Disinfo: Crimea has never been Ukraine, it returned to Russia on a legal referendum

Summary

Crimea made its own choice in 2014 and returned home legally. Crimea has never been Ukraine. The voting on the peninsula on March 16, 2014, only implemented the decision of the referendum on January 20, 1991.

Disproof

Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about the illegal annexation of Crimea, claiming that Crimea voted to rejoin Russia through a legal referendum.

Crimea is an internationally recognised part of Ukraine. Іn 1997, by signing the Friendship Agreement with Ukraine, Russia also recognised that Crimea belongs to Ukraine.

On the 1991 Crimea sovereignty referendum, voters were asked whether they wanted to re-establish the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. 94% of voters supported the proposal, and the Supreme Council of Ukrainian SSR established the autonomous Crimean Republic within the territory of Ukraine. After Ukraine adopted a new constitution in 1996, Crimea saved its autonomy. Crimea has its own parliament and government.

No international body recognises the so-called referendum in Crimea. The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution entitled “Territorial integrity of Ukraine”, stating that the referendum in Crimea was not valid and could not serve as a basis for any change in the status of the peninsula. On 17 December 2018, the UN General Assembly confirmed its non-recognition of the illegal annexation of Crimea.

The Council on Foreign Relations lists one key legal reason for the illegitimacy of the Crimean referendum: Changes to the territory of Ukraine must be approved by a referendum of all Ukrainian people. The Cambridge International Law Journal states that there are a variety of reasons when secession might be legal: (1) if the people concerned are subject to decolonization; (2) if it is envisaged by the legislation of the parent state; (3) if a territory inhabited by a certain people is occupied or annexed after 1945; (4) the secessionist constitute a "people"; (5) the parent state flagrantly violate human rights; (6) no other effective remedies under national or international law may exist if any of the above-mentioned conditions are met. However, in the case of Ukraine and Crimea, none of these conditions were met.

The European Union does not recognise and continues to strongly condemn this violation of international law, which remains a challenge to the international security order. In response to the illegal annexation of Crimea, the EU has imposed restrictive measures against the Russian Federation. In June 2020, the European Council decided to renew the sanctions introduced in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol by the Russian Federation until 23 June 2021.

Go to search

publication/media

asd.news (Archived)
  • Reported in: Issue 233
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 02/03/2021
  • Article language(s) Russian
  • Countries and/or Regions discussed in the disinformation: Ukraine, Russia
  • Keywords: Crimea, Manipulated elections/referendum, Occupation, illegal annexation, Ukraine
see more

Disinfo: Amnesty International admits that Alexei Navalny is a mere criminal

Convict blogger Alexei Navalny is not a prisoner of conscience, as Amnesty International concluded, miraculously admitting that he is a mere criminal. This globalist organisation has historically responded to the interests of the West, so this is a real blow to those who call for the release of this man convicted by fraud and embezzlement, and makes them accomplices of a member of organised crime.

Mar 01, 2021
Disproof

The claim is false. Amnesty International has explained that it withdrew its consideration of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny as prisoner of conscience because he had, in the past, made comments which may have amounted to advocacy of hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, violence or hostility, which doesn’t fit in its own definition of the term. While this decision has been highly controversial, this is very different from “admitting that he is a criminal”.

Charges against Navalny are politically motivated and were presented while he was recovering in Berlin after the poisoning attempt on his life six months earlier, as a means of forcing him to stay in exile. The European Court of Human Rights, where Russia is a member, has concluded that the original charges against Mr Navalny was politically motivated. The EU has condemned the detention of Alexei Navalny and called for his immediate release.

Disinfo: EU sanctions on Russia are illegal and absurd

The EU sanctions on Russia follow no logic, which points to the fact that they are based on an absurd premeditated story supported by a media campaign.

Mar 01, 2021
Disproof

Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about sanctions.

Series of EU restrictive measures on Russian individuals and entities are a response to Russia’s actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, and to Russia’s use of chemical weapons in an assassination attempt against opposition leader Alexei Navalny, his unlawful imprisonment, and repression against Russian demonstrators.

Disinfo: Liberalism made the Westerners hedonistic, immoral and under the control of Satan

As a result of liberalism, people in Western societies are hedonistic, immoral, nihilistic and increasingly involved in Satanism. They are effectively under the control of Satan. Liberalism breaks down moral constraints and makes man a slave to his own lust, free to pursue his desires and cravings. The media in Western societies increasingly spreads Satanist values. The Westernisation and modernisation of non-Western societies is a means to Satanise these societies.

Mar 01, 2021
Disproof

Disinformation that combines three related pro-Kremlin disinformation narratives . The first narrative claims that Satanism is the value-system of the global secret elites, whose alleged aim is to destroy traditional religious and values, paving the way for an immoral, hedonistic and unregulated society. The second narrative is about the moral decadence of the West. The third narrative claims that the liberal West seeks to export its hostility to traditional values, materialism and perverse attitudes to non-Western nations.

There is no evidence that supports the article’s claim that people in the Western societies are hedonistic, immoral, nihilistic and under Satan’s control. This claim is not based on facts.