by Alexey Stukalo
Russian historian, philosopher and religious scholar Andrei Zubov told to the publication GORDON that he considers offer of the Head of the Federation Council Valentina Matviyenko to recognize being illegal of the transfer of Crimea to the structure of the Ukrainian SSR in 1954 to be legally inadequate attempt of Russia to justify its actions post factum.
Matviyenko’s declaration is beyond the frame of both international law and common sense. The resolution to transfer Crimea was made in another state – the Soviet Union, by its two republics. Correspondingly the todays Russian Federation has to it, at most, relevance of the follower.
Let’s imagine that a man while alive gives in will his property to a wife. However after his death a son tells that last will is incorrect, it was made voluntaristically and that everything must belong to him. In no state such declaration will be considered to be legal if, of course, one wouldn’t announce that man who wrote it went mad. But as long as the USSR in 1954 and Khrushchev together with it obviously did not go mad, this is at all absurd declaration in terms of the law. They either don’t understand this or they think that everybody will “eat up” everything even so, and that there are only idiots all around. Whatever they adopt in the Duma, it would have no consequences.
In the Soviet Union time after time transfers of some or other territories from one union republic to another took place and new union republics were created. For example, Kazakhstan and Kirgizia were created from the structure of the Russian Federation, Tajikistan – from the structure of Uzbekistan. Vitebsk and Mogilev guberniyas were transferred from Russia to Belarus in 1929. Karelia that was independent was declared the Karelo-Finnish Soviet Republic and then it was included to the structure of the Russian Federation. If we consider resolutions of the soviet authorities to be legal it means that all these actions are legal. And if we consider them to be illegal it means that all these actions are illegal, including the creation of the USSR itself in 1922.
We are settling down to the course of the absolute legal chaos in territorial relations. I think that just this explains special attitude of Kazakhstan and Belarus to Ukraine. Nazarbayev and Lukashenko felt that on this course one can go well further than Crimea. Not in the sense of occupation but also some kind of thoughtless, legally inadequate attempts to justify in the legal sense these actions post factum.
I think that actions offered by Matviyenko are absolutely illegal and definitely discredit our legislative assembly. As well they open a very dangerous precedent that may lead to war in the territory of post-soviet space. Not only between Ukraine and Russia but also practically along the whole periphery of the todays Russian Federation.