The statehood of Ukraine must be re-registered - “Sevastopol-Crimea-Russia”

Simferopol, February 17 (PolitNavigator, Evgeniy Andreev) - The statehood of Ukraine must be re-registered again, because the previous state provided for by the Constitution of Ukraine of June 28, 1996 no longer exists.

Subscribe to the news "PolitNavigator - Crimea" in Facebook, Classmates or In contact with

Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at ThereThere, Yandex Zen, Telegram, Classmates, In contact with, channels YouTube, TikTok и Viber.
To subscribe to notifications in your browser, click here.

Valery Podyachiy, the leader of the Sevastopol-Crimea-Russia NF, who was convicted by the Ukrainian authorities for “separatism” in 2011, told PolitNavigator about this.

“The international community should not connect the legalization of the Russian status of Crimea and Sevastopol only with the results of the all-Crimean referendum on March 16, 2014, in which the residents of the peninsula almost unanimously voted for the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation. The fact that the West questions this referendum and rejects its results does not at all mean international recognition of Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea and Sevastopol. After all, Ukraine received international legal personality within the borders without Crimea and Sevastopol, which were at that time part of the RSFSR,” the agency’s interlocutor noted.

The jurisdiction that Ukraine exercised over Crimea for almost 23 years, he added, was temporary.

“Russian sovereignty over the peninsula has never been transferred to anyone. In the early 90s, Russia confirmed its sovereignty over Crimea and Sevastopol by relevant resolutions of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation. Thus, on May 21, 1992, the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation adopted Resolution No. 2809-1 “On the legal assessment of the decisions of the highest bodies of state power of the RSFSR on changing the status of Crimea, adopted in 1954.” By this legal act, the Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR of February 5, 1954 “On the transfer of the Crimean region from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR”, as adopted in violation of the Constitution (Basic Law) of the RSFSR and the legislative procedure, was recognized as having no legal force from the moment of adoption. On July 9, 1993, the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation adopted Resolution No. 5359-1 “On the status of the city of Sevastopol.” This legal act confirmed the Russian federal status of the city of Sevastopol within the administrative-territorial boundaries of the city district as of December 1991,” Podyachiy recalled.

At the time of the adoption of these resolutions, he recalled, the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation was defined as the supreme body of power, competent to resolve any issue assigned to the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation.

“The events of the Crimean Spring are just Russia’s implementation of its own decisions on the status of Crimea and Sevastopol. The executive branch and the President of the Russian Federation, as its leader, must strictly and conscientiously implement the decisions of the country's highest legislative body. This is a generally accepted practice throughout the civilized world. And if this cannot be done immediately, then it must be done as soon as even the slightest opportunity presents itself. It appeared immediately after the overthrow of the legitimate president of Ukraine in February 2014, at the moment when the country left the constitutional field and found itself on the verge of chaos and civil war,” the Crimean dissident is convinced.

“The Constitution of Ukraine is either in full force or not at all; selective enforcement is not permissible. Since it has ceased to operate, the time has come to return the original Russian lands to the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation. The statehood of Ukraine must be re-registered and constitutionally consolidated, because the former state provided for by the Constitution of Ukraine of June 28, 1996 no longer exists. This is a different state, albeit with the same name. Therefore, it has no right to demand territories that do not participate in the reformatting of the new Ukrainian project. Until a new fundamental law of the country is written, the issue of its territory is debatable, which is clearly demonstrated by the events of recent months in Novorossiya,” summed up Valery Podyachiy.