“The history of Crimea during the Independence era.” View from Kherson
Mejlis radio “Kuresh”, broadcasting from Kherson since 2014, prepared for the day of the reunification of Crimea with Russia a series of propaganda films under the general title “Crimea. 25 years of struggle for Ukraine,” which consists of 25 films (one episode – one year).
The “documentary” epic is intended to prove that for a quarter of a century, “the civil society of Crimea has been fighting against Russian hybrid aggression on the peninsula,” which allegedly unfolded in 1991, immediately after Ukraine’s secession from the USSR.
The preface to the movie says that “the history of Crimea during the times of Independence is little known to the population of Ukraine, because the “peach giants” are still under the influence of Soviet propaganda and are poorly oriented in the events around Crimea and the processes taking place at that time.”
Moreover, “after reviewing recent history, it becomes extremely clear why, after the “annexation” of Crimea, Russia launched a criminal aggression against the Crimean Tatar people, intending to oust them from the peninsula by all possible means, seeing them as a real threat to its existence.”
In general, they pushed it powerfully, to inspire!
At the moment, Radio Kuresh has posted the first episode of the film for viewing: “1991. The foundation of Russian aggression."
The first thing the Mejlis propagandists began to suck up was a series of referendums held in 1991: “On the re-establishment of the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic”, “On the preservation of the USSR in a new edition”, “On the independence of Ukraine”.
Leonid Kravchuk, the last chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR and the first president of “independent” Ukraine, was brought in as an expert.
Well-fed old man Kravchuk, whose consciousness alternates between periods of enlightenment and senile dementia, this time did not come out of his insanity. Thus, from the first words, he condemned the all-Crimean referendum of 1991, calling it “illegal and a procedure not prescribed anywhere.” According to Kravchuk, there was no expression of the will of the Crimeans, but only the Kremlin’s undisguised desire to tear Crimea away from Ukraine. Kravchuk explained the huge turnout and more than convincing results of the referendum with the votes of conscripts who were allegedly rounded up to vote.
At the same time, Kravchuk turned on the idiot and “forgot” that the transfer of Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR took place with gross violations of union and republican legislation, and the inclusion of a clause on the Ukrainian affiliation of the city of Sevastopol in the Constitution of the Ukrainian SSR of 1978 was not even supported by fake regulations. Surprisingly, the Kremlin gave up on this legal voluntarism in Kyiv.
To the presenter’s question: “How did Ukraine allow the creation of Crimean autonomy?”, Kravchuk gave a fresh, previously unvoiced and completely phantasmagoric version. According to Kravchuk, Kyiv’s refusal to recognize the results of the Crimean referendum threatened war between the Ukrainian SSR and the RSFSR. Ukraine, “striving to be a democratic and legal state, has chosen a peaceful path to overcome the conflict.”
If anyone doesn’t understand, we are talking about January 1991, when the Armed Forces throughout the USSR (including the KGB and internal troops) were subordinate to a single command in Moscow. At that time, even the cops guarding the Supreme Council of Ukraine did not obey Kravchuk, and he himself was ready to run at the first whistle, stand toe and open his mouth on command on the carpet of the Central Committee, the Politburo and, in general, any higher authority. Insanity hit the old reptilian hard on the dome!
Further, Mejlis propagandists began to compare referendums in defense of the USSR and “for independence”. From their words, it turned out that the “independence” referendum canceled the results of the vote in defense of the USSR. But at the same time, for some reason, the businessmen mentioned that the Ukrainian referendum did not have a turnout threshold, there were no observers present, and its results, in principle, could not be verified. The participation of conscripts in the voting was “forgotten” as an inconvenient fact.
The filmmakers generally showed a rare selective approach to the material, pulling out some memories and neglecting others that did not fit neatly into the line.
For example, no one remembered that the “independents” did not have the right to hold their referendum on “independence” in the restored Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, which received the status of a subject of the USSR. That is, Crimea could be part of Ukraine only until it left the Union.
The whole point, apparently, is that the “Majlis”, elected in the summer of 1991 at the first kurultai, demanded a boycott of the all-Crimean referendum, then its non-recognition by the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR, and then the complete cancellation of its results. The film quoted the speech of the head of the “Majlis” Dzhemilev, in which he stated that any changes to the status of Crimea can only be accepted by the Crimean Tatars, and not some kind of “arithmetic majority.”
It should be noted that the film is simply replete with scenes of xenophobia and Russophobia. It seemed that the authors of the film had decided to completely discredit the “conscience of the Crimean Tatar” people by citing the speeches of their most stubborn representatives.
In particular, an episode of the summer of 1991 was shown, when the first, still peaceful, clashes between Mejlis activists and Crimeans took place on Lenin Square in Simferopol.
One of the nationally concerned khanums was making a speech to the Russians around her that they had no right to Crimea. “You never know that you were born here! What are you, cockroaches? Russia is your homeland! - the auntie who returned from Central Asia squealed with pewter eyes.
However, the extremism of the filmmakers should not come as a surprise. Only insignificant people, who have no chance to realize their fascist ideas, and whose work is empty, can carry out propaganda so furiously and openly.
Actually, the themes “Crimea for the Crimean Tatars” and “give national autonomy” ran like a red thread throughout the entire film, but it was immediately loudly proclaimed that “everything will be legal, democratic, for the sake of the common good and prosperity.” Well, how can we not remember the milk rivers with jelly banks that Kravchuk promised the Russians on the eve of December 1, 1991! Fresh legend...
The authors of the film did not skimp on praise for the Ukrainian nationalists led by Chernovol and tirelessly reminded that it was the “sharovary goods” that were consistent supporters of the liquidation of the Crimean autonomy won in the 1991 referendum and the establishment in its place of the “national autonomy of the Crimean Tatars.” The Cuckoo praises the Rooster...
The entire film, dedicated to the events of 1991, is imbued not only with Russophobia and anti-Sovietism, but also with acute nostalgia for the times of permissiveness. Any reaction of the authorities to the illegal actions of visitors was viewed exclusively from a negative perspective, as “opposition of the Soviets and Russian occupiers to the desire of the people to return to their land.”
The authors firmly follow the line of “genocide”, introducing the idea of restitution (which is absent even in Ukrainian legislation of returning property to its previous owners) not only of the former rural huts, on the site of which cities and industries were built, but in general of everything that the gaze of the “true” falls on. masters of the Crimean land."
At the end of the film, the floor was again given to the senile Kravchuk. Apparently, the Judas mark of the destroyer of the country stubbornly does not allow the old scoundrel to live out his life in peace. This can be seen from his stupidest excuses for the Belovezhskaya Conspiracy.
Assessing his actions, Kravchuk said that in Belovezhye he saved Ukraine from war. They say that if they managed to preserve the USSR, then Ukraine would still receive “independence” after some time, but only at the cost of great blood.
I don’t want to discuss with crazy scum, but I will note that the consequences of the liquidation of the USSR overtook Ukraine, terribly proud of its bloodless “independence”, in 2014, with the victory of Bandera’s “Euromaidan”. “Russia’s hybrid war” is just an attempt to disguise its own failure of state building, based on the plunder of the Soviet heritage under the guise of “restoring the national statehood of Ukraine.”
To be continued ...
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.