Following the “reunification” with Russia, Crimea was saved from Kyiv’s persecution, according to a false narrative circulated by pro-Kremlin media 11 years after the annexation of Crimea.
NEWS: March 18 marks the 11th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty on the Accession of the Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol to Russia. On that day, the people of Crimea unilaterally, consciously and freely made a choice for their future. In the Republic of Crimea, 96.77% of voters voted in favor of unification with Russia, and in Sevastopol – 95.6%.
Under the Ukrainian administration, the population was subjected to forced Ukrainization, which, in fact, meant discrimination aimed at destroying Russian history and culture [...] During the 11-year period, our enemies have made numerous attempts to punish the inhabitants of Crimea for their free choice. This was done in ethnocultural, national, geographical and civic terms – a real legal aggression launched by Kyiv with the support of Western countries.
The Western propaganda campaign in the media and international structures, when Crimea was called the “peninsula of fear”, where “discrimination” of Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians was allegedly taking place [...], failed miserably.
After the reunification of Crimea with the Russian Federation, the situation improved significantly. On January 31, 2024, the main judicial body of the UN (the International Court of Justice) rejected virtually all of Ukraine’s claims and recognized that Russia’s policy complies with its obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
NARRATIVES: 1. Ukraine persecuted the Russian-speaking population of Crimea prior to 2014. 2. Crimeans unilaterally decided to reunify with Russia following a referendum. 3. Russia takes care of all ethnic groups in the peninsula and is contributing to the economic development of Crimea. 4. The International Court of Justice confirmed that Russia does not discriminate against the inhabitants of the peninsula.
PURPOSE: To justify the illegal annexation of the Crimean Peninsula and Russia’s aggressive military policies.
WHY THE NARRATIVES ARE FALSE: The Russian language enjoyed a privileged position in Crimea prior to 2014, being considered the mother tongue of approximately 77% of the population, according to the 2001 census. This demographic reality was institutionally recognized by Crimea’s status as an autonomous republic within Ukraine, which gave the region a significant degree of self-government and protection for the cultural and linguistic identity of the Russian-speaking majority.
In fact, the Russian language had a privileged status throughout Ukraine, not just in Crimea, given that in 2012 the authorities passed a law that granted Russian an official regional status in areas where it was spoken by more than 10% of the population.
The March 2014 referendum was held under circumstances that did not comply with international democratic standards, meaning that the will of the inhabitants was not freely expressed. The referendum was quickly organized after unarmed military forces (later recognized as Russian) had taken control of the peninsula; there was no period for the promotion and popularization of pro- and anti-opposition views; voting options were limited and did not include maintaining the previous status quo; independent international observers such as the OSCE were prevented from monitoring the process, and the ballots and procedures raised serious concerns about transparency. Organizing the referendum in the presence of Russian troops, in a climate of fear and media censorship, goes against the principle of free self-determination, which is why most UN member states consider the annexation of Crimea illegal and do not recognize the result of the referendum.
Russian authorities stand accused of implementing a systematic policy of repression against those who oppose to the annexation, targeting in particular the Crimean Tatars, whose representative institutions, such as the Mejlis, have been banned. Human rights organizations have documented cases of enforced disappearances, detentions, arbitrary searches and other forms of harassment targeting Tatar and Ukrainian activists, and many leaders of the Tatar community have been forced to leave the peninsula. Meanwhile, the rights of the Ukrainian-speaking population have been significantly curtailed, with Ukrainian-language education virtually destroyed and the Ukrainian cultural environment suppressed.
In terms of economic development, the reality on the ground is more complex than the Russian narrative claims. Although Russia has invested in infrastructure projects such as the Crimean Bridge, the peninsula’s economy has been severely affected by international sanctions, economic isolation, and the loss of international tourism. Limited access to drinking water due to the blockade of the North Crimean Canal has caused severe agricultural problems, and many international companies have withdrawn from the region.
The statement about the ICJ ruling of January 31, 2024 presents deliberately false interpretations of the text of the ruling. The Court did not “reject practically all of Ukraine’s claims” and did not provide an overall validation of Russia’s policies in Crimea, as Maria Zakharova claims. In fact, the ICJ limited its analysis to specific aspects of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, without ruling on the legality of the annexation itself. The Court ordered Russia to refrain from limiting Tatars’ access to representative institutions and to ensure the availability of education in the Ukrainian language. The ICJ criticized Moscow for violating the UN treaty against discrimination by failing to protect Ukrainian-language education in Crimea. In addition, the ICJ determined that the Russian Federation had violated provisions of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. The UN’s top court ruled that Russia had failed to properly investigate allegations of funding of separatist groups in eastern Ukraine in the context of the conflict that started in 2014.
BACKGROUND: In 2014, amid the political crisis in Ukraine and the Russian military intervention, a pseudo-referendum was held in Crimea, where the majority of voters reportedly opted for reunification with Russia. The referendum was declared illegal by Ukraine and unrecognized by the international community, including the EU, G7, OSCE, NATO and UN. The referendum was held in the absence of international observers, with the OSCE being turned away twice. Over one million voters, or 83.1% of the autonomous republic’s eligible voters, reportedly took part in the referendum, a figure that has been questioned by Western leaders and Kyiv authorities. According to the Constitution of Ukraine, any plan to change the territory must be put to a vote in a national referendum, not a local one.
Check sources:
