Читать книгу Russia. Crimea. History - Николай Стариков - Страница 4

On December 8, 1991 in the Bialowieza Forest near Brest leaders of three union republics signed a death sentence to the Soviet Union. Did they have the right to take such an action on behalf of the entire USSR? Of course, not. Neither legally, nor morally. After all the All-Union referendum, which took place on March 17, 1991, showed that, the majority of USSR citizens (77.85 %) voted for the preservation of the single state[132]. However, it didn’t stop Shushkevich, Kravchuk and Yeltsin. The operation to destroy the Soviet Union as well as the whole country ran its course.

“A very important event took place in our country today. And I want to inform you personally before you know it from the press”, – Yeltsin reported this to US President George HW Bush right after he signed the documents. “Mr. President, I was quite open with you today. Four of our countries believe that there is only one possible way out of the present critical situation. We do not want to do anything in secret – we will immediately make the statement to the press. We hope for your understanding. Dear George, I’ve finished. It is vitally important. According to the established tradition between us, I can’t stand even 10 minutes without giving you a call”, – Bush quotes the conversation in his book entitled “The world transformed”.[133]

The negotiations held between the three conspirators, who played an active role in ruining of the Soviet Union, will hardly ever be discovered. Even today, when two of the three Bialowiezian authors are still alive, the information is too much different. Leonid Kravchuk’s version was already discussed in the previous chapter. Nikita Khrushchev’s son has a totally different view: “And if the Russians are concerned about the issue, we do know, how the three leaders agreed on the collapse of the Soviet Union in Bialowieza Forest. Kravchuk then asked Yeltsin: “And what will we do with the Crimea?”, and Yeltsin replied: “Take it”. Thus it was Boris Yeltsin who granted peninsula to the people but not Khrushchev. They could put a monument to him”[134].

As we can see the situation described in these two stories is quite different. The role of Boris Yeltsin varies widely. At the same time, it is worth to be noted that Khrushchev’s son, 100 % Westerner, lives and teaches in the USA. Therefore, the position of Yeltsin, who as a politician destroyed the Soviet Union, is favored by him. However, Khrushchev’ son displays rather a miserable picture. By the way, Khrushchev’s granddaughter who is ardent Russophobe and fanatical hater of our state lives in the United States as well[135]. As they say, like father, like son. Even in the second generation…

We will get back to Yeltsin’s role in connection with Crimea later. In the meantime, it should be noted that during and after the Bialowieza conspiracy, when the first and the last Soviet president Gorbachev actually agreed to destroy the country, the opinion of the residents was not taken into account. According to the statistics, the Russians, amounted to 67.1 % in 1989, let alone the representatives of other nationalities. No referendum on whether to stay in Ukraine or return to Russia again was held. In view of collapsing of USSR the Crimea was handed over to Ukraine under the banner for eternal friendship.

Few people know that on January 20, 1991, almost a year before the tragic collapse of the USSR occurred, the issue on the autonomy of the Republic was introduced for referendum in the Crimea: It claimed-”Do you support restoration of the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic as the entity of the USSR and a member of the Union Treaty?” 93.26 % of the voted supported it[136]. Two facts should be noted: it was the first referendum in the USSR as such. In fact, the referendum held again on March 16, 2014, when 96.77 % of Crimeans voted for independence of Crimea and supported the entry into the Russian Federation, was no different. Even the results of the two polls are very similar. Crimeans have not changed in 23 years of “independence”. They remained Russians in their hearts.

But in 1991 no one listened and even intended to listen to the inhabitants of the peninsula. The country leaders had quite other things to concern about – the race for power between Gorbachev and Yeltsin entered its final phase. However, the Crimean deputies thought a step further than the statesmen of a superior level. On February 12, 1991, taking into account the results of the referendum, the Supreme Council of Ukraine adopted the Law “On restoration of the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic”, which only consisted of the two articles.

“Article 1. To restore the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic within the territory of the Crimean region as a part of the Ukrainian SSR.

Article 2. To declare the Crimean Regional Council of People’s Deputies as a supreme body of the state authority within the Crimean Autonomous Republic temporarily before adoption of the Constitution of the Crimean Autonomous Republic and establishment of its constitutional body of the state authority and grant it a status of the Supreme Council of the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic”[137].

Thus, the Crimea gained autonomy. But the referendum raised the question in the other way. There was talk of granting the Crimea an equal status within the Union. In other words, the Crimea and Ukraine were to become equal. As well as the city of Sevastopol, which have a special status, and the rest of the Crimea which are equal today. But despite the results of the referendum, “federal status” was not granted to the Crimea. Meantime, according to Article 2 of the above-mentioned law the Crimean Regional Council of People’s Deputies, which was transformed into the Supreme Council of the Crimean ASSR on March 22, 1991, was temporarily (until adoption of the Constitution) declared as a supreme body of the state authority within the Crimean ASSR. It was this body, which developed the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea adopted on May 6, 1992. The Supreme Council will also play its role in the events of winter and spring 2014, when being completely legitimate authority (as opposed to Kiev’s putschists), it would be able to launch the referendum and subsequent reunification with Russia. But before that, in the mid-1990s, the Constitution of the Crimea was abolished by the Ukrainian authorities, and the position of the president of the Crimea was annihilated.

In 1991 Ukraine held its own referendum. It was held on December 1st, and according to the opinion of the Ukrainian leaders it affirmed “Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine”, which was hastily adopted by the Supreme Council of the Ukranian SSR on August 24, 1991. Which, sort of, added legitimacy to Kravchuk’s actions. But in accordance with the law of the USSR “Concerning the procedure for secession of a union republic from the USSR” № 1409–1 dated April 3, 1990, the Republic of Crimea had full authority to conduct its own referendum to decide – whether to stay within the USSR or to leave the Union, together with the Ukrainian SSR. Crimeans boycotted the Ukrainian referendum, whereon Kiev involved soldiers to the voting – Ukraine descents – and other categories of citizens of Ukraine, who were on vacation in the Crimea at that time. The result was 62 % voters’ turnout, of which only 54 % voted for “the Act”. In fact, only 33 % of the total number of Crimean voters supported it. And if you also subtract Ukrainians, who originally “not from the Crimea”, but who voted in the referendum, you get even less. It is illustrative that Ukraine wanted to terminate the alliance with USSR and held a referendum, but did not let do the same to the Crimea[138].

The struggle of Crimeans for the right to remain Russians began. For this reason, it was vital for them to preserve the autonomy and status of the republic. In response to “the Act” signatures with a clear statement of the question posed: “Are you for the independent Republic of Crimea in the Union with other states?” were collected for a new referendum on the peninsula in 1992. In reply, the Kiev authorities declared a moratorium on the referendum by the decree of the Supreme Council of Ukraine on May 13, 1992. Trying to help the Crimea, the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation adopted a resolution on May 21, 1992 “Concerning legal evaluation of the decisions, taken by the supreme bodies of the state authorities of the Russian SFSR in connection with changing the status of the Crimea, adopted in 1954,” declares Khrushchev’s decisions on handing the Crimea over to Ukraine illegal:

“1. Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet RSFSR dated February 5, 1954 “Concerning the transfer of the Crimean region of the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR” as adopted with violation of the Constitution (Fundamental Law) and legislative procedure of the RSFSR invalidating to declare invalid from the moment of adoption.

2. For want of institutionalization of this fact by subsequent legislation of the RSFSR and signing a bilateral agreement between Ukraine and Russia dated November 19, 1990, in which the parties renounce territorial claims, and formalize the principle in treaties and agreements between the CIS states, consider it necessary to settle the Crimea case by interstate negotiations between Russia and Ukraine with the participation of Crimea, based on the will of its people.

Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation

R. I. Khasbulatov

Moscow, House of the Soviets of Russia

May 21, 1992 № 2809–1»[139]

The next day the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR issued the statement to the Supreme Council of Ukraine, in which Russian parliamentarians expressed concern that Ukraine was trying to grab the Black Sea Fleet and clearly conducted an unfriendly policy towards Russia. How could this happen? Just a while ago we were one fraternal nation in one country. Amicable divorce without blood and gunfire, and conflicts right after the collapse of the USSR? The fact that Ukraine was trying to grab the Soviet Black Sea Fleet for no reason, is demonstrated by today’s reality. The ships that eventually merged into the Navy of independent Ukraine have turned into a pile of junk now, with minor exceptions. It is very expensive to maintain fleet. Having no money even for gas, Ukraine simply would have destroyed the entire Black Sea Fleet, as most of the ships of the Ukrainian fleet were brought to ruin. Who was behind all of this? Today, the answer is obvious – the forces that try to kick Russia away from the Black Sea region.

There are several ways to achieve this: to deprive the Navy of the base in the Crimea, which would be the result of the coup in Kiev. But this happened in 2014. Should Russia have remained in the Black Sea region without fleet in 1992, the issue of displacing it from the Black Sea would have been settled long ago. Where this insatiable and unaffordable from the point of view of budget itch to possess the colossal Black Sea Fleet comes from. President Kravchuk was the first to announce that the Black Sea Fleet had to be taken under the jurisdiction of Kiev in 1992. In response, the fleet commander Admiral I. Katasonov stated that the fleet would remain to be Russian. A conflict fraught with bloodshed was about to impend. Ukraine even tried to enter troops to settle the problem in “non-amicable way”. Collision could occur, because the Black Sea fleet – a robust military force that has always been able to stand up for itself, and acted as a guarantor of security of the whole peninsula in the situation of 2014…

President Kravchuk enacted complete elimination of references to the USSR from the Constitution of Ukraine on June 19, 1992. Everything that once united us should have been deleted or distorted. It was not only about seven decades of the Soviet system. In the first “year of independence” – 1992 – unified Slavic people were split spiritually as well. A schismatic Kiev Patriarchate was established by active support of Kravchuk as opposed to the Russian Orthodox Church. Two months later, on August 22, 1992, the state regalia were solemnly given to Kravchuk by the former President of UPR in exile as well as the certificate, that the Republic of Ukraine was the successor of the Ukrainian People’s Republic. This state, established by Petlyura immediately after the October Revolution of the Bolsheviks, existed in 1917– 1921 years. The continuity of the regime, chosen by the leaders of new Ukraine for themselves, was demonstrated this way.

As for the personality of Petlyura, his closest political “analog” in the Russian history is Kerensky. Petlyura, same “democrat” and babbler but of nationalistic character, who was in close contact with the geopolitical rivals of Russia, like all the Ukrainian separatists in our history (both of the past and present). He took an advantage of Russian immersion into chaos and seized the moment to tear Ukraine off. In this respect, Kravchuk was his direct successor. However, Petlyura did no good for Ukraine. Few people know now that “Kiev Democrats” signed another Brest peace with Germany almost three weeks earlier than Bolsheviks[140]. The occupation by Germans occurred then, in which they discarded Petlyura as useless and established a puppet “monarchical” regime, led by hetman Skoropadsky carrying away food (milk, eggs) to the Second Reich. Mikhail Bulgakov vividly described the return of Petlyura to power in the novel «The Days of the Turbins». Chaos, murders, violence against Russian officers in the Russian city of Kiev. Persistent struggle against Russia followed. Not only against the Red Army, but also the White. The apotheosis of this struggle was his agreement with the Poles, when he agreed to establish a border between Poland and Ukraine on the Zbruch in exchange for UPR support. In other words, he accepted the fact that Galicia and Volyn became parts of Poland. Such a “patriot” of “independent” Ukraine! In this respect, the present rulers of “the Independent Ukraine” are already about to hand Ukraine over to the West. Better not have any relations with Russia. It should be noted that there was no Ukraine as a state in 1918. And had never been before. In 1654 the Pereyaslav Rada decided to reunite Russia with Little Russia but not Ukraine. The name “Ukraine” appeared in the history books and began to be used as a name of the country or a part of the USSR only by the Bolsheviks. Then Russian people were officially considered to consist of three groups: Great Russians, Little Russians, and Belarusians. The project “Ukraine” was created by Austro-Hungary at the end of the XIX century. It became particular important just before the First World War. But the residents of the present-day Ukraine couldn’t imagine Ukraine as being a separate state. Even Petlyura and Professor Grushevsky[141] had to lie in the document on the establishment of the UPR, known as “the Third Universal on establishment of the UPR”. It was obvious, that Ukraine would be separated from Russia from the very beginning, but they had to write it in a different manner[142]. As there are some other interesting issues in the document, we will provide it below in a full version[143].

“UNIVERSAL CENTER RADA

Ukrainian people and all the people of Ukraine!

The Russian Republic suffers from hard times now. The internecine struggle is in progress in the northern parts in the capitals. There is no central authority, anarchy and devastation are everywhere. Our region is also in danger. Without the central, consolidated and strong government Ukraine will also be plunged into fatal strife and complete collapse.

The people of Ukraine!

You, together with the fraternal people of Ukraine, assigned us to guard the rights obtained by struggle, and establish order, keep and build better future for our land and we, the Ukrainian Central Rada, bringing your will to life for the sake of establishing order in our region, salvation of the whole of Russia, announce that Ukraine will be “the Ukrainian People’s Republic” from now on. Keeping integrity with the Russian Republic, preserving its unity, we will stand solid on our land to help the whole Russia become the Federation of equal and free people. Before the convocation of the Constituent Assembly of Ukraine all decisions of governmental level as to rule, hold court, issue laws should be made by us, the Ukrainian Central Rada and the Government, the General Secretariat of Ukraine. We are aware of our strength and the power of the Ukrainian border. On the home land we will be on guard of law and revolution not only here, but in the whole of Russia. Therefore we declare that the following territories inhabited mostly by the Ukrainians belong to Ukrainian People’s Republic: Kyiv region, Podolia, Volhynia, Chernihiv Kharkiv region, Poltava, Katerinoslavshchina, Kherson, Tauria without the Crimea.

The final border demarcation of the Ukrainian People’s Republic that concerns accession of the areas of Kurschiny, Voronezhschiny, Holmshiny, populated mainly by Ukrainians, as well as other adjacent provinces, should come next in accord with the people’s will.

November 8, 1917, S. Petlyura“[144]

He speaks of the unity, but thinks about the separation. He just does not want to scare people. However, the historical truth cannot be hidden. Therefore, even Petlyura, who can hardly be called “Moskal”, writes in the document that the Crimea does not belong to Ukraine.

And THIS Ukraine is chosen as a reference by Leonid Kravchuk, who grew up in the USSR. How can you then wonder with all that happens there[145]. Ukraine was actually drawn into a civil conflict by taking idols of Petlyura and Bandera, who became active agents of civil hatred and war.

However, President Kravchuk did not waste his time. During his occupation of the presidency, oligarchs, who then divided the country, started to accumulate their primary capital. The symbol of his presidency became a hand truck – “kravchuchka”, which people used for carrying products to survive somehow. Entrepreneurs, attached close to the government, earned a lot of money on hyperinflation and export-import schemes of the “new state”. The first corruption scandal connected with the decree of the first president of Ukraine. He rearranged the Black Sea Shipping Company in the shipping concern “Blasko”. After that the Prosecutor General’s Office detected violations such as kickbacks during the sale of Ukrainian ships. Wholesale accounts in Swiss banks belonging to number of involved persons “from Kravchuk’s team” are the proofs[146].

Unfortunately, the Russian executive government represented by Yeltsin and his team did not support the legislative government of Russia in the form of the Supreme Soviet. Comparison of the dates will help to understand why. In 1992, when nationalism and division of the state property took place in Ukraine, the same American advisers, as in Kiev, also “helped” to give life to privatization in Moscow. Shock therapy and price rising from January 1, 1992 was the background, used by Russian Supreme Soviet of that time when it supported Crimeans. However, a conflict was about to brew inside Russia, which led to bloody events in Moscow in October 1993. In this situation, Russian President Boris Yeltsin often worked on the principle that the enemy of my enemy was my friend. Therefore, when the Russian members of parliament supported the Crimea and in doing so became enemies of “the young Ukrainian state”, Yeltsin did not support them. Yeltsin’s Russia was weak in all aspects; “reformers” of Gaidar’s team were destroying economy and army, quickly bringing the country to the threshold of combat capability. That was how the Russian Federation, so rapidly losing its sovereignty in the early 1990s, actually betrayed the Crimea. All the citizens of the Crimea got a stamp in the passports with the Ukrainian “trident” in summer 1992. This was despite the fact that even in 1954 at the time of handing the Crimean ASSR over to the jurisdiction of the Ukranian SSR, there was not a single legislative action concerning any change in nationality of the residents. They remained to be citizens of the USSR and RSFSR all that time![147]

In the early 1990-s, the entire Crimea was in a difficult situation, with Sevastopol residents who felt the “cutting” from Russia in the keenest way. However, the city of Russian military glory did not give up. On August 23, 1994 according to the results of public opinion poll, Sevastopol City Council appealed to Presidents Yeltsin and Kuchma and Heads of the Parliaments with a proposal to give a Russian status to Sevastopol and asked to make final decision on the problem of Black Sea Fleet[148]. No answer was received from Moscow. Two years later, residents of Sevastopol involved the heavy artillery to settle the problem. Moscow Mayor Yury Luzh kov initiated a statement from the Federation Council of Russia “On the status of Sevastopol” on December 5, 1996. The senators expressed regret in the document that during negotiations the Ukrainian party did not wish to discuss the issue of Russian status of Sevastopol. Luzhkov reported his message in a clear, but diplomatic manner: our fleet could not leave the Crimea, as it would lead to weakening of Russia’s geopolitical position and dominance of other state fleets in the Black Sea[149]. While the patriotic forces in Russia tried to convince Boris Yeltsin that it was necessary to deal with Ukraine in a more drastic way, a real legislative war broke out within the Ukrainian state. Kiev was trying to restrain the Crimea. The Supreme Council of Ukraine changed the legal status of the peninsula unilaterally by the Law dated March 17, 1995 “On the Autonomous Republic of Crimea”. In accordance with it the Crimea became “administrative-territorial autonomy” but not state formation. So, the position of the president of the republic was abolished[150]. The new Constitution of Ukraine of 1996, in which the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (Article 134) was declared as its inalienable part was adopted. The Crimea fell between two stools: legislative and executive power in Ukraine. Ukrainian leaders notified Russia of the fact, and Russian senators had nothing to do but react to this very unfriendly policy. Nevertheless, the final word rested with president Yeltsin. In fact, the Crimea, and its future were entirely dependent on the decision of the Russian President and his will. And a signal was given – the signal to obey and accept the new status quo. Intergovernmental agreements were signed in Kiev on May 28, 1997, according to which Sevastopol as the main base of the Black Sea Fleet ceased to exist. Russia agreed to lease the territory from Ukraine. Renunciation of Russia by Yeltsin resulted in signing of “Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership between the Russian Federation and Ukraine” on May 31, 1997. The idea to close eyes on the behaviour of Ukraine for the sake of “fraternal friendship” proved to be fiction. This agreement did not mean much, since pro-American “orange”, who took over the office in 2004, set the course for “integration with the EU” and NATO membership. Unilateral renunciation never leads to anything good in politics. Gorbachev is a striking example. The West paid nothing for his services. All promises were broken; the world has not become safer. Yeltsin’s policy towards Ukraine did not lead to anything good either. By the way, the real integration instead of fair words did not begin with Boris Yeltsin. The Customs Union, the Eurasian Union, starting its operation on January 1, 2015, – all these projects are of later time. The only truly integration process of the Yeltsin’s era was the establishment of the Union State of Russia and Belorussia, but it fully began to run later…