, violating their human rights and not allowing them freely to be involved in the politics and internal affairs of the state (i.e. to exercise their internal self-determination), as was probably the situation in Kosovo, then international law allows them a range of possible actions, including independence and merging with another state.

If the people are able freely to participate in governance and are not being oppressed as a group, then these actions of secession are not lawful. This was made clear by the Canadian Supreme Court in its advisory opinion in the secession of Quebec. That Court‘s view was clear: the people of Quebec were not denied meaningful access to government to pursue their political, economic, cultural and social development and so the people  of Quebec do not enjoy a right at international law to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally. They went further to make clear that the referendum result by itself would have no legal effect on its own without further negotiation with the people of the rest of Canada (this is also of relevance to the people of Scotland as they vote in their referendum). The second factor of the responses of the international community can be significant in terms of the recognition (or not) of the entity as a state. Indeed, Russia has not recognized Kosovo as a state.

The situation in Ukraine is such that the new government is just starting to be in a position to govern. It is trying to restore law and order. It has taken no major military or other oppressive actions against the people of

Term Paper: Russian’s Annexation of Crimea in Ukraine and the Continuation of Cessation of Pro-Russian Rebels in the East

1

Crimea (or in other areas of Ukraine). There are at this time no clear actions by it that would be sufficient to justify under international law any independence or merger with another state by the people of Crimea.  Thus there can be no international legal effect of any independence or merger declaration that might arise from a referendum.

The right of self-determination does not of itself give rise to a legal right for a state to intervene in the territory of another state, whether directly or through private actors. Where a people are being oppressed and force is being used against them by their own state, it is, I would argue, possible for them to seek and obtain military assistance of a defensive kind from another state. This is preferably through a resolution of the UN, as collective action by a number of states or as part of a self-defence agreement. However, a unilateral military action where there is no such oppression or force is unlawful. This was made clear by an independent fact-finding commission in their report on international law in relation to the military intervention by Russia in South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia in 2008, which they considered to be generally contrary to international law.

If Russia, and all other states, are to comply with international law then they must first allow the new Ukrainian government (whether or not they are seen as the legitimate government) to resolve the situation in Crimea and ensure that the people of Crimea are allowed internal self-determination. Only if that does not occur then can other possibilities, such as secession and merging with Russia, be possible lawful responses. In any event, that decision is one for all the people of Crimea, and not just for those who are of Russian nationality or heritage (or there only for military purposes), and should not be subject to military or other pressure by any other state. After all, if international peace and security is to be maintained, it must be according to international law, otherwise we begin ‘sliding into chaos’.

The situation in Ukraine is constantly evolving. And for a better understanding the historical roots of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

It began when the Ukrainian government decided not to sign the agreement with the European Union back in the fall of 2013. This was not just a trade agreement, but also a political agreement that committed Ukraine to adhere to certain European values and principles.

From there the crisis moved very quickly to corruption and regime change. The demonstrations happened in waves, and started primarily in Kiev. Most of the protestors were students and young people, although other regions were represented as well.

For these protestors, it was an opportunity to fight corruption.

Term Paper: Russian’s Annexation of Crimea in Ukraine and the Continuation of Cessation of Pro-Russian Rebels in the East

1

The meetings in Kiev have continued but no longer as demonstrations. People have come out to support the new government, but they also want to keep it in check. These activists don’t want to delegate all power to the politicians, but want their voices heard in the discussion. Men are volunteering to enter military self-defense units.

In the western part of the country, things have quieted down. With the fall of President Yanukovych, the East has become more disoriented, because he was their leader. There have been a few deaths in the eastern cities during this conflict.

First of all, I would not overemphasize the divide. There are differences, but any large country with diverse regions will have differences—this is only natural.

That said, there are many regions in Ukraine. Scholars may divide them differently, and some may organize them into seven or eight regions (or more).

Let’s consider three basic regions:

1. The center, including Kiev. This large swath is what one thinks of historically as Ukraine. Influences include Christianity from the Byzantine Empire and the early Slavic alphabet, which are reference points for Ukrainian identity.

Around the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, this area was most affected by the frontier military society called the Cossacks (eastern Slavs). This area was briefly under the rule of Poland and Lithuania, and was gradually taken piecemeal by Russia by the end of the eighteenth century.

2. The west is a much smaller region. It shares many religious and linguistic influences with the center. Yet for a long period of time (from the thirteenth to mid-eighteenth centuries), it was controlled by Poland.

Instead of frontier-type development, it was influenced by Polish language, culture, and Roman Catholicism. After Poland dissolved it was taken over by the Austrian Empire in the nineteenth century, which meant one could travel to Italy without crossing any international boundaries. This strengthened its connection to Europe.

3. The southeast is the third region. Asian nomads migrated to this Steppe, or flat grassland, and the Slavs expanded into this area in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. This region has very little in common with the West. In the nineteenth century, industry developed widely and urbanizes the area, attracting Russians.

Term Paper: Russian’s Annexation of Crimea in Ukraine and the Continuation of Cessation of Pro-Russian Rebels in the East

1

The land’s natural features, plus the history and the economic development, all produce these different layers. When you put all this together, you get a kaleidoscope of experiences.

So why did Russia recently annex Crimea?

This is a complex topic, and I will try to simplify without oversimplifying. Of course there are variations in beliefs, and Russians don’t all think the same way.

In general, though, Russian understanding is often shaped by nineteenth-century Russian historians—before Ukraine became a modern nation. These historians created a model that has Russian history beginning in Kiev. After all, many Ukrainians (except for those in the West) came under the rule of Russia over the last few centuries.

For many Russians, Kiev is in a foreign country. It’s a historical misunderstanding to have it belong to Ukraine. It’s a bizarre notion that the 1991 map shows Ukraine no longer in Russia. So to many Russians, annexing Crimea is simply repairing a historical wrong.

It’s very difficult for many Russians to disentangle their own history from Ukraine’s and acknowledge the equality and legitimacy of the Ukrainian culture alongside their own.

Many Ukrainians have adopted this Russian mentality as their own too. They want to be urban and sophisticated, learn Russian, and drop their Ukrainian accent.

There is a whole spectrum of attitudes, identities, and relationships among Ukrainians. Some are fervent nationalists, and some feel they are somehow under the wrong influences and would like to be Russians themselves. And of course there is everything in between.

As always, there is no consensus about what will happen next. The population in Crimea is mixed, with Tatars (Turkic ethnic groups), Ukrainians, and Russians all living together. It is unclear how Russia is going to handle Crimea, given the shifting demographics.

There is concern that Russia will move into eastern Ukraine (where there still exist confrontations and provocations), though Putin has said he isn’t interested. No one knows.

The competences enjoyed by the Autonomous Republic of Crimea are already considerable (article 135 and thereafter of its constitution). And no imminent danger or spontaneous public disorder seems to justify separation from a weak central State that never “oppressed” its inhabitants. The European Union and Russia’s mutual interests are clear to any observer and at this stage of globalization, they should be the focus of positive, more

Term Paper: Russian’s Annexation of Crimea in Ukraine and the Continuation of Cessation of Pro-Russian Rebels in the East

1

systematic development. No one wants an exacerbation of tension or a test of strength. But can Europe negotiate with a government partner that has so seriously violated the very principles on which it is founded and which is already directly responsible for over 5,500 deaths. We have to acknowledge this new danger in the East now – and learn the lessons from this so that peace and the rule of law can prevail. Europe’s nascent common diplomacy, its timid attempts to build a joint defense tool will not survive if no response is made. But beyond this our States are under challenge in the absence of a credible Russian partner. Their silence would mean their long term exclusion from the right to regulate security on our continent and to be agents in the settlement of disputes which, because of the present crisis, will surely occur in Europe. The response has to be European and defined autonomously. It cannot just be legal and political because Russian interventionism heralds a defeat in terms of the law. Europe’s first lesson is to remember that active diplomacy cannot just content itself with the law and cannot be undertaken without “hard power”. We know this already. The latter demands that it define its own policy and not always in line with its alliances. In all likelihood for the Europeans the annexation of Crimea implies that all the “dividends of peace” have been cashed in and a new challenge. This must not weaken their founding belief that the law is the best instrument to settle relations between States and men.

When Ukraine became independent in 1991, it inherited a nuclear arsenal from the Soviet Union, which made it the fourth largest nuclear power in the world. After much persuasion from western countries, in 1994 Ukraine gave up these weapons, and they were removed from the country.

In return, Ukraine was reassured by the leaders of the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom of its security, sovereignty, and the inviolability of its borders. Russia has invaded Crimea, but the United States and the United Kingdom are still committed to this promise.

Of course, promises may be broken without much reaction. But this may spark growing concerns about countries not developing nuclear weapons, which may have grave implications for global security.

The next steps are still unclear—we must wait and see.

Respectfully Submitted.

Batangas City, 27March2015.

AGUILAR-FAYTAREN, MARICEL M. BSU LAWM2008-03335

Term Paper: Russian’s Annexation of Crimea in Ukraine and the Continuation of Cessation of Pro-Russian Rebels in the East

1

Term Paper: Russian’s Annexation of Crimea in Ukraine and the Continuation of Cessation of Pro-Russian Rebels in the East