Russia’s move to revoke Crimea transfer decision: unraveling motives


The Russian Duma’s push to reverse the 1954 decision to transfer Crimea from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR raised eyebrows; Ukrainian political analyst, Petro Oleshchuk, dissected the underlying motives driving this initiative on Facebook on March 14.

“They keep yelling about the ‘referendum’ and ‘expression of will,’” Oleshchuk said.

Read also: "No lasting peace without return of Crimea to Ukraine" - Macron

“Is that really not enough? Do they need to make an ‘even more final’ decision after the ‘final decision?’ Can it be any more final?”

“What about the other territories they have captured and seemingly annexed? Does their ‘annexation’ not require such ‘additional proof?’ Or maybe they are going to cancel the 1918 Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, under which they first recognized the independence of Ukraine? By the way, according to this treaty, Belgorod was also quite Ukrainian.”

“This group of imperial reconstructionists clearly feels insecure. When one is truly confident, the need for ‘additional historical arguments’ is unnecessary. Historical arguments often lead to endless debates, as for every argument made, there exists a counterargument of equal historical significance. However, the club of bunker reconstructionists cannot calm down.”

Read also: Russian parliament proposes to declare 1954 transfer of Crimea to Ukraine as 'invalid'

“What does this indicate?” he said.

“Most likely, it is like in the anecdote: they have already started to bargain, presenting their final arguments in a bid to sway the outcome.”

“Indeed, when the Pope and Putin’s ‘staff oppositionist,’ (Grigory) Yavlinsky, echo the same arguments for an entire month — ‘we must immediately stop the war, give the land to the aggressor to save lives, the war will not bring results’ — it all cannot be merely coincidental.”

“Yet another mention of nuclear weapons and ‘extra arguments’ about the ownership of Crimea concerning the ownership of Crimea is not coincidental either,” said Oleshchuk.

“It is evidently a signal from the empire, indicating discomfort with the idea of relinquishing control over what it has captured, and aiming to defend it ‘by all means,’ suggesting it is better to concede everything, especially since they have ‘historical maps.’ To advance this agenda, they have mobilized all available agents of influence, who relentlessly yap about ‘special rights’ and so on.”

“In reality, they have no need for a ceasefire. However, it is important for them to maintain the illusion of a potential ceasefire in the eyes of the West, so that it wouldn’t start taking the opposition to Russia seriously. The West has to be convinced that the aggressors only need a ‘piece of Ukraine’; just a small bite — and that’s it! No need to rearm, no need to restore military potential. ‘Tomorrow everything will be over. That’s what Pope Francis says.’ I hope that no one will take such a deceptive rhetoric seriously, particularly given the lack of confidence demonstrated by the source itself. This is just a move to raise the stakes through a new level of bluff and nuclear blackmail.”

Read also: If Russia wins the war, the EU will lose all credibility, especially in Eastern Europe — Macron

We’re bringing the voice of Ukraine to the world. Support us with a one-time donation, or become a Patron!

Read the original article on The New Voice of Ukraine