The history of Ukraine and Ukrainians (artificial roots of the "nation")

Austrian Poles have not invented themselves Ukrainians, but only took up the achievements of his fellow Russian. The invention of the Ukrainians belong to the Polish writer Jan Potocki, who in his book "Historical and geographical fragments of the Scythians, Sarmatians and Slavs", published in Paris in French in 1795, formulated the concept that the Ukrainians who inhabited the Lesser Borderland are people, separate from the Russian and having a completely independent origin. Partly Potocki hypothesis was based on the then popular in Poland Sarmatian theory that Poles were the direct heirs of the legendary tribe, one of the branches of which the author found the Ukrainians. There is no scientific method is writing, of course, did not possess, and was a propaganda response to the partition of Poland. The idea that the author tried to prove was fairly straightforward: since the Ukrainians do not have any relation to Russian nor culturally or historically, no historical right to the lands west of the Dnieper Russia has not. Advocating this was, of course, is designed for the western reader, having a weak understanding of the Eastern European ethnography.

Creatively reinterpreted the concept of Ukrainian another Polish leader-writer, historian, bibliophile Tadeusz (Thaddeus) Chatsky. In 1801 he wrote a pseudo-scientific work "On the name" Ukraine "and the origin of the Cossacks," which displays the Ukrainians from their fictional hordes ukrov allegedly resettled in VII. because of the Volga. The activities of these Polish "Enlightenment" was not wearing a scientific and well-organized political. The fact that the Russian throne from 1801 sat Alexander I, who Gorbachev kind of XIX century., Who led the slavish pro-Western policies. Worst of all, that the emperor was suffering polonofiliey and came in it to such an extreme that even appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs ardent Russophobe Adam Czartoryski, who in the future, during the Polish uprising of 1830-1831., The government headed by the rebels.

Under Alexander the courtyard and public institutions were literally caked with the Polish gentry, which suddenly smitten with love for his Russian winners. But ostentatious conformism hidden desire for revenge Russia at the first opportunity. This phenomenon has even got its name-vallenrodizm. In 1828, Adam Mickiewicz wrote his famous poem "Konrad Wallenrod" with a rather ambiguous story. The protagonist of the work Lithuanian Walter Alf after the Crusaders killed his parents, falls into the knight's castle, where he was brought up a Christian. But in captivity in the castle old vaydelot (Lithuanian folk singer similar to the Scandinavian skald) gives him the love of the homeland and enslaved by hatred of the crusaders. In the first battle moves to the side of Alf Lithuanians settled the Lithuanian prince Keistut and marries his daughter Aldona. However, seeing no way to repel the onslaught of the enemy, he leaves his family and enters the ranks of the Crusaders, where under the name Conrad Wallenrod make a quick career, eventually becoming a Grand Master of the Order. He went on, having made a series of betrayals resulting in the death of the Order. This doctrine was received by the gentry as a guide to action.

Ian Chatsky Taken When Czartoryski diplomatic missions of the Russian government, in 1806 was elected an honorary member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. His brother, a prominent Freemason Severin Chatsky-Chamberlain, a member of the State Council, privy councilor. First Little Russia became a Polish ethnographer Adam Czarnocki, once deserted from the Russian army and joined Napoleon (participated in the invasion of Russia). Back in 1819 in Russia, he was hiding under the name Zorian Dolenga, to ingratiate himself with the emperor. Alexander I ordered to enroll Czarnocki of the Ministry of Education and give him 3,000 rubles. silver a year on the implementation of his "traveling scholars", and the governors and other local authorities were ordered to provide all possible assistance Czarnocki.

Large, almost absolute influence Poles gained in the education system of the Southwestern Region. In the field of public education was marked and protégé Czartoryski, a former trustee of the Vilna educational district (also included the Kyiv, Volyn and Podolsk province), Thaddeus Chatsky-founder of Kremenets Lyceum. He writes in his essay "The Ukrainian movement" Andrey Storozhenko, "in the first quarter of the XIX century there was a special" Ukrainian "school of Polish scientists and poets gave an extremely talented members: K. Svidzinskii, Goschineky S., M. Grobovsky E. Gulikovsky, B.Zaleski, and more. others continued to develop the beginning laid c. J. Potocki and F. Chatsky, and prepared the ideological foundation upon which we create a building of modern Ukrainians. All Ukrainian ideology rooted in Polish soil had grown. "

Kremenetskiy (later Volyn) High School became a real hotbed polonofilskoy intellectuals in 1831 after the defeat of the Polish uprising was closed, later was transferred to Kiev and transformed into University of St. Vladimir. Another strong focus of Polish influence was the Kharkov University, which is not surprising when you consider that it first became a trustee Severin Potocki completely picked up that professorial structure. This explains the fact that the marginal ideas Ukrainians Potocki and Chatsky entrenched over time among the southern Russian intelligentsia. Kharkov University became a real source of Ukrainians in Russia. From its walls fluttered at will among other figures of Ukrainians Peter Gulak-Artyomovsk, one of the pioneers're coming out, literature, historians Dmitry Bogaley and Mykola Kostomarov.

Last most clearly is the portrait of a typical Ukrainian that time. Nikolai Ivanovich's parents were Russian, he was born Russian, but a Ukrainian writer and historian. "Ukrainian language" he had learned as an adult and began scribbling on it poems and plays, however, mediocre. Teachings of his Polish predecessor of the Ukrainian people alone ardent russophobe Kostomarov adapted for home, so to speak, use, putting forward the thesis of the two branches of the East Slavic peoples-Little Russia and Great Russia. At the same time Kostomarov acted the whole direction of the Polish socio-historical thought, deny the Slavic origin of the Russian people, allegedly having Finno-Turkic origin. Since convince someone it was extremely difficult, there was one more mystical concept postulates the existence of the Slavic world of two poles-the carriers of the metaphysical good were the Poles (collective Christ), and Russian, of course, declared the collective incarnation of the devil, and the bearer of bad things, bad and sinful.

Before Kostomarov anyone and would not have to share a single Russian people into separate branches, although the dialectical peculiarities of different dialects also wrote Lomonosov, highlighting three in Russian colloquial dialect-north, Moscow, and Little Russian. At the same time Mikhail pointed out that the differences between the Russian dialects, despite the vastness of the area of ​​settlement of the people, much lower than between German dialects. But despite the very large differences between the Upper Rhine and East Prussian dialect, the Germans today use a single standard language and a single Russian linguistic space in the XX century. It was cut into three parts. Before the concept of a Great Kostomarov considered purely geographical, indicating the indigenous inhabitant of 30 Great Russian provinces.

So, first, through the efforts of Ukrainians historian Kostomarov in the "scientific" usage was introduced artificial separation scheme people in some branches, then the phrase "Little Russian nationality" gradually but purposefully Ukrainians intellectuals replaced the expression "the Ukrainian people." But there is no rooting in the public consciousness, this concept has not been officially propagandized it was only in the Soviet times.

In general, Ukrainians in the Russian Empire intelligentsia existed quite apart from the masses, varyas in its own juice. And what connection could be non-existent Ukrainian people of Russian origin Kostomarov or as Russian founder of the Ukrainian historical "science" Hrushevsky who speak in Ukrainian not really learned, and even wrote in're coming out to-Move is so pathetic that some of his phrases without a half-liter of vodka is quite impossible to understand? Even the founder of the Ukrainian literary language Taras Shevchenko thought in Russian and in Russian as did lifelong intimate diary entries, which did not have to pretend to be a Ukrainian. Ukrainian "George Sand" Marco Vovchok was also nee Maria Vilinskaya Russian and Ukrainians carried away by marrying Ukrainophile Athanasius Markovic.

However, the regional Little Russian literature of the second half of the XIX century. the Ukrainian language has to a very remote, because the Ukrainian language and Ukrainian alphabet did not exist yet, and enthusiasts of the peasant dialects Little Russian alphabet used mostly by experimenting with phonetic spelling system. Austrian Ukrainophiles many of their Russian colleagues can not stand, and attempts to export Polonized Ukrainian language of Galicia met with hostility. The official language of today's Ukraine, many experts suggest calling Novoukrainskaya. Shevchenko it has to be translated, for a half-century very mutated not only Ukrainian grammar and lexical basis of language. We, Russian, it is difficult to realize such a rapid modification of the Ukrainian language, because for us, not only the language of Pushkin, but even it is not Lomonosov seems archaic, but a person familiar with the Church Slavonic, easy read ancient chronicles.

The first is the Russian ukrainizatorami were just Poles. Karevin Alexander in his excellent book "Russia not Russian (both born rschna mova)" describes the beginning of the Ukrainian movement: «XIX century took place in the Ukraine under the sign of a struggle between two cultures-Russian and Polish. Cherished dream of Polish Patriots was the restoration of the independent Commonwealth. New Poland saw them as nothing but "from sea to sea", with inclusion in its structure Right Bank (and, if possible-of the Left Bank), Ukraine and Belarus. But to do so without the assistance of the local population was impossible. And the leaders of the Polish movement called attention to the Ukrainians.

At first they just wanted Polonised. To this end, the manor house began to open special schools for the fortress, where the peasant children brought up in Polish and in the Polish spirit. In Polish literature appeared so-called "Ukrainian school", whose members sang Ukraine, while giving its residents a special branch of the Polish nation. There was even a special term-"third union." According to the ideologists of the Polish movement, after the first, the state of the Lublin union in 1569 (connecting Poland and Lithuania to the inclusion in this Little-Russian lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania directly into Poland), and the second church of Brest union in 1596 (tear off part of the population and the Ukraine Belarus from the Orthodox Church and put under the control of this part of Catholicism), "third union" was tied to Poland (naturally, with the simultaneous dissociation from Great Russia), Ukraine (Little Russia) in the field of culture. In that direction the effort and officials, the Poles (them while many served in Ukraine, especially in the Department of the Ministry of Education).

Oddly enough, but this almost blatant subversion authorities did not put obstacles. What is a "psychological war", then simply do not know. And as openly to revolt from time to time the Poles did not call; the king seems to be not abused, and the danger of their activities no one saw. "

But the project "third union" originally was stillborn, since the Polish gentry their Russian serfs were cattle, and recognize the equal of their own, they were not going to. And the peasants heretics and foreign-language masters assume his could not. Therefore, further progress in the concept of Ukrainians went Potocki-Chatsky. Polish intelligentsia held in the South-West region dominant position, began to promote the idea that the Ukrainians-a nation enslaved Russian. For the Russian colonization resistance they called to abandon the Russian culture and develop their own literary language.

But in this case the results were unconvincing. Karevin writes: "Little Russians educated all my heart loved folk customs, songs, dialects, but despite the efforts of Ukrainophiles remained Russian. New ideas seduced unit. "We are only now in Kiev is not more than five hohlomanov stubborn nature of Ukrainians and the (other) all Poles, more than all fussed about distributing booklets Little-Russian,-reported the prominent social activist K. Little Russian Govorsky Galician scientists and public figures Ya Golovatskaya.-They themselves, dressed in the scrolls, wandered from village to village and scatter these little books; true nosy Lyakh sensed in this business for himself pickings when decided on such feats. " What then was called the "Ukrainian national liberation movement" in the initial stage of its development consisted mainly of Poles (V. Antonovich, T. Rila, B. Poznan, Mikhal'chuk K. et al.), Supported by very few Little Russians. "

The main theorist of the doctrine of Ukrainian nationalism also became the Pole Franciszek Duchinski, brought on track in school Uniate Basilian Order in the city of Uman, Kiev province. Teachers (of course, the Poles) inspired young Franciszek that Russia-the Dnieper, and here-Ukraine inhabited by a special branch of the Polish people-Ukrainian. During the Crimean War, he served in the civil positions in the British army in Turkey, all the subsequent years of his life, wandering through Europe, promoting a radical anti-Russian doctrine. Confessing racial approach to history, categorically denies Duchinski Russian (they are representatives turans-handicapped people, opposing the Aryan) the right to be considered the Slavs, arguing that "Muscovites are neither Slavs nor the Christians in the spirit of these Slavs and other Indo-European Christians. They are still nomads and nomads will remain forever. " He seems to be the first in a three-volume "Fundamentals of the history of Poland and other Slavic countries, and Moscow" (1858-1861 gg.) Expressed the opinion that the name "Rus" Muscovites have stolen the Ukrainians, who only have a right to it. Although the technical details of this "kidnapping", he never revealed, all subsequent "svidomye" historians invariably base their concept on this thesis. Well, consider themselves Aryans quite nicely.

Follower Duchinski terrorist Nikolai Mikhnovsky developed the ideas of Ukrainian nationalism to the most radical forms of fascist proclaiming the slogan "Ukraine-Ukrainians. So, driving away with the Ukrainian foreign oppressors! " This appeal was formulated in the "Ten Commandments Ukrainian People's Party" in 1904, when no Ukraine did not exist, but given that Mikhnovsky she saw from the Carpathians to the Caucasus, the scale of the alleged ethnic cleansing operations is impressive. However, in contrast to his godfather, offering the role of the younger brother of Ukrainians Poles Mikhnovsky already devotes lyaham place second in importance after the enemy Ukrainians Muscovites. In the future, Ukrainian nationalism gained so pronounced anti-Polish character that "svidomye" during World War II tried to go to the practical solution of the Polish problem by the physical removal of Poles (the most large-scale action was Volyn Massacre 1943).

Ukrainian national anthem "Ukraine Has Not Yet Perished Shcho" is a kind of rubber stamp with the Polish anthem "Another Polskane sginela" and written on the eve gentry revolt in 1863 a group of Poles headed by Paul Chubinetskim. The propaganda by the author Ukrainian anthem announced Taras Shevchenko. Poles in one of the versions of the anthem Ukrainian brothers declared:

Oh, Bogdan, Zinoviev, drunk our Hetman,
What has sold Ukraine Muscovites nasty?
To return to her honor and glory go to bed heads,
Adv Ukraine loyal sons.
Our Bratchikov Slavs took up arms,
Not good, so we stayed on the sidelines!

Yes, it is not out of the warm feelings to the "Aryan" Polish brothers nurtured Ukrainians. They are hoping that they will support them in the anti-Russian uprising. Simply put, the Poles are very needed cannon fodder.

P.S. Legally, USSR not broken (exist), real faces don't took decision about destroy USSR. Ukraine legally still part of Russia and every things what going on is internal offers of Russia and not of any other country.

A few days ago an interesting study, “The Socio-Political Sentiments in Crimea,” was released by the Ukrainian branch of GfK, the well-known German social research organization, as part of the Free Crimea initiative. Intriguingly, the primary objectives of this project, launched with the support of the governmental Canada Fund for Local Initiatives, were to “debunk aggressive Russian propaganda” and to “reintegrate Crimea into Ukraine.” Thus the researchers can hardly be suspected of being Russian sympathizers. So let’s take a look at the results.
The attitudes of Crimeans were studied in January 2015. This representative sample included 800 respondents living on the peninsula, from all age and social categories. The poll had an error margin of 3.5%.
In answer to the most important question: “Do you endorse Russia’s annexation of Crimea?” 82% of the respondents answered “yes, definitely,” and another 11% – “yes, for the most part.” Only 2% gave an unambiguously negative response, and another 2% offered a relatively negative assessment. Three percent did not specify their position.
We feel that this study fully validates the results of the referendum on reunification with Russia that was held on March 16, 2014. At that time 83% of Crimeans went to the polling stations and almost 97% expressed support for reunification.
Ukrainians continue to question whether this was a credible outcome, but it is now backed up by the data obtained by the Germans. The 82% of the respondents who expressed their full confidence in the results of the Russian election make up the core of the electorate who turned up at the ballot boxes on March 16, 2014.
These figures are also relevant in terms of another important question. The former chairman of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatars, Mustafa Dzhemilev, has repeatedly stated that all Tatars on the peninsula are opposed to reunification with Russia. Dzhemilev’s statements have been widely quoted by the media, which present them as entirely authoritative and undisputed.
But let’s think about that – Crimean Tatars make up 12% of the Crimean population, yet only 4% of those polled conveyed disapproval of Crimea’s reunification with Russia. And that 4% very likely includes not only Tatars, but also Ukrainians and citizens of other ethnicities. There’s an inconsistency here. Of course further study is needed on this issue, but the results obtained by GFK cast doubt on whether Mustafa Dzhemilev or the entire Mejlis of the Crimean Tatars is an accurate barometer of the feelings of the Crimean Tatar community.
Those few respondents who disapproved reunification were then asked “Why do you fully or mostly disapprove annexation?” Only 20% of them (i.e., less than 1% of the total sample) claimed that they preferred to live in the state of Ukraine. The most common response, offered by 55% of those who opposed reunification, was “Annexations was not fully legitimate, it should be brought into accord with the international law.” Which means that, in theory, they do not object to the idea of living in Russia, but rather question the legitimacy of the transition.

No doubt it would be a good idea to hold such a referendum under the auspices of international legislation and in accordance with Ukrainian law. But would laws ever be passed that would grant Ukrainian regions the right to secede? Back in the totalitarian Soviet Union, Ukraine exercised its right to a referendum without a single shot being fired, while in “democratic Ukraine,” separatists are either burned alive as in Odessa, or are shot along with the elderly and children as is happening in the Donbass.
In answer to a question about their financial circumstances, 21% of Crimeans said that in the last year their position had “improved significantly,” while another 30% claimed it had “somewhat improved.” Only 13% of that population has experienced a setback, to a greater or lesser extent. This suggests that, despite EU sanctions on the peninsula’s economy, and despite Ukraine’s partial blockade on communication from Crimea, the reunification with Russia has provided most Crimeans with material gains. But even among those who have not reaped those sorts of benefits, there are few signs of nostalgia for their old Ukrainian citizenship: although 13% of citizens have seen their financial well-being decline, only 4% disapprove of the reunification with Russia. These figures suggest that economic sanctions are an ineffective means of persuading the residents of the Crimea to view Ukraine more favorably.
The results of the survey indicate that 28% of the residents of the peninsula regularly watch Ukrainian TV, and another 20% regularly consult Ukrainian news websites. This proves that no steps have been taken in Crimea to restrict access to Ukrainian sources of information, such as Ukraine has done in relation to Russian media.
And now the moment of truth: “What is your opinion of what is being written by the Ukrainian media about Crimea?” Who could be a more objective judge on this issue than the residents of the peninsula themselves? Who else but they – who have been fated to experience all the pros and cons of both Ukrainian and Russian citizenship – could better evaluate the accuracy of the information being published? Perhaps no one.
However, only 1% of those surveyed reported that the Ukrainian media “provides entirely truthful information” and 4% said it was “more often truthful than deceitful.” But 45% of respondents see “completely untrue information” on Ukrainian TV, and another 35% claim those broadcasts are “more often deceitful than truthful.” The rest either do not watch Ukrainian news programs or do not pay attention to information in those programs about Crimea.

This is the verdict on the contemporary Ukrainian press, as handed down by an impartial panel of eight hundred jurors.
But if those who shape the media coverage in Ukraine today are so biased in regard to Crimea, how can we expect them to report objectively on other critical problems associated with this country? Can we trust Kiev’s official stance on the tragedy of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17? Or on the causes of the humanitarian crisis in the Donbass? Or on the presence of Russian troops inside Ukraine? Or on the human fatalities in Odessa or the victims of the “Heavenly Hundred”?
GfK’s study demands a clear answer to these questions.
By Konstantin KOSARETSKY (Ukraine)

http://orientalreview.org/2015/02/10/german-sociologists-on-crimeas-choice/

Additional links:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-annexation-of-crimea-to-russia-opinion-poll/5430781

Crimeans Keep Saying No to Ukraine

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/22/crimeans-keep-saying-no-to-ukraine/

http://www.tbrnews.org/?p=980

The Federation Council wants to reverse the decision of the Political Bureau of the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine in 1954

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

Sevastopol, Crimea Republic

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.

Ukraine became the member of the UN in 1945 without the Crimea

After the Second World War, the Soviet Ukraine ended up with the borders extended West, with most of Ukrainian lands under one political state. As a result of a political compromise between the West and the Soviets, Ukraine, became one of the members of the United Nations.
Growth in United Nations membership, 1945-present
http://www.un.org/en/members/growth.shtml

In 1954, a controversial move by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev (himself an ethnic Ukrainian) transferred Crimea from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, carving it out of the larger Russian territory.
http://www.marctomarket.com/2014/02/a-short-history-of-ukraine-and-crimea.html
http://northhistories.blogspot.ru/2014/07/history-of-crimea.html

UN in 1945 adopted in its membership to Ukraine without the Crimea. And challenge the status of the peninsula is absolutely meaningless. According data of the UN, the Crimea is not the territory of Ukraine, and  it is the subject of the Russian Federation.

Media project «Voice of Sevastopol»

Independent media group, which consists of electronic medias with a wide audience on the Internet.

The group has social activists, bloggers and journalists from around the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

The core of the network is the portal "Voice of Sevastopol", an independent informational and analytical Internet project created to counter the information warfare launched in the aftermath of the coup in Former Ukraine.

The main task is the operative report, objective and reliable information about the situation in Crimea and Southeast of Ukraine to our readers.

http://en.voicesevas.ru/about.html

History of Crimea

Prehistory

Archaeological evidence of human settlement in Crimea dates back to the Middle Paleolithic. Neanderthal remains found at Kiyik-Koba Cave have been dated to about 80,000 BP. Late Neanderthal occupations have also been found at Starosele (c. 46,000 BP) and Buran Kaya III (c. 30,000 BP).
Archaeologists have found some of the earliest anatomically modern human remains in Europe in the Buran-Kaya caves in the Crimean Mountains (east of Simferopol). The fossils are about 32,000 years old, with the artifacts linked to the Gravettian culture. During the Last Glacial Maximum, along with the northern coast of the Black Sea in general, Crimea was an important refuge from which north-central Europe was re-populated after the end of the Ice Age. The East European Plain during this time was generally occupied by periglacial loess-steppe environments, although the climate was slightly warmer during several brief interstadials and began to warm significantly after the beginning of the Late Glacial Maximum. Human site occupation density was relatively high in the Crimean region and increased as early as ca. 16,000 years before the present.
Proponents of the Black Sea deluge hypothesis believe Crimea did not become a peninsula until relatively recently, with the rising of the Black Sea level in the 6th millennium BC.
The beginning of the Neolithic in Crimea is not associated with agriculture, but instead with the beginning of pottery production, changes in flint tool-making technologies, and local domestication of pigs. The earliest evidence of domesticated wheat in the Crimean peninsula is from the Chalcolithic Ardych-Burun site, dating to the middle of the 4th millennium BC
By the 3rd millennium BC, Crimea had been reached by the Yamna or "pit grave" culture, assumed to correspond to a late phase of Proto-Indo-European culture in the Kurgan hypothesis.

Antiquity

Tauri and Scythians

The Scythian treasure of Kul-Oba, in eastern Crimea.

Main articles: Tauri and Scythians

In the early Iron Age, Crimea was settled by two groups: the Tauri (or Scythotauri) in southern Crimea, and the East Iranian-speaking Scythians north of the Crimean Mountains.
The origins of the Tauri, from which the classical name of Crimea as Taurica or Tauris arose, are unclear. They are possibly a remnant of the Cimmerians displaced by the Scythians. Alternative theories relate them to the Abkhaz and Adyghe peoples, which at that time resided much farther west than today.
The Greeks, who eventually established colonies in Crimea during the Archaic Period, regarded the Tauri as a savage, warlike people. Even after centuries of Greek and Roman settlement, the Tauri were not pacified and continued to engage in piracy on the Black Sea. By the 2nd century BC they had become subject-allies of the Scythian king Scilurus.
The Crimean Peninsula north of the Crimean Mountains was occupied by Scythian tribes. Their center was the city of Scythian Neapolis on the outskirts of present-day Simferopol. The town ruled over a small kingdom covering the lands between the lower Dnieper River and northern Crimea. In the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC, Scythian Neapolis was a city "with a mixed Scythian-Greek population, strong defensive walls and large public buildings constructed using the orders of Greek architecture". The city was eventually destroyed in the mid-3rd century AD by the Goths.

Greek settlement

Chersonesos in modern Sevastopol

Main article: Greeks in pre-Roman Crimea

Further information: Spartocids and Bosporan Kingdom

The ancient Greeks were the first to name the region Taurica or Tauris after the Tauri. As the Tauri inhabited only mountainous regions of southern Crimea, at first the name Tauris was used only to this southern part, but later it was extended to name the whole peninsula.

Greek colonies along the north coast of the Black Sea in the 5th century BCE.

Greek city-states began establishing colonies along the Black Sea coast of Crimea in the 7th or 6th century BC. Feodosiya and Panticapaeum were established by Milesians. In the 5th century BC, Dorians from Heraclea Pontica founded the sea port of Chersonesos (in modern Sevastopol).
In 438 BC, the Archon (ruler) of Panticapaeum assumed the title of the King of Cimmerian Bosporus, a state that maintained close relations with Athens, supplying the city with wheat, honey and other commodities. The last of that line of kings, Paerisades V, being hard-pressed by the Scythians, put himself under the protection of Mithridates VI, the king of Pontus, in 114 BC. After the death of this sovereign, his son, Pharnaces II, was invested by Pompey with the Kingdom of the Cimmerian Bosporus in 63 BC as a reward for the assistance rendered to the Romans in their war against his father. In 15 BC, it was once again restored to the king of Pontus, but from then ranked as a tributary state of Rome.

The "Chersonesus Tauricus" of Antiquity, shown on a map printed in London, ca 1770

Roman Empire

Main articles: Roman Crimea and Bosporan Kingdom

In the 2nd century BC, the eastern part of Taurica became part of the Bosporan Kingdom, before being incorporated into the Roman Empire in the 1st century BC.
During the AD 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries, Taurica was host to Roman legions and colonists in Charax, Crimea. The Charax colony was founded under Vespasian with the intention of protecting Chersonesos and other Bosporean trade emporiums from the Scythians. The Roman colony was protected by a vexillatio of the Legio I Italica; it also hosted a detachment of the Legio XI Claudia at the end of the 2nd century. The camp was abandoned by the Romans in the mid-3rd century. This de facto province would have been controlled by the legatus of one of the Legions stationed in Charax.
Throughout the later centuries, Crimea was invaded or occupied successively by the Goths (AD 250), the Huns (376), the Bulgars (4th–8th century), the Khazars (8th century). Crimean Gothic, an East Germanic language, was spoken by the Crimean Goths in some isolated locations in Crimea until the late 18th century.

Middle Ages

Mongol invasion and later medieval period

Genoese fortress of Caffa

Byzantine hold on the Crimea was lost in the early 13th century due to the Mongol invasions. In the summer of 1238, Batu Khan devastated the Crimea and pacified Mordovia, reaching Kiev by 1240.
In the 13th century, the Republic of Genoa seized the settlements which their rivals, the Venetians, had built along the Crimean coast and established themselves at Cembalo (now Balaklava), Soldaia (Sudak), Cherco (Kerch) and Caffa (Feodosiya), gaining control of the Crimean economy and the Black Sea commerce for two centuries.
Crimea was under the control of the Turco-Mongol Golden Horde from 1239 to 1441.
The name Crimea (via Italian, from Turkic Qirim) originates as the name of the provincial capital of the Golden Horde, the city now known as Staryi Krym.
In 1346, the bodies of Mongol warriors of the Golden Horde who had died of plague were thrown over the walls of the besieged Kaffa (now Feodosiya). It has been speculated that this operation may have been responsible for the advent of the Black Death in Europe.

Crimean Khanate (1441–1783)

Crimea in the middle of the 15th century

The Crimean Khanate in 1600

After the destruction of the Mongolian Golden Horde army by Timur (1399), the Crimean Tatars founded an independent Crimean Khanate under Hacı I Giray, a descendant of Genghis Khan, in 1441. He and his successors reigned first at Qırq Yer, and from the beginning of the 15th century, at Bakhchisaray.
The Crimean Tatars controlled the steppes that stretched from the Kuban and to the Dniester River, however, they were unable to take control over commercial Genoese towns. After the Crimean Tatars asked for help from the Ottomans, an Ottoman invasion of the Genoese towns led by Gedik Ahmed Pasha in 1475 brought Kaffa and the other trading towns under their control.
After the capture of Genoese towns, the Ottoman Sultan held Meñli I Giray captive, later releasing him in return for accepting Ottoman suzerainty over the Crimean Khans and allowing them rule as tributary princes of the Ottoman Empire. However, the Crimean Khans still had a large amount of autonomy from the Ottoman Empire, particularly, followed the rules they thought were best for them: Crimean Tatars introduced raids into Ukrainian lands, which were used to get slaves to be sold on markets. For example, from 1450 to 1586, eighty-six Tatar raids were recorded, and from 1600 to 1647, seventy. In the 1570s close to 20,000 slaves a year were being sold in Kaffa.
Slaves and freedmen formed approximately 75% of the Crimean population. In 1769 a last major Tatar raid, which took place during the Russo-Turkish War, saw the capture of 20,000 slaves.

Tatar ethnogenesis

The Crimean Tatars as an ethnic group emerge as the population of the Crimean Khanate during the 15th to 18th centuries. They are descended from a complicated mixture of Turkic peoples which settled in Crimea since the 8th century, presumably also absorbing remnants of the Crimean Goths and the Genoese. Linguistically, they are the descendants of the Khazars, who invaded the Crimea in the mid 8th century, their language forming part of the Kipchak or Northwestern branch of the Turkic languages, although it shows substantial Oghuz influence due to historical Ottoman Turkish presence in the Crimea.
A small enclave of the Crimean Karaites, a people of Jewish descent practising Karaism who later adopted a Turkic language, was founded in the 13th century. It existed among the Muslim Crimean Tatars, primarily in the mountainous Çufut Qale area.

Since the end of the XV century the Crimean Khanate, carried out repeated attacks on Russian state and Poland. The main purpose of the raids - the capture of slaves and their resale to the Turkish markets.

Russian-Turkish war of 1768-1774, marked the end of Ottoman rule and by the  Kucuk-Kaynarca peace treaty in 1774 the Ottomans renounced claims to the Crimea.

Russian Empire

April 8, 1783 Catherine II issued a manifesto about the accepting "of the Crimean peninsula," as well as the part of the Kuban to Russia. Russian troops of Suvorov entered on the territory of the Crimea. Near the ruins of ancient Chersonese was founded the city of Sevastopol. The Crimean Khanate was abolished, but its nobles (over 300 genera) became the member of the Russian nobility, and took part in local self-government of the newly created Taurian area. At first, the arrangement of the Russian Crimea was in charge of Prince Potemkin, received the title of "Tauride." In 1783, the adult population of Crimea present around 60 thousand. Persons primarily engaged in cattle breeding (Crimean Tatars). However, under Russian jurisdiction began to grow Russian and Greek population from the number of retired soldiers. Bulgarians and Germans came explore new lands . In 1787, Catherine made ​​his famous journey to the Crimea. During the next Russian-Turkish war in the Crimean Tatar environment started unrest, because of which the territory of their habitat has been significantly reduced. In 1796, the area became part of Novorossiysk province, and in 1802 again became an independent administrative unit. At the beginning of the XIX century in the Crimea is developing viticulture (Magaraci) and shipbuilding (Sevastopol) and roads. When Prince Vorontsov begins to settle Yalta, laid Vorontsov Palace, and the southern coast of Crimea is transformed into a resort.

In 1954 when all deported Crimean Tatars were kept under surveillance in special settlements some thousand kilometers from their Homeland the territory of Crimea was transferred from Russian Soviet Federative Socialistic Republic to Ukrainian Soviet Socialistic Republic. Ukrainian State obtained not only land and natural resources of Crimea but also remained property of Crimean Tatars they were deprived of when deported. In 1997 Crimean Tatar people had a mass petition campaign appealing to the President and the Parliament of Ukraine, UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, OSCE. There were about 100 thousand signatures collected. In that petition we wrote about our problems and possible solutions. There was no feedback from the international organizations and the Ukrainian State did not pay attention to the Appeal, moreover it intensified discrimination and forced assimilation of Crimean Tatars. It is significant that Ukrainian State ignored not only our legal demands but also recommendations of international organizations membership status of which it enjoys: UN, CoE, OSCE committees and agencies. When asked about the situation of Crimean Tatars Ukrainian diplomats abroad either slur over the real situation or lie. They try to dissolve the problems of the indigenous people of Crimea – Crimean Tatars – among the problems of the national minorities of Ukraine, though their situations are incommensurable.

Ukrainian acts on degovernmentalisation deprived those Crimean Tatars who returned of any opportunity to claim it back neither in full nor to the equal extent with other inhabitants of Crimea. Thus, the land taken away from Crimean Tatars is finally transferred into private property by settlers of other nationalities. Ukraine frankly ignored Council of Europe recommendations (Recommendation 1455 (2000) and Repatriation and Integration of Tatars of Crimea, Order #565 (2000)) and practically organized apartheid against Crimean Tatars in form of ban on owing land by a certain ethnic group. Lack of compensation for the property withdrawn in the period of deportation According to the official data, when deported in 1944 Crimean Tatars were taken of over 80 350 private houses with property, 127 500 heads of cattle, 357 000 heads of sheep and goats, over 34 000 hectares of farmland (78 455 plots), all stock of food, seeds, forage for  domes tic animals, constructional material, over 4 000 tons of wheat, maize, barley, over 13 999 carts, 4 tons of tobacco, 90 000 liters of wine, 31 400 kilos of dries fruits, 43 200 pieces of sheepskin, 544 tons of fleece. According to incomplete data, the cost of the private property withdrawn from Crimean Tatars constitutes over 6 billion USD. The cost of the prop erty belonged to collective farms and cooperatives founded by Crimean Tatars constitutes 1,2 billion USD. Later on these land and property were distribute d among or sold to settlers brought in by the State in places previously inhabited by Crimean Tatars, used for founding agricultural enterprises and other purposes. All lands, property and houses owned by Crimean Tatars before the deportation were used by Ukraine. Material resources produced by Crimean Tatars worked for the national economics of Ukraine. Houses previously owned by Crimean Tatars have been till now on occupied by and rented by tourists from settlers brought in according to special programs on settlement of Crimea by non-Crimean Tatar population. This situation brings up issues of responsibility, restitution and compensation according to approaches elaborated and in theory and practice of the international law. Nonetheless: courts absolutely arbitrar ily refuse to consider claims on restitution of property Crimean Tatars were illegally deprived of referring to the fact that there is no special law on restitution of property to formerly deported Crimean Tatars; majority of Crimean Tatars was excluded from the process of privatization of State and municipal property because before 1999 they could not obtain Ukrainian citizenship and had no record of service in State enterprises of Ukraine due to the decades spent in the places of deportation.

Lying to the UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination Leonid Efimenko, 1st Vice-Minster of Justice of Ukraine, at the meeting of the Committee on 10 March 1998 stated that fulfilled all its obligations regarding restitution of property to all formerly deported persons and those who underwent repressions. Compensation was paid and all persons were rehabilitated. Cases on which unjustified judgments we pronounced are being reconsidered. This is frank lie and concealment of apartheid in the form of ban over owning property individually and jointly with others. Crimean Tatar language is excluded from the public life of Ukraine and Crimea. Before the Deportation Crimean Tatar language was one of the State languages of Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialistic Republic, it was used in clerical work, in court, for official and notarial documents, signboards and announcements, official seals. Every day radio programs in Crimean Tatar language were broadcasted for 6 hours, over 40 000 Crimean Tatar children received education in their native language, there were vocational schools and in stitutes. Belle-lettres, scientific and special literature was published in mass edition. Abroad the authorities boast of 15 Crimean Tatar schools they opened. This is not true. They did not open them – they just did not manage to prevent their opening due to persistent activity of parents and teachers – Crimean Tatars.

Before the deportation there were over 300 schools, these building are still being used for other purposes. Approving new Crimean Constitution the Ukrainian authorities have excluded Crimean Tatar language from the list of official and State languages, keeping only Ukrainian and Russian as such. The authorities try to convince the international community that as though they promote the language of the retrograde illiterate nation. Crimean Tatar nation has been literate for ages, this was never the fact either for Russian or for Ukraine before XX century. The policy of the Ukrainian authorities was aimed at annihilating the language of Crimean Tatars and imposing Ukrainian language on them instead of their native one. Even ratification of the European Charter of  Regional and Minority Languages did not introduced any changes to the State policy with regard to Crimean Tatar language. From the beginning of Ukrainian presence in Crimea there was systematic activity aimed at annihilation of the cultural heritage of Crimean Tatar peoples carried out. The colonial period is characterized by destruction of towns, burning of palaces, annihilation of mosques and other objects of material culture. Archeological objects, jewelry, objects of material and spiritual culture were taken from museums to other cities. In Ukraine regardless of the legal base and the State structures called upon to provide for preservation of the cultural heritage the rights of Crimean Tatar people were systematically violated. The land where historical-architectural constructions of archeological objects were located and ancient cemeteries or sacred places were privatized by private persons.Authorities conducted the policy of supporting  Ukrainian language in the State having not asked anyone and without organizing any referendums put all geographical names into Ukrainian version. The State again confirmed the policy of double standards and deliberate annihilation of the indigenous Crimean Tatar people’s historical traces.


March 6, 2014, the Supreme Council of Crimea adopted a resolution to join the republic of the Russian Federation as its subject and appointed a referendum on the issue.

March 11, 2014, the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol City Council adopted the Declaration of Independence of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol.

March 16, 2014 in Crimea, a referendum was held, which was attended by about 82% of voters, 96% of them voted in favor of accession to the Russian Federation. 

March 17, 2014 according to the results of the referendum Republic of Crimea, in which the city of Sevastopol has a special status applied for accession to Russia.

 Additional information:

Crimea went to Russia in order of restitution - OSCE
http://northhistories.blogspot.ru/2014/07/crimea-went-to-russia-in-order-of.html

http://www.mngz.ru/russia-world-sensation/592469-obse-krym-otoshel-k-rossii-v-poryadke-restitucii.html


Crimean Tatar People - Protect us from discrimination – help us restore our rights! (OSCE 2007)
http://www.osce.org/cio/25563

Double standards EU and USA

2008 Kosovo declaration of independence
As of December 2013, most of the member-countries of NATO, EU, Western European Union and OECD have recognised Kosovo as independent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo

http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_03_12/Referendum-in-Crimea-Europe-shows-double-standards-precedent-in-Kosovo-shows-this-best-scolars-6425/

Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_referendum,_2013