Reunification Of Crimea Research Articles

Prospects for the development of the EAEU amid a confrontation between Russia and the West

The article examines the consequences of the Western states’ sanctions pressure on Russia for the EAEU. Special attention is paid to the position of the EAEU members amid two crucial events in the Ukrainian crisis: the reunification of Crimea with Russia (2014) and the beginning of a special military operation (SMO) in Ukraine (2022). Measures aimed at minimizing the damage from anti-Russian sanctions on the economies of the EAEU countries are considered, such as: customs, customs tariff and non-tariff regulation, protective measures; internal market and cooperation; financial and currency markets; international economic cooperation with third countries and integration associations. The priorities of Russia’s chairmanship in the EAEU in 2023 are analyzed. The prerequisites for the further development of the EAEU as a self-sufficient integration center in Eurasia and the prospects of the EAEU amid a confrontation between Russia and the West are examined. Among the negative factors slowing down the development of the EAEU the following stand out: the orientation of some members to the third countries’ markets, the modest pace of modernization and increasing the competitiveness of the economies of the EAEU countries, the insufficient level of development of transport infrastructure and logistics, the concerns of the EAEU members (Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan) of «secondary» sanctions, the absence of a consolidated position within the union regarding Western sanctions, the violation of transactional payments as an outcome of Russia’s disconnection from international payment systems.

Особенности государственно-правового статуса Крыма: история и современность

The aim of the present paper is proving the position that modern development of Crimea as a part of the Russian Federation has deep historical, cultural and civilizational foundations. Having been integrated to Russia at the end of the 18th century, this region became open to the whole world. At the same time, the Russian paradigm of state development was dominant and virtually unconditionally supported by the majority of the population. The Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was formed at the beginning of the 20th century within the established Russian traditions and development. After the Great Patriotic War, Crimea kept its development in the all-Russian cultural course, despite the republic was transmitted into administration of Ukraine in 1954. The transfer of Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954 within the framework of the all-Soviet statehood did not change the established axiology, state and legal priorities of the local population. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the violent ukrainization and westernization caused the rejection by the prevailing majority of Crimeans. The reunification of Crimea with Russia according to the results of the referendum, held on March 16, 2014, is historically justified and complies with the universally recognized principles of democracy, law and universal morality.

The Republic of Türkiye and Ukraine: Using the Crimean Tatar Question in Foreign Policy after 2014

In historical retrospect, the use of national issues and contradictions has repeatedly become the weakening mechanisms for some great powers in regard to others. In this case, various technologies to construct national myths and ideologies based on tribalism and national exclusiveness and superiority were applied. After the “Crimean spring” in 2014, the Crimean Tatar issue gained a new level of relevance. The Republic of Türkiye and Ukraine are actively using the Crimean Tatar factor to oppose the reintegration of Crimea into the Russian Federation and, consequently, to weaken Russia’s positions in the Black Sea and Mediterranean region. In the article the authors analyze the peculiarities of the influence of the Republic of Türkiye on the Crimean Tatars, as well as the Ukrainian initiatives in relation to the Crimean Tatars and joint Turkish-Ukrainian projects, with the target group consisting of the Crimean Tatars. The methodological basis of the research is system-based, geopolitical, civilizational and institutional approaches, which are implemented both directly and by using a number of general scientific and political science methods. The current policy of Türkiye and Ukraine on the Crimean Tatar issue has common features. Firstly, it is currently topical for the policy elites of these states, both at the domestic and international political levels. Under these circumstances, if the Crimean Tatar issue is an opportunity for Kiev to re-establish its jurisdiction over Crimea, then for Ankara the Crimean Tatar population helps to enlist the electoral support, as well as to consider Crimea and the Black Sea region as a Turkish sphere of influence. Secondly, the conditional Turkish-Ukrainian alliance presents itself as a “protector” of the Crimean Tatars from “Russian aggression.” Thirdly, Türkiye and Ukraine are projecting a positive state image by demonstrating protection of interests and observance of the Crimean Tatars rights on the territory of Russia. Fourthly, the actions of Türkiye and Ukraine in terms of the Crimean Tatar can be characterized as a double standard policy. This thesis is confirmed by the national policy of the Republic of Türkiye, and the approaches of Ukraine to the solution of the Crimean Tatar issue before the reunification of Crimea with Russia.

The New Cold War as a Geopolitical and civilizational Reality

In contrast to the previous optimistic forecasts of the ruling elite in the late USSR and in the new Russia about how our country's relations with the West will develop positively after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the socialist system in Eastern Europe, Russia's successful entry into the Western community; after the triumphalist sentiments in the West itself regarding the "collapse of communism", the after the victory in the cold war and the role of Russia, which has lost its role as a superpower, subordinate to the interests of the Western community, the real reality of international relations turned out to be completely different. At the turn of the century, as a result of NATO's aggression against Yugoslavia, the approach of troops and weapons of this bloc to our borders, open support in the West for separatist movements and wars on the territory of the Russian Federation, the process of disillusionment with previous illusions began. It sharply intensified after Vladimir Putin's Munich speech in 2007, Russia's recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and especially the conflict in Ukraine and the reunification of Crimea, which actually led to the beginning of a new cold war. Gradually, the ruling elites of Russia and the West began to realize that the decisive reason for the former "cold war" of 1946-1989 was not so much the notorious "communism" in the USSR and in Eastern European countries, but above all the fundamental civilizational and geopolitical differences between the West and Russia, dating back centuries, stable Russophobic sentiments of public opinion in the West. As the experience of history and modernity shows, Russia's successful domestic and international position is possible only if it preserves and strengthens the status of a great Eurasian power based on a sovereign domestic and foreign policy, a successful socio-economic course approved by the people and a wise state ideology.

ВЗАИМОДЕЙСТВИЕ РОССИИ С ЛАТИНОАМЕРИКАНСКИМИ СТРАНАМИ В УСЛОВИЯХ ГЕОПОЛИТИЧЕСКОГО ПЕРЕЛОМА

For a number of solid reasons, Latin America has an independent geopolitical and geo-economic significance for the Russian Federation, that was clearly manifested in connection with the crisis events in Ukraine in 2022. The article shows that over the past two decades, on the track of Russian-Latin American relations, there has been an accumulation of experience of mutually beneficial cooperation in the political, diplomatic, trade and economic fields, which persisted despite sharp changes in the global economic situation, deep crisis shocks, as well as unfavorable internal circumstances. The maximum expression of the Russian-Latin American rapprochement was the establishment of a strategic partnership with a group of states of this region. Interest in interaction with Latin American countries has grown especially during periods of sharpening of Moscow's contradictions with the collective West. This was the case in 2014 after the reunification of Crimea with Russia and was repeated in connection with the financial and economic war of the United States and the European Union against the Russian Federation, which became a reaction to the special operation of the Russian armed forces in Ukraine in 2022. In the current radically changing international conditions, the intensification and filling with new content of interaction with Latin America, especially in the trade and economic sphere, can and should become part of Russia's long-term strategy aimed at the priority development of relations with non-Western states. In other words, the development of Russia's partnership with Latin America can be considered as one of the ways to find export and import markets alternative to the Western ones, to gain access to the resources and technologies necessary for the development of the Russian economy.

Filtration Regimes Calculation of Hydraulic Structures of Alma Reservoir

In the article the Crimean Peninsula is exposed as one of the most problematic areas for providing water resources in the Russian Federation. By 2013, the filling of drinking-water reservoirs due to river runoff and precipitation was at the level of 20-25% of the total design volume and it was the lowest indicator for the last 25 years. In 2014, after the reunification of Crimea with Russia, new hydraulic structures began functioning to supply water to Crimean residents, which allowed filling the North Crimean Canal with water from the Belogorsky and Taigan reservoirs along the Biyuk-Karasu riverbed and eastern Crimea residents began to receive water. The average population density of Crimea is 85 people / km2. The average long-term value of water resources for this territory is 1.0 km3 / year, and one resident - 432 m3 / year, which is the lowest of all the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Much attention is paid to the safety of operating reservoirs, including the oldest one in Crimea - Alminsky reservoir. The calculations are given and filtration strength of the dam body soils of reservoir is estimated: specific filtration flow rates, filtration flow outlet velocity and effective pressure gradients. Calculation of the filtration regimes of the dam construction was carried out for two loading cases: main and special load combination. The obtained data indicates that actual parameters of the dam construction provide filtration strength and structure reliability under the accepted loading cases.

Украина в фокусе внешнеполитических приоритетов США

The article analyzes the US policy towards Ukraine dating back from the time before the reunification of Crimea with Russia and up to Donald Trump coming to power. The spectrum of Washington’s interests towards this country being of particular strategic interest to the United States are disclosed. It should be noted that since the disintegration of the Soviet Union Washington’s interest in this country on the whole has not been very much different from its stand on all post-Soviet states whose significance was defined by the U,S depending on their location on the world map as well as on the value of their natural resources. However, after the reunification of Crimea with Russia Washington’s stand on this country underwent significant changes, causing a radical transformation of the U,S attitude in their Ukrainian policy. During the presidency of Barack Obama the American policy towards Ukraine was carried out rather sluggishly being basically declarative in its nature. When President D. Trump took his office Washington’s policy towards Ukraine became increasingly more offensive and was characterized by a rather proactive stance not only because Ukraine became the principal arena of confrontation between the United States and the Russian Federation, but also because it became a part of the US domestic political context. Therefore, an outcome of the “battle” for Ukraine is currently very important for the United States in order to prove to the world its role of the main helmsman in the context of a diminishing US capability of maintaining their global superiority.

ОЦЕНКА ЭФФЕКТИВНОСТИ ТУРИСТСКОЙ ДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТИ В РЕГИОНАХ РОССИИ1

The efficiency of tourist and recreational systems should be enhanced not so much due to increasing the tourist flow but due to the growing tourists’ expenses. The former way (extensive) leads to an uncontrolled increase in the load on natural, engineering and cultural objects and infrastructure of the regions and their further degradation. The latter way (intensive) makes it possible to increase budgetary funds of municipalities and regions, formulate environmental protection programs, develop tourist and other types of infrastructure. The article proposes a methodology that allows one not only to determine the levels, dynamics and vector of the development of tourist and recreational systems in regions based on the comparison of extensive and intensive factors, but also to assess the intensity of the systems’ activity. Over the period 2010-2017, in Russia as a whole the tourist and recreational system developed through increasing the tourist flow (which doubled) – i.e. in accordance with the extensive development path. In comparable prices, the volume of services provided within the system increased by only 17%, which is due to a decrease in the length of stay and the average daily expenses of tourists. The imposition of sanctions against Russia (following the reunification of Crimea and Russia) radically affected the factors of the regional tourist and recreational systems efficiency: the number of regions with negative dynamics of tourist spending (in comparable prices) increased by 2.8 times, from 25 units (2010−2013) to 71 units in 2017, and the number of regions with negative dynamics of the duration of stay – by 1.3 times (from 53 in 2013 to 68 units in 2017).

КРЫМ И ЧЕРНОМОРСКИЙ РЕГИОН В ПОЛИТИЧЕСКОЙ КАРТИНЕ МИРА ЭКСПЕРТОВ НАЦИОНАЛЬНОГО ИНСТИТУТА СТРАТЕГИЧЕСКИХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ УКРАИНЫ (НА МАТЕРИАЛАХ АНАЛИТИЧЕСКИХ ДОКЛАДОВ К ПОСЛАНИЯМ ПРЕЗИДЕНТА ВЕРХОВНОЙ РАДЕ)

Basing on a constructivist approach to international relations and foreign policy, the author has defined the conceptual content of the script, in which the experts of the Ukrainian National Institute for Strategic Studies imagine Crimea and the Black Sea region. The study was carried out on the basis of the materials of the Institute's analytical reports to the messages of the President to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in 2014-2018. It was found that the ideas about Crimea contained in them are extremely mythologized: in the political picture of the world of the Institute's experts, the peninsula is considered as a “Russian bridgehead”, a source of “military threat" and an "occupied territory". Ukrainian experts are convinced that the motives of Russia's foreign and defense policy in the Black Sea direction are allegedly due to its desire for "expansion", "imperial policy" and the desire to "restore the Soviet Union." They perceive the reunification of Crimea with Russia as an event that led to a cardinal transformation of the geopolitical space of the Black Sea region that contradicts Ukrainian national interests. At the same time, on rational grounds, the institute is actively searching for conceptual approaches to organizing a new regional security system and creating a long-term, broad and durable alliance of anti-Russian forces, which could act as a NATO parallel structure in the Black Sea region in the future. Moreover, Ukrainian experts do not have any own geopolitical project or idea on this. They are considering several options for regional coalitions at once, paying special attention to the Polish concept of "Intermarium", which consists in creating a block of Baltic-Black Sea states.

Республика Крым и Севастополь: первые итоги реализации государственных программ в экономической и социальной сферах

Having joined Russia, Crimea found itself in unique economic conditions. In a short period of time, the peninsula has to rebuild to new legislation and establish economic ties. After the reunification of Crimea with Russia in March 2014, large-scale projects aimed at modernizing Crimea ‘s economy and integrating it with the rest of Russia began. In 2014 Crimea received the status of a free economic zone. The Federal Target Program for Social and Economic Development of Crimea until 2022 has been developed and is being implemented. The program, in particular, includes the construction of electric grid facilities, including power bridge to Crimea and cable crossing through the Strait of Kerchen, construction of transport crossing through the Strait of Kerchen (Crimean Bridge) and the Federal Route Tavrida, a number of facilities of medicine and health care, water supply, development of industrial complex, social sphere, tourist and recreational clusters, etc. The article summarizes the first results of the implementation of a number of state programs in the economic and social spheres in the five years since the reunification of Crimea with the Russian Federation.

Crimea as a Mechanism for Launching Reforms in Russia and the Role of the Ruling Elite in Their Conduct

The article establishes the relationship of the Crimea with the reforms in Russia carried out by the ruling elite from the X century to the present time. The author presents the unfair and illegal decision of the state authority of the USSR and the Union republics on the transfer of the Crimean area from RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR. Further, the author shows the reasons for the phenomenal results of the referendum on the reunification of Crimea with Russia and summarised some results of reforms in 2014-2019. The author formulates proposals on what the Russian ruling elite should do to modernise the country - to build an effective state, to create a powerful economy, to form a strong civil society. The prospects of Russia in the construction of a new world order are determined.

Russian Society

On the eve of the 100th anniversary jubilee of the historic events of 1917, sociologists, political scientists, and economists offer their diagnoses of present-day Russian society. The events of recent years (the reunification of Crimea, the deterioration of the Russian Federation’s relations with Western countries, the imposition of sanctions and retaliatory countersanctions, the economic crisis, the replacement of the political leader of the United States, etc.) have not only altered the political and social context but have also produced changes in the social expectations of the country’s population. Studies in 20161 found an increase in anxious attitudes among Russians, yet the assessments of the situation in the country are nowhere near disastrous. The experts discuss not only the reasons for this phenomenon, but also the possibility that the economic crisis will develop into a political one. An attempt is made to determine the direction in which the political regime of today’s Russia will be transformed in the next few years. A forecast is made about the new challenges and threats that Russia may face in the next five to ten years. The economic and political trends that may take Russia to a new qualitative condition are analyzed. The experts arrive at the conclusion that the condition of Russian society today is stable, but the government’s lack of a strategic vision for the future may also lead to dramatic consequences.

Воссоединение Крыма с Россией: социально-исторические, политические и социокультурные предпосылки

Воссоединение Крыма с Россией: социально-исторические, политические и социокультурные предпосылки

The Reunification of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol with the Russian Federation: Logic Dictating Borders

Crimea and the City of Sevastopol justifiably separated from Ukraine and reunified with the Russian Federation in 2014. Support for this proposition is found in historic, economic, and political reasoning. Extant principles of public international law, derived from the Treaty of Westphalia, and subsequently developed by Great Powers to facilitate their strategic interests, when applied to the Crimean/Russian reunification, produce absurd results: nailing a population to a cross of misery, oppression, and poverty. In addition, the principles invoked are underdeveloped, prejudiced toward Nation States holding the imprimatur of “Great Powers”, and ignore individual and population preferences. Moreover, scholarly and jurist analyses repose upon an edifice of incomplete facts, and ignore the 1991 illegal annexation of Crimea by Ukraine. Crimea suffered twenty-three years of economic rot under Ukrainian rule. Under the Russian Federation, economic conditions in the peninsula are improving, despite the US/EU sanctions imposed upon the Crimean population, a cruelty that the Great Powers cannot justify. Exceptional circumstances that took place in Ukraine in 2013/14 permitted scheduling a referendum to seek independence from Ukraine. Polls taken after the 2014 referendum unanimously demonstrate that the population of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol prefer reunification with the Russian Federation, as opposed to going back and becoming a subject of Ukraine rule and exploitation under a US installed right wing regime. Repeated calls to “give back” Crimea to Ukraine are based on twisted historical narratives, solely designed to weaken the Russian Federation.

CRIMEAN TATAR FACTOR IN CRIMEA: THE CURRENT STATE AND PROSPECTS

The article deals with the current situation of the Crimean Tatars in Crimea after joining Russia. It is considered a number of decisions taken by Russia, which changed the life of this national minority. For example, according an official status to the Crimean-Tatar language or improving living conditions in Crimean Tatars-populated areas. The article highlights the creation of the Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Crimea. The author describes the renewal of the mass media in Crimea and the creation of the TV and Radio company Millet instead of the Ukrainian TV channel ATR. The author stresses the difference in the approaches of the Ukrainian and Russian authorities to the question of the deportation of the Crimean Tatars in 1944. The article touches upon the UN General Assembly resolution A / RES / 71/205, 19 December 2016. It is devoted to “Situation of human rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (Ukraine)”. The author offers to get acquainted with the opinion of the Crimean Tatars, who live in Crimea at present, about their current situation after the reunification of Crimea and Sevastopol with Russia. It is analyzed the Ukrainian authorities’ policy on the Crimean Tatars. The author notes the negative effect of the Ukrainian authorities on radical feelings in Crimea. The process of forming these sentiments is considered in the article. The author notes the increased military activities by the illegal armed groups of the Crimean Tatars in the Ukrainian part of the Russian-Ukrainian state boundary. The article emphasizes the evaluation of the Crimean Tatars’ influence on security and stability on the peninsula, as well as the prospects of it. The author gives recommendations on the establishment of inter-ethnic relations, and notes that there is a potential for further development of inter-ethnic dialogue. The author concludes that the Crimean Tatars can act as a stabilizing and destabilizing factor.

Letter in Partial Response to Vladislav Tolstykh, "Reunification of Crimea with Russia: A Russian Perspective"

Letter in Partial Response to Vladislav Tolstykh, "Reunification of Crimea with Russia: A Russian Perspective"

Reunification of Crimea with Russia: A Russian Perspective

Reunification of Crimea with Russia: A Russian Perspective