Crimea crisis: Russian President Putin's speech annotated
In
an emotionally-charged speech to both houses of parliament at the
Kremlin on 18 March, Russian President Vladimir Putin gave a fierce
defence of his country's treaty to absorb Crimea.
Crimean officials say the peninsula voted overwhelmingly in
favour of the move in a referendum. But Kiev and the West have said the
vote was illegal and that Moscow's actions amount to a land grab.Here, BBC diplomatic correspondent Bridget Kendall analyses key moments from Mr Putin's historic speech.
More than 82% of the electorate took part in the vote. Over 96% of them spoke out in favour of reuniting with Russia. These numbers speak for themselves.
- Bridget Kendall: Was the turnout really 82% of all Crimea's voting population? The result suggests most of those who voted wanted to rejoin Russia. But what about the many Crimean Tatars, Ukrainians and some Russians who didn't take part and don't want to leave Ukraine? Mr Putin ignores them.
Cannot play media. You do not have the correct version of the flash player. Download the correct version
President Putin said the Crimea vote numbers "speak for themselves"
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.
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.
- Bridget Kendall: It gets worse - by assuming the high turnout means the referendum result reflects the will of the entire Crimean population, Mr Putin gives himself grounds to argue that most Crimean Tatars too want to join Russia - turning reality on its head.
Many of Crimea's ethnic Tatars - about 12% of the population - vowed not to take part in the referendum
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.
- Bridget Kendall: Three equal languages - this is a rebuke to the new authorities in Kiev whose initial move to block giving Russian language equal status with Ukrainian caused fury in Moscow and allegations that Russian speakers and other minorities were being threatened with second class status. Mr Putin is indicating that in the new Crimea this will not happen.
Continue reading the main story
Crimean ballot paper questions
- Are you in favour of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea reuniting with Russia as a constituent part of the Russian Federation?
- Are you in favour of restoring the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea of 1992 and of Crimea's status as part of Ukraine?
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 south-east of Ukraine. Then,
in 1954, a decision was made to transfer the 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 1930s 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.
- Bridget Kendall: Powerful emotive words from Mr Putin to back up his claim that in returning Crimea to Russia he is correcting not just a historical injustice, but an outrage. But he does not stop with Crimea: he implies that other parts of Ukraine - particularly the Russian speaking south-east - should really be Russian too, castigating the Bolsheviks who handed these lands to Ukraine.
- Bridget Kendall: A veiled reminder for other former Soviet republics with Russian-speaking minorities to send a message that, as in Ukraine, Mr Putin views Russian compatriots there as part of a single Russian nation - and therefore conceivably might make moves to ensure their protection too, if he felt they needed it. The most controversial cases are the rebellious Russian speaking enclave of Trans-Dniester in Moldova (which this week also asked to join Russia) and the still unresolved issue of Russian speakers in the Baltics who for more than 20 years have remained technically stateless because they refuse to take language lessons to be eligible for local passports. But Mr Putin does not mention them explicitly.
Sevastopol has long been the home of Russia's extensive Black Sea Fleet
- Bridget Kendall: This is something Mr Putin says frequently - the importance of maintaining good relations with Ukraine, and with the Ukrainian people. But that is not the same of having good relations with the current Ukrainian government which he claims is illegitimate (see below).
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote
I understand why Ukrainian people wanted change. They have had enough of the authorities in power during the years of Ukraine's independence”
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 [Leonid] 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 south-east 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 more than 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 $20bn (£16.7bn), which is about 12% of Ukraine's GDP.
Pro-EU protest in Independence Square in Kiev in December
- Bridget Kendall: Inflammatory words- the basis of Mr Putin's argument that the new Ukrainian authorities are illegitimate and Russia has to be prepared to act to protect compatriots. Claims that dangerous "neo-Nazis, Russophobes and anti-Semites" are behind the new Kiev government, frequently repeated in the Russian media, justify the Kremlin's argument that any Russian intervention would be based on humanitarian considerations.
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.
- Bridget Kendall: Elsewhere Mr Putin has suggested that he wants his ministers to maintain some sort of economic dialogue with the new Ukrainian government. No sign of that here.
- Bridget Kendall: No mention of the pro-Moscow armed group who on the night of February 26 took over the parliament building in Crimea to enable pro-Moscow Crimean MPs to hold a hurried session to sack the previous Crimean prime minister. Once they'd replaced him, the new leader then approached Moscow to ask for help - and for permission to join Russia.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote
Ivan Mamykin Pensioner in YaltaI voted honestly yesterday and woke up happy today. It felt like I was living in my home country, Russia - which is as it should be”
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.
- Bridget Kendall: Ahead of the referendum Russian troops and vehicles were seen deploying all over the Crimean peninsula, surrounding Ukrainian military sites and establishing checkpoints - which the Kiev authorities say definitely violated agreements that Russian forces should not move away from their bases without mutual agreement.
Continue reading the main story
Kosovo at a glance
- Kosovo unilaterally declared independence from Serbia in 2008. It has been recognised by the US and many EU countries
- Kosovo and Serbia reached a landmark agreement to normalise their relations in April 2013
- The EU subsequently gave the green light for talks on an association agreement with Kosovo to begin
- Nato peacekeepers have been in Kosovo since 1999
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.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote
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”
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.
- Bridget Kendall: Note how important it is for Mr Putin to be able to cite legal justification for Crimea rejoining Moscow. He wants to be able to rebut Western claims that this is a land grab and illegal annexation, to make the case at home and abroad that by redrawing the map and adding Crimea to Russia, his actions are entirely legitimate.
- Bridget Kendall: Particularly ironic that Mr Putin thanks Ukrainian troops for refraining from bloodshed in Crimea - they were under orders from Kiev at all costs to avoid clashes in order not to give Moscow a pretext for a full scale Russian military intervention.
Cannot play media. You do not have the correct version of the flash player. Download the correct version
Mr Putin's official spokesman Dmitry Peskov says Ukrainian soldiers in Crimea have a choice
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.
Russia (L) vetoed a draft UN resolution condemning its actions in Crimea - but the vote left Russia isolated
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 20th 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.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote
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”
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 co-operation 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.
- Bridget Kendall: This is an especially worrying part of this speech, reflecting Mr Putin's belief that Ukraine is only the latest in a long running simmering confrontation between Russia and the West which is now out in the open - and which he sees is the result of the West refusing to treat Russia as an equal partner and repeatedly acting with double standards. His resentment against the West has been building for a long time.
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 Co-ordinating 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 18th, 19th and 20th 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.
- Bridget Kendall: Many have wondered whether this current crisis might subside and allow Moscow and the West to patch up their differences, as after Russia's incursion into Georgia in 2008. But this time looks different. When Mr Putin says the West "crossed a line" with Ukraine, it suggests - probably on both sides - that this is much more serious and could be opening up a permanent rift in international relations.
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.
- Bridget Kendall: Mr Putin may call on the West to stop its "Cold War hysterics", but this speech is woven through with Mr Putin's own Cold War nostalgia and suspicions - from his belief that the West wants to "contain" Russia and never dismantled its secret Cold War technology transfer bans to Russia, and his lament earlier in the speech that the Soviet republics failed to keep a common statehood and stay together as a single space with one currency, one economy and shared armed forces... to his conviction that hostile "foreign forces" were behind the recent turmoil in Ukraine, intent on turning it away from Moscow.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote
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”
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 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!
- Bridget Kendall: These appeals sound reassuring - but are they? The message is mixed: Mr Putin says he still wants to co-operate with the West, but accuses it of lies and betrayal; he says he does not want to divide Ukraine, but leaves open the option of intervening if he deems conditions there worsen. Let's not forget that a week ago at his press conference he said he was not considering the option of Crimea rejoining Russia. In this fast-moving crisis, there are no guarantees that what is said today will hold tomorrow.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote
We want to be friends with Ukraine and we want Ukraine to be a strong, sovereign and self-sufficient country”
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 co-operation
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.
Russian self-defence forces climb flagpoles to replace the Ukrainian flag in Sevastopol
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.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote
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'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. - Bridget Kendall: Potentially chilling words for those inside Russia who oppose Mr Putin. Already some opposition blog sites have been taken down and some media platforms critical of the Kremlin put under more loyal management. Now Mr Putin is warning his domestic critics that if they dare act as "national traitors" they'll be accused of being a "fifth column" - working for hostile foreign interests. And, for good measure, any worsening of the Russian economy will be blamed on Western sanctions. He is laying the ground for putting Russia on an emergency footing, where everything is justified in the name of national security.
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% of people think that
Russia should protect the interests of Russians and members of other
ethnic groups living in Crimea - 95% of our citizens. More than 83%
think that Russia should do this even if it will complicate our
relations with some other countries. A total of 86% 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% of our people support
Crimea's reunification with Russia.
- Bridget Kendall: There is no doubt that the re-uniting of Crimea with Russia is popular with many Russians. If Mr Putin was looking for a way to explain to his electorate why they still need him as president, this crisis works beautifully. It appeals to patriotism, it invokes an "enemy without" which requires a strong leader to hold the nation firm against foreign pressure. That all works well in the short term. The longer term is more unpredictable.
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.
Cannot play media. You do not have the correct version of the flash player. Download the correct version
The moment Russian and Crimean leaders signed a
treaty formalising the absorption of the Ukrainian Black Sea peninsula
into Russia
I stand assured of your support.
en
end quote from:http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26769481
No comments:
Post a Comment