The trial of the fugitive President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych returned to the media field a discussion about who is to blame for the loss of the Crimea, writes Evgenia Goryunova in a column on "Crimea. Realities ".
The lawyers of the accused are trying to prove that the peninsula was "surrendered" to the post-Maidan authorities, engaged in "sharing" portfolios instead of fighting for the Crimea. Those who led the country in late February 2014, assure that there was no chance to defend the peninsula - too many factors played into Russia's favor. Against this background, politicians from the opposition camp have intensified, striving to receive political dividends from the trial in the run-up to the elections. The very substitution of concepts ("surrender" instead of "aggression") is extremely beneficial to the Kremlin - it allows you to shift the emphasis and shift the blame for the occupation of foreign territory.
The Crimean Card plays a key role in the defense of Viktor Yanukovych, whose lawyers try to convince not so much the court as the Ukrainians that the post-Maidan authorities did not take the necessary actions to preserve the Crimea. "No one tried to talk with the Crimeans, no one tried to resume the dialogue with the representatives of the Crimea, there was not introduced a state of emergency. In fact, all that was done was the distribution of posts and the retention of power, to which these individuals illegally came in February 2014, "said lawyer Vitaly Serdyuk.
This view is shared by Yanukovych's supporters, and now people's deputies from the "Opposition bloc" Nestor Shufrich and Vadim Novinsky. For example, Shufrich assures that, by agreement with and. President Alexandr Turichinov flew to the Crimea to hold talks with the "Speaker of the Supreme Council of the ARC" Vladimir Konstantinov and the newly appointed "Premier of the Autonomy" Sergei Aksenov. According to his version, the Crimean "leaders" were ready to negotiate with Kiev on the terms of a return to the 1992 Constitution. , which gave the Crimea broad powers. However, according to Novinsky, the negotiation process was ripped off by public prosecutor Oleg Makhnitsky, instituting proceedings against the Crimean leaders.
Even a cursory glance is enough to understand that the negotiators are confused in the testimony, which is hardly possible given the nature of their mission. For example, Novinsky claims that the negotiations took place on February 23-25. However, Sergei Aksyonov replaced Anatoly Mogilev as "prime minister" only on February 27, that is, after the seizure of the Crimean authorities by Russian "green men". Therefore, it was simply impossible to negotiate with him on February 25.
Problems with memory and Nestor Shufrich - he claims that he visited the Crimea on February 28 and persuaded Konstantinov and Aksenov to begin negotiations on Monday, that is, on March 3.
"At night, returning, I drove to Turchinov, said:" The guys are ready, we agreed that the five Crimean "deputies" on Monday fly to Kiev, until Tuesday we agree on the text of the constitution of the Crimea, on Wednesday we will vote in the Verkhovna Rada, and on this all will end ". About four am I get home, go to bed, at 11 wake up, open the news - and I have a shock! A warrant for the arrest of Aksenov and Konstantinov was issued, "the People's Deputy.
But the fact is that on March 1 there was no court decision. On this day and. President of Ukraine Oleksandr Turchynov recognized as illegal the appointment of Sergei Aksenov "head of the Crimean Council of Ministers". The next day, March 2, the decision of the Crimean Parliament was appealed by the Prosecutor General's Office, on March 4, the SBU opened criminal proceedings on the seizure of power in the Crimea. And only on March 5 Shevchenkovsky district court ruled to detain Konstantinov and Aksenov. So the night of the Ukrainian People's Deputy has obviously dragged on.
At the same time, on March 1, 2014, the newly-announced "prime minister" of Crimea, Sergey Aksenov, subjugated the Crimean militia and appealed to Russian President Vladimir Putin to help in ensuring peace in the territory of the ARC. These actions of the Crimean authorities at that time are the answer to the question whether they intended to hold a dialogue with Kiev in the Crimea. "We are this power, which invites us to enter into negotiations, we do not consider legitimate. The main question is in this, "- then claimed Aksenov.
Obviously, no negotiations between Kiev and Simferopol after the seizure of administrative buildings by Russian "green men" could change the situation in the Crimea. The unleashing of military operations on the peninsula was extremely beneficial to Putin - this opened the way to a full-scale war with Ukraine and the restoration of the power of the legitimate President of Russia, Yanukovych, who had already asked Putin to introduce troops. At that time, about 40,000 Russian troops and mass of equipment were already stationed at the borders with Ukraine. And Putin later recalled that he was ready to use even nuclear weapons for the sake of the Crimea.
Counting on military aid to the West, Kiev did not have to - a five-day war in Georgia showed that neither the US, nor even the EU is not ready to fight with Russia. Therefore, we have no reason not to trust the words of Andrei Deshchitsa (Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine in 2014) about the collective decision not to start a war with Russia in the Crimea. "It was a collegial decision of the Security Council, the United Nations and Ukraine," he recalls, explaining that such a step allowed Kiev to conduct presidential elections, ensuring the legitimization of power in the country.
At that time, Ukraine was unlikely to offer real resistance to the aggressor, although there are different points of view on this matter. Ex-chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Vladimir Zaman, who held this position from February 2012 to February 2014, testifying in court, assures that the Ukrainian army could rebuff the Russian military in the Crimea. And Igor Tenyukh, acting minister of defense at the time, says that he even offered to break through to the Crimea and fight back the enemy. But his proposal was not supported.
"My plan was to go for a breakthrough, because it's a war," he said.. True, in a published transcript of the NSDC meeting of February 28, 2014, he said another. "Today, we will be able to collect from all over the country a military grouping of about 5,000 servicemen capable of carrying out a combat mission. We can throw them to the Crimea, but this will not solve the problem of the Crimea. We'll just put them there, "he said at a meeting of the National Security and Defense Council.
The extent to which the Crimea was ready to resist Russian aggression is evidenced by the number of Ukrainian siloviki withdrawn to mainland Ukraine. During the spring of 2014, from the territory of the occupied peninsula, out of 20,315 deployed Ukrainian servicemen of various formations, 6,010 (about 30%) left the territory of the occupied peninsula,. Fidelity to the Ukrainian oath was maintained by 46% of the National Guard, 30% of the Armed Forces servicemen and 15% of the officers of the Security Service. In case of armed resistance, Ukraine could rely only on these forces. Russia by the time of annexation had in the Crimea already about 20 thousand military.
Against the backdrop of objective factors, the attempt to accuse the leaders of the Maidan of "surrendering the Crimea" is an ordinary political manipulation with the help of which the ex-regionalists try to absolve themselves of responsibility for planned capitulation to Russia. Here is the ratification of the Kharkov agreements, which extended the Russian military presence in the Crimea, and the free activities of Russian special services (not only on the peninsula, but throughout Ukraine), and the planned collapse of the Ukrainian army. During the reign of Yanukovych, pro-Russian organizations conducted anti-Ukrainian propaganda on the peninsula absolutely calmly, while the Crimean Euromaydan in the center of Simferopol was opposed by activists of Russian GCD.
Central to this manipulation is the substitution of concepts: "aggression" is supplanted by "surrender," shifting the emphasis from Russia's aggressive policy to the field of bankruptcy of the Ukrainian authorities that failed to preserve the territorial integrity of the country. As a result, Ukrainians are increasingly accustomed to the idea that it was not Russia that annexed the Crimea, but Ukraine "surrendered". But if on the Ukrainian political Olympus with the help of this method they try to discredit the current authorities, then in the Crimea they struggle with the growing nostalgia for Ukraine, convincing the inhabitants that Kiev at that time did not care about the peninsula.
The Ukrainian authorities made a number of political miscalculations in those tragic February days. But this does not give grounds for shifting the blame on her for the occupation of the peninsula. The Russian medal "For the Return of the Crimea" marks the beginning of the annexation - on February 20, when the "legitimate" Yanukovich still ruled in Kyiv.
Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty Join also the TSN group. Blogs on facebook and follow the updates of the section!.