Source: http://tass.ru/en/world/782433
TASS: Russia did not undertake
commitments to compel Crimea to remain within the country against the will of
the local population
Paul Niland: Opening with the truth and
perverting logic at the same time, a skillfull combination. No, Russia made no
such commitment, because such a commitment would be illogical to either demand
or undertake. The opening sub-headline though attempts to assume facts not in
evidence, namely that remaining within Ukraine was “against the will of the
local population” when in reality the will of the local population in this
matter was never properly canvassed or even considered. “Remaining within the
country” Crimea was (and is) a part of was not even an option on the (prepared
in Moscow) “ballot paper” used on March 16th 2014.
TASS: Russia’s reunification
with Crimea did not violate the Budapest Memorandum and has got nothing to do
with the loss of territorial integrity by Ukraine, Russian Foreign Ministry
spokesperson Alexander Lukashevich said on Thursday.
PN: Territorial integrity has clearly been violated.
This isn’t even up for debate. How and why it was violated are matters for
discussion, the fact that Ukraine’s territorial integrity has been violated is as much a matter for discussion as “whether
water is wet.” Russia’s attempted annexation of Crimea is a clear violation of
the Budapest Memorandum as the first provision of that document is “to respect
… the existing borders of Ukraine.”
TASS: “I would like to recommend those who are
speculating on Russia’s alleged violations of the Budapest Memorandum to read
the text of this document at least,” Lukashevich said.
PN: “Alleged: said, without proof,
to have taken place…” So, that word is superfluous, clearly, in this sentence.
TASS: “In fact, the memorandum has only one
aspect related to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that concerns
Russia’s commitment with regards to Ukraine not to use or threaten to use
nuclear weapons against any country-signatory to the NPT,” Lukashevich
said adding that Ukraine’s former defense minister must have been the only
person who had called the honest implementation of that commitment into
question.
PN: Don’t you love it when a Russian spokesperson
starts with the words “In fact”? What Mr. Lukashevish is now doing is
redefining what the Budapest Memorandum says, in fact. While there is an
explicit commitment not to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine (and thanks for
not violating that part!) that is not, in fact, the entirety of the agreement.
In fact the Budapest Memorandum also contains an “obligation to refrain from the threat or use of
force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine”
and it is obvious that this obligation is not being honoured. Should Mr. Lukashevish
need to know more about the Budapest Memorandum I suggest he consults with his
colleague Mr Sergei Lavrov, because Mr. Lavrov was, in fact, the person who
physically signed that document and so he must have read it. Maybe he still has
a copy. Look to see if the words quoted in this paragraph are there.
TASS: “It has not occurred to anybody else.
“Any attempts to link the Ukrainian events to the NPT are pre-determinedly
inconsistent and dishonest,” Lukashevich said when asked to comment on
whether Russia had violated its commitments under the Budapest memorandum the
signing of which preconditioned Ukraine’s accession to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
PN: Mr. Lukashevich is absolutely correct. “Any
attempts to link the Ukrainian events to the NPT are pre-determinedly
inconsistent and dishonest,” but the problem I have here is not with the
truthfulness of this statement, but the fact that it is only Russia that are
making such a link. Nobody else (I am open to being corrected on this point) is
linking the events in Ukraine with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, are
they?
TASS: “Those who allow themselves to insinuate on
this subject are practically undermining the regime established by the
Treaty,” the Russian diplomat stressed.
PN: Is this a veiled threat to throw away the regime
established under the Treaty? Looks that way.
TASS: In the memorandum, Russia committed itself to
“refrain from threatening to use force or from using force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine. This provision has
fully been observed,” Lukashevich said.
PN: If we are to believe this (and we do not, because
it is evidently false), then we must also believe that “yesterday’s miners and
tractor drivers” have somehow managed to acquire huge amounts of weaponry, and
that prior to them becoming a fighting force remarkably similar in equipment to
the Russian army they managed to save enough out of their meager mining and
tractor driving salaries to purchase unlimited quantities of ammunition from
stores in their villages. We must also, to accept this statement, turn a blind
eye to the graves of Russian soldiers who have lost their lives fighting in
this war. Even if we chose to accept (and I do now only for the sake of
argument) the theory that they may have been “volunteers” then we must at the
same time acknowledge that every single Russian “volunteer” fighting in Ukraine
is motivated by an incessant barrage of Kremlin controlled media distortions.
And then we must also examine the reality that, if Russia wanted to, it could
stop the supply of such volunteers across Russia’s international border.
Instead of stopping the flow of men and equipment and weaponry across said
border, it must be a logical conclusion that Russia is facilitating the flow of
men and equipment and weaponry, because this is the only logical conclusion one
can draw. Another logical conclusion is that if in reality the people of
eastern Ukraine wanted to separate from Ukraine they would not need a single
Russian soldier, volunteer, or mercenary from Chechnya to help them. The
population of the oblasts of Donetsk and Luhansk stood at 6.6 million people
before the war, yet somehow they require manpower reinforcements from Russia?
TASS: “Not a single shot was fired /in Crimea/
neither before nor after the populations of Crimea and Sevastopol had made
crucial decisions on the peninsula’s status. Crimea returned to Russia after
the majority of people in Crimea and Sevastopol had realized their right to
self-determination by expression of free will,” the Russian diplomat said.
PN: Factually incorrect from the outset. Shots were
fired, over the head of Commander Yuliy Mamchur and his unarmed men at Bilbek
Airbase, which was occupied on February 27th by armed men. Are we
expected to forget that President Putin initially rejected, strenuously, accusations
that these were Russian soldiers and that he, Putin, then later admitted that
they were indeed Russian soldiers? Are we expected to overlook, or forget
about, the armed takeover of Crimea’s Parliament on the morning of February 27th?
Do we need to gloss over the fact that on that day, at gun point, Crimea’s
deputies installed as a new Prime Minster Sergey Aksyonov, the leader of the
Russian Unity party of Crimea which previously had polled just 4% in elections
on the peninsula in 2010? This is being called an “expression of free will”?
How? The systematic armed takeover of all Ukrainian bases, key government
buildings, and key infrastructure points (like airports) right across Crimea
prior to the March 16th vote is all to be passed off now as
insignificant, or are we supposed to simply pretend that these events didn’t
happen?
PN: Further, the right to self-determination should
always be respected. To ensure that the will of the people is correctly and
freely expressed there are standards and norms that must be observed, the March
16th “referendum” plainly does not meet any kind of criteria needed
to describe it as an accurate recording of the freely expressed will of the
people. It is for this reason that the world has categorically rejected
Russia’s attempted annexation of Crimea, it is not because of an invented or
imagined “Russophoia.”
TASS: “As for incessant attempts to ascribe
military interference in the events in southeast Ukraine to Russia, the authors
of these speculations have not presented a single convincing piece of evidence
as of yet,” Lukashevich stressed.
PN: There is evidence by the bucket load. It is hard
to know where to begin. Maybe Mr. Lukashevich needs to Google “How These
Adorable Puppies Exposed Russian Involvement in Ukraine” by Bellingcat to read
a thorough report, compiled from openly available sources (such as the
Vkontakte page of Russian soldier
“Dorzhi Batomunkuyev, a 20-year old tankist from Mogoytuy in the Zabaykalsky
Krai, bordering Buryatia. Batomunkuyev is a member of military unit 46108,
the 5th Tank Brigade, based out of Buryatia.”) which very clearly and
categorically documents just one small element of Russia’s military presence in
Ukraine.
TASS: He added that Russia had never undertaken any
commitments, neither in the Budapest memorandum nor in any other document, to
force part of Ukraine to remain an integral part of the Ukrainian state against
the will of its population.
PN: Nobody expects such a commitment from Russia. This
is a repetition of an earlier illogicality and also another (flawed and
failing) attempt to presents facts not in evidence as reality.
TASS: “Ukraine lost its territorial integrity due
to complicated internal processes that are of no relation to Russia or its
commitments on the Budapest memorandum,” Lukashevich said.
PN: If it was an “internal process” then why has
Russian President Vladimir Putin recently stated that he, personally, gave the
order to take Crimea at 7 a.m. on the morning of February 24th? That
is clearly not a “complicated internal process.” Is President Putin lying
(again)?
TASS: Crimea’s
reunification with Russia. The Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, a city
with a special status on the Crimean Peninsula, where most residents are
Russians, refused to recognize the legitimacy of authorities brought to power
amid riots during a coup in Ukraine in February 2014.
PN: A few things… The residents of Crimea and
Sevastopol were not, predominantly, “Russians” as few of them had Russian
passports or Russian citizenship. They were (and remain) Ukrainian citizens,
therefore Ukrainians. Are there many ethnic Russians in Crimea? Most certainly,
yes, there are, they even make up a majority of the residents of Crimea.
Further, the events which you describe as “riots” were a predominantly peaceful
demonstration against corruption that lasted for over three months. And the
result of that was not a “coup” but a new start for a peace loving country when
the former President fled from Ukraine to Russia on February 23rd/24th.
As Russia’s medal presented to Russian soldiers for their involvement in the
“return of Crimea” to Russia dates the start of that campaign as February 20th
2014, how is it possible that the operation was a response to the post Yanukovych
authorities when ion the stated date of the start of the operation Yanukovych
had not yet fled (although, there is evidence that he started packing up and
shipping out the most valuable possessions from his mansion around that date…)
and was very much still in power?
TASS: Crimea and Sevastopol adopted declarations of
independence on March 11, 2014. They held a referendum on March 16, 2014, in
which 96.77% of Crimeans and 95.6% of Sevastopol voters chose to secede from
Ukraine and join the Russian Federation. Russian President Vladimir Putin
signed the reunification deals March 18, 2014.
PN: These announced “results” are actually one of
Russia’s biggest mistakes in this whole thing. Had the result been 65%, for
example, that might have been hard to argue as being impossible, and we would
be having a different conversation about the reasons (Kremlin designed wall to
wall brainwashing by television about “Nazis” for example) for that figure.
But, be serious. Expecting people to believe that 96.77% of Crimeans voted in
this way is absurd. It is an insult to the intelligence of any reasonable
person, and no reasonable or sane (we obviously exclude the aforementioned
parties subjected to Kremlin TV) person can be expected to believe this. As
earlier conceded, a majority of Crimeans are indeed ethnic Russians (that
doesn’t make them “Russian” though….) but Crimea also has a resident
populations of Tartars and Ukrainians. If we remove the Tartar population from
the equation, because they boycotted the vote and this gets us down roughly to
the declared voter turnout figure, then we are expected to believe that 96.77%
of the ethnic Ukrainians living in Crimea voted to join Russia? Really? That is
an absurd thing to even think about claiming. If we look at the ethnic Russian
population, I would be highly surprised if any significant number of those
people who are under the age of 35 or 40 would have any great desire to be a
part of Russia either. The figures are made up, they are entirely fabricated,
and do not reflect the true will of the local people of Crimea.
TASS: Despite Moscow’s repeated statements that the
Crimean referendum on secession from Ukraine was in line with the international
law and the UN Charter and in conformity with the precedent set by Kosovo’s
secession from Serbia in 2008, the West and Kiev have refused to recognize the
legality of Crimea’s reunification with Russia.
PN: That would be because Moscow’s repeated statements
have not succeeded in getting international law or the UN Charter to change in
such a way that, post factum, Russia’s attempted annexation of Crimea would
become legal. And, to be blunt, don’t hold your breath Mr. Lukashevich. And, if
you would like to use Kosovo as a precedent (which you cannot, because the
circumstances are entirely different, but for the sake of argument again…) then
we should point out that inter ethnic volence broke out in that region in 1998
(there was no inter ethnic violence in Ukraine) and the declaration by Kosovo
of their independence came a decade later in 2008. In the case of Crimea it
didn’t become independent but was (attempted to be) absorbed by another country
and the whole process took less than three weeks. So, no, Kosovo isn’t really a
precedent. The Falkland Islands (1982)might be the kind of precedent you are
looking for, or Kuwait (1990.)
TASS: Crimea had joined the Russian Empire in 1783,
when it was conquered by Russian Empress Catherine the Great.
PN: Thanks, I like history.
TASS: In the Soviet Union, Crimea used to be part of
Russia until 1954, when Nikita Khrushchev, the first secretary of the USSR’s
Communist Party, transferred it to Ukraine’s jurisdiction as a gift.
PN: A gift. People do not normally demand the return
of gifts after a breakup. Much less break into their ex-partner’s house and
steal them at gunpoint.
TASS: With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991,
Crimea became part of newly independent Ukraine and remained in that capacity
until March 2014, when it reunified with Russia after some 60 years as part of
Ukraine.
PN: Wait, did Crimea become part of Ukraine in 1954 or
not? You just said so. Now you are saying 1991?
TASS: According to the Crimean and Ukrainian
statistics bodies, as of early 2014, Crimea had a population of 1,959,000
people; Sevastopol has a population of 384,000 people.
PN: Finally, back in the realm of truth and reality… That’s
a relief.
TASS: Work to integrate the Crimean Peninsula into
Russia’s economic, financial, credit, legal, state power, military conscription
and infrastructure systems has been actively underway since Crimea acceded to
the Russian Federation.
PN: Considering the downgrades to Russia’s economic
ratings, and the astonishing level of depletion of Russia’s cash reserves ($6.3
billion of Russian tax payers’ money vanished last week alone!) I would not be
bragging about being incorporated into that. Just saying.
TASS: Western nations have subjected Russia to
sanctions over the situation in Ukraine. Russia has constantly dismissed
accusations of “annexing” Crimea, because Crimea reunified with
Russia voluntarily after the referendum in mid-March 2014, as well as
allegations that Moscow could in any way be involved in hostilities in the
southeast of Ukraine.
PN: You can keep on repeating it, and while people are
entitled to have their own opinions people are not entitled to have their own
set of facts. This repetition of earlier stated positions does nothing to make
them fact.
Paul Niland is the owner of PAN Publishing in Kyiv.
