Valentina Matvienko has proposed to invalidate the decision of the Political Bureau of the transfer of the Crimea to Ukraine in 1954.
23.12.2014
http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/37710561/po-stopam-luzhkova
Address by President of the Russian Federation
March 18, 2014, 15:50
The Kremlin, Moscow
http://eng.kremlin.ru/transcripts/6889
Vladimir
Putin addressed State Duma deputies, Federation Council members, heads
of Russian regions and civil society representatives in the Kremlin.
PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN:
Federation Council members, State Duma deputies, good afternoon.
Representatives of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol are here among
us, citizens of Russia, residents of Crimea and Sevastopol!
Dear
friends, we have gathered here today in connection with an issue that
is of vital, historic significance to all of us. A referendum was held
in Crimea on March 16 in full compliance with democratic procedures and
international norms.
More
than 82 percent of the electorate took part in the vote. Over 96
percent of them spoke out in favour of reuniting with Russia. These
numbers speak for themselves.
To
understand the reason behind such a choice it is enough to know the
history of Crimea and what Russia and Crimea have always meant for each
other.
Everything
in Crimea speaks of our shared history and pride. This is the location
of ancient Khersones, where Prince Vladimir was baptised. His spiritual
feat of adopting Orthodoxy predetermined the overall basis of the
culture, civilisation and human values that unite the peoples of Russia,
Ukraine and Belarus. The graves of Russian soldiers whose bravery
brought Crimea into the Russian empire are also in Crimea. This is also
Sevastopol – a legendary city with an outstanding history, a fortress
that serves as the birthplace of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. Crimea is
Balaklava and Kerch, Malakhov Kurgan and Sapun Ridge. Each one of these
places is dear to our hearts, symbolising Russian military glory and
outstanding valour.
Crimea
is a unique blend of different peoples’ cultures and traditions. This
makes it similar to Russia as a whole, where not a single ethnic group
has been lost over the centuries. Russians and Ukrainians, Crimean
Tatars and people of other ethnic groups have lived side by side in
Crimea, retaining their own identity, traditions, languages and faith.
Incidentally,
the total population of the Crimean Peninsula today is 2.2 million
people, of whom almost 1.5 million are Russians, 350,000 are Ukrainians
who predominantly consider Russian their native language, and about
290,000-300,000 are Crimean Tatars, who, as the referendum has shown,
also lean towards Russia.
True,
there was a time when Crimean Tatars were treated unfairly, just as a
number of other peoples in the USSR. There is only one thing I can say
here: millions of people of various ethnicities suffered during those
repressions, and primarily Russians.
Crimean
Tatars returned to their homeland. I believe we should make all the
necessary political and legislative decisions to finalise the
rehabilitation of Crimean Tatars, restore them in their rights and clear
their good name.
We
have great respect for people of all the ethnic groups living in
Crimea. This is their common home, their motherland, and it would be
right – I know the local population supports this – for Crimea to have
three equal national languages: Russian, Ukrainian and Tatar.
Colleagues,
In
people’s hearts and minds, Crimea has always been an inseparable part
of Russia. This firm conviction is based on truth and justice and was
passed from generation to generation, over time, under any
circumstances, despite all the dramatic changes our country went through
during the entire 20
th century.
After
the revolution, the Bolsheviks, for a number of reasons – may God judge
them – added large sections of the historical South of Russia to the
Republic of Ukraine. This was done with no consideration for the ethnic
make-up of the population, and today these areas form the southeast of
Ukraine. Then, in 1954, a decision was made to transfer Crimean Region
to Ukraine, along with Sevastopol, despite the fact that it was a
federal city. This was the personal initiative of the Communist Party
head Nikita Khrushchev. What stood behind this decision of his – a
desire to win the support of the Ukrainian political establishment or to
atone for the mass repressions of the 1930’s in Ukraine – is for
historians to figure out.
What
matters now is that this decision was made in clear violation of the
constitutional norms that were in place even then. The decision was made
behind the scenes. Naturally, in a totalitarian state nobody bothered
to ask the citizens of Crimea and Sevastopol. They were faced with the
fact. People, of course, wondered why all of a sudden Crimea became part
of Ukraine. But on the whole – and we must state this clearly, we all
know it – this decision was treated as a formality of sorts because the
territory was transferred within the boundaries of a single state. Back
then, it was impossible to imagine that Ukraine and Russia may split up
and become two separate states. However, this has happened.
Unfortunately,
what seemed impossible became a reality. The USSR fell apart. Things
developed so swiftly that few people realised how truly dramatic those
events and their consequences would be. Many people both in Russia and
in Ukraine, as well as in other republics hoped that the Commonwealth of
Independent States that was created at the time would become the new
common form of statehood. They were told that there would be a single
currency, a single economic space, joint armed forces; however, all this
remained empty promises, while the big country was gone. It was only
when Crimea ended up as part of a different country that Russia realised
that it was not simply robbed, it was plundered.
At
the same time, we have to admit that by launching the sovereignty
parade Russia itself aided in the collapse of the Soviet Union. And as
this collapse was legalised, everyone forgot about Crimea and Sevastopol
– the main base of the Black Sea Fleet. Millions of people went to bed
in one country and awoke in different ones, overnight becoming ethnic
minorities in former Union republics, while the Russian nation became
one of the biggest, if not the biggest ethnic group in the world to be
divided by borders.
Now,
many years later, I heard residents of Crimea say that back in 1991
they were handed over like a sack of potatoes. This is hard to disagree
with. And what about the Russian state? What about Russia? It humbly
accepted the situation. This country was going through such hard times
then that realistically it was incapable of protecting its interests.
However, the people could not reconcile themselves to this outrageous
historical injustice. All these years, citizens and many public figures
came back to this issue, saying that Crimea is historically Russian land
and Sevastopol is a Russian city. Yes, we all knew this in our hearts
and minds, but we had to proceed from the existing reality and build our
good-neighbourly relations with independent Ukraine on a new basis.
Meanwhile, our relations with Ukraine, with the fraternal Ukrainian
people have always been and will remain of foremost importance for us.
Today
we can speak about it openly, and I would like to share with you some
details of the negotiations that took place in the early 2000s. The then
President of Ukraine Mr Kuchma asked me to expedite the process of
delimiting the Russian-Ukrainian border. At that time, the process was
practically at a standstill. Russia seemed to have recognised Crimea as
part of Ukraine, but there were no negotiations on delimiting the
borders. Despite the complexity of the situation, I immediately issued
instructions to Russian government agencies to speed up their work to
document the borders, so that everyone had a clear understanding that by
agreeing to delimit the border we admitted de facto and de jure that
Crimea was Ukrainian territory, thereby closing the issue.
We
accommodated Ukraine not only regarding Crimea, but also on such a
complicated matter as the maritime boundary in the Sea of Azov and the
Kerch Strait. What we proceeded from back then was that good relations
with Ukraine matter most for us and they should not fall hostage to
deadlock territorial disputes. However, we expected Ukraine to remain
our good neighbour, we hoped that Russian citizens and Russian speakers
in Ukraine, especially its southeast and Crimea, would live in a
friendly, democratic and civilised state that would protect their rights
in line with the norms of international law.
However,
this is not how the situation developed. Time and time again attempts
were made to deprive Russians of their historical memory, even of their
language and to subject them to forced assimilation. Moreover, Russians,
just as other citizens of Ukraine are suffering from the constant
political and state crisis that has been rocking the country for over 20
years.
I
understand why Ukrainian people wanted change. They have had enough of
the authorities in power during the years of Ukraine’s independence.
Presidents, prime ministers and parliamentarians changed, but their
attitude to the country and its people remained the same. They milked
the country, fought among themselves for power, assets and cash flows
and did not care much about the ordinary people. They did not wonder why
it was that millions of Ukrainian citizens saw no prospects at home and
went to other countries to work as day labourers. I would like to
stress this: it was not some Silicon Valley they fled to, but to become
day labourers. Last year alone almost 3 million people found such jobs
in Russia. According to some sources, in 2013 their earnings in Russia
totalled over $20 billion, which is about 12% of Ukraine’s GDP.
I
would like to reiterate that I understand those who came out on Maidan
with peaceful slogans against corruption, inefficient state management
and poverty. The right to peaceful protest, democratic procedures and
elections exist for the sole purpose of replacing the authorities that
do not satisfy the people. However, those who stood behind the latest
events in Ukraine had a different agenda: they were preparing yet
another government takeover; they wanted to seize power and would stop
short of nothing. They resorted to terror, murder and riots.
Nationalists, neo-Nazis, Russophobes and anti-Semites executed this
coup. They continue to set the tone in Ukraine to this day.
The
new so-called authorities began by introducing a draft law to revise
the language policy, which was a direct infringement on the rights of
ethnic minorities. However, they were immediately ‘disciplined’ by the
foreign sponsors of these so-called politicians. One has to admit that
the mentors of these current authorities are smart and know well what
such attempts to build a purely Ukrainian state may lead to. The draft
law was set aside, but clearly reserved for the future. Hardly any
mention is made of this attempt now, probably on the presumption that
people have a short memory. Nevertheless, we can all clearly see the
intentions of these ideological heirs of Bandera, Hitler’s accomplice
during World War II.
It
is also obvious that there is no legitimate executive authority in
Ukraine now, nobody to talk to. Many government agencies have been taken
over by the impostors, but they do not have any control in the country,
while they themselves – and I would like to stress this – are often
controlled by radicals. In some cases, you need a special permit from
the militants on Maidan to meet with certain ministers of the current
government. This is not a joke – this is reality.
Those
who opposed the coup were immediately threatened with repression.
Naturally, the first in line here was Crimea, the Russian-speaking
Crimea. In view of this, the residents of Crimea and Sevastopol turned
to Russia for help in defending their rights and lives, in preventing
the events that were unfolding and are still underway in Kiev, Donetsk,
Kharkov and other Ukrainian cities.
Naturally,
we could not leave this plea unheeded; we could not abandon Crimea and
its residents in distress. This would have been betrayal on our part.
First,
we had to help create conditions so that the residents of Crimea for
the first time in history were able to peacefully express their free
will regarding their own future. However, what do we hear from our
colleagues in Western Europe and North America? They say we are
violating norms of international law. Firstly, it’s a good thing that
they at least remember that there exists such a thing as international
law – better late than never.
Secondly,
and most importantly – what exactly are we violating? True, the
President of the Russian Federation received permission from the Upper
House of Parliament to use the Armed Forces in Ukraine. However,
strictly speaking, nobody has acted on this permission yet. Russia’s
Armed Forces never entered Crimea; they were there already in line with
an international agreement. True, we did enhance our forces there;
however – this is something I would like everyone to hear and know – we
did not exceed the personnel limit of our Armed Forces in Crimea, which
is set at 25,000, because there was no need to do so.
Next.
As it declared independence and decided to hold a referendum, the
Supreme Council of Crimea referred to the United Nations Charter, which
speaks of the right of nations to self-determination. Incidentally, I
would like to remind you that when Ukraine seceded from the USSR it did
exactly the same thing, almost word for word. Ukraine used this right,
yet the residents of Crimea are denied it. Why is that?
Moreover,
the Crimean authorities referred to the well-known Kosovo precedent – a
precedent our western colleagues created with their own hands in a very
similar situation, when they agreed that the unilateral separation of
Kosovo from Serbia, exactly what Crimea is doing now, was legitimate and
did not require any permission from the country’s central authorities.
Pursuant to Article 2, Chapter 1 of the United Nations Charter, the UN
International Court agreed with this approach and made the following
comment in its ruling of July 22, 2010, and I quote: “No general
prohibition may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council
with regard to declarations of independence,” and “General international
law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence.” Crystal
clear, as they say.
I
do not like to resort to quotes, but in this case, I cannot help it.
Here is a quote from another official document: the Written Statement of
the United States America of April 17, 2009, submitted to the same UN
International Court in connection with the hearings on Kosovo. Again, I
quote: “Declarations of independence may, and often do, violate domestic
legislation. However, this does not make them violations of
international law.” End of quote. They wrote this, disseminated it all
over the world, had everyone agree and now they are outraged. Over what?
The actions of Crimean people completely fit in with these
instructions, as it were. For some reason, things that Kosovo Albanians
(and we have full respect for them) were permitted to do, Russians,
Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars in Crimea are not allowed. Again, one
wonders why.
We
keep hearing from the United States and Western Europe that Kosovo is
some special case. What makes it so special in the eyes of our
colleagues? It turns out that it is the fact that the conflict in Kosovo
resulted in so many human casualties. Is this a legal argument? The
ruling of the International Court says nothing about this. This is not
even double standards; this is amazing, primitive, blunt cynicism. One
should not try so crudely to make everything suit their interests,
calling the same thing white today and black tomorrow. According to this
logic, we have to make sure every conflict leads to human losses.
I
will state clearly - if the Crimean local self-defence units had not
taken the situation under control, there could have been casualties as
well. Fortunately this did not happen. There was not a single armed
confrontation in Crimea and no casualties. Why do you think this was so?
The answer is simple: because it is very difficult, practically
impossible to fight against the will of the people. Here I would like to
thank the Ukrainian military – and this is 22,000 fully armed
servicemen. I would like to thank those Ukrainian service members who
refrained from bloodshed and did not smear their uniforms in blood.
Other
thoughts come to mind in this connection. They keep talking of some
Russian intervention in Crimea, some sort of aggression. This is strange
to hear. I cannot recall a single case in history of an intervention
without a single shot being fired and with no human casualties.
Colleagues,
Like
a mirror, the situation in Ukraine reflects what is going on and what
has been happening in the world over the past several decades. After the
dissolution
of bipolarity on the planet, we no longer have
stability. Key international institutions are not getting any stronger;
on the contrary, in many cases, they are sadly degrading. Our western
partners, led by the United States of America, prefer not to be guided
by international law in their practical policies, but by the rule of the
gun. They have come to believe in their exclusivity and exceptionalism,
that they can decide the destinies of the world, that only they can
ever be right. They act as they please: here and there, they use force
against sovereign states, building coalitions based on the principle “If
you are not with us, you are against us.” To make this aggression look
legitimate, they force the necessary resolutions from international
organisations, and if for some reason this does not work, they simply
ignore the UN Security Council and the UN overall.
This
happened in Yugoslavia; we remember 1999 very well. It was hard to
believe, even seeing it with my own eyes, that at the end of the 20
th
century, one of Europe’s capitals, Belgrade, was under missile attack
for several weeks, and then came the real intervention. Was there a UN
Security Council resolution on this matter, allowing for these actions?
Nothing of the sort. And then, they hit Afghanistan, Iraq, and frankly
violated the UN Security Council resolution on Libya, when instead of
imposing the so-called no-fly zone over it they started bombing it too.
There
was a whole series of controlled “colour” revolutions. Clearly, the
people in those nations, where these events took place, were sick of
tyranny and poverty, of their lack of prospects; but these feelings were
taken advantage of cynically. Standards were imposed on these nations
that did not in any way correspond to their way of life, traditions, or
these peoples’ cultures. As a result, instead of democracy and freedom,
there was chaos, outbreaks in violence and a series of upheavals. The
Arab Spring turned into the Arab Winter.
A
similar situation unfolded in Ukraine. In 2004, to push the necessary
candidate through at the presidential elections, they thought up some
sort of third round that was not stipulated by the law. It was absurd
and a mockery of the constitution. And now, they have thrown in an
organised and well-equipped army of militants.
We
understand what is happening; we understand that these actions were
aimed against Ukraine and Russia and against Eurasian integration. And
all this while Russia strived to engage in dialogue with our colleagues
in the West. We are constantly proposing cooperation on all key issues;
we want to strengthen our level of trust and for our relations to be
equal, open and fair. But we saw no reciprocal steps.
On the contrary, they have lied to us many times, made decisions behind our backs, placed us before an accomplished fact.
This
happened with NATO’s expansion to the East, as well as the deployment
of military infrastructure at our borders. They kept telling us the same
thing: “Well, this does not concern you.” That’s easy to say.
It
happened with the deployment of a missile defence system. In spite of
all our apprehensions, the project is working and moving forward. It
happened with the endless foot-dragging in the talks on visa issues,
promises of fair competition and free access to global markets.
Today, we are being threatened with sanctions, but we already experience
many
limitations, ones that are quite significant for us, our economy and
our nation. For example, still during the times of the Cold War, the US
and subsequently other nations restricted a large list of technologies
and equipment from being sold to the USSR, creating the Coordinating
Committee for Multilateral Export Controls list. Today, they have
formally been eliminated, but only formally; and in reality, many
limitations are still in effect.
In short, we have every reason to assume that the infamous policy of containment, led in the 18
th, 19
th and 20
th centuries, continues today. They are constantly trying to sweep us into a corner
because
we have an independent position, because we maintain it and because we
call things like they are and do not engage in hypocrisy. But there is a
limit to everything. And with Ukraine, our western partners have
crossed the line, playing the bear and acting irresponsibly and
unprofessionally.
After
all, they were fully aware that there are millions of Russians living
in Ukraine and in Crimea. They must have really lacked political
instinct and common sense not to foresee all the consequences of their
actions. Russia found itself in a position it could not retreat from. If
you compress the spring all the way to its limit, it will snap back
hard. You must always remember this.
Today,
it is imperative to end this hysteria, to refute the rhetoric of the
cold war and to accept the obvious fact: Russia is an independent,
active participant in international affairs; like other countries, it
has its own national interests that need to be taken into account and
respected.
At
the same time, we are grateful to all those who understood our actions
in Crimea; we are grateful to the people of China, whose leaders have
always considered
the situation in Ukraine and Crimea taking into
account the full historical and political context, and greatly
appreciate India’s reserve and objectivity.
Today,
I would like to address the people of the United States of America, the
people who, since the foundation of their nation and adoption of the
Declaration of Independence, have been proud to hold freedom above all
else. Isn’t the desire of Crimea’s residents to freely choose their fate
such a value? Please understand us.
I
believe that the Europeans, first and foremost, the Germans, will also
understand me. Let me remind you that in the course of political
consultations on the unification of East and West Germany, at the
expert, though very high level, some nations that were then and are now
Germany’s allies did not support the idea of unification. Our nation,
however, unequivocally supported the sincere, unstoppable desire of the
Germans for national unity. I am confident that you have not forgotten
this, and I expect that the citizens of Germany will also support the
aspiration of the Russians, of historical Russia, to restore unity.
I
also want to address the people of Ukraine. I sincerely want you to
understand us: we do not want to harm you in any way, or to hurt your
national feelings. We have always respected the territorial integrity of
the Ukrainian state, incidentally, unlike those who sacrificed
Ukraine’s unity for their political ambitions. They flaunt slogans about
Ukraine’s greatness, but they are the ones who did everything to divide
the nation. Today’s civil standoff is entirely on their conscience. I
want you to hear me, my dear friends. Do not believe those who want you
to fear Russia, shouting that other regions will follow Crimea. We do
not want to divide Ukraine; we do not need that. As for Crimea, it was
and remains a Russian, Ukrainian, and Crimean-Tatar land.
I
repeat, just as it has been for centuries, it will be a home to all the
peoples living there. What it will never be and do is follow in
Bandera’s footsteps!
Crimea
is our common historical legacy and a very important factor in regional
stability. And this strategic territory should be part of a strong and
stable sovereignty, which today can only be Russian. Otherwise, dear
friends (I am addressing both Ukraine and Russia), you and we – the
Russians and the Ukrainians – could lose Crimea completely, and that
could happen in the near historical perspective. Please think about it.
Let
me note too that we have already heard declarations from Kiev about
Ukraine soon joining NATO. What would this have meant for Crimea and
Sevastopol in the future? It would have meant that NATO’s navy would be
right there in this city of Russia’s military glory, and this would
create not an illusory but a perfectly real threat to the whole of
southern Russia. These are things that could have become reality were it
not for the choice the Crimean people made, and I want to say thank you
to them for this.
But
let me say too that we are not opposed to cooperation with NATO, for
this is certainly not the case. For all the internal processes within
the organisation, NATO remains a military alliance, and we are against
having a military alliance making itself at home right in our backyard
or in our historic territory. I simply cannot imagine that we would
travel to Sevastopol to visit NATO sailors. Of course, most of them are
wonderful guys, but it would be better to have them come and visit us,
be our guests, rather than the other way round.
Let
me say quite frankly that it pains our hearts to see what is happening
in Ukraine at the moment, see the people’s suffering and their
uncertainty about how to get through today and what awaits them
tomorrow. Our concerns are understandable because we are not simply
close neighbours but, as I have said many times already, we are one
people. Kiev is the mother of Russian cities. Ancient Rus is our common
source and we cannot live without each other.
Let
me say one other thing too. Millions of Russians and Russian-speaking
people live in Ukraine and will continue to do so. Russia will always
defend their interests using political, diplomatic and legal means. But
it should be above all in Ukraine’s own interest to ensure that these
people’s rights and interests are fully protected. This is the guarantee
of Ukraine’s state stability and territorial integrity.
We
want to be friends with Ukraine and we want Ukraine to be a strong,
sovereign and self-sufficient country. Ukraine is one of our biggest
partners after all. We have many joint projects and I believe in their
success no matter what the current difficulties. Most importantly, we
want peace and harmony to reign in Ukraine, and we are ready to work
together with other countries to do everything possible to facilitate
and support this. But as I said, only Ukraine’s own people can put their
own house in order.
Residents
of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, the whole of Russia admired your
courage, dignity and bravery. It was you who decided Crimea’s future. We
were closer than ever over these days, supporting each other. These
were sincere feelings of solidarity. It is at historic turning points
such as these that a nation demonstrates its maturity and strength of
spirit. The Russian people showed this maturity and strength through
their united support for their compatriots.
Russia’s
foreign policy position on this matter drew its firmness from the will
of millions of our people, our national unity and the support of our
country’s main political and public forces. I want to thank everyone for
this patriotic spirit, everyone without exception. Now, we need to
continue and maintain this kind of consolidation so as to resolve the
tasks our country faces on its road ahead.
Obviously,
we will encounter external opposition, but this is a decision that we
need to make for ourselves. Are we ready to consistently defend our
national interests, or will we forever give in, retreat to who knows
where? Some Western politicians are already threatening us with not just
sanctions but also the prospect of increasingly serious problems on the
domestic front. I would like to know what it is they have in mind
exactly: action by a fifth column, this disparate bunch of ‘national
traitors’, or are they hoping to put us in a worsening social and
economic situation so as to provoke public discontent? We consider such
statements irresponsible and clearly aggressive in tone, and we will
respond to them accordingly. At the same time, we will never seek
confrontation with our partners, whether in the East or the West, but on
the contrary, will do everything we can to build civilised and
good-neighbourly relations as one is supposed to in the modern world.
Colleagues,
I
understand the people of Crimea, who put the question in the clearest
possible terms in the referendum: should Crimea be with Ukraine or with
Russia? We can be sure in saying that the authorities in Crimea and
Sevastopol, the legislative authorities, when they formulated the
question, set aside group and political interests and made the people’s
fundamental interests alone the cornerstone of their work. The
particular historic, population, political and economic circumstances of
Crimea would have made any other proposed option - however tempting it
could be at the first glance - only temporary and fragile and would have
inevitably led to further worsening of the situation there, which would
have had disastrous effects on people’s lives. The people of Crimea
thus decided to put the question in firm and uncompromising form, with
no grey areas. The referendum was fair and transparent, and the people
of Crimea clearly and convincingly expressed their will and stated that
they want to be with Russia.
Russia
will also have to make a difficult decision now, taking into account
the various domestic and external considerations. What do people here in
Russia think? Here, like in any democratic country, people have
different points of view, but I want to make the point that the absolute
majority of our people clearly do support what is happening.
The
most recent public opinion surveys conducted here in Russia show that
95 percent of people think that Russia should protect the interests of
Russians and members of other ethnic groups living in Crimea – 95
percent of our citizens. More than 83 percent think that Russia should
do this even if it will complicate our relations with some other
countries. A total of 86 percent of our people see Crimea as still being
Russian territory and part of our country’s lands. And one particularly
important figure, which corresponds exactly with the result in Crimea’s
referendum: almost 92 percent of our people support Crimea’s
reunification with Russia.
Thus
we see that the overwhelming majority of people in Crimea and the
absolute majority of the Russian Federation’s people support the
reunification of the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol with
Russia.
Now
this is a matter for Russia’s own political decision, and any decision
here can be based only on the people’s will, because the people is the
ultimate source of all authority.
Members
of the Federation Council, deputies of the State Duma, citizens of
Russia, residents of Crimea and Sevastopol, today, in accordance with
the people’s will, I submit to the Federal Assembly a request to
consider a Constitutional Law on the creation of two new constituent
entities within the Russian Federation: the Republic of Crimea and the
city of Sevastopol, and to ratify the treaty on admitting to the Russian
Federation Crimea and Sevastopol, which is already ready for signing. I
stand assured of your support.
