Did Russia "annex" Crimea? - by confusedponderer

According to the established political and media narrative that Russia, no, Putin, Putin, and Putin again, annexed Crimea and in doing so violated international law.

These are weighty accusations and worth looking into.

Brief historical overview on Crimea

To make a long story short: Catherine the Great added Crimea as the Taurida Oblast to Russia by a decree on 2 February 1784. It has been Russian ever since, or would have been, if not, by fluke of history, Nikita Chruschev had signed it away to become part of Ukraine. That was at a time when it didn't matter what part of the USSR Crimea was in.

It started to matter when the USSR dissolved and Chruschev's decision saw Crimea over night becoming part of a foreign country when Ukraine declared independence.

On Crimea is located the strategically important warm water port of Sewastopol, a traditional Russian naval base, which Russia was keen on keeping since it allowed Russia access to the Mediterranean. Russia eventually negotiated a 'status of forces agreement' with Ukraine that allowed Russia to station up to 40.000 troops in Crimea and leased the Sevastopol naval base for a number of years.

Coming to terms

♦ Sovereignty

Sovereignty is the full right and power means of a state or a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies.

♦ International law

International law is is the set of rules generally regarded and accepted as binding in relations between states and between nations. It differs from state-based legal systems in that it is primarily applicable to countries rather than to private citizens. The actors of international law have created international law in rather hardnosed pursuit of their interests.

♦ Self-determination

The Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker, or the right to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law (jus cogens), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter’s norms. It states that nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no external compulsion or interference. The referendum on Scotish independence is a good example for this.

♦ Annexation

Annexation is is the forcible acquisition of a state's territory by another state. This violates the non-aggression principle in international law. It constitutes aggression, the most severe form of violations of the sovereignty of another state and thus, of international law.
The UN Charter's Chapter VII deals with such cases, and article 51 UN Charter entitles states to come to help without a UN mandate - severe consequences.

If Annexation is is the forcible acquisition of a state's territory by another state, then the conditions for this offence must be met. Each of them in turn:

• Crimea was part of Ukrainian territory.
• Russia is another state.
• Crimea is now part of Russia.
• So what remains to be considered is whether Russia acquired Crimea forcibly.

So, did Russia acquire Crimea forcibly?

♦ The Referendum

On 16 March, 2014 the Crimeans held a referendum. They asked themselves whether they wanted to join Russia as a federal subject, or if they wanted to restore the 1992 Crimean constitution and Crimea's status as a part of Ukraine.

The Obama administration has claimed that the referendum violated international law.

I disagree: If a population of a part of country holds a plebiscite, that is a domestic affair.

Since international law is law between states, the people of Crimea are technically incapable of violating international law. They are not an entity under international law. At the time of the referendum they were subjects of the sovereign state of Ukraine. As subjects of Ukraine, they cannot violate Ukrainian territorial integrity.

The referendum may well have been illegal under Ukrainian law, but then, that doesn't concern international legality either.

♦ The Secession

Likewise, the declaration of secession doesn't violate international law. It cannot, for the very same reason: Conflicts of secession are also domestic affairs.

The ICJ in his advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence was asked the pertinent question whether the "unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo [was] in accordance with international law".

The ruling stated that the court:

"Is of the opinion that the declaration of independence of Kosovo adopted on 17 February 2008 did not violate international law"

It is also rather illustrative to read the litany of separate and dissenting opinions in the ruling [PDF]. All the more surprising in light of all this nuance and complexity is the utter and immediate certainty professed by the United States and their western supporters on the matter.

When the Obama administration say that there is no right to secession that is technically true, they express a half truth, since they conceal that there also is no prohibition of secession.

There is an obvious reason why international law does not define legality of secession: There is no interest on behalf of anybody, save some academics, to do so since no state is interested in instructing so-inclined minorities on the art of secession. DC in its statements exploits this ambiguity for propagandistic gain.

♦ The russian troop presence

Russia had troops stationed in Crimea on the basis of the bilateral treaty with Ukraine, permitting Russia to station up to 40.000 troops in Crimea. References to the number of of Russian troops in Crimea were often cited without that context.

The question is whether the Russian presence at Ukrainian barracks turned the entire referendum into a farce. IMO, it didn't. The Russians blocked Ukrainian barracks and the airports on Crimea, and in doing so prevented the Ukrainian government from interfering directly or by proxy with the referendum. Russia didn't influence the referendum itself, but they made it possible.

The referendum went rather free and, given the level of pro-Russian sentiment, it was a rather sure bet that didn't require any cheating by Russia. The crimeans by a majority did want to secede from Ukraine and to become part of Russia; they were not coerced by Russia. There can be little doubt that that result by and large reflects the sentiment of the population of Crimea.

Where Russia did violate international law

♦ Military presence beyond the leased areas

Russia violated the terms of their lease agreement by leaving the leased areas without Ukrainian consent. In doing so they violated Ukrainian sovereignty. That entitles other states to realiate, for instance through sanctions. The question is whether, given the relative low intensity of the offence in this given case, these sanctions and the accompanying hysteria are still proportional to the offence.

♦ Premature ascension to the Russian Federation

Also, Russia acted in violation of international law vis a vis Ukraine when they accepted ascension of Crimea into Russia a mere two days after the secession. Russia should have awaited consolidation of the situation before making such a step, which would obviously be at the expense of Ukraine. An analogy would be a period of separation in cases of deivorce. This also will be seen as justifying retaliation.

When Kosovo declared independence on 17 February, 2008, the US, UK and France recognised Kosovo as an independent country a day later; it took Germany three days.

Ahum.

In sum, I don't see how Russia acquired Crimea forcibly. It didn't annex Crimea.

~ confusedponderer

Comments

[Medicine Man]

"When Kosovo declared independence on 17 February, 2008, the US, UK and France recognised Kosovo as an independent country a day later; it took Germany three days."

Apparently it is so, so different when the shoe is on the other foot.

[Eliot]

What was the line...

"We have not lost anything that we did not gamble away, long ago."

- Eliot

[Peter Brownlee]

These infantile playground games of good guys and bad guys and the squealing of those with their snouts in the security industry troughs seem (incredibly) to be getting worse.

Kreon's warning in Oedipus Coloneus still holds -- "Do not order those things which you cannot enforce" -- μὴ 'πίτασσ᾽ ἃ μὴ κρατεῖς.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0189%3Acard%3D800

I have just heard the Australian Foreign Minister (of all people -- and who is supposed to be doing a splendid job, according to our local buffoons) at the NATO meeting (!) in Wales (!) lecturing Russia on troop withdrawal "or else!".

Do these people have any idea of the potential consequences of this sort of wimps-trying-to-be-tough-guys talk?

[ex-PFC Chuck]

Paging Joseph Goebbels! Please pick up the white courtesy phone.

[JerseyJeffersonian]

ex-PFC Chuck,

Goebbels may have pride of place in more recent Western history, but for us Murkins, it's Edward Bernays and his followers who have the more direct resonance. Note his pioneering work in support of the nascent "Bringing Democracy To the World" line peddled by Wilson, the direct lineal ancestor of the R2P adherents:

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

Also, the sense that we rude stock don't know what is good for us, and need to be persuaded to right thinking by whatever means necessary by our betters. In service of this, lies, misdirections, and subterfuges may serve far better than sound argumentation, particularly when the desired end state may not truly serve the interests of the nation, but rather those of an elite.

Under the "Techniques" section of the Wikipedia article, it is pointed out that Bernays was influential in formulating the notion for the business community that control of the news narrative (!) might be better for their businesses than advertising, at least advertising in isolation. And there are more highly provocative ideas from Bernays delineated in that "Techniques" section that were abidingly influential in channelizing the public discourse.

There is certainly much food for thought concerning the impact of his notions of propaganda. Observe particularly his horrified reaction when he learned that the aforementioned Goebbels was using methods delineated in his book Crystallizing Public Opinion in his campaign against the Jews. Obviously, information operations can serve nefarious purposes quite well.

[fasteddiez]

If Kreon were to borrow H.G Wells' time machine to visit the present era, he would, to Neoconjobia, profer "Don't Let Your Mouth Write A Check That Your Ass Can't Cash!'

[SAC Brat]

Should the US give up Texas? I keep waiting for Putin to throw down that card. Maybe Russia has the same rights to the Ukraine as Israel has to Palestine.

History is so much fun, and damn those that airbrush and white-wash it.

[William R. Cumminh]

This post by CP seems to be on target IMO!

Again ALL: Given the major powers opposing the label of an independent state or nation for over two hundred years why now change in support of a new status for the Ukraine?

I think NATO is a largely defunct alliance and its existence only is to allow US meddling!

[William R. Cumminh]

Existing evidence shows Woodrow Wilson agreeing to oppose an independent Ukraine. My source British historian Margaret McMillian.

[Peter Brownlee]

Looking forward to those Russian and Chinese peace-keepers on the Canadian and Mexican borders.

[Dubhaltach]

In reply to William R. Cumminh 05 September 2014 at 12:11 AM

"I think NATO is a largely defunct alliance and its existence only is to allow US meddling!"

Worse it allows them to warmonger and to drag others into their wars.

Worse yet it allows them to dominate the continent in such a way as to prevent European energy independence.

Worst of all it gives European policy makers the perfect excuse not to develop and pay for effective armed forces of their own. Thereby ensuring that even in European affairs when push comes to shove - originally a military expression that I choose advisedly, it will be the Americans who decide.

Nobody could describe me as Anti-American but American behaviour in the last few decades has become increasingly deranged and dangerous. I believe that matters have reached the point where an American retreat into splendid isolation would be advantageous for all of us - particularly Americans.

Dubhaltach

[Florent]

dear CP,
thank you for this very clear analysis. However, your entire argument hangs on one point "Was the Crimea referendum free and fair?"
Your proof of that is very weak (the link to a "report" which is not available from a group of "observers" who have no training, no procedure to follow, etc)
For another take on it read, for instance, this article: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/17/crimea-referendum-sham-display-democracy-ukraine
(Note that this is a rather moderate article where the author does think that a free and fair referendum would have produced the same answer but with a less extreme result than 97%)
We cannot decide such a question just by quoting this or that article on the web. There are international standards for free and fair elections. The issue of media access and media balance is crucial to them. How much of it was respected in Crimea?

I do not think it is possible to apply your way of reasoned thinking on such a disputed issue without going really to the bottom of the matter. For us who care about coherence and really universal standards this would be a slippery slope.

If Crimea was not annexed then what next? Western Sahara was not annexed? And East-Jerusalem?

Respectfully,
Florent

[William R. Cumminh]

Apparently the USA pays 75% of total NATO annual costs!

[Seamus Padraig]

I once read somewhere that Goebbels was an admirer of Bernays, and confessed to stealing some of his ideas.

[bth]

Confused, you forgot to mention the part where the Russian navy entrapped the Ukrainian navy in port and the role of the 'little green men' and Russian intelligence operatives that then shifted to other regions to organize rebellion. Its pretty clear that it was an organized military operation. The 'Goblin' has he is called there was going to win the vote because it was the counters and not the voters that made this decision.

Russia could have offered to purchase Crimea for oil and gas concessions and financial support of the Ukraine. The US purchased Alaska from the Russians not that long ago for example.

There is more here than a group of men deciding to create a new gentlemen's club as George Pickett described the civil war. Pickett was said to '... have a talent for trivializin' the momentous and complicatin' the obvious'

[SAC Brat]

Youch, that could get touchy as we have invaded all four of those countries in the past. Rather unseemly of Canada to be celebrating the bicentennial of defeating the US forces.

[LeaNder]

are they? Well that would explain a lot.

[LeaNder]

william, if I may. I'll add:

It would explain my puzzlement about some comments on what some call the "Venus" versus Mars. But yes, that is only the surface of where I encountered American compaints about "deficiant" European spending in military spending, or whatever would be the appropriate term.

No strings attached with this generous US spending volume? E.g. in Ukraine?

[Babak Makkinejad]

You are quite right; the so-called "International Law" and "Regulations" that were supposed to underlie the post World War II peace have been destroyed; by US, USSR/Russia, EU, China, India, Israel and many other states.

This war over Ukraine is the last instance - this time by Russia.

It seems to me that "Diplomacy" has become the tool for getting off the war ramp rather than the art of not entering the war ramp in the first place.

[Seamus Padraig]

I agree with pretty much everything in confusedponder's post here. I only want to add one important point that he neglects to mention: Crimea had already held a referendum way back in 1991, when the USSR was about to come apart. Here's a quick primer from WikiPedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_sovereignty_referendum,_1991

Guess what the yes-vote was? 94 percent!

This point has to be raised because the western MSM have been totally silent on it.

Incidentally, Jack Matlock, our last ambassador to the USSR, is also a good source on the subject: http://jackmatlock.com/.

[turcopolier]

LeAnder

Oh, come on -

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

US Expenditures 2.5% of GDP
German expenditures 1.4 % of GDP

Lordy, Lordy as the old lady from South Carolina would say, how you DO suffah...

As you know, I think NATO is simply an amusement for people over here who still mourn the loss of the Phillipines and the Canal Zone. we should dump the whole thing and let you and the Canadians deal with your own problems. pl

[The beaver]

@ SAC Brat,

Please please please, don't compare every single Canuck to Stevie Harper and his two yes men, Baird and MacKay.

Harper wants to be everything, a royalist - hoping to get something from the Queen, Nobel Peace price thanks for his pro-israel, no matter what instances , une grande gueule at the G7,G20, Commonwealth, Francophonie or NATO when he can't even treat the military , vet and current forces with respect, let alone put some money where his mouth is.

That's why the UNGA and NASA have told Canadians where to go...

[LeaNder]

Pat, I had no idea how much we spend, or sell for that matter, in relation to our GDP.

"how you DO suffah"

No, not really. Just visiting, since occasionally I seem to miss you. Especially in contexts of war and/or the threat thereof.

But yes in a way William seemed to.

Returning to IT forensics, complex matters: THUS sometimes one has to look at the world out there. ;)

[Charles Dekle]

ex-PFC Chuck,
Thank you. That made me laugh out load.
Regards,

[scott s.]

SAC Bart:

I can see a number of parallels of Texas and Crimea, and the US did unilaterally declare "annexation" (without force, as also in the latter case of Hawaii). However, whatever the case of the "annexation" of Tejas, it would seem the issue was finessed by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which simply "established" a boundary line without regard to a "cession", "annexation" or other means of acquisition. The US did agree to compensation of $15 million "in consideration of the extension acquired" though this didn't distinguish in any way the situation of Tejas as contrasted to Alta California or Sante Fe de Nuevo Mejico. Again without respect to location within the US side of the new border, citizens of Mexico were allowed to retain their citizenship or opt for US citizenship. Not sure what the case is in Crimea.