Russian Claims Research Articles

ChatGPT as a Source of Information about Russian Military Involvement in Ukraine (2014–Present)

The current online environment has seen an explosion of false news and conspiracy theories, and questions have been raised as to whether Large Language Models or Large Generative Artificial Intelligence Models such as ChatGPT could be used to generate false information. Against this background, the current study investigated whether ChatGPT could be used as a reliable source of information about Russian military involvement in Ukraine (2014– present). Based on previous research, seven Russian narratives that have justified Russian military involvement in Ukraine (from a Russian perspective) were identified and ChatGPT was tasked with generating 10 responses to 10 questions posed around these narratives. Responses were scored for truthfulness by two annotators. Overall, the study found that ChatGPT does not generate misinformation, and on average, truthfulness was scored at 3.19/4. It is also shown how ChatGPT's responses differed between questions, with those relating to Russian claims about Ukrainian atrocities in the Donbas and the reliability of Russian media channels scoring lower on truthfulness, and those relating to the reliability of the Western mainstream media scoring the highest. Generally, ChatGPT's responses pointed to reliable and trustworthy sources of information about this conflict, suggesting that this and similar technologies could be employed to combat misinformation.

“Tashkent Has Gained Sad Glory”: The Death of Vera Komissarzhevskaya and the Limits of Russian Culture in Late Imperial Turkestan

The unexpected death of the famous actress Vera Fedorovna Komissarzhevskaya while on tour in Tashkent was both a major event for Russian speakers in Turkestan and an empire-wide media sensation. This article examines coverage of the death of Kommissarzhevskaуa from smallpox in 1910 in the Russian-language periodical press in both Turkestan and leading urban centers in the Russian Empire. The actions of mourners in Tashkent and coverage of these events locally and in the capital press reveal that Kommissarzhevskaуa’s death was an imperial event that magnified the tensions within Russian claims to represent a civilizing force in Central Asia. For educated Russian speakers in Turkestan Kommissarzhevskaуa’s death was an opportunity to self-consciously assert their status as bearers of Russian culture in a press environment in which local acts of commemoration swiftly attracted an empire-wide audience. In the face of racialized and Orientalist depictions of Turkestan in the capital press, local journalists and members of educated society sought to demonstrate their belonging in, and dedication to, Russian culture in ways that blurred the boundaries between the imperial center and its peripheries, revealing Kommissarzhevskaуa’s death to be at the center of an ambiguous empire-wide discourse of death, disease, and the limits of Russian modernity. While educated Russian society in Tashkent sought to demonstrate their membership in a greater imperial civilization, the circumstances of Kommissarzhevskaуa’s death and the discourse of smallpox called into question Russian claims of civilizational superiority and laid bare key anxieties at the heart of Russia’s colonial presence in Central Asia.

US-Russia Rivalry in the 21st Century: New Cold War and Russian Resurgence in the Changing Global Power Dynamics

Introduction: The Russia-Ukraine conflict, involving major powers, has profoundly impacted global peace and security, sparking initial fears of nuclear escalation. Rooted in various factors, Russia's claim to Ukrainian territory stems from linguistic and familial ties, compounded by perceived American betrayal of promises made during the Cold War's end. NATO's expansion into Eastern Europe further strained relations, culminating in the Euro-Maidan Revolution. The alignment of Russian and Chinese interests against the United States signals a new Cold War dynamic. However, scholarly discourse debates whether this rivalry is a new phenomenon or a continuation of past tensions. Methodology: This paper employs qualitative research methodology to examine the authenticity of American promises to the Soviet Union regarding NATO's non-expansion. Through qualitative analysis, it seeks to unravel the complexities of geopolitical negotiations and ascertain the extent to which these promises were upheld. Results/Findings: The study sheds light on the historical antagonism between Russia and the United States, contextualizing the current conflict within this broader narrative. It highlights the ramifications of broken promises and geopolitical maneuvering, revealing the intricate dynamics of global power struggles. Future Direction: Further research is needed to explore the implications of the Russia-Ukraine conflict on international relations and global security. Investigating the evolving dynamics of the Sino-Russian partnership and its impact on the geopolitical landscape will provide valuable insights into the trajectory of contemporary power dynamics. Additionally, examining the role of regional actors and the potential for diplomatic resolutions to mitigate tensions is essential for fostering lasting peace in the region.

Canada’s claim to the continental shelf in the Arctic

Canada ratified the UNCLOS in 2003 and thus had to submit scientific and technical data to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) no later than 2013 to extend its continental shelf beyond 200 miles from the coast. Initially the Canadian submission was to include data for both the Atlantic Ocean and the Arctic Ocean. However the requirement in 2013 by Canadian Prime Minister S. Harper to include the seabed at the North Pole in the submission forced the Canadian government to split the submission into two parts: in 2013 data on the outer limit of Canada's continental shelf in the Atlantic Ocean were submitted to the CLCS, and in 2019 - on the Arctic. In the 2019 submission Canada claimed a seabed area of 1.2 million square kilometers, including the North Pole. In December 2022 Canada submitted an addendum to its 2019 proposal to the CLCS, in which it further increased its claims to the continental shelf in the Arctic, bringing the boundaries of its shelf to the Russian exclusive economic zone. The increase in the area of disputed areas of the continental shelf between Russia, Canada and Denmark means that the decisive role in establishing the boundaries of the continental shelf of these countries in the Arctic will be played by the corresponding negotiations between these countries. The February 2023 approval by the CLCS of Russian claims to the Lomonosov Ridge and the Alpha-Mendeleev Rise is important for Canada as well, as it also legitimizes Canada's right to claim the continental shelf in the Arctic beyond 350 miles from its coast. The extreme aggravation of relations between Russia and the West since 2022 complicates the division of the continental shelf in the Arctic between the countries of this region.

INHERENT RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENCE IN RUSSIA – UKRAINE CONFLICT

The Inherent right of self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter has been invoked by the Russian side as part of the basis for its "special military operation" to be conducted in Ukraine from February 24, 2022. However, the theoretical application of the right to just self-defense remains a matter of controversy, especially in the way it is described and interpreted as a means of legitimizing the use of force. The following study will examine the correctness of Russia's claim on the right of self-defense to make comments and assessments about the event while giving some recommendations to the stakeholders. Foreigners will contact and draw experience from Vietnam to avoid similar problems.

Minnediplomati i grenseland. De russisk-norske patriotiske minneturene 2011–2019

This article traces the development and narrative staging in Russian media of the so-called Russian-Norwegian patriotic memory tours that took place from 2011 to 2019 to celebrate a heroic story of WWII Red Army soldiers and Norwegian partisans in Soviet intelligence service. The article concludes that the tours were initiated by Russian state and state-affiliated actors who exported military-patriotic symbols and perspectives across the border to Norway, and actively promoted several intertwined narratives; about joint Russian-Norwegian heroic war history; about historically peaceful relations in the North between Norway and Russia; and about Norway as a friendly Nato-member neighbor that rightfully honors the memory of the Soviet army and its crucial role in the victory over Nazi Germany. After Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, these narratives were supplemented by Russian claims about a contemporary fascist threat spreading from Ukraine and the Baltics. The statements emphasized the acute importance of the patriotic memory tours to resist allegedly growing neo-fascism in today’s Europe. The article argues that the narrative staging of the tours must be read in the context of the Kremlin’s ongoing memory wars with former Soviet republics and Eastern bloc states and Russia’s military aggression in Ukraine since 2014.

The Russo-Turkish War in Crimea and Nightingale's Role in It (1854-1855)

In October 1853, the Ottoman Empire declared war on Russia, after a series of disputes over the holy places in Jerusalem and Russian claims to protect the Orthodox subjects of the Ottoman Empire. The British and French, allies of the Ottoman Empire, sought to check Russian expansion. The majority of the Crimean War took place in Crimea, Russia. However, the British troop base and hospitals for the care of sick and wounded soldiers were established primarily at Scutari (Uskudar), across the Bosphorus from Constantinople (Istanbul). As the war broke out, reports returned to Britain about the terrible conditions for the sick and wounded British soldiers. Popular on the mistreatment of wounded British soldiers, a friend of Florence Nightingale, the Secretary of War, Sidney Herbert, wrote to Florence and asked her to lead a group of nurses to attend the headquarters of the British forces. So Florence Nightingale volunteered to go to Turkey then known as Scutari, accompanied by thirty-eight women, including eighteen Catholic, Anglican and Roman sisters, to war.

Russia’s Attack on Ukraine; A Review of the International Criminal Court’s Capacity to Examine the Crime of Aggression

Background: 24 February 2022 shall be remembered as a day on which the international law principle prohibiting the use of force was breached once again. This incident could come under scrutiny from several different standpoints. The present study looks at this occurrence via the lens of international criminal law and the occurrence of the crime of aggression and its examination by the International Criminal Court (ICC). This study aims to analyse whether the inclusion of the crime of aggression in the ICC Statute was symbolic and practically useless or whether it could move the international community one step closer to the end of impunity. To this end, the incidence of aggression as defined by the ICC Statute will be determined after an assessment of the justifications offered by Russia. Despite the prohibition entailed in Art. 15 bis (5) of the Statute, which has led the doctrine to rule in favour of the Court’s lack of jurisdiction, a solution to this impasse must be sought. Methods: This paper uses doctrinal methods, and its dominant theoretical perspective is positivism. It relies on an accurate description and analysis of Russia’s invasion as aggression and the capacity of the court to deal with it. The authors has attempted to collect as much pertinent data as possible, analyse the same, and review the applicable and relevant legal instruments and literature. Other publications on this subject matter accepted the inability of the ICC to prosecute the Russian aggression. The novelty of this paper is its search for the few loopholes in the rules and judgments of the ICC to investigate this crime in Ukraine. As a result, recommendations are made to stop Russia’s wrongdoing while also offering suggestions and answers. This would ultimately result in the protection of international law and the preservation of Ukrainian territory. Conclusions and Recommendations: The Russian claims, namely, anticipatory and collective self-defence, humanitarian intervention, and intervention by invitation, cannot face the crucible of international law norms, and, as such, the attack is a flagrant violation of the UN Charter. Thereafter, the exercise of jurisdiction seemed challenging, bearing in mind that Russia and Ukraine are not members of the IC, that the situation was not referred to the Security Council, and that the declaration issued by Ukraine accepting the Court’s jurisdiction entailed a number of limitations (being restricted to crimes against humanity and war crime). Nonetheless, a case could be made that the Court has some capacity to engage with the question of an act of aggression based on a study of the Court’s jurisprudence regarding such declarations and the Trial Chamber’s interpretation of the phrase ‘occurrence of crime in the territory of the State Party’, affirming a positive interpretation of Art. 15 bis (5) and confirming the possibility for the presence of Ukrainian secessionists in the decision to attack. According to the authors, the following recommendations merit attention: 1) the necessity of a teleological interpretation of the Statute’s articles by the Prosecutor and the Member States Assembly’s solemn efforts to amend and deal with jurisdictional burdens in the Court’s competence to entertain the crime of aggression; 2) reviewing the possibility of establishing an ad hoc or hybrid tribunal via an agreement between Ukraine and the UN; 3) consistent state practice in not recognising the auto-proclaimed governments at Donetsk and Luhansk; 4) establishing Russia’s civil liability and the payment of proper compensation by the same.

War or peace? – International legal issues concerning the use of force in the Russia–Ukraine conflict

AbstractThe Russian Federation launched an armed invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, resulting in an international armed conflict of a level unprecedented since the Second World War. This article attempts to clarify the main international legal issues concerning the use of force and the support to of the belligerent parties. In the first part, it evaluates the Russian claims that the use of force is in accordance with the rules of international law, i.e. whether self-defence, the protection of nationals or humanitarian intervention could justify the intervention. In the second part, it investigates whether supporting one of the belligerent parties, especially Ukraine, could amount to a violation of the rules of neutrality or even constitute participation in the Russia–Ukraine conflict.

Kievan Rus: A Tumultuous Journey Ended With War

Russia’s “Special Military Operation” against Ukraine on 24 February 2022 can be counted as the biggest ever war in Europe since World War II. The rationale of the operation, as Russian President Vladimir Putin asserts, is that Russia even could not stay safe, prosper and survive with a NATO-leaning Ukraine. Nevertheless, the present-day war is a culmination of several factors which have set the stage for a more bitter outcome between Russia and Ukraine soon. The paper attempts at analysing how the present-day Russia-Ukraine war is a culmination of conflicting claims and interests of the two countries-Russia and Ukraine, starting from Kievan Rus, and how the west dragged Moscow into a deadly war with Kyiv. In the entire gamut of analysis, Ukraine’s intertwined history and the Russian claims, NATO expansion, resurgent Russia, and oscillating Ukrainian domestic politics hinged on east-west leanings, all together have been taken into account to unfold the current crisis in a wider spectrum.

“Ukraine commits genocide on Russians”: the term “genocide” in Russian propaganda

According to Russia, the main reason for starting the war with Ukraine on February 24, 2022 was the genocide of the Russian-speaking population by the Nazi government of Volodymyr Zelenskyy. In this paper I investigate the Russian claims about genocide. These claims are shown to be part of the rhetorical frame Russophobic Nazi Ukraine government commits genocide on Russians, an aspect of Russian propaganda which builds on the Second World War. I demonstrated that this frame is itself an aspect of a more abstract frame, where any perceived enemy of Russia, is portrayed as a fascist or Nazi force that aims to destroy Russia and Russian culture. I investigate how this frame emerged and developed over time in five stages, starting in post-Soviet Russia and Ukraine, and in Russia after the Orange and Maidan revolutions in Ukraine. Russia tries to provide argumentation for the validity of the frame by referring to a number of objectively established facts relating to the situation in the Donbas, Ukraine’s language laws, and the presence of right-extremists in Ukraine. In doing so, some ideas are made more salient than others (the language laws that diminish the official status of Russian in Ukraine and the hostilities in the Donbas region), while other ideas are suppressed altogether (e.g. the juridical meaning of genocide, the actual status of right-wing extremism in Ukraine, the role of Russia in the hostilities in the Donbas, and the actual status of the language laws in Ukraine). In all of these cases, the arguments used by Russia are not valid, being based on exaggerations, hyperbolic use of terminology, and lies. The main goal of this frame is to acquire and retain support for Russia’s policy toward Ukraine, as well as to deflect any potential criticism on Russia itself. Ultimately, the Russian propaganda is part of the concept Russkij Mir ‘Russian World’, where Russian language and culture are a means to restore President Vladimir Putin’s Russian sphere of influence from Soviet times or earlier.

Dire straits of the Russian Arctic: Options and challenges for a potential US FONOP in the Northern Sea Route

Against the backdrop of growing tensions in the Arctic there are increasing discussions in the US on whether a Freedom of Navigation Operation (FONOP) is needed in the Northern Sea Route (NSR) to assert the state's disagreement with the Russian maritime claims in the Arctic. This paper focuses on the Russian claims with regard to the NSR that could be deemed valid targets for a FONOP. The analysis shows that the US Navy would have only few options for a potential operational assertion. The most viable of them is to transit through certain straits in the eastern part of the NSR. Given the lack of surface ice strengthened warships in the US Navy, a FONOP in the eastern areas of the NSR would imply significant operational risks related to harsh ice conditions even in the summer season. All that, coupled with other factors, gives reason to suggest that for the time being the US will set aside plans for a FONOP in the Russian Arctic waters.

An Ancient in Catherinian Russia: Classical Reception, Sensibility, and Nobility in Princess Ekaterina Urusova's Poetry of the 1770s

This article argues for the importance of Princess E.S. Urusova's four poems published between 1772 and 1777 to scholarly discussions of both classical reception and noble culture. Urusova engages more intensively than any other Russian writer of the period with the European Quarrel of the Ancients and the Moderns, formulating thereby unique responses to major literary and political concerns of the 1770s. In the literary sphere, the Quarrel allows Urusova to conceptualize with exceptional perspicacity the multifaceted cultural environment of the time: contributing to Russia's claim to be the direct heir of the Greeks and Romans, she also makes the interesting case that the emerging culture of sensibility ideally equips readers and writers to absorb the classics. In the political sphere, by evoking the framework of ancient virtue through classical intertexts, she envisages an alliance between the sovereign and a strong nobility based on both cultural refinement and a sense of duty and service to the nation. Urusova's case shows how imitating and reinterpreting the classics helped one woman to find her voice as a poet in eighteenth-century Russia.

Російсько-іранська (1804–1813) та російсько-турецька (1806–1812) війни за Південний Кавказ

The article deals with topical issues of incorporation of the territory of the South Caucasus into the Russian Empire at the beginning of the XIX century. The relevance of the analysis of the international situation in this period is due to the resumption of military operations in Nagorno – Karabakh in October-November 2020, the unresolved territorial contradictions between other countries in the region, and the danger of a frozen regional conflict turning into a stage of war if one of the opposing forces is militarily strengthened. The cause of ethnic, religious, and territorial contradictions in the Caucasus region should be found in the historical past, in territorial redistributions that took place more than two hundred years ago. As then, so now, the South Caucasus is a strategically important region in which both regional players – Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran – and global players-Russia and Turkey-claim dominance. Russian Russian-Iranian and Russian-Turkish mutual claims to the lands of Transcaucasia in 1804–1813 and 1806–1812. Accordingly, they led to wars that ended with the victory of the Russian Empire and the inclusion of a significant part of the lands of the South Caucasus in its composition.

Russian revisionism in the Putin era: an overview of post-communist military interventions in Georgia, Ukraine, and Syria

AbstractThis paper seeks to develop a new typology of revisionism based on the nature of the aims (territorial/normative/hierarchy of prestige), the means employed (peaceful/violent), and the level of action (regional/global). This will then be used to explain the escalation of Russia's foreign policy from regional to global claims with reference to its military interventions in Georgia, Ukraine, and Syria and to identify the type of revisionism involved in each of the three Russian military interventions undertaken both inside (Georgia and Ukraine) and outside (Syria) the post-soviet space. The paper is divided into three parts. The first examines the concept of revisionism and suggests a new classification of six types in relation to the means, nature, and level of the claims put forward byrevisionist powers. The second discusses the interventions carried out by Russia within its regional area (in Georgia and Ukraine). The third analyses the intervention in Syria and highlights the escalation of Russian claims from the regional to the global level.

OLGERD BOCHKOVSKYI: THE ATTITUDE OF THE CZECHS AND TOMÁŠ GARRIGUE MASARYK TO THE UKRAINIAN ISSUE

The author analyzes works of Olgerd Ipolyt Bochkovskyi about such "awakeners" of the Czech national revival as František Palacký, František Ladislav Rieger, Jan Koubek, Karel Havlíček Borovský, Karel Havík Janophiles who were Slavophiles and in individual actions Russophiles, but at the same time really and correctly assessed the Ukrainian issue, for the first time brought it to an international forum. They supported the Ukrainians' language and rights in 1849 in the Austrian post-revolutionary parliament against Polish and Russian fraud, the independence of the Ukrainian people among the Slavs. The "awakeners" were against Russian claims to the Ukrainian Galicia, Bukovina and Transcarpathia, the anti-Ukrainian policy of tsarism, and defended the leading role of Ukraine in the final settlement of inter-Slavic relations. O. Bochkovskyi's journalistic activity in different European magazines is revealed. Special attention is paid to the coverage of the Ukrainian issue, the situation of Galician-Bukovynian Ukrainians, the national development of the Slavic peoples. The ideological influence of the notable Czech scientist, public and political figure Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk on the scientific way of Olgerd Bochkovskyi as a sociologist and nationalist is highlighted. In the works of O. Bochkovskyi, it was emphasized that T. Masaryk, before the war interpreted the Ukrainian question, based primarily on the real content and vitality of the Ukrainian movement. He emphasized the absolute undoubted right of Ukrainians to self-determination and political independence. It is noted that concerning the Ukrainian issue T. Masaryk had mainly political reasons. It is stated that O. Bochkovskyi proved T. Masaryk's warnings against Ukraine's independence during the war by recent history and the adjustment of life. The author singled out tactics and methods of the Czechoslovak liberation action as the top of T. Masaryk's nation-building art, a perfect example for Ukraine in further liberation directions, the guarantee of the future triumph of Ukrainian independence. Keywords: Olgerd Bochkovskyi, Tomáš Masaryk, Ukraine, Ukrainian issue, Ukrainians, Czechs, independence, statehood.

The Corps of Military Topographers of the Russian Empire

Russian and Western European skills combined to produce skilled surveyors and a cartographic tradition which both recorded and documented the expansion of the Russian Empire. Tsar Peter I in the 1720s was the first ruler to recognize cartography's its significance as an important tool in securing Russian access to the Baltic Sea, Black Sea, and Pacific Ocean. New scientific bodies, and especially the military from the 1760s, were charged with the mapping of Russia and its new territories, and imperial expansion also brought new cartographic and surveying skills and information from able practitioners in France, Finland, Poland, and elsewhere. New thematic maps were created to assist in the exploitation of the empire's resources and in colonial settlement, especially in Siberia in the nineteenth century. Mapping and exploratory expeditions from the late eighteenth century in the reign of another expansionary ruler, Katherine the Great, led to extensive fur-trapping in the east and Russia's claim to the Aleutian Islands, Alaska and the north-west coast of America. The corps of the military topographers had been the most important and productive body for the training of surveyors and performing surveys of the Russian Empire lands for most of the nineteenth century.

NATO Enlargement—Was There a Promise?

NATO Enlargement—Was There a Promise?

TO THE QUESTION OF HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE PROBLEM OF LAW REGULATION OF LAND RELATIONS IN TAURIAN PROVINCE

In the article we analyse the condition of the scientific development of the problem of law regulation of land relations in Taurian province. We can distinguish 3 periods of scientific literature about this issue: pre-soviet, soviet and modern. Pre-soviet scientific articles were published after the annexation of Crimean Khanate by the Russian Empire in 1783. There were the articles of Crimean scientists F. Lashkov and A. Markevich and Russian scientists G. Blumenfeld, V. Smirnov, I. Aleksandrov, V. Mukhin. In the soviet period the studies of P. Nadinskiy and S. Sekirinskiy were published. In the modern period there are the studies of Crimean scientist G. Abdullaeva and Russian scientist V. Vozgrin. F. Lashkov, A. Markevich and V. Vozgrin made great improvements. Their works had many archive sources. They try to show the situation in the sphere of land property in Crimea in their own complexity and law ambiguity. These scientists did not suppress discussion about the situation and the land rights of Crimean autochthonous population. The scientists express different opinions on the issue. The works of P. Nadinskiy and S. Sekirinskiy are historically biased and scientifically unreasonable. The main purpose of them was to try substantiate the political and historical Russian claims on Crimea. The authors disregard about the law rights, land system and traditions of Crimean population, problems, which the Russian and foreign immigrants can not solve without the Crimeans. Moreover, some of scientists’ opinions are archaic, some of them need modern rethinking. Not all of them can objectively show the land system of the Crimeans in the time of Crimean Khanate and their importance in law land relations; show the correlation with the Empire land law and Islamic law in Taurian province. In the modern time the problem of law land relations is waiting for indigenous Crimean researches who can truly and objectively show the whole multidimensional Crimean land system in time of Taurian province and develop law proffers for perfecting the modern Crimean land system and solving Crimean land issue with consideration of land rights of autochthonous population.

The Crimea Crisis from an International Law Perspective

In February and March 2014, Ukraine was literally overrun by a chain of events that eventually led to Crimea’s incorporation into Russian territory. Crimean and Russian authorities jointly used the internal conflict in Ukraine to deprive the Ukrainian government of its control over Crimea, to hold a so-called referendum, and to declare Crimea’s independence. On the day after independence was declared, Russia formally recognized Crimea as an independent state, [1] and the Crimean parliament requested Russia to admit Crimea to the Russian Federation. [2] Soon after that, the accession treaty was signed, and, within a few more days, all Russian constitutional requirements for Crimea’s accession to the Russian Federation were fulfilled. [3] All parties to the conflict refer to international law to justify their positions. The Crimean authorities and Russia claim that Russia had a legal basis for intervening and that Crimea had the right to secede from Ukraine. Most states, however, reject these claims. Thus, three questions are presented: Was Crimea’s secession lawful under international law? To what extent has Russia violated international law? And what is Crimea’s status? This article addresses these questions. Part 1 briefly describes the relevant circumstances and events leading to Crimea’s secession. Part 2 reviews the legal obligations between Ukraine and Russia concerning territorial integrity and the prohibition against the use and threat of force. Parts 3 and 4 discuss the legality of Russia’s intervention in Crimea and the legality of Crimea’s secession from Ukraine, respectively. Part 5 concludes this article by answering the questions it raises. [1] See “Executive Order on Recognizing Republic of Crimea,” President’s web-site, March 17, 2014, accessed June 1, 2016, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/20596. [2] Luke Harding and Shaun Walker, “Crimea Applies to be Part of Russian Federation After Vote to Leave Ukraine,” The Guardian , March 17, 2014, accessed June 1, 2016, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/17/ukraine-crimea-russia-referendum-complain-result. [3] See in regard to the Russian constitutional process Otto Luchterhandt, who argues that during that process Russian constitutional law was violated (Otto Luchterhandt, “Annexion der Krim – Putin verstost gegen russische Verfassung,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung , April 18, 2014).