#autonomous republics within russia declared sovereignty

[mariacallous]

They usually come at four or five in the morning. 

Men in uniform and with guns pull up in large vehicles. The dogs start barking. The family wakes up, knowing exactly what is about to happen. The house is searched. Phones and computers are taken away. And so is the father, or a brother, or another male relative, who is almost always suspected of terrorism – a charge they deny.  

This is a typical scene in Crimean Tatar homes in Crimea, a Ukrainian peninsula that has been occupied by Russia since 2014. After declaring annexation, the Kremlin began a targeted campaign against the indigenous Muslim population of Crimea, which has been outspoken against the Russian occupation regime. According to the Crimean Tatar Resource Center (CTRC), 70% of all political prisoners on the peninsula are Crimean Tatars. 

The Ukrainian government, together with local and international human rights groups, say Russia has been fabricating administrative and criminal cases against them to silence resistance. 

More than seven months into Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Crimean Tatars continue being a target of sham trials. They are also forcefully mobilized to fight against Ukraine on the Russian side.

“(Russia’s mobilization of Crimean Tatars) is a demonstrative action to punish the Crimean Tatars… who didn’t support the occupiers all these years and now actively supported the actions of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and opposed the war,” said Tamila Tasheva, the Permanent Representative of the President of Ukraine in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea in late September on Facebook.  

As international attention is focused on Russia’s numerous atrocities in mainland Ukraine, many of Moscow’s repressions against Crimean Tatars go unnoticed.

Genocidal history

Crimean Tatar troubled history with Russia goes deep into the eighteenth century. 

A Ukrainian ethnic minority of Turkic origin, the Tatars first formed a state – the Crimean Khanate – back in 1441. It was overrun by the Ottoman Empire just three decades later, but the Khanate continued to enjoy a great deal of sovereignty within the empire. 

In 1783, after years of fighting between the Russians and Ottomans, Crimea became a part of the Russian Empire. As a result of Russian land grabs and russification policies, including the crushing of the Crimean Tatar national movement, hundreds of thousands of Crimean Tatars were forced to flee. And by 1939, what once was Crimea’s dominant population became a minority – almost 219,000 people, or roughly just 20% of the population. 

In 1944, the Soviet regime unsubstantially accused Crimean Tatars of en masse collaboration with the Nazis, who occupied the Crimean Peninsula for two years during World War II. Soon after, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin ordered the deportation of all Crimean Tatars from Crimea. Estimates vary, but roughly 180,000 Crimean Tatars – the majority of its population at the time – were put on trains within three days, and deported to Russia’s far east, mainly Uzbekistan. Crimean Tatar men who were fighting in the Red Army ranks were sent to labor camps. Half of those who were deported died during the deportation, or within the first few years of their resettlement due to diseases and hunger. 

This tragedy, known as Sürgün, is recognized as genocide by Ukraine. 

Not without hardship, Crimean Tatars were allowed to return home only in the late 1980s, after nearly 40 years in exile. 

Targeted, again 

When Russia illegally annexed the Crimean peninsula in 2014, Crimean Tatars became scapegoats again.

According to the Crimean Tatar Resource Center, 188 Crimean Tatars have been prosecuted in criminal cases since 2014. 

The majority was charged with terrorism for alleged links to Hizb ut-Tahrir – a pan-Islamist political party that operates legally in Ukraine and most countries around the world but was banned in Russia in 2003. 

Russian authorities have used regular Islamic activities, like discussions and prayers in mosques and the reading of Islamic literature as evidence of terrorist links. Crimean Tatars, as well as their spouses, experience religious profiling – in 2020, Russian authorities interrogated several women to compile lists of those who converted to Islam, asking them about their faith and practices. 

Other sham charges have included sabotage, organization of riots, plotting for a violent seizure of power, and separatism.

Hundreds have also been subjected to fines and administrative arrests for voicing dissent or showing solidarity with their community via protests, anti-Kremlin posts on social media, and other actions. 

The international community, along with the Ukrainian government and human rights advocates, deem the charges fabricated only to serve the Kremlin’s political purposes. Some charges are plainly absurd, such as a terrorism charge based on Islamic literature found in the house of a man who is blind, hence unable to read. 

Some of the Kremlin’s most recent victims are Nariman Dzhelyalov and Akhtemov brothers, Asan and Aziz. On Sept. 21, a Russian court sentenced them for 17,15, and 13 years at a maximum security prison, respectively. The three Crimean Tatars were convicted of sabotage for allegedly co-conspiring with Ukrainian security services to blow up a gas pipeline in one of Crimea’s villages – an accusation they deny. 

The case is notable because Dzhelyalov is the First Deputy Head of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People – the community’s self-governing representative body on the peninsula, which Russia also banned for being “extremist” in 2016. Mejlis Chairman Refat Chubarov, who’s been in exile in Kyiv since 2014, was also sentenced in absentia to six years in prison for separatism.

Crimean Tatar lawyers regularly expose severe violations by Russian security services and the courts. Those arrested continuously report being beaten and tortured, including with electric shocks, death threats, and mock executions. 

“The main violations prevalent in Crimea are, first and foremost, the fabrication of these cases through the formation of a false evidence base, as well as self-incrimination, witness intimidation, and the use of torture against both witnesses and the accused,” lawyer Nikolai Polozov told the Kyiv Independent. 

Polozov has worked on multiple Crimean cases, including high-profile cases against the former Mejlis Chairman and the veteran of the Crimean Tatar national movement Mustafa Dzhemilev. Polozov also defended Dzhelyalov and Akhtemov brothers. 

Both Asan and Aziz Akhtemov, as well as four witnesses brought forward by the court – also Crimean Tatars – were tortured by Russian authorities to confess or give false testimony, Polozov told the Kyiv Independent. 

Another common Russian tactic is the use of secret witnesses whose identity is concealed supposedly for security reasons. Those are either Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) agents, police, or locals who had legal issues and agreed to give false testimony in exchange for impunity, Polozov says. Authorities make it impossible to cross-examine these testimonies – in one case alone, the court rejected over a hundred questions by Polozov that could somehow connect the witnesses to the matter at hand.  

“In the case of Dzhelyalov, the prosecution wasn’t able to present a single piece of material evidence to connect Asan, Aziz, and him to the alleged crime,” Polozov said.  

“The entire case was built on the secret witnesses and testimony obtained through torture.”

Shadow of war  

For years, the main vehicle of activism in support of Crimean Tatars was the media. But when Russia’s all-out war began on Feb. 24, the media attention which was already scarce virtually disappeared. 

“There is an avalanche of terrible news coming from Ukraine…to some extent, the level of struggle and resistance that exists in Crimea is still tolerable, compared to what is happening to people now in Ukraine,” a leading Crimean Tatar activist and journalist Lutfiye Zudiyeva told the Kyiv Independent. Zudiyeva works with the peninsula’s main non-profit, Crimean Solidarity, which was founded by the Tatars after the annexation. 

While the global attention went elsewhere, Russian repressions in Crimea continued and even reached new levels. 

“There were certain red lines that Russian security forces did not cross until February,” such as the prosecution of women and lawyers, Zudiyeva said.  

In spring, Russian authorities abducted and tortured Iryna Danylovych, an activist and journalist who worked with local human rights initiatives. She was accused of carrying 200 grams of explosives in the case of her glasses, which she says were planted. 

Months later, Russia took away licenses from three prominent Crimean Tatar lawyers, barring them from defending clients in criminal cases – an unprecedented move, according to one of the lawyers Nazim Sheikhmambetov. 

While the overall amounts of house raids and arrests of Crimean Tatars decreased compared to the first six months of 2020 and 2021, Lutfiye says new risks have emerged. In March of 2022, Russia passed laws criminalizing the public discreditation of its army, basically outlawing any dissent voiced against its war in Ukraine. 

“These laws are primarily aimed at journalists, human rights activists, and lawyers… and in Crimea, this legislation is applied in exactly the same way as in Russia,” Zudiyeva said.

Mobilized by the enemy

Another blow came to the Crimean Tatar community when the Kremlin announced what it called “partial mobilization” to reinforce its army fighting in Ukraine on Sept. 21. 

The Ukrainian government said Russia was mobilizing a disproportionately high number of Crimean Tatars, looking for adult men in Crimean Tatar villages or other places of their congregation. The numbers are hard to estimate, but according to Crimean activists, at least 1,500 Crimean Tatars were drafted in the first three days of the mobilization. 

The outcry of the Crimean Tatar community prompted a response from President Volodymyr Zelensky, who released a video address calling the mobilization “another element of Russia's genocidal policy.” 

"Criminal mobilization is used by Russia not only to prolong the suffering of people in Ukraine and further destabilize the world but also to physically destroy men — representatives of indigenous peoples who live in the territories controlled by Russia… This is a calculated imperial policy,” Zelensky said. 

Involving the local population of the occupied territory in the armed formations of the occupying state is a war crime, according to Tasheva.

One of the reasons for this policy is “accumulated revenge” against the Crimean Tatar population, Tasheva argued. 

“Revenge for the support of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty… And for active resistance to occupation and repression. For disobeying the Russian repressive machine. And, of course, for the work of human rights activists.”

Tasheva also thinks the Kremlin may be trying to ruin relationships between Crimean Tatars and other Ukrainian citizens with the hope of capitalizing on that conflict in the future – a tactic the Russian security services have been famous for. 

The Ukrainian government publicized guides on how to hide from mobilization in Crimea and even encouraged Crimean Tatars and other Ukrainians to surrender and fight with the Ukrainian army instead. 

In yet another act of resistance to Russian occupation, Crimean Tatars try to avoid mobilization, Zudiyeva says.

“For them, the Russian army is the same army that in 1944 put their grandparents on trains (during the deportation),” she said. “For many, this is a question of historical memory.” 

[williamkergroach55]

Saved by the Russians

Located in the Caucasus, Abkhazia is a region with multiple influences that has experienced a tumultuous history, including foreign conquests, ethnic tensions, and struggles for independence. Today, Russia remains its only bulwark against Washington's attacks.

The Origins of Abkhazia: A Greek and Roman Region In the 6th century BC, the Greeks established commercial outposts in Abkhazia, then called Colchis. The city of Dioscurias (now Sukhumi) became a prosperous commercial center. The Romans fortified the city in the 1st century BC. This period was marked by the cultural and commercial influences of two Greek and Roman empires. In 523 AD, Abkhazia became part of the Byzantine Empire and adopted Christianity. The Kingdom of Abkhazia prospered and extended its influence over much of western Georgia. From the 10th to the 13th century, Abkhazia was united with the Georgians in the medieval kingdom of the "Sovereigns of Abkhazia and Georgia." This period is considered the golden age of Abkhazia.

Ottoman and Russian Invasions In the 14th century, part of Abkhazia was under the dominion of the Mingrelians of Georgia. The Abkhazian dynasty Chachba drove out the Mingrelians in the 15th and 16th centuries and established the southern border that still exists to this day. In 1578, Abkhazia was invaded by the Ottoman Empire. In the 18th century, Abkhazia, allied with Georgia, tried to drive out the Turks. In the early 19th century, Abkhazia came under Russian domination. In 1864, it was forcibly annexed to the Russian Empire, and half of the Abkhazian population fled to Turkey and the Middle East.

Georgian Supervision In 1921, the Bolsheviks overthrew the Mensheviks in Georgia, leading to the establishment of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Abkhazia, led by Nestor Lakoba. The Soviet Socialist Republic of Abkhazia was established independently of Georgia. After signing the formation of the USSR in 1922, Abkhazia was reduced to the status of an autonomous republic within Georgia in 1931. On the orders of Georgian Stalin and Mingrelian Beria, the Abkhazians then underwent a policy of "Georgianization." Many Mingrelian Georgians settled in Abkhazia, depriving the Abkhazians of their language and culture. In 1978, Abkhazian intellectuals protested against this policy, leading to concessions such as the opening of the Abkhazian State University and the weekly television broadcast of a 30-minute program in Abkhazian.

Contested Independence In 1990, Abkhazia declared its sovereignty, but it was quickly revoked by Georgia. In 1992, Abkhazia declared its own sovereignty and proposed a federative treaty to Georgia. Georgian troops then suddenly invaded Abkhazia, triggering a 13-month armed conflict. The war caused about 260,000 people to flee, mostly families attached to Georgia. Since then, Abkhazia's population has been divided by half. The majority of Abkhazians are Orthodox Christians, representing about 75% of the population. Abkhazian historian Stanislav Lakoba, when asked about Abkhazia's religion, replied that Abkhazians are "80% Christians, 20% Sunni Muslims, and 100% pagans!"

Many families actually observe both Christian and Muslim, Orthodox, or pagan holidays. In 1993, Abkhazian forces, supported by the Confederation of Peoples of the North Caucasus, finally drove Georgian troops out of their territory. In 2008, Russia recognized Abkhazia as an independent state, as did Nicaragua, Venezuela, Nauru, Vanuatu, Tuvalu, and Syria.

A fragile peace Since the 2007 elections, tensions with Georgia remain present. Georgia has begun to strengthen its army near the border, purchasing modern equipment from Ukraine and hosting American and Israeli military instructors who are eager to destabilize the region. The Abkhazian government, for its part, continues to confirm its ties with Russia.

Russia, supporter of Abkhazia Russia is the main supporter of Abkhazia. The distribution of Russian passports to nearly 80% of Abkhazians guarantees their protection from Moscow. Under Article 65 paragraph 2 of the Russian constitution, Moscow has the obligation to assist its citizens wherever they are in the world. Thanks to Moscow's protection, Abkhazia now has the attributes of an independent state. Its capital, Sukhumi, a renowned seaside resort, has become the center of its political power. Russia has established an air base in Gudauta, and the naval base in Novoazovskoye, located in the city of Oust-Louga. The Gudauta air base is a former Soviet base and has been used by Russian forces for their operations in Abkhazia since the 1992-1993 conflict. The Novoazovskoye naval base is a recent base built after Russia's recognition of Abkhazia in 2008 and has become an important base for the Russian Black Sea Fleet in the region. The Russian military presence strives to guarantee the sovereignty and security of the Abkhazian republic, against the secret maneuvers of Washington.

Renewed stability Abkhazia is beginning to regain a peaceful and serene life. Primarily rural, the country has a variety of abundant agricultural natural resources, mainly citrus fruits, tobacco, tea, and wood. The country also has some energy resources with coal mines and hydroelectric power plants. Above all, Abkhazia, rich in fresh water, could become one of the world's largest exporters. With peace, tourism in Abkhazia is also on the rise, with around 1.5 million visitors in 2022. Abkhazia's economy, using the ruble as currency, primarily looks to Russia as an export market, trade partner, and investor. But Turkey is also becoming another discreet major economic partner of Abkhazia. Intelligence services involved in tensions Unfortunately, Abkhazia is in the Caucasus, a region that the enemies of Russia and American intelligence services in particular want to destabilize. NATO forces and the CIA intervened to support Georgian forces during the war. They also conduct disinformation operations to influence world public opinion against the small Abkhazian republic. The Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) and Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) are therefore facing off against the Georgian Ministry of State Security (MSE), the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), as well as the Polish Military Intelligence and Counterintelligence Service (SWKW), which trains and equips the Georgian army. Since its independence, the Abkhazian territory has been the scene of a deadly shadow game between enemy intelligence services, as in the times of the Cold War.

The Caucasus, a strategic region Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security advisor to US President Jimmy Carter, defined Washington's objectives in the Caucasus. He considered the Caucasus region a key element in global geopolitics. For him, the Caucasus was a pivot region between Europe and Asia, between the former Soviet world and the boiling Muslim world, and between the vast energy resources of the region and the global powers that depend on them. In his book "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives" published in 1997, Brzezinski emphasized that control of the Caucasus was essential for global powers due to its energy resources, especially its oil and gas reserves. He also noted that the region was an important crossroads for commercial routes linking Europe and Asia. Brzezinski named ethnic and religious tensions, geopolitical rivalry between Russia and Turkey, and the threat posed by Islamist terrorism as levers to be exploited to destabilize the region. The control, or destruction, of this region was therefore crucial for the United States. Brzezinski defined the Caucasus region as a key zone in the struggle for global influence between great powers. That is why the geopolitics of the region, and the fate of Abkhazia, have become an important issue for major powers such as the United States, Russia, China, Iran, and Turkey. Attempted color revolution in 2020 In 2020, political tensions emerged in Abkhazia. The conflict erupted in January 2020 when protests broke out against Abkhazia's President Raul Khajimba, who had won the 2019 elections. Protesters accused the president of election fraud and demanded his resignation. The conflict culminated in May 2020 when opposition militants barricaded themselves in an administrative building in Sukhumi, the capital of Abkhazia. Security forces besieged the building, but the militants refused to surrender. Tensions escalated, and demonstrations in support of the militants broke out in the city. The conflict was defused when the militants agreed to surrender in exchange for security guarantees. President Khajimba resigned the following month and was replaced by interim President Valeri Bganba. The involvement of NATO secret forces in these political tensions in Abkhazia was evident to insiders. The United States immediately took a position in favor of the "protesters," calling for respect for human rights and democracy, etc. This attempted color revolution bore the mark of the CIA. But Moscow was watching. Presidential elections were still held in March 2020. They were won fairly by Aslan Bzhania, under the watchful eye of international observers. Bzhania appointed former President Alexander Ankvab as Prime Minister. The American destabilization operation failed this time. The situation in Abkhazia, while improving, remains concerning today. While Abkhazia is now a de facto independent state with a desire for peace from a war-weary population, the country remains an issue between Russia and the United States. The shadow games of intelligence services playing out there are dangerous for democracy and the security of the country. In this context, it is difficult to predict the future of Abkhazia, as well as all the countries in the Caucasus. The US deep state still looms, always eager to follow the geostrategic objectives given by Brzezinski, one of the main "sorcerers" of the Bilderberg Group and the Council on Foreign Relations, founded by David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger.

[herukapadmajungiansworld]

[echoesoftheeast]

Why I No Longer Support the Russian Annexation of Crimea

A few years ago, when I first began learning the Russian language and the histories of Eastern Europe, I was unabashedly pro-Russian in my geopolitical convictions. I still remember watching a documentary about the Maiden Revolution in Kyiv and how it was presented as being orchestrated by the West, how it resulted in the safety of Russian speakers in Ukraine being compromised, and how it ushered in the rise of a fascist government with Nazi sympathies that espoused a type of ultra-Ukrainian nationalism that left no place for anything Russian in Ukraine anymore. Due to this analysis of the Maidan and post-Maidan currents in Ukraine, I came to the conclusion that the annexation of the Crimea was a truly democratic action and that the war in Donetsk and Luhansk represented almost a motherly care from Moscow for the Russian speakers of Eastern Ukraine. For years this served as the basis of my understanding of the post-Maidan conflicts, particularly the annexation of the Crimea. I continued to read a multitude of pro-Russian articles that justified the annexation. According to the standard positions given, the initial transfer of the Crimea from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR by Khrushchev was nothing more than a whimsical decision from the former party head of the Ukrainian SSR. Since the Crimea had been thoroughly under Russian administration prior, this means that the actual transfer was an historical injustice in the first place; Crimea is thoroughly Russian land and is deeply connected with Russian history. Secondly, the annexation can be justified since NATO had allegedly promised the newly formed Russian Federation following the collapse of the USSR that they would not expand into either former Eastern Block or Soviet territory. Since a multitude of former Eastern Bloc and Soviet countries have in fact been integrated into NATO, the West broke their promise so then what sort of moral high ground do they have to declare the annexation of the Crimea as illegal? Thirdly, considering that the majority of the population considered themselves ethnically Russian, since there was a referendum that resulted in an overwhelming majority of voters supporting being received into the Russian Federation, how should this act of democracy be considered any differently than say the will of the Albanian Kosovars to cede from Serbia. If an autonomous province of one country can have the legal right to cede, why can’t another? Finally (not to say that there are only four justifications for the annexation of Crimea, rather these were the biggest reasons for my previous support behind it), there was the strategic considerations of the naval base at Sevastopol. Considering that following the collapse of the Soviet Union that more and more former Soviet republics and Eastern Bloc countries have been joining the European Union and NATO (or lining up to do so), this presents a threat to Russia. Considering that the geopolitical relations between Russia and the West are at an all time low since the Cold War, it would be a strategic blunder for Russia if Ukraine was allowed to achieve its goals of EU and NATO integration. Considering the close proximity of Sevastopol to Russian territory, if Ukraine would become a part of NATO and allow for NATO to establish itself in Sevastopol, this would poise a huge military threat to Russia. Therefore, in a sort of pre-emptive move, the annexation of the Crimea was necessary to prevent any further potential NATO bases being so close to Russian territory. However, over the years as I have opened myself to more and more information from across the geopolitical spectrums, the justifications for the annexation began to slowly dismantle themselves until I came to the conclusion that the annexation of the Crimea was not only an illegal action taken by Russia but a geopolitical blunder of the highest level. I will leave why I think this was the biggest mistake they could make until the end and I will address why I no longer consider the justifications that I mentioned as valid. Before we proceed, I would like to just mention an event that was fundamental in helping me reconsider my convictions and to abandon what I can only call the Russian-Chauvinistic mentality that I previously held. A few years ago when I was on one of my trips to Chisinau, my wife and I decided to visit the Museum of Soviet Occupation (also known as the Museum of Victims of Communism). Now, I was definitely not pro-Soviet (being an Orthodox Christian, I know enough history about the persecutions against the religious in the Soviet Union and the overall atheistic ideology to keep me at arms length from having any real sense of Soviet sympathy) so I was very eager to check this museum out. Having read various books and articles that talk about some of the horrors that happened (especially during the Stalinist era), I wasn’t completely unfamiliar with the tragedies that befell different people within the Soviet Union. However, it was a completely different experience to walk through the museum and see real letters from prisoners, confiscated passports, and photos of the real people who experienced the repressions; simply because they were land owners, priests, or suspected of being pro-Romanians. What struck me most was the collection of propaganda posters in one of the exhibits. Whether they were attacking religion or bolstering the benefits of the Soviet system, the propaganda seemed to address everything. It was this moment of looking at the seemingly endless collection of Soviet propaganda posters where something struck me, “If there was this much propaganda going on back then, who’s to say that there’s not just as much now but through contemporary mediums?” So, what got me to reconsider my positions wasn’t an article, or a book, or a conversation; it was the feeling of being overwhelmed by an endless supply of propaganda. After this moment, I began to be more critical of what I would read and try to expand my reading to include sources that present both sides of a situation, as well as material from non-partisan sources. One of the most important examples was with the annexation of Crimea. I began to look a little deeper at the arguments put forward to justify the annexation. Over time, as I read more sources or would occasionally stumble upon some information, each point began to have less weight to me that they used to have, until the point where I came to the conclusion that I no longer can buy into the arguments: Crimea is Ukraine.

The first point that is often brought up is that Khrushchev simply gave Crimea to Ukraine either because he had a soft spot for the country, or that it was a gift to celebrate the 1654 Pereyaslav Treaty, or because he wanted to reward Ukraine for their loyalty to the whole Soviet system (among other reasons that are given). Now, it is definitely true that the Crimea was previously an autonomous oblast within the Russian SFSR and that Nikita Khrushchev played a major role it the transfer of the Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR. However, no matter what the reason (or most likely, reasons) behind the transfer, ultimately it was transferred and became an administrative unit of the Ukrainian SSR. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the declaration of the new entities of Ukraine and the Russian Federation, the Crimea was legally recognized as part of Ukraine. Most importantly, in 1994 both the Presidents of Russia and Ukraine (along with the President of the USA and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom) signed the Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances. Along with this document came the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. In return for Ukraine agreeing to eliminate all nuclear weapons from their territory within a specified period of time, they were given certain national security assurances. Some of the assurances are worth quoting in full, “1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine;

2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nation.” The first two points that were noted on the memorandum, signed by the Russian President, concerned respecting the territorial integrity of the existing borders of Ukraine at the time, which included Crimea, and the affirmation that they would not use force against Ukraine and threaten their sovereignty. I came across this memorandum while reading an excellent book written by the Ukrainian-Canadian historian Serhy Yekelchyk, “The Conflict in Ukraine: What Everyone Needs to Know”. This information completing undermines any king of argument that posits the initial transfer of Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR as being some sort of geopolitical injustice, and thereby justifying the annexation of it to the Russian Federation. Russia signed a memorandum to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine, to abstain from using force against Ukraine, and to refrain from threatening the current borders of Ukraine. This leads nicely into the next point that the Western powers allegedly promised Russia that they had no intentions of expanding NATO into former Eastern Bloc and Soviet territories. As time went by, history has shown us that a number of former Eastern Bloc and Soviet republics have in fact been accepted in NATO. From the standard Russian narrative, since the West went back on their promise, then how can they oppose the annexation of Crimea? The logic seems to go that since the West reneged on their side of the deal, Russia is therefore free to disregard whatever security guarantees they provided to ensure the territorial integrity of Ukraine. However, we need to ask the question: did the Western powers ever promise this? This answer was given by Mikhail Gorbachev himself: no. The agreement that did happen was in regards to non-German NATO forces being employed in the former GDR (German Democratic Republic). When Gorbachev was interviewed and asked about the supposed promises made to Russia that NATO wouldn’t expand eastwards, he had this to say,

“The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”

It becomes evidently clear that no such promise regarding the refraining of NATO from expanding eastwards was every actually given, so Russia has no ground to try to justify their breaking of an international memorandum on the alleged failure of the West from refraining to expand NATO. Another point is that Crimea is historically Russian land with great historical significance for Russia. While its true that some very significant historical events in Russian history have taken place in the Crimea (including the baptism of St. Volodymyr in Kherson, the Crimean War, and the siege of Sevastopol) and that from 1783-1917 it was part of the Russian Empire and then from 1921-1954 it was part of the Russian SFSR, if we want to talk about the earlier inhabitants of the Crimea, it’s impossible to overlook the Crimean Tatars. Turkic peoples had been inhabiting the Crimean Peninsula since the 6th century and the Crimean Khanate was established in the 15th century. The Tatars were there prior to the movement of Slavs into the peninsula and were the majority until a number of historical factors began to decrease the Tatar population in the Crimea (such as Tatars fleeing or being deported to the Ottoman Empire after the initial conquest by the Russian Empire, more Tatars fleeing or being deported after the Russian loss of the Crimean War, and when practically the entire Crimean Tatar population was deported to Central Asia following World War 2 by Joseph Stalin). Only since 1989 has the Tatar population been growing again when the Supreme Soviet condemned the removal of the Tatars from their lands as unlawful, and thereby allowing larger numbers of them to return. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Crimean Tatars have largely been in favor of the Ukrainian government and have a more complicated relationship with Russian rule. When the annexation was in process, the Tatar population in Crimea boycotted the referendum and have been vocal in their desire to remain within Ukraine. While the history of Crimea is a part of Slavic history (not simply Russian), the Crimea has more historical rights with the Crimean Tatars, and the voice of the Crimean Tatars has spoken and sides with Ukraine. Now, to address the so-called democratic process of the referendum held in the Crimea that led to the request to be accepted into the Russian Federation. This was probably the strongest argument in favor of the annexation since it appeared the represent the concept of democracy and self-determination. It seemed to me that when the Soviet Union was collapsing and the various republics were declaring their own independence, then why should Ukraine’s desire to cede from the Soviet Union be respected while the Crimea’s desire should be treated as separatism? Is not Kyiv becoming to Crimea what Moscow was to Ukraine? On top of that, why is it that the referendum in the Crimea is treated as illegal while the referendum in Kosovo was accepted by the West? Let’s first look at the legitimacy of the referendum first. The whole tension between the political concepts of territorial integrity and self-determination is difficult to say the least. However, in the situation following the Maidan Revolution, it’s abundantly clear that the situation in Crimea was escalated following the arrival of the little green men. Even in my most pro-Russian days I had no doubts that these were “unofficial” Russian soldiers coming to the Crimea. What this presents itself as is nothing other than a military invasion and occupation. Since the referendum took place within a context of military occupation, it fundamentally cannot be accepted as valid on an international level. While it may be true that a large percentage of the population living in Crimea may in fact have supported a move towards Russia (I have friends and acquaintances with family members in Crimea and I have been told from them that the general opinion was indeed to become a part of Russia), the context and procedures were far from happening within what is accepted on a legal basis and can be legitimized on an international level. In regard to the comparison with Kosovo, we have to recognize that their situations are completely different. While both Kosovo and the Crimea were autonomous regions within their respective countries, the Russian population in the Crimea never underwent the same atrocities that the Kosovar Albanians underwent during the Kosovo War. The context for the independence of Kosovo was largely based on the genocidal afflictions they experienced during the war from Serbia, thus giving a moral precedence to pursue a path of independence. The only population within Crimea that can claim to have any kind of similar experience are the Crimean Tatars, who have been the victims of repression and deportation numerous times throughout history. So, we can see that neither the fact that a referendum was held or the comparison with Kosovo can have any legitimacy in regards to the annexation of Crimea. Now I’d like to look at the claim that it was necessary to annex the Crimea as a pre-emptive strike to protect Russian borders from the expansion of NATO. Since there’s a significant naval port in Sevastopol, it would be a geopolitical disaster for Russia if the ports of Sevastopol became NATO bases. This argument is completely dismantled once one considers the point that Sevastopol isn’t the only port in Ukraine. This point was driven home to me during a discussion with a Ukrainian acquaintance of mine about the whole situation in Crimea. We were discussing the various justifications given by Russia and I brought up this point about self-defence against NATO. My acquaintance simply replied, “So what if Sevastopol doesn’t become a NATO base? If Ukraine would be accepted into NATO, there are ports in Odessa which could easily be used as well. Is the distance from Sevastopol to Odessa really going to be that big of a difference?” The weakness of this argument became immediately apparent to me. If we even put aside the question of naval bases, there’s still the reality of regular military bases that could be set up in Ukraine. NATO could simply set up bases in cities like Kharkiv, Chernihiv, or even Kyiv and these would all be very close to the Russian border. To pursue this line of argument would necessitate that Russia simply annex all of Ukraine to prevent NATO from establishing any closer bases to their borders. As each argument began to collapse for me, I came to the ultimate conclusion that the annexation of Crimea was nothing more than an illegal military occupation, taking advantage of the unfavorable situation that arose for Russia in the aftermath of the Maidan Revolution. In an attempt to keep Ukraine divided to at least prevent her from moving closer to the West, the annexation and the war in Donbass is nothing more than a destabilizing effort by Moscow to try and force Ukraine to stay within their sphere of influence and to prevent the West from getting to close to Ukraine. However, the actions taken by Moscow were the biggest geopolitical blunder that they could have made. If Moscow genuinely wants to keep Ukraine within their sphere of influence, the worst thing that they could have done was to annex territory and become involved in a separatist war. By trying to force Ukraine to stay, they have only pushed her farther away. While it’s unlikely that Russia will ever accept that the annexation of the Crimea was unlawful and actually return it to the control of the Ukrainian government, it’s also just as unlikely the Ukraine will return to a place where closer ties with Russia is a popular opinion. While there are small measures of truth in the propaganda employed by Moscow in regards to the situation in Ukraine (there are definitely ultra-Ukrainian nationalists as well as those who have sympathies for the Galician division of the SS who fought against the Soviets with the Germans in World War 2), it is grossly inaccurate to portray the situation as if every Ukrainian is a fascist, ultra-nationalist, who’s looking to persecute Russian speakers. While the Russian language may have less acceptance in certain parts of Ukraine, it’s still spoken across the country. At the end of the day, I realized that my thoughts in the museum in Chisinau were right: Moscow is simply continuing the propaganda tradition through new mediums. To sum everything up simply, we can say this much: not all Ukrainians are fascists, not all Ukrainian are Nazi sympathizers, not all Ukrainians are out for Russian blood. Russia signed a memorandum to respective the territorial integrity of Ukraine and to abstain from threatening it with force. There was never any promise from NATO that they wouldn’t expand eastwards. While Crimea plays a role in Slavic history, the Crimean Tatars have a greater claim through history than the Russians do. The referendum took place in an atmosphere of military occupation and therefore has no chance of legitimacy. The situations of Kosovo and Crimea are completely different and therefore are not a viable comparison. And finally, if Ukraine was to join NATO, bases could still be set up close to the Russian border even without the naval bases in Sevastopol. Crimea is Ukraine.

[wiilly03-blog]

Regional and global implications of Russia’s annexation of Crimea

The Crimea peninsula was a semi-autonomous state with affiliations to both Russia and Ukraine, ownership of Crimea and its sovereignty has bounced back and forth, it was part of the ottoman empire before it was ceded to russia in 1783 during Catherine the great’s reign, the Russian forces of queen Catherine had defeated the armies of the Ottoman empire in the russian-turkish war, further down the road, it was made an autonomous state within the then soviet union during the russian revolution. In 1954, Crimea was transferred to the Ukrainian government by Nikita Khrushchev the then secretary to the Soviet Union’s Communist party. Reasons for doing so were not implicitly stated but many people were of the notion that it was a ploy to appease the Ukrainian arm of the Soviet Union communist party. This transfer was met with dissatisfaction by native Russians residents in Crimea since its population is majorly russians with crimea tartas and Ukrainian minorities. Since its absorption from the Ottoman Empire, Crimea served as an important navy base for Russian, the city of Sevastopol in Crimea housed the black sea fleet of the then soviet union and also as an important battle ground for the Russian navy. Crimea was the site of integration of orthodox Christianity into Russia hence Crimea and Sevastopol held very important political and sentimental value to the Russians. When the soviet union fell, Crimea remained under Kyiv administration. Until early 2014 when tensions rose as a result of the Ukrainian president Viktor yanukovich’s refusal to sign Ukraine into the EU, he was ousted and Ukraine fell into political turmoil. With the breakdown of order, Russian troops stepped into Crimea and weeks later a highly disputed referendum was held wherein about 95% of crimeans voted to join Russian, the annexation of Crimea was announced by Putin citing Crimea’s right to self determination as the basis for the takeover. While local support was high, this action by Putin has been frowned upon by both the US and other States.

The annexing of Crimea and the city of sevastopol by Russia has had a lot of impact on both Russia, Ukraine and Crimea.

IMPACT ON RUSSIA

The major implications

Annexing Crimea for Russia was an expensive venture. This venture has cost Russia billions of dollars. The cost of mobilization of troops and logistics inclusive. Taking over Crimea meant that Russia  inherited the burden of paying workers wages and pension benefits of Crimea citizens, there was also the issue of upgrading Crimea’s salary structure to reflect its new status as a russian state and with Crimea having a population of about 2 million with about 26% retirees and another 20% of its population as state workers this cost. Crimea is vastly dependent on Ukraine for power and water with most of the power plants and water canals supplying Crimea situated in ukraine, in a bid to cut crimea  ties with Ukraine and reduce her dependence, russia has had to build power plants in Crimea, Russia had to resize the budgets for other regions in order to meet up with these costs. With Crimea being a peninsula that has no geographical connection with russia, a bridge was built over the Kerch Strait connecting Crimea and Russia together Russia (the crimean bridge),there is also the issue of border control and currency change,  in summary a lot of money will be spent to upgrade crimea to russia’s specification. Crimea annexation is not without benefits to russia, she stands to gain because by taking Crimea and Sevastopol the money remunerated by Russia to Ukraine for use of Sevastopol as a base of Russia naval fleet will cease, this money is about a 100 million dollars(Tadeusz A. Olszański, 2014)  Also the Crimea peninsula being strategically located, has given moscow’s military an edgein both the Mediterranean region and the Black Sea. Tensions between russia and ukraine are at all time high, russia acting rashly has gone against the Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership that existed between both parties, this has several ramifications ; ukraine has decided not to renew the treaty and has proposed to declare war on russia as soon as the present treaty expires

The actions of Russia in crimea has soiled her international image. Russia to the wider world is now seen as a predatory imperialist, and a power grabber ready to pounce on any available and weakened region within its borders without a single regard for the implications. The UN has condemned the annexation of crimea and Russia faces sanctions from both UN and the EU. Also several restrictions have been placed on russia, the G8 (now G7) has suspended russia from all its activities, russia has lost all voting rights in the council of Europe although Russia has responded by boycotting and cutting off their financial contribution to the council. Some russian citizen with ties to crimea have been refused visas in the US and Canada, also Japan has suspended talks with Russian in light of the crimea situation. There has also been a call for a boycott of Russian oil and gas with other EU countries seeking alternatives to russia’s oil.

IMPACT ON UKRAINE

For ukraine , the loss of the crimean peninsula has been colossal, it came at a time when Ukraine was undergoing a difficult transition in government and hence couldn’t withstand russia. It had to call out to the west for help

Losing crimea has left ukraine with reduced military strength with its navy admiral defecting to Russian and its naval ships seized by russia

There also exist on crimea, local ukrainian energy and mining industries which have been lost to the russians, Ukraine’s bid to explore the black sea shelf for hydrocarbons has also be set back due to the region being under russia’s control. Russia has also reduced its involvement in Ukraine’s foreign trade

The loss of Crimea has dented ukraine’s nationalism and sovereignty it has weaken the national identity and created  divisions between members of ukraine and russia. the state’s loss of control over part of its territory and population renders ukraine a weak sovereign state without means of protecting its sovereignty, this has gone a long way in hampering its international image, its parliamentary house is now left with 423 seats as against 450 due to the exclusion of crimea parliamentarians. Ukraine seeks an outright war but a war with Russia who is

 IMPACT ON CRIMEA

Since its annexation, a large population of crimea tartas have moved away from crimea due to the political unrest, the others who have remained have been subjected to harsh conditions by the much significant russian populace, they are seen ukrainian loyalists, this has the effect of reduced workforce. Also annexation has left crimea  with fresh problems such as how to reestablish relations with ukraine seeing that the peninsula greatly relies on ukraine for water and power although Ukraine will be hesitant to sever all services provided to crimea because do so will be in violation of its duty as a sovereign head to provide for its ____ .there is also the issue of banks present in crimea but with headquarters in Ukraine being affected as there is a change in the currency from ukrainian hryvnia to russian ruble

In addition to civic unrest, Crimea as a tourist site with tourist pouring in mostly from ukraine has seen a marked reduction in tourist due to its status as a disputed site and ukraine’s ongoing strife with moscow, its people are now seen by the Ukrainians as backstabbers who traded nationalism for regionalism.

From russia’s standpoint the annexation is but a step in the revival of russia to its pre soviet glory, while ukraine is incensed at russia’s apparent lack of dignity and use of underhand tactics to undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty, other former soviet union republics are watching with care at Russia’s expansion quest and may seek assistance from the west.  With Ukraine’s growing relationship  and Russia’s continued alienation from the west, the stage has been set for a blown out war

   Hutcheson DS., Peterson B 2016, Shortcut to legitimacy: popularity in putin’s russia, “europe-asia studies”, Vol. 68, No.7.

Forsberg, T, Pursiainen CH 2017, The psychological dimension of Russian foreign policy: Putin and the annexation of Crimea, Vol. 31 No. 2.

Gardner, H 2016, The Russia’s annexation of Crimea: Regional and global ramifications, “Europe politics and society”, vol. 17, No. 4.

Gardner, H 2015, Crimea, Global rivalry, and the vengeance of history vol. 1

Kofman, M, Micgacheva, K, Nichipourk, B, Radin, A, Tkacheca, O & Oberholtzer, J 2017, Lessons from russia’s operations in crimea and eastern Ukraine, Rand corporation, California.

Rebecca M, Damon C 2017, NATO’s return to Europe.

Tadeusz, AO, Arkadiusz, SA & Wierzbowska, M 2014, The consequences of the annexation of crimea, viewed 12 March 2019, http://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/analysis/2014-03-19/consequences-annexation-crimea

Wilson, A 2014, Ukraine crisis: what it means for the west, Yale university press, Connecticut.

Larrabee, FS, Pezard S, Radin, A, Chandler, N, Crane, K, Szayna, S 2017, Russian and the west after the ukrainian crisis, Rand corporation, California.

Petro NN 2017, Ukraine in crisis, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, England.

 Saluschev, S, Annexation of crimea: causes, analysis & global implications 2014, viewed 12 March 2019, http://escholarship.org/uc/item/5vb3n9tc

Paul, A 2015, Crimea one year after Russian annexation, pp.1

[armeniaitn]

ARF Western U.S. Central Committee Declaration

New Post has been published on https://armenia.in-the.news/society/arf-western-u-s-central-committee-declaration-65648-12-11-2020/

ARF Western U.S. Central Committee Declaration

Armenian Revolutionary Federation Western U.S.

The Armenian Revolutionary Federation Central Committee of the the Western United States, hereby denounces the dangerous tripartite agreement signed by the prime minister of Armenia and the presidents of Azerbaijan and Russia to end the Karabakh War, finding it detrimental to the security and rights of the Armenian People.

Forty-five days ago, our nation and the people of Artsakh were subjected to an unprovoked military invasion on all fronts by the combined Azeri and Turkish military forces. The goal of the enemy was to once and for all resolve the Armenian question in the Artsakh region, by exterminating and displacing the population. Through the use of internationally outlawed weapons of mass destruction and bombings targeting peaceful civilians, the use of drones and mercenaries, Azerbaijan and Turkey were committed to destroy the Armenian people by embarking on a genocidal campaign.

In response, the entire Armenian Nation rose in defense of our lands and people. Armenians around the globe united like never before. Our people were prepared to fight in this unprecedented war on all fronts. In the homeland, soldiers took up arms, volunteer platoons manned the trenches, and people opened their homes and hearts for their displaced brothers and sisters escaping a ruthless war. The Armenian diaspora mobilized in an unparalleled way to aid Artsakh by raising hundreds of millions of dollars, collecting supplies for the humanitarian crisis, and protesting in the streets by the thousands demanding peace for Armenians, an end to Turkish and Azeri war crimes, and the recognition of Artsakh. We, every single Armenian, became part of the self-defense effort to protect our homeland and people from this crime against civilization itself. United, we rallied around our leaders in Armenia and Artsakh to carve a very difficult path to national preservation and eventual victory.

In its turn, The Armenian Revolutionary Federation in the Western Region, through its many chapters, youth and sister organizations, brought the full measure of its force to aid in this effort. Our mission being to serve and defend the rights of the Armenian People.

For 45 days the Armenian Nation stood alone in the face of an enemy hellbent on eradicating us. The silence of the world and super powers was deafening and unforgivable. But the resolve of our people knew no bounds. We committed every resource in our disposal to ensure our survival and that the blood of the Armenian soldier was not spilled in vein. We believed in our people, and we believed in our leaders.

Today, we feel betrayed. What so many worked so hard for, fought and died for, was traded away, by a unilateral action, without the complete mobilization of Armenia’s military potential and fielding them to preserve Artsakh, and without any consideration for the sacrifices that have been made. This agreement creates an eternal threat for the safety of the people of Artsakh, and compromises the national security and sovereignty of the Republic of Armenia. This betrayal has come at the hands of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and his government, with their capitulation to the governments of Azerbaijan and Turkey, by signing an agreement that hands over our ancestral lands and security of our nation to the enemy.

The ARF fully and unequivocally rejects this perilous and defeatist document the prime minister is trying to force upon the Armenian Nation, under the guise of a peaceful resolution to the war in Artsakh. This so called peace agreement that gives away one third of the former  Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, displacing thousands of Artsakh’s citizenry; which gives up control over Lachin to the Azeri military, ensuring a chokehold on the lifeline of the people of Artsakh; which demands the removal of all Armenian military forces from Artsakh, placing the security of our people at the mercy of an Azerbaijani government which has repeatedly expressed its desire to ethnically cleanse them; which gives away lands secured by blood in Hadrut and Kelbajar; and finally which requires Armenia to give up land to build a route over Syunik to connect Azerbaijan to Nakhichevan, giving Turkey direct access over Armenian lands. This last condition can and will endanger Armenian’s viability by cutting off its direct access to Iran and ultimately will serve Erdogans’s Pan-Turkism dream. There isn’t a single redeeming factor within this agreement that is beneficial or favorable to Armenia and Artsakh.   

We condemn this agreement and the irresponsible actions of PM Nikol Pashinyan. As the leader of the Republic of Armenia, he had the sacred duty to safeguard the interests of our Nation. As someone who preached democratic values and social justice during the Velvet Revolution, he had to be transparent and honest with the people. Instead, he engaged in deception and concealed the truth about the war and its outcome. A surrender of this magnitude and consequence proves the government’s inability to deal with the national interest of Artsakh. The Prime Minister incompetently handled the national defense and then shamefully blamed others. He must be held accountable.

The people of Armenia and Artsakh are owed an explanation from the PM and the Government. However, as the people make their demands publicly, this same government that came to power promising to protect the rights of the people, is violating their civil liberties. As the Nation is trying to cope with an unfathomable defeat and unforgivable concessions, the government has begun a campaign of censorship and arresting all opposition political party leaders, including members of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation of Armenia, to silence any dissent. Truly the conduct of repressive regimes.

Prime Minister Pashinyan – honor the promises you made when you came to power, restore the civil rights of the public, release all political prisoners, and accept accountability by heading the calls for resignation and allowing for the peaceful transition of power. This will begin the process of healing and uniting the country to face the threats ahead. For the sake of our nation, this agreement must be undone. It is time to uphold the democratic values you purport to represent.

To the Armenian community in the Western United States, and Armenians everywhere – we ask you to not despair. Our Nation has seen darker days and we have survived. Our power is through our resilience, perseverance, and unity. Our collective work and efforts in the diaspora is not and cannot be over. Our people in Armenia and Artsakh need us now more than ever. We are facing a humanitarian crisis, a national security emergency, economic instability, and a public health crisis caused by a global pandemic. We will only be able to conquer these obstacles together.

The Armenian Revolutionary Federation of Western United States will continue its efforts. We will work to secure funds and assistance for our displaced compatriots, for our wounded soldiers, and the families of our martyred heroes; and we will continue our advocacy for the rights and security of the Armenian people through our government here in the United States.

Finally to our Martyred Heroes: We humbly bow before all of you who made the ultimate sacrifice, giving your lives in defense our homeland and Nation. May you rest in peace, and may we honor your memories by not sparing a single effort serving the ideals of a Free, Independent, and United Armenia.

Read original article here.

[procyonvulpecula]

Do you consider Ukraine its own country? It's just interesting how Germany, France, and my country will meet to talk about Ukraine's future without Ukraine itself.

Ah, the last I heard Ukraine was involved in those talks?

But yes, Ukraine is a country! It’s a member of the UN with control over its own territory, an internationally recognised government, etc. It has its own currency, controls its own economy, has its own flag and national anthem. It has borders - there may be some disputes over where the borders lie in the east and Crimea but I don’t think anyone except a few Russian ultra-nationalists don’t recognise Ukraine as a country in its own right. And the vast majority of the Ukrainian people consider themselves to be their own country.

You do bring up an interesting point though. Ukraine’s national identity has developed over the past few centuries as a region between Russia, Poland and Austria/Hungary, sometimes as part of those empires and sometimes as the border between them. The idea of an independent Ukraine only became a big thing a century ago. Ukrainian culture existed as a separate and distinct culture within the Russian Empire already, and there was a Ukrainian independence movement, but it was weak and small until WWI when the Central Powers backed Ukrainian independence in order to break up the Russian Empire and leave their wartime rival weaker. Since then Ukraine has been its own country - even when it was part of the Soviet Union it was its own Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and never part of the Russian Federation. 

You could always argue that Ukraine succeeded because of Austrian/German influence, and therefore it wasn’t a true self-determination movement - but the Ukrainian independence movement had been around for a while. It just succeeded through Western influence. And even if Ukraine had been a purely Western invention in 1918 (which it wasn’t), it’s been around for 99 years now and several generations of Ukrainians have grown up with a Ukrainian national identity. You can’t deny that in 2017 there’s definitely a nation there, different from the rest of its neighbours, and just as valid a nation as the rest of them. While Ukraine’s history is undeniably linked closely to that of Russia (and its western neighbours too, especially in the west) - Kievan Rus and cossacks and all that, you could say similar things about many nations. Finland has been bounced around between Sweden and Russia for centuries and only became independent in 1917 - but nobody denies Finland is a country. Belgium has always been closely associated with the Netherlands, but that’s a country. Austria has been on-and-off “German” for centuries, but Austria is undoubtedly a separate country from Germany today.

Ukraine succeeded but there have been plenty of other states within larger entities that have strong independence movements but haven’t succeeded at all in breaking away (Chechnya in Russia for example, or Tibet and Xinjiang in China. Or Novorossiya in Ukraine itself!) or have only partially been recognised (Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Kosovo...). Then there are entities which consider themselves nations but have no state (Kurdistan, the Roma people...) and various regions which make no claims to independence but call themselves nations anyway (unlike Scotland, England has never seriously considered seceding from the UK, but many English people consider their primary national identity to be “English and not British.”). And then there are regions with a distinct culture like the states of America or the Swedish-speaking Åland Islands in Finland, which have their own flag but aren’t considered nations, and then you have indigenous peoples within other countries, and then you have micronations where some nutter plants a flag on an oil rig and declares it to be an independent state, and then...

So you raise an interesting point - what does it even mean to be a nation? I think most people agree that nations should be allowed to control their own territory and be “self-determining” rather than being run by another country. But who decides what constitutes a single “self-determining” nation of people? The nation-state is just one level in a complex set of geographic, political and group identities, and trying to draw borders around a nation, decide who’s part of it and who isn’t and put all the power in the hands of that nation-state and call it “sovereignty” doesn’t sound like an ideal solution to the “self determination” problem for me. I personally believe there should be less power in the hands of national governments for that reason and more government at other levels too - more local autonomous government to deal with the problems faced by small areas within countries, government departments focused on problems faced by certain groups within countries without having to delineate separate territories for them, and more international government to deal with problems on a global scale. 

But yes! Ukraine is a country. And to stop this getting too long and/or depressing have a Ukrainian dog!

[clubofinfo]

Expert: Rojava supporters may point out that YPG fighters worked with Syria and Russia which allowed the final victory in the liberation of Aleppo last year and note with pride the statement of Hediye Yusuf, the co-chair of Rojava’s Constituent Assembly, who said that they seek autonomy, but do not want Syria to be destroyed. However, there is no doubt that the “good” Kurds are still hostile to the Syrian government: the YPG has killed SAA soldiers in past years (2012-2016 off and on) in “revenge” for purported attacks, even surrounding “enemy” soldiers at certain points, resulting in some counterattacks.1 The illegality of Rojava The Iranians and Syrians have stood against an autonomous entity like Rojava. Recently, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Bahram Qassemi, said that Kurds secured many rights in Iraq’s constitution (see articles 4, 117, 141), and that Iran “will strongly stand against any measures taken with the aim to tear Iraq into pieces.” As for the Syrians, duly elected President Bashar Al-Assad has, in the past, said that “Kurdish demands expressed by certain parties can be discussed nationally,” he has also said that these demands need to be “within the framework of Syria’s unity and the unity of the Syrian people and territory,” and that “Kurds are part of the Syrian fabric…[and] patriotic people” along with saying that they are not “allies at this stage.” More recently, the Syrian Ambassador to Russia, Riyad Haddad, has argued that “the Kurds are an integral part of the Syrian people,” having the “same rights and obligations as the rest of the Syrian people,” but that many Kurds are strongly opposed to a federation, canton, or other form of division. This is buttressed by Syrian government envoy Bashar Jaafari saying that “it’s completely unacceptable for a group of people to decide to create a statelet and call it federalism,” referring to Rojava, of course, and the Syrian government’s clear rejection of the Russian proposal for a Kurdish federation. Adding to this, Assad, in an interview last month, noted that “talking about self-control or confederation or anything like this, when you don’t have war, when you have a normal situation, it’s going to be related to the constitution” and said that “the vast majority of Syrians…never believe in self-governance or confederation or anything” while adding that a few people in Syria, mainly among Kurds, want to remove the word Arab from the country’s name, but that its not a big issue. Adding to this are the numerous Kurdish groups within Syria who ally with the government in its fight against Western and Gulf-backed terrorism. The Kurdish National Movement for Peaceful Change has said that a coalition to fight Daesh inside Syria without approval of the Syrian government “constitutes a violation of the Syrian sovereignty and would bring further support to terrorism.” There have also been meetings over the years by such Kurds, who the US and West may consider “bad” for allying with the Syrian government, which have asserted solidarity with the latter government, saying Kurds are an “integral part of Syrian national fabric.” The truth is that the “bad” Kurds probably constitute the majority of the Kurdish population, especially in the region, and hence the “bad” Kurds are the minority. The former prime minster of Syria, Wael al-Halqi was also quoted as saying that Ayn al-Arab, considered as a “part” of Rojava, is “dear to the hearts of all Syrians” and that the Kurds are “an inseparable part of the Syrian society.” Most directly, the National Kurdish Movement for Peaceful Change has strongly rejected “any divisive or federal project in Syria.” They specifically said that the Rojava entity “is illegal and violates the Syrian constitution,” adding that promises made by Western capitalists cannot be trusted as they “only serve their personal interests and the interests of Israel.” Starting with Rojava constitution, acclaimed by certain parts of the international “left,” this document recognizes territorial integrity of Syria but contradicts that by declaring, in the preamble, “a political system and civil administration founded upon a social contract…a new democratic society.” As the constitution goes on, it says there will be a “renewed social contract between the peoples of the Autonomous Regions” (Article 1), authority within the region “exercised by governing councils and public institutions elected by popular vote” (Article 2), asserting that “Syria is a free, sovereign and democratic state” but also making the “autonomous” Rojava regions seem separate (Article 3), and allowing “all cities, towns and villages in Syria which accede to this Charter” to become part of the region (Article 7). The constitution also says that “all Cantons in the Autonomous Regions are founded upon the principle of local self-government” (Article 8), that “cantons may freely elect their representatives and representative bodies” (same article), asserts that “the Autonomous Regions…[are] a model for a future decentralized system of federal governance in Syria” (Article 12), and says that the YPG “is the sole military force of the three Cantons,” defending the region “against both internal and external threats” (Article 15). Finally, there’s Article 45 which says that “the Legislative Assembly in the Autonomous Region is elected by the people by direct, secret ballot” and Article 81 saying that “the Charter applies within the Autonomous Regions” and can “only be amended by a qualified majority of two-thirds…of the Legislative Assembly.” While this may seem nice and dandy to Rojava supporters, it clearly violates the Syrian Constitution and is, hence, an illegal entity. This document is straightforward and clear, showing that Rojava sovereignty in clearly illegitimate: * The Syrian state is a “democratic state with full sovereignty, indivisible, and may not waive any part of its territory, and is part of the Arab homeland” (Article 1) * The people of Syria “shall exercise their sovereignty within the aspects and limits prescribed in the Constitution” (Article 2) * “Every citizen shall be subjected to the duty of respecting the Constitution and laws” (Article 35) * “Defending the territorial integrity of the homeland and maintaining the secrets of state shall be a duty of every citizen” (Article 46) * “The state shall guarantee the protection of national unity, and the citizens’ duty is to maintain it” (Article 47) Furthermore, not only is the entity of Rojava, not even an internationally recognized state by any measure, illegal, but Western support of it violates sections of the UN Charter. Article 2 asserts that all UN member states must “refrain…from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,” which is relevant since this illegal entity is within the “domestic jurisdiction” of the Syrian state. Adding to this, under Article 51, Syria has the right to engage in “individual or collective self-defense” against such entities or attacks by Western or Gulf-backed terrorists. Creation and maintenance of this illegal entity does not fall within the purview of Article 73 as its existence does not promote “international peace and security” by any reasonable measure. Putting Rojava in context and the reality of “divide-and rule” tactics It is important, before closing this article, to provide appropriate historical and geopolitical context to more accurately understand this subject. Stephen Gowans provides this to an extent. He notes that numerous US politicians, including but not limited to Joe Biden, have floated the idea of dividing Iraq into “Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish states,” as the US occupation authority organized elections along sectarian lines, with most Iraqis opposing such partition, and only a slim majority in Northern Iraq favoring such division. He adds that in the Iran-Iraq War, the Iranians provided “aid to the Kurds” to fight the Republic of Iraq headed by Saddam Hussein, that the Kurds have waged a “struggle for autonomy” for which the “Turkish state has waged war to annihilate,” but the US does not support their struggle by any means. With such dynamics, it comes as no surprise that the FARC sent a message of solidarity to the PKK and Kurds. It is worth noting that after the US invasion in 2003, things changed for the Kurds in Northern Iraq who had already “carved out an enclave that was protected by a no-fly zone backed by a U.S.-led coalition” after 1990.2 The Kurds became, as one Reuters article claimed, “more powerful” and are now expanding their territory. The support for the “good” Kurds, not the “bad” pro-Syrian government Kurds, is part of US meddling in the country. There has been previous US support for the Syrian National Council (SNC), a vehicle for the Muslim Brotherhood, along with falsely “moderate” Syrian opposition groups/terrorist organizations. More recently this manifested itself in the Free Idlib Army (FIA), a division of the FSA which would theoretically fight “jihadist groups and pro-government forces in [the] northwestern Idlib province” even as it faces likely targeting from such “al-Qaida-linked factions,” even though it has coordinated with them before. The FIA entity, consisting of 30,000 to 35,000 people, is undoubtedly, as one analyst put it, “100 percent an American project,” with weaponry, financial aid, and more, funneled through Müşterek Operasyon Merkezi (MOM), an operations center based in Turkey, operated by the CIA with the supervision of the Turks. Such destabilization measures in the country will continue even with the “de-escalation deal” signed by Russia, Turkey and Iran, the latter of which has “joint industrial projects in the fields of cement, tractors, buses and trucks assembly, cables production lines, pharmaceuticals, and dairy products” with Syria. The plans to break-up Syria fit-in with imperial logic. The country’s government is anti-imperialist, even participating in a “celebration held by the Russian forces, working in Syria at Hmeimem base, on the 72nd anniversary of the victory over Nazism,” as they want to show that they remember their history, with Assad recognizing this in a recent interview, saying that “without the victory of the Soviet Union, the Normandy landings for Western states wouldn’t have been possible.” However, there is a further reason for support of the “good” Kurds by the Western states. It has to do with the oil and gas resources in the region. Of course, this in and of itself is not the only reason for the imperialist destabilization of the country and region, which revolves around putting in place more friendly governments that don’t buck destructive Western agendas. Rojava has set up “ministries dealing with the economy, agriculture, natural resources and foreign affairs” which isn’t surprising since the region, even as humanitarian imperialist Human Rights Watch, admitted years ago, is “resources rich,” with petroleum (“oil”) reserves, cotton, and grains.3 According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), just north of Rojava is the Southeast Anatolian Basin which extends for 32,100 square mile area, containing the Silurian Dadas Shale, which has had “about 100 oil field discoveries to date,” specifically under exploration by “the Turkish national petroleum company, TPAO, and international exploration companies.” This doesn’t necessarily show imperial objectives, but only Turkish ones. A map overlay of an EIA map and the claimed territory of illegal entity of Rojava, shows that oil and natural gas pipelines snake through it, including one north from Aleppo, and others going through the heart of the territory in Northeast Syria where there is also a concentration of oil and gas fields. ExxonMobil, along with Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell, Total SA, and BP, showed interest in Iraqi Kurdistan, with a registered branch office in the region, and signed, in 2011, six production sharing contracts “covering more than 848,000 acres” in the region, with Rex Tillerson, the current US Secretary of State, having a role in, as one article put it, “placing the company’s financial interests above the American goal of creating a stable, cohesive Iraq.”4 The agreements that ExxonMobil made were strongly opposed by the Iraqi government. Even though ExxonMobil pulled out of half its holdings in 2016, like other companies had years before due to violence in the region, it would be no surprise that they want to exploit the oil in Syria, whether or not what Nafeez Ahmed says on the subject has any degree of validity. A conclusion While Turkey recently threatened “military action against Syrian Kurdish fighters allied with the United States,” buttressing their “public anger to the U.S. move to arm the Kurds,” even as the US stands by Turkey and Mattis declared that “we do not ever give weapons to the PKK. We never have and never will,” the Syrian government is caught in the middle.5 They are surrounded by enemies on many sides, thankful for the help from the Iraqi, Iranian, and Russian governments, along with Hezbollah, as they fight to defend their state sovereignty. While some may cry with distress that I don’t stand with the “revolutionary” Kurds, it should be clear that their struggle, as it stands now, would not be possible without support from Western capitalists. To be even more straightforward, Rojava would not be in existence without the diplomatic and military support of Western capitalists and undoubtedly an illegal entity. When it comes to the PKK, they have abandoned the pretense of Kurdish nationalism and are in a sense, working with Rojava, so, I’d put them in the same category of non-support. To be clear, the “good” Kurds are not fascist in any form, but could be put into the category of deluded and easily manipulated “revolutionaries.” As for the Kurds in general, I do not stand against them like the Turkish government in their never-ending anti-Kurdish war, which has raged against the PKK since 1978, but rather stand with those who ally themselves with the respective Iraqi, Syrian, and Iranian governments in a united struggle against terrorism and Western imperialism.6 The “good” Kurds can say they are independent and are simply opportunist, but that is clearly naive. As this article has shown, they are part and parcel of the Western imperialist “divide-and-rule” strategy to break-up the region into “manageable” areas for the global capitalist class. It is not possible to support these “good” (by Western standards) Kurds and support the Syrian government. Such goals are inherently contradictory, since support of those Kurds shows that one is actually supporting imperial efforts, whether they like it or not. The alternative is a much better one: solidarity with the “bad” (pro-Syrian government) Kurds, along with the Syrian, Iranian, and Iraqi governments against terrorism. The same goes for standing with these governments against imperialist efforts, as one should extend the same solidarity to the governments of Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, and the DPRK, for example. As for powerful world states like Russia and China, both of which are capitalist in their own way, people should be critical. However, it is best to not declare wildly that they are “imperialist,” a term which, when applied to them, distorts the issue of Western imperialism and muddies the waters, leaving one to engage in over-complicated “solidarity” efforts that help no one, anywhere in the world. In the end, the next steps forward are up to everyone out there reading this and especially the international “left” which needs to get its act together with a strong message of international solidarity with governments (and peoples, but not the “good” Kurds) under attack, not division on countries such as Syria. * The Economist, “Assad on the offensive,” February 13, 2016; The Economist, “Too many holes to last,” March 3, 2016; Wladimir van Wilgenburg, “U.S.-Backed Kurds to Assad Forces: ‘Surrender or Die’,” The Daily Beast, August 23, 2016. There have only been certain offers of support to the “good” Kurds by the Syrian government to fight Daesh while still rejecting proposals by Syrian Kurdish figures that flies in the face of “adherence of…the Syrian Kurds to national unity and the state’s sovereignty and their rejection of foreign dictates.” * Isabel Coles and Stephen Kalin, “In fight against Islamic State, Kurds expand their territory,” Reuters, October 10, 2016. * Virginia N. Sherry, “Syria: The Silenced Kurds,” Human Rights Watch, October 1996, Vol. 8, No. 4 (E);  The Economist, “Striking out on their own,” October 29, 2014. * Andrew E. Kramer, “Iraq Criticizes Exxon Mobil on Kurdistan Oil Pursuits,” New York Times, November 12, 2011; Jenna Krajeski, “Iraqi Kurdistan vs. Big Oil,” Slate, 2014; UPI, “Exxon oil deal with Kurds shakes Iraq,” November 11, 2011; Dmitry Zhdannikov, Isabel Coles and Ned Parker, “Special Report: How Exxon helped make Iraqi Kurdistan,” Reuters, December 3, 2014; Missy Ryan and Steven Mufson, “How Exxon, under Rex Tillerson, won Iraqi oil fields and nearly lost Iraq,” Washington Post, January 9, 2017; Patrick Cockburn, “Exxon’s deal with the Kurds inflames Baghdad,” The Independent, December 9, 2011; UPI, “Iraq’s oil rift deepens over Exxon move,” February 15, 2013; Stephen Synder, “How a Rex Tillerson oil deal nearly sparked an Iraqi-Kurdish war,” PRI, Jan. 5, 2017; Jen Alic, “Exxon Mobil, BP face off in Iraq-Kurd oil conflict,” Christian Science Monitor, January 30, 2013; Peg Mackey, “Exxon breaks silence over Kurdistan oil talks,” Reuters, February 27, 2012; Martin Michaels Follow, “Kurds Assert Sovereignty, Push for Oil Deal with Exxon,” MintPress News, June 25, 2012; Kadhim Ajrash and Khalid al-Ansary, “Iraq Warns Exxon on Kurdish Deals Amid Plans for BP Development,” Bloomberg News, January 27, 2013; Nayla Razzouk, Bradley Olson and Kadhim Ajrash, “Exxon, BP Evacuate Iraq Workers as Oil Drilling Continues,” Bloomberg News, June, 19, 2014. * Kareem Fahim and Adam Entous, “Turkey threatens military action against U.S.-allied Syrian Kurdish fighters,” Washington Post, May 10, 2017. * If the circumstances were different and the “good” Kurds had asked for direct support from Russia, China, and the Syrian government, instead going directly to grinning Western imperialists, then I would be inclined to engage in international solidarity with them. http://clubof.info/

[armeniaitn]

Why Azerbaijanis and Armenians have been fighting for so long

New Post has been published on https://armenia.in-the.news/politics/why-azerbaijanis-and-armenians-have-been-fighting-for-so-long-37065-16-07-2020/

Why Azerbaijanis and Armenians have been fighting for so long

Azerbaijan and Armenia have shared hostilities over various ethnic, religious and political reasons – but the Nagorno-Karabakh issue is the biggest hurdle that exists between the two.

Recent deadly clashes along the Armenia-Azerbaijan border have shown that old and new problems between the two Caucasian nations, carry the dangerous potential of sliding the two states into a fully-fledged regional war.

The two countries have serious historical differences that span issues including religion, ethnicity and of course, politics. Azerbaijan has a Muslim majority population that also houses a heavy Turkic presence. while Armenia is a Christian majority country predominantly populated by ethnic Armenians. 

In the late years of the Ottoman Empire, an ethnic conflict emerged between the two nations, particularly in Caucasia and parts of eastern Anatolia, largely based on the territories of the respected regions. 

During World War I, the Armenians, backed by Russia and some prominent Western countries, tried to get rid of the Muslim population from Caucasia and Eastern Anatolia in the hope of creating an independent state. This led to an armed confrontation between the Ottomans and Armenians. 

Under the Soviet Union, a federative communist state, the conflict between the nations appeared to be paused when the Armenian and Azerbaijani republics existed side by side. 

But the Soviet designation of territories between Azerbaijanis and Armenians created other problems, and sowed the seed for future conflicts. 

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is a major international dispute – it sits among the likes of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, the one concerning former Yugoslavia, and Cyprus, but has not commanded the same level of international attention.

(Zeyd Abdullah Alshagouri / TRTWorld)

The origin of the conflict

After Azerbaijan and Armenia were subsumed into the Soviet Union, the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region was established within Azerbaijan by the Soviet Union in 1924. 

During the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s, the question of the future of the region became a source of enmity once again and clashes began between ethnic Azerbaijanis and Armenians in November 1988. Clashes continued on and off until both countries gained independence in 1991.

Karabakh held a referendum in December 1991 over the creation of an independent state, which would mean unilaterally declaring itself separate from the Republic of Azerbaijan. The majority of those who went to the referendum polls voted in favour of independence, however, most of the Azerbaijanis living in Karabakh boycotted it by suggesting the referendum was illegitimate.

Most countries do not recognise the legitimacy of Karabakh’s declaration of independence. This is partly because only fifteen republics of the former Soviet Union could declare sovereignty from the union according to its constitution, and Karabakh was not one due to its status as an autonomous region. Further to this, unilateral declarations of independence are often rejected because they violate international law.

Following the referendum, the conflict escalated into a war between Azerbaijan and Armenia. This resulted in at least 30,000 casualties and displaced an estimated 1 million people from both sides by the end of the war in 1993.

Azerbaijan and Armenia reached an unofficial ceasefire in May 1994 through Russian mediation, while Moscow reportedly supported Armenian forces militarily and politically during the conflict. 

Since then, occasional clashes, like the most recent ones, continue across the countries’ border and in the occupied-Nagorno-Karabakh region.

Karabakh ‘s Armenian militias stand near a howitzer in Hadrut province in Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan on April 5, 2016. (Albert Khachatryan / AP Archive)

Russian involvement

Matthew Bryza, a political analyst, who worked as an American mediator between the Armenians and Azerbaijanis in the 2000s under the auspices of the White House, finds Russian involvement and meditation in the conflict problematic. 

He thinks the Russians, through politicians like Konstantin Zatulin – the first deputy chairman of the committee of the State Duma for the The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) – are trying to provoke conflict.  

“Zatulin is a firebrand and a provocateur. In my professional experience, he is always trying to steer the conflicts to create some discord so that Russia can always manipulate the two sides to keep its influence (intact over Armenia and Azerbaijan),” Bryza told TRT World. 

“He came with a statement a couple of days ago, that was extremely provocative. He said ‘Well, it’s not clear to whom Nagorno-Karabakh belongs. The Armenian prime minister tells me it’s Armenian. Azerbaijanis say it’s Azerbaijani. Who knows?’” 

“In fact, Russia like the US and even Armenia until recently agreed that occupied-Nagorno Karabakh is legally part of Azerbaijan. So that is a very provocative step taken by Zatulin, who is supposed to represent a country considered an impartial mediator,” he added. 

Zatulin, born in Batum of Caucasia like Joseph Stalin, the communist dictator who drew the borders of many Soviet republics and autonomous regions including Azerbaijan and Armenia, has long been known for his pro-Armenian stance. 

Konstantin Zatulin, the Chairman of the CIS Commonwealth Committee, listens to the journalist’s question during his press-conference in Moscow on Crimean crisis March 20, 1995. (Reuters Archive)

“As CSTO (The Collective Security Treaty Organization) member states we have obligations to each other. Russia views Armenia as an ally and in the event of an attack the mechanisms envisaged by the CSTO [Charter] will apply to Armenia,” said Zatulin in November 2019, after tensions escalated between Baku and Yerevan. 

The Collective Security Treaty Organization was established in 1992 by some members of the CIS, led by Moscow, to create a kind of Russian NATO across Eurasia. 

“I would like to note that our 102nd Military Base in the territory of Armenia is not deployed here in vain to solely serve as a ‘beauty accessory’,” threatened the Russian firebrand.

The same Zatulin made similar threatening remarks immediately after the most recent clashes.

Veiled threats toward Turkey

“If anybody now uses force in response to an initial Armenian attack on Azerbaijan, Russia will use force against it to protect its ally, which is Armenia,” Zatulin said, according to Bryza. 

Zatulin also appears to threaten Turkey by saying this, a country that has proved Azerbaijan’s strongest ally since its independence. 

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, left, and Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev speak during a press conference, in Baku, Azerbaijan on Feb. 25, 2020. (Credit: Presidential Press Service / AP Archive)

Ankara has recently deployed technologically advanced armed drones, which have been battle-tested in the Libyan civil war on the side of the UN-recognised Government of General Accord (GNA) and in Syria against the Russian-backed Assad regime forces, across Turkish-Armenian border to show its support for Azerbaijan. 

“Turkey will continue, with all its capacity, to stand by Azerbaijan in its struggle to protect its territorial integrity,” said a Turkish foreign ministry statement. 

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has also proffered his support on Azerbaijan, saying, “Turkey will show no wavering to oppose any attack toward Azerbaijan.” 

Armenia-Azerbaijan clashes have now created another front between Ankara and Moscow. 

Turkey and Russia have recently been at odds in several conflicts across the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia, from Libya to Syria, and now Azerbaijan, too.

“The major players are Russia and Turkey,” says Bryza, referring to the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict. 

Source: TRT World

Read original article here.