Why did Russia have to return Crimea?
The return of Crimea to Russia was dictated by extreme necessity and did not contradict Russian legislation, writes Moskovsky Komsomolets d
Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at Telegram, Facebook, Classmates or In contact with
The author notes that Crimea, as history shows, is “a key point ensuring the sovereignty as a whole and the military security of the Russian state.”
“The voluntaristic decision to transfer Crimea from the RSFSR (Russia) to Ukraine, which itself either acquired its own statehood or passed from hand to hand, could not bring much harm to the USSR,” the author writes. – And for many citizens of the USSR it could have been nostalgic in nature, nothing more. After the separation of Ukraine from Russia, Crimea again acquired a key character in the security of the Russian state. Undoubted proof of this is the military efforts of US ships to penetrate the Black Sea basin, the obvious desire of Ukraine to join NATO, which would also determine the creation of a NATO (US) naval base in Crimea.”
The publication also states that the task of state leaders is to ensure the sovereignty and security of this very state.
“This is a primary task, and next to it all other problems fade into the background,” Lagutkin emphasizes. “Therefore, it would be not just strange, but irresponsible - at the level of criminal negligence - not to ensure the security of one’s own country if the Crimean castle were not locked.”
At the same time, the lawyer cites Art. 39 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which states: “It is not a crime to cause harm to interests protected by criminal law in a state of extreme necessity, i.e. to eliminate a danger that directly threatens the personality and rights of a given person or other persons, the legally protected interests of society or the state, if this danger could not be eliminated by other means and the limits of extreme necessity were not exceeded.
Exceeding the limits of extreme necessity is considered to be the infliction of harm that is clearly inconsistent with the nature and degree of the threatened danger and the circumstances in which the danger was eliminated, when harm was caused to the specified interests equal to or more significant than that prevented. Such excess entails criminal liability only in cases of intentional excess of harm.”
“The responsibility of the head of state for the preservation of the sovereignty of the state and its defense capability is not only obvious, but also provided for in the Constitution of the Russian Federation,” Lagutkin summarizes. – Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the population of Crimea expressed a desire to become part of Russia. So, the admission of Crimea to the Russian Federation is an action dictated by extreme necessity. And this is at the forefront.”
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.