The Propaganda War Over Crimea's Break From Ukraine - Truthout

[newthinking]

*A very good read for those who want to understand the fact from fiction on Crimea (Ukraine conflict)

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/27891-the-propaganda-war-over-crimea-s-break-from-ukraine

The Propaganda War Over Crimea's Break From Ukraine
By Roger Annis,
Truthout | News Analysis


Defence Ministers working session at the NATO summit in Wales. (Photo: NATO Summit Wales 2014)

In the propaganda campaign being waged by the NATO countries and the government of Ukraine against Russia and in support of Kiev's war in the east of the country, the events in Crimea of the past nine months occupy a pivotal place.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NATO might be upsetting the entire military and political balance of Europe by continuing to push eastward today in Ukraine, but the drumbeat of Western government and media propaganda claims the heightened tensions of this past year are all Russia's fault. Russia's supposed annexation of Crimea in March is the example par excellence that a new "Russian aggression," harkening back to Soviet Union times, is afoot. It must be stopped at all costs before Ukraine falls, too.

In this made-up world, Kiev's murderous, illegal war against its own population disappears. The war is an "ongoing conflict" between "armed groups" in which the only actors with a purpose, it seems, are "pro-Russian separatists" and their purported backer in Moscow. An emerging subset of the theme of Crimea as victim of annexation is that it's also a land of disappearing human rights.

Given the very high stakes involved in all of this for the future of Europe, if not the world, it is time to step back and examine what is actually taking place in Crimea.

Fact From Fiction

Full story:
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/27891-the-propaganda-war-over-crimea-s-break-from-ukraine

[newthinking]

1. The first Crimean sovereignty referendum occurred in 1991 - 94% approval

The referendum in 2014 was not the first referendum on autonomy. There is a CLEAR history that Crimea wanted to remain close to Russia and autonomous from Ukraine. There was a struggle all through the years with the Ukraine Legislature and judiciary overriding the will of the people there. That is simply HISTORY.

The Crimean sovereignty referendum, in 1991,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_sovereignty_referendum,_1991

A referendum on sovereignty was held in the Crimean Oblast of the Ukrainian SSR on 20 January 1991.[1] Voters were asked whether they wanted to re-establish the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, which had been abolished in 1945. The proposal was approved by 94% of voters.

Results:
Choice Votes %
For 1,343,825 94.30
Against 81,254 5.70
Invalid/blank votes 15,910 –
Total 1,441,019 100
Registered voters/turnout 1,770,841 81.37

[newthinking]

2. What you do not hear in the news: Crimea has fought for independence (from Ukraine) continually

since the breakup of the Soviet Union. It always was closer to Russia.

There was a compromise constitution that was overruled by the Ukrainian Parliament and Judicial, several fights over the crimean constitution.

How is this not part of the narrative? Because it is extremely important.

Because if people know the truth and the history it becomes obvious and turns the narrative on it's head.


From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Crimea

Evolution of status of Crimea and Sevastopol within independent Ukraine
Autonomous Republic of Crimea

After the Crimean referendum of 1991, which asked whether Crimea should be elevated to a signatory of the New Union Treaty (that is, became a union republic on its own), Ukraine restored Crimea's autonomous status, but confirmed that autonomy restored as a part of the Ukrainian SSR. The Crimean Oblast council became Supreme Council of Crimea and, on 4 September 1991, passed the Declaration of state sovereignty of Crimea.[1]

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the autonomy renamed itself the Republic of Crimea.[2] The Ukrainian government initially accepted its name, but not its claims to be a state. According to Ukrainian law "On status of the autonomous Republic of Crimea", passed on 29 April 1992, "Republic of Crimea is an autonomous part of the Ukraine and independently decides on matters, which are delegated to it by the Constitution and laws of the Ukraine" (art. 1).[3] The Regional Supreme Council, on the contrary, insisted that "Republic of Crimea is a legal democratic state", which "has supremacy in respect to natural, material, cultural and spiritual heritage" and "exercises its sovereign rights and full power" on its territory (art. 1 of the May 1992 Constitution), but also a "part of the Ukraine and establishes relations in it on a basis of the treaty and agreements" (art. 9).[4] Both Ukrainian law on autonomy status[5] and the 1992 Constitution of the Crimea[6] were amended later that year, putting the Republic's status in between what was proposed in the initial revision of the 1992 Constitution and what was proposed in April 1992 Ukrainian law on the status of the Republic.

On 21 May 1992 the Supreme Soviet of Russia declared 1954 transfer of Crimea as having "no legal force", because it was adopted "in violation of the Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Russian SFSR and legislative process", but because subsequent legislation and the 1990 Russo-Ukrainian treaty constituted that fact, parliament considered it necessary to resolve the Crimean question in negotiations between Ukraine and Russia and on the basis of the popular will of the inhabitants of Crimea.[7] A similar resolution was adopted for Sevastopol a year later. Both moves were condemned by Ukraine[8][9][10] and resulted in no changes to the Russian Constitution (neither 1978 nor 1993 documents enumerated Crimea and Sevastopol as federal subjects).

In 1994, after parliamentary and presidential elections in the Republic, the Supreme Council and the executive became dominated by the Russian Bloc (which had won 57 seats in the Supreme Council of Crimea and Presidency for its member, Yuri Meshkov).[11] Following a referendum, held in same year, the Supreme Council of Crimea restored the 1992 Constitution to its original revision,[12] but a year later this constitution, along with the presidency and regional citizenship, was declared null and void by the Ukrainian Parliament, which by that time, had renamed the autonomy from "Republic of Crimea" to Autonomous Republic of Crimea.[13] Another Constitution was passed by Crimean parliament in 1995,[14] but many parts of it were rejected by the Ukrainian parliament; among them were Republic's name (which was to remain "Republic of Crimea&quot and citizenship.[15] Meanwhile, during drafting of the new Ukrainain Constiution, the question of autonomy was much debated: some legislators proposed abolishing it altogether (downgrading back to oblast status or to autonomy but not autonomous republic),[16][17] while other legislators proposed legalising the 1992 Constitution of Crimea provisions (original May revision) in the new Ukrainian Constitution.[16] Ultimately, the new Constitution of Ukraine adopted neither extreme and reiterated the autonomous status of the republic, while downgrading some of its powers (such as regional Supreme Council's powers to enact legislation in form of laws ("zakoni&quot ). The Republic was declared to be the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea", but also an "inseparable constituent part of Ukraine".[18] A new Crimean constitution, complying with provisions of the Ukrainian one, was adopted in 1998.

[Nitram]

3. Interesting to term Russia's annexation of Crimea, "Crimea's Break from Ukraine."

Classic "1984" newspeak.

[uhnope]

5. Orwell would definitely have to update his book for Putin's Russia and its propaganda like this

[polly7]

9. EXACTLY what it was. nt.

[swilton]

4. Thank you for the interesting read

Of note I went to the article's author's website which has a lot of additional material and one which I will refer to. It is here.
I will bookmark this for the article's references and links to other sources.

http://newcoldwar.org/

I think it is important to understand - to paraphrase Stephen Cohen's thoughts - that Ukraine is not one - ethnic group as the press seems to refer to it. The western parts of Ukraine are crafted from parts of Poland and Lithuania while the eastern part of Ukraine is more Slavic. This of course takes nothing away that the Ukrainian capital, Kiev, was once part of ancient Russ - until Kievan Russ fell in 1240.

But back to Poland/Lithuania - borders were very fluid until post WWII and the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union.....Poland and Lithuania were historically defining/defending its national space from Russia, Austria, Lithuania and Germany...That is why portions of western Ukraine are, much like Poland in their animosity toward Russia, (multiple WWII anti-Russian experiences such as Katyn, the lack of Soviet support for the Warsaw uprising, etc).....When one understands this, it is not surprising that US foreign policy, influenced at least in part by the architecture of Zbigniew Brzezinski, of Polish heritage, is so anti-Russian.

Other anti-Russian (as well as pro-Israel) influences on US foreign policies are the neocons, largely descendants of Jews emigrating to the US to escape Russian/tsarist pogroms in the 19th century. Interestingly, first pogrom took place in Odessa, which is just northwest of Crimea....

Speaking of Odessa, it was long sought after by Russians tsars and tsarinas - who coveted a warm water port. This area has been part of Russia for centuries and part of the Soviet Union's Black Sea Fleet. Was transferred to Ukraine when the Soviet Union dissolved and is part of Ukraine's Southern Command - illustrative of the ambiguities and shared culture between Russia and parts of Ukraine.

[uhnope]

6. Yeah, Cohen the Putin apologist does say that BS

Most countries are a mix of ethnicities. Cohen, as the Kremlin's lackey, only brings this up as a sick excuse for Putin's warmongering. As many have noted, it's the same excuse Germany used to invade its neighbors in the start of WW2.

[yurbud]

7. persecution of ethnic and religious minorities was also our and NATO's excuse for Yugoslavia

although if you are trying to save lives, salting the earth with depleted uranium is not the best way to do it long term.

[Nitram]

8. And which western country has annexed a piece of Yugoslavia and fomented acivil war there?

[polly7]

10. March to Folly in Ukraine

By Eric Margolis
The Smirking Chimp
Monday, Feb 2, 2015

“We can’t allow Russia to keep Crimea,” goes another favorite neocon mantra. Why not? Hardly any Americans could even find Crimea on a map.

Crimea belonged to Russia for over 200 years. I’ve been all over the great Russian naval base at Sevastopol. It became part of Ukraine when Kiev declared independence in 1991, but the vital base was always occupied and guarded by Russia’s military. Ukrainians were a minority in the Crimea – whose original Tatar inhabitants were mostly ethnically cleansed by Stalin. Most of those Russian troops who supposedly “invaded” Ukraine actually came from the giant Sevastopol base, which was under joint Russian and Ukrainian sovereignty.

Only fools and the ignorant can have believed that tough Vlad Putin would allow Ukraine’s new rightist regime to join NATO and hand one of Russia’s most vital bases and major exit south to the western alliance.

Two of Crimea’s cities, Sevastopol and Kerch, were honored as “Hero Cities” of the Soviet Union for their gallant defense in World War II. Over 170,000 Soviet soldiers died in 1942 defending Sevastopol in a brutal, 170-day siege. Another 100,000 died retaking the peninsula in 1944.

In total, well over 16 million Soviet soldiers died in the war, destroying in the process 70% of the German Wehrmacht and 80% of the Luftwaffe. By contrast, US losses in that war, including the Pacific, were 400,000.

One might as well ask Texas to give up the Alamo or Houston as to order Russia to get out of Crimea, a giant graveyard for the Red Army and the German 11th army.

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_69241.shtml

[usbek]

11. It's time to ask for excuse for calling referendum result an "annexation"

People of Crimea held referendum. There were two questions, simple and straight "Join to Russia" or "Joint to Ukraine".
More than 90% decided to join Russia. They asked to accept them into Russian Federation.
All was done accordingly to the Declaration of Principles of International Law, 1970.
What else you can find in the Declaration is principle of non-interference in to internal affairs of other states.
What you CAN NOT find there is "...brokering the deal of power transfer".
So, for example Obama's staff is not allowed to interfere to internal affairs of Ukraine.
I guess, to "broker the deal of power transfer" is fine. At least, for whatever reason lawyers are suspiciously quite.
To me it looks like if for example Russia would "broker the deal" with Mexican cartel to capture Florida from the USA
for Russian Navy. Should I welcome Ukraine as 51-st state yet?