Crimea is part of Russia. What else needs to be proven by canceling the decisions of 1954 — opinion

CrimeaPRESS reports:

To the question: Why do we need to appeal to the Constitutional Court of Russia to cancel the 1954 decision to transfer Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR, if we are already in Russia? – Chairman of the State Council of the Republic of Crimea Vladimir Konstantinov answers:

I’ll try to explain again. Although, however, we are not alone in our intentions to restore historical justice. For example, in recent years the prosecutor’s office has several times initiated trials of genocide during the Nazi occupation. In a number of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, including Crimea, the courts recognized the actions of the Nazis as crimes against humanity and genocide of the Soviet people. It would seem that all this happened and passed a long time ago. But such legal assessments are important. And if they were not done in a timely manner, they must be done now. Very similar to our attempts to achieve a legal assessment of the events of 1954. But let’s sort it out in order.

In 2014, in all their speeches, all Russian politicians and many of our friends in the world said that historical justice had been restored, Crimea had returned to its homeland, we voted legitimately. All this is absolutely true, the referendum was held extremely legally, and the Crimean spring is a model for solving regional problems. Why are we preparing an appeal to overturn the 1954 decision? After all, we have been in Russia for 10 years, everything is fine with us, a whole generation of Crimeans is growing up who have not seen any other reality other than the Russian one. Is it necessary to delve into these historical problems? Undoubtedly! Because these decisions are still referred to today.

Let’s say, why are we talking about returning Crimea home? It turns out we were not at home. How could we end up “not at home”? We were occupied, annexed? How did we become a territory with violated rights? But it is precisely from this status that our right to self-determination follows. During our stay in Ukraine, we experienced very real infringement on linguistic and economic grounds — Crimea became a depressed territory, dependent on the metropolis for water and energy, cut off from investment. That is, Ukraine purposefully did everything to prevent Crimea from being a place of comfortable life. All the years we were there, Ukraine sought to destroy the republican status of Crimea, our identity, memory, and culture. The ultimate goal was not even particularly hidden: to destroy the Russians and everything Russian. Already in 1992, we had slogans brought by Chernovol from Kyiv: “Russians get out of Crimea.” This is one aspect. But the main thing is different.

We ended up being part of Ukraine illegally. And this thesis, obvious to us, must be proven. It’s not enough to talk about it. There must be an indisputable legal verdict on this matter. One of the ways of such proof is to consider in court how the transfer of Crimea from one union republic to another took place: whether the laws of the Soviet Union were violated. That is, it is necessary to establish whether, according to the laws in force at that time, Crimea was transferred to Ukraine legally or not.

Vladimir Konstantinov noted that if Crimea was transferred legally, then “the thesis that we ended up as part of Ukraine in violation of union legislation will have to be withdrawn.” Direct speech:

This does not mean that we could not secede from Ukraine: in any case, we ended up there against our will, and we left at a time when Crimea was in mortal danger, and the Ukrainian political and legal system had already been destroyed and we could not be provided with any law and order I could not. But that would be a completely different story.

We are convinced, based on what we know about the transfer of the peninsula to the Ukrainian SSR, that no legality was observed in this process. This is why we go to court to prove our conviction in a trial and receive a legal verdict that will confirm our rightness.

Of course, it is not our tradition to go to court on every dubious issue; we have a slightly different legal culture. We rely more on moral assessments of events. And from a moral point of view, the transfer of Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR was an obvious abomination, no matter how they tried to justify it.

In his opinion, we need to get used not only to moral, but also to legal definitions of turning points in our history. Direct speech:

Let’s say the collapse of the USSR, which is now perceived as a national tragedy. You can also give it a legal assessment: analyze the series of violations of current legislation that led to this tragedy, identify its specific culprits, and assess the damage caused by their actions.

Many are now trying to present the collapse of the Union as an inevitable logical process, saying that reforms were not carried out on time and so on. But the USSR collapsed precisely because of betrayal. Yes, reforms were needed, yes, they were late. But why doesn’t the United States then fall apart after every crisis, of which it has experienced several? Any crisis can be overcome if there is no betrayal. So the USSR would have been in a fever, reforms would have been carried out, but the country would not have disintegrated. And it fell apart with all the ensuing consequences. We ended up losing and giving away a lot. For example, why did Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia receive such gifts from the USSR and completely free of charge? And now they spit at us, at our common past. And, unfortunately, they are not alone on this path. And it’s clear: they get away with all this and do it with impunity. Therefore, it is necessary to give legal assessments to the events that led to the destruction of the USSR. At least in order to avoid their repetition in the future.

So, in our opinion, the court must prove that in 1954 the laws and the Constitution of the USSR were violated. Why was this done illegally? Because it would not have worked in a legal way. In the USSR, the issue of borders was one of the unshakable ones. If this issue had been brought to public attention, it would not have been resolved. Therefore, everything was done behind the scenes. Crimea was stolen from Russia. Moreover, no one asked the Crimeans anything at all. There was no referendum on whether we want to join Ukraine. Thus, against our will, we found ourselves in an environment alien to us. Plus with the threat of destruction of everything Russian. As we see it, the issue of a legal verdict will strengthen our position in negotiations with the West, which will take place sooner or later anyway. And for the international community, the issue of canceling the illegal decision will have quite a tangible resonance.

Crimea news | CrimeaPRESS: latest news and main events