French presidential candidate Francois Fillon in an interview with LeFigaro reported that "it is useless to say that Russia should leave the Crimea, this will never happen". Fiyon spoke of this not only as a given, but also as a justifiable thing, justifying the Russian annexation of the Crimea by the priority of the people's right to self-determination over the principle of inviolability of borders, because, in his opinion, the borders can also be unfair.
In the first round of the presidential race, Fillon played Makronu and Marin Le Pen, now, according to all forecasts, the president of France will be Macron, a man with fundamentally different views. But, nevertheless, the fact that the candidate for the presidency of one of the largest countries of Europe is ready to publicly recognize the justice and legitimacy of annexation makes us once again return to comprehending the future fate of the Crimea. The problem is not that. That in the head of Fillon, but that these views are shared by 40% of the French who voted for him and for Le Pen, who have the same views on the Crimea.
An event from a completely different series, but with the same "stumbling block". Lolita Milyavskaya was removed from the train, forbidding her entry to Ukraine due to the fact that she two years ago toured to Kerch, having entered there, of course, from the territory of Russia, thereby violating Ukrainian laws. Singer Lolita is offended, because she went to visit a child who fell ill. Therefore, the singer Lolita wished the Ukrainian authorities to receive the same bans on entry to the beloved US and Europe ". That is, the singer Lolita, like the presidential candidate of France Fillon believes that "Krymnas" is forever, and the laws of Ukraine do not mean anything. Because, what laws of any Ukraine can have at all. And is there such a country at all? This I am now trying to convey the content of that unclear substance, which is called the representation of the Russian beau monde about the world and its surroundings.
The fact that the Russian official says: "The Crimea is forever Russian!" - it's understandable. What does he still have to say to the officialdom? It is puzzling when representatives of the Russian democratic opposition come from the same premise. About "krymnebuterbrod" has already been discussed a hundred times. Here recently, the idea to hold a new, very honest referendum in Crimea under the supervision of the international community. So that it was already the final, actual referendum, the armor.
That is, the representatives of the Russian democratic opposition also proceed from the same three prerequisites as Francois Fillon and the singer Lolita: "Krymnas" - forever, the people's right to self-determination is absolute, and the laws of Ukraine are not necessarily respected.
Leave for a special ethnographic and anthropological analysis the question of the legitimacy of using the multi-valued term "people" in relation to the population of Crimea. Obviously, if we talk about the significance, political, in which the word "people" is synonymous with the term "political nation", then there is no "Crimean people", since in this sense people are called the population of a separate country, the state. The term "the people of Crimea" in the ethnic sense, as a cultural, historical and linguistic community is also doubtful, because different ethnic groups live on the territory of Crimea. In this sense, there is a Crimean Tatar people in the Crimea, there are representatives of Russian, Ukrainian and other peoples, and the Crimean people as a single ethnos. Therefore, the principle of "the rights of the people (the nation) to self-determination" is not universal, without reference to the Crimea, is extremely controversial.
And, nevertheless, the problem is. Of course, it is not in the "referendum" under the barrels of assault rifles that Russian politicians and their servants like to trumpet, but that the moods and destinies of two million people are neglected recklessly.
But this problem is not solved in any way by a new Crimean referendum, which will obviously contradict both the laws of Ukraine and the current laws of Russia. Under the laws of Ukraine, such a referendum is possible only on the territory of the whole country, and under the current laws of the Russian Federation, the very formulation of the question of the fate of the Crimea is a criminal offense. Whereas?.
All talk about the future fate of the Crimea can go on to the practical plane only after the regime change in Russia, which will inevitably mean a change in the information policy, the cessation of the zombie population of Russia, as well as the population of the Crimea it occupied. The return of the Crimea to Ukraine is the goal to which those politicians of Russia and Ukraine should strive, who want good, above all, their countries. There will be no good for the Russians until they return the stolen goods.. There will be no good to the people of Ukraine, while it will bleed the severed Crimea. (Another problem is the Donbass, but this must be discussed separately).
The program of democratic Russia in relation to Crimea should consist of two points. Recognition of the annexation of Crimea an international crime, the responsibility for which rests with the leadership of the Russian Federation. The recognition of the Crimea by the territory of Ukraine, and the declaration of all the normative acts that establish the Russian status of the Crimea, including the relevant amendments to the Constitution, are legally void, and therefore subject to cancellation.
In public Russian politics at this stage, it is preferable to put a stop after these two points. Then begins what can be said with responsibility only after it becomes clear how the Putin regime will be dismantled and in what state after that will Russia and its economy. It is obvious that it is impossible in the 21st century to mechanically "ship" the peninsula with two million women and men, as they ship a batch of furniture. The annexation was an entropic violent process, therefore, like any process of destruction, it could be carried out in the mode of a special operation, almost in one day. The reverse process will inevitably be more labor-intensive. Build is always harder than breaking.
Obviously, all the costs of this process, including the resettlement and resettlement of those Crimean residents who do not want to live in Ukraine, should be undertaken by a democratic Russia. Simply because we, and not Ukrainians, led, or allowed the coming to power of Putin and his gang, and therefore must be responsible for his crimes.
It would be naive to think that the return of the Crimea from Ukrainian politicians will not require any effort. The main thing is to make life in Ukraine attractive, then the inhabitants of Crimea will perceive a return to Ukraine not only as a restoration of law, but also as a personal benefit. But it is important to emphasize that this is entirely the problem and responsibility of the Ukrainian authorities, and in no way can be a condition and prerequisite for the return of the stolen Crimea.
Inevitably, the question arises as to what will happen if the mood of the majority of Crimean residents remains pro-Russian, if there are so many people willing to be part of Russia that it will be impossible to resettle all, and it is unfair to demand that people throw homes and habitual ways. A democratic politician has only one recipe for solving this issue: to help people become citizens, to explain that the right to self-determination is achieved in the political struggle. By electing his deputies to the Verkhovna Rada. By the requirement of an all-Ukrainian referendum, or the requirement of changing the legislation of Ukraine on the referendum or on the status of Crimea within Ukraine. This is a rather difficult road, and it is quite possible that on the way many will change their mind and decide to stay in Ukraine. But this will be the internal affair of Ukraine. Russian politicians in this case will have the full right to demand from Ukraine and from the international community to ensure the rights of those who by legal means seek to change the status of the Crimea.
But all this in the second and third turn.
Now the main thing is to clearly and articulately announce the first two points of the program for the return of the Crimea to Ukraine. And put the point. And all ideas about the new "final" referendums and other "sandwiches" to be thrown out of my head. Desirable forever.
Editorial site is not responsible for the content of blogs. The editorial opinion may differ from the author's.
Join the groups "Browser Blogs" on Facebook and VKontakte, stay tuned!.