Crisis en Crimea entre Ucrania y Rusia

¿Qué pasa en Ucrania y por qué Rusia desplegó sus tropas?

Desde principios del Siglo XX la península de Crimea es disputada entre Rusia y Ucrania. Empezó a formar parte de lo que entonces era el Imperio Ruso en 1783. Tras la revolución rusa de 1917, Ucrania se convirtió en una de las Repúblicas Socialistas que conformaron la Unión Soviética (URSS). En 1954, Stalin decidió expulsar a los tártaros de Crimea por haber colaborado con el nazismo en la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Desde entonces, dejó de tener el estatus de república y pasó a formar parte de Ucrania.



Redacción AN
marzo 3, 2014 3:31 pm


Ucrania vive una crisis, que saltó a la vista del mundo desde noviembre 2013, cuando comenzaron protestas en la calle a raíz de que el hoy depuesto presidente, Viktor Yanukóvich, no firmó un acuerdo para que su país se incorpore a la Unión Europea.

Hoy por hoy, las tropas rusas se encuentran en Crimea por órdenes del presidente ruso Vladimir Putin.

La región de Crimea pertenece a Ucrania, pero ahí hay una mayoría de habitantes rusos.

¿Cuáles son los antecedentes históricos?

- Ucrania comenzó a formar parte de la Unión de Repúblicas Socialistas Soviéticas (URSS) en 1922, después de ser derrotada en una guerra contra Polonia.
- En la Segunda Guerra Mundial (1939-1945)  los ucranianos combatieron en contra de los invasores nazis, al mismo tiempo se formaron grupos militares que lucharon contra los rusos. Por ello, para pocos pueblos la Segunda Guerra supuso una prueba más difícil que para el ruso, pues muchos rusos tuvieron que elegir en qué campo combatir.
- Aunque Rusia era atacada por la Alemania nazi, un elevado número de rusos optó por endosarse el uniforme germano para intentar acabar con el comunismo, en vez de enrolarse en un propio Ejército para combatir al atacante.
- Ucrania consiguió su independencia de la URSS en 1991, después de estar limitada casi todo el siglo XX.Con la disolución de la URSS en 1991, y la declaración de la independencia de Ucrania, la península volvió a convertirse en un botín de guerra entre el nuevo estado y Rusia
- Desde entonces la tensión entre Rusia y Ucrania por la región de Crimea han estado presentes, sin embargo Ucrania jamás ha cedido el territorio y hoy en día sigue firme en su postura.
- A partir de su independencia, Ucrania comenzó a voltear más a Occidente, hacia la Unión Europea. Pero persiste una división dentro de la nación, por una parte las generaciones más jóvenes que viven en el oeste del país han buscado el acercamiento con la Unión Europea, pero está el otro lado el del oriente y sur que se encuentra cercano a Rusia y que no ve con desagrado la época en que pertenecieron a la URSS.
- Los rusos cuentan con una larga e importante experiencia en cuanto a intervenciones militares, como en Hugría en 1956 y hasta la más reciente de la que se tiene registro, en Georgia en 2008.

En Crimea, Rusia cuenta con una base militar. Cabe señalar que Ucrania depende de Rusia para el abastecimiento de gas.

Hoy en día las relaciones son cada vez más complicadas; el Ejército ruso se encuentra en Crimea, mientras que el gobierno de Ucrania ha insistido que no cederá. La Organización de las Naciones Unidas, la Unión Europea y Estados Unidos han instado al gobierno ruso para que no viole la soberanía de Ucrania y opte por un diálogo político que ponga fin al conflicto.

El pasado fin de semana, Vladimir Putin solicitó al Consejo de la Federación, la cámara alta del parlamento ruso, que apruebe “el recurso al ejército en Ucrania hasta la normalización de la situación política en ese país”.

“Debido a la situación extraordinaria en Ucrania y de la amenaza que pesa sobre la vida de los ciudadanos rusos, de nuestros compatriotas, de las fuerzas armadas rusas desplegadas en Ucrania”, sostuvo el mandatario a través de un comunicado del servicio de prensa del Kremlin.

(Con información de El País y BBC Mundo)

U.S. Approves New Sanctions as Russian Tanks Roll Into Ukraine

BY John Hudson
JUNE 20, 2014 - 12:42 PM



The United States will freeze the assets of seven Ukrainian separatist leaders after discovering new evidence that Moscow is sending tanks and military equipment to pro-Russian insurgents in eastern Ukraine. Washington is also stepping up negotiations with Western allies to impose tougher sanctions on Russia's military, financial, and technology sectors, a senior U.S. official told reporters on Friday.

The escalation of Moscow's hand in the simmering political crisis comes as the U.S. turns its attention to Iraq's civil conflict between Al Qaeda-linked insurgents and the Shiite-led central government in Baghdad. Now Secretary of State John Kerry will have to juggle both geopolitical headaches. On Thursday, President Barack Obama said he is sending Kerry to the Middle East to address the Iraq situation. The senior U.S. official noted that Kerry would also be making calls to allies regarding sanctions against Russia. Reluctance from European countries whose economies are more closely linked to Moscow's have caused previous efforts to impose multilateral sanctions against broad sectors of Russia's economy to fail.

"We have been in active conversations with our E.U. partners on what we call ‘scalpel sanctions,' which would be targeted primarily in financial, defense, and technology sectors," said the U.S. official. "This has been ongoing for some time but has intensified over the last week as we've seen Russian materiel move into Ukraine."

On Friday, the Ukrainian government told Western allies that 10 additional tanks, fuel trucks, and other vehicles crossed the border into Ukraine in the last 24 hours. The U.S. official said Washington independently confirmed that additional Russian tanks departed from a deployment site in southwest Russia on Thursday.

The official implored Russia to implement a peace plan aimed at de-escalating the crisis and granting greater autonomy to Ukraine's restive enclaves proposed by Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in recent weeks.

"If [Russia's] destabilization of Ukraine does not abate and it does not support this peace plan, there will be more costs. More costs in the form of isolation and sanctions," the official said.

The new sanctions target Ukrainian separatist leaders, including: Vyachelsav Ponomaryov, who declared himself mayor of Slavyansk after leading an attack on the mayor's office in April; Denis Pushilin, leader of the Donetsk People's Republic, which has ransacked government buildings across eastern Ukraine; and Andrey Purgin, a leader of a council that runs the separatist government in Donetsk. The U.S. will freeze any of their assets its jurisdiction (likely not many).

Russia Cuts Gas to Ukraine
Moscow's cancellation of natural gas exports to Kiev ratchets up the pressure on Ukraine -- and is making European leaders nervous about energy supplies.

BY Keith Johnson
JUNE 16, 2014




Note: This article was updated Monday afternoon to include State Dept. comments and more.

With tensions between Russia and Ukraine at fever pitch, Moscow unsheathed its energy weapon Monday, cutting off natural gas supplies to Ukraine amidst a dispute over billions of dollars in unpaid bills. The gas cutoff, Russia's third in less than a decade, raises concern in Europe that one of its main sources of imported energy could be affected, with few realistic alternatives on the horizon.

A last-ditch effort by the European Union to broker a compromise between Russia and Ukraine broke down Sunday night. Monday morning, Gazprom, the big Russian gas firm, said it halted gas flows to Ukraine and that it won't ship any more until Kiev pays its hefty arrears and then prepays thereafter.

Gazprom said that Ukraine was guilty of "persistent nonpayment," and said Kiev owes it about $4.5 billion. Russian officials said they would only be willing to go back to negotiations if Ukraine settles its outstanding debt. Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev blamed Ukraine for the crisis after it rejected "very beneficial, very preferential proposals" from Gazprom.

Ukrainian leaders sounded a defiant note after the shut-off, saying the energy fight was part of a broader offensive by Moscow against the beleaguered country.

"This is not about gas. This is part of the general plan of Russia to destroy Ukraine," said Arseniy Yatseniuk, Ukraine's prime minister, according to the Financial Times. "Ukrainians will not pull $5 billion out of their pockets a year so that Russia can use this money to buy arms, tanks and planes and bomb Ukrainian territory."

European officials, led by European Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger, remained hopeful that the two sides could reach a deal. Europe and Ukraine suggested that Kiev partially pay off its overdue bills and that Gazprom lower its rate. But Gazprom insisted on a higher price for gas deliveries. A spokesperson for Oettinger said he offered Monday to continue mediating the dispute.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki called the EU proposal "fair and reasonable" and urged Russia to resume talks with Ukraine over the gas dispute.

The gas cutoff comes on the heels of heightened tension between the two countries, after pro-Russian separatists shot down a Ukrainian military transport plane Saturday, killing 49 people. In response, protesters attacked the Russian embassy in Kiev, sparking outrage in Moscow.

For Europe, the gas cutoff is a reminder of the continent's reliance on Russian energy -- and the risk of supply shortages. In the winter of 2006, and again in 2009, Russia cut off gas exports to Ukraine, which affected European customers as well. About 15 percent of Europe's natural gas comes through Ukraine.

The shut-off is a reminder of Russia's willingness to flex its energy muscles to cow other nations. At the same time, after decades of relying largely on Europe as an export market for natural gas, Russia is increasingly looking east. In May, it inked a massive deal with China, and Russian officials hope to land a second big contract. That could give Moscow even more leverage in dealing with European gas buyers.

For now, the Russian shut-off hasn't affected flows to Europe, European Union officials said. But natural gas prices spiked in London and Holland on the news of the cutoff.

One big difference from previous gas interruptions is the time of year: Gas demand is much lower in summer than in winter. And storage levels in Ukraine and Europe could keep them running for months. But the energy problem will be acute later this year if the dispute continues and European countries can't replenish their stocks.

"If there's going to be a gas fight, now's the time for it, from Ukraine's perspective," said Steven Pifer, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine who is now at the Brookings Institution. But Russia's tactics will only redouble Europe's efforts to find other sources of energy.

"To the extent that Russia raises questions about its reliability as a gas provider, the more it raises interest in Europe in finding alternate sources" of gas, Pifer said.

In the short term, Kiev's energy options are limited. It can get gas from other European countries, such as Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia, but that would meet less than half its annual demand. And there are few other alternatives: Plans to build a terminal to import liquefied natural gas via tanker were revived after the energy fight with Moscow heated up earlier this year, but the country can't import LNG until it is finished.

Many U.S. lawmakers have touted the prospects of tapping the U.S. energy boom to supply friends in Europe and Asia with cheap energy. "This act of aggression further escalates the need for the U.S. to increase its exports of liquefied natural gas to our NATO and European allies," said Rep. Michael Turner (R.-Ohio).

But the United States won't be able to export meaningful volumes of gas until close to the end of the decade. And even if it can ship out enough, LNG is more expensive than Russian gas sent to Europe by pipeline.

Dmitry Serebryakov - AFP - Getty

Russia raises hopes in Crimea
Russian spending strengthens the country's hold on Crimea as parliamentarians gather in the region.
Last modified: 14 Aug 2014 18:12
Rory Challands
Rory Challands is a journalist based in London who has experience working for some of the UK's most respected broadcasters.

Share

Putin has $19 billion for job creation and infrastructure improvements in Crimea [Reuters]

Like many taxi drivers, Anatoly likes to talk. He explains the situation as he guns his car round the twisting, pine-scented roads of Yalta. Like his rusting car, Crimea may have seen better days.

'There are a million fewer tourists this year' he tells us, 'and food prices are soaring.' This will hit Yalta hard.

It is ultimately a tourist town.

This year the Ukrainians aren't coming because they feel it's been stolen from them. And despite encouragement by the Russian government, there aren't yet enough rich Muscovites here to make up the numbers.

Anatoly is trying to look on the bright side, though. He's a pensioner making some extra cash, and since Crimea returned to Mother Russia's bosom early this year, his pension has doubled.

This region was always a draw on the Ukrainian budget, rather than a contributor. And Russia is digging deep into its pockets to stop the patriotic buzz of annexing Crimea from crashing hard.

That's why pretty much the entire Russian State Duma is here this week.

The glitzy hotel complex of Mriya seems a long way from the ramshackle streets, and souvenir stalls of Yalta. But it's only a 20km drive into the mountains.

The nearly finished 'pansionat' is being built by Russia's state bank, Sberbank. And it's the setting for an unusual political event.

Russia's parliamentarians would normally still be on their summer holidays at the moment. Some would probably have been in European beach resorts or cities.

But this year there's been a three-line whip not to travel abroad. And anyway, they've just been hauled down to Yalta for some grand show-and-tell.

United Russia deputy Valery Trapeznikov tells us, 'A vacation is a vacation. But here we are needed to show they are not alone. We are together.'

Under the multi-coloured spotlights of the hotel's conference hall, this feels more like a charity gala than a parliamentary meeting. Maybe it is.

Putin is pledging big money -$19 billion for job creation and infrastructure improvements. He's promising that Crimea's telecommunications problems will be fixed, and energy supplies will be boosted.

He reaffirms recognition of Crimea's three main languages: Russian, Ukrainian, and Crimean Tatar.

And he reminds people of the bloodshed taking place to the north - what he calls the 'humanitarian catastrophe' of the war being fought in eastern Ukraine.

The message of this event is clear. Have patience. You're better off with us. And at least you're not being killed in your own homes.

Share

Russia Has Basically Blown Up Crimea's Banking System
Reuters
STEVE STECKLOW, ELIZABETH PIPER AND OLEKSANDR AKYMENKO, REUTERS
NOV. 20, 2014, 6:30 AM 9,815 23


Alexander Demianchuk/Reuters
A navy sailor looks on near a board showing currency exchange rates in St. Petersburg, October 30, 2014.
See Also


Russia Is Moving Combat Aircraft To The Ukrainian Border

Putin Wants Closer Ties With North Korea

Putin: The US Must Respect Russian Interests
Outside a high-rise building on the outskirts of this disputed region's capital, a steady stream of frustrated residents exited a government office, clutching folders of bank records and shaking their heads in disgust.

"They are not returning the money," complained Margarita Pobudilova, a 77-year-old retired factory worker who for months has been unable to access more than $3,000 of her life savings.

Ten months after Russia invaded this Black Sea peninsula and seized it from Ukraine, the financial fallout is still being felt. Thousands of ordinary citizens have little or no access to their funds. Losses for Ukrainian banks continue to mount as billions of dollars worth of loans they issued in Crimea go unpaid. Lawyers for the banks are preparing legal actions against Russia, which confiscated many of the banks' buildings, equipment and cash.

Meanwhile, Crimea has been thrust into a kind of technological time warp: Most ATMs no longer accept non-Russian bank cards; foreign credit cards can't be used to buy things. Most non-local mobile phones can't receive a signal. And even if they could, calling other Crimeans is complicated: Most of the peninsula's residents recently had to get new mobile phone numbers because Ukrainian services were cut off.

The banking and phone chaos are another front in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia.

In Crimea, which has been part of Ukraine for 60 years, Russia has basically blown up the existing banking system, forcing Ukrainian banks to close, banning the Ukrainian currency and replacing the region's retail banking network almost overnight. The resulting economic turmoil has shuttered some businesses and complicated life for thousands, forcing people to deal with a Kafkaesque bureaucracy to try to get their money returned.

For all the havoc Russian President Vladimir Putin's conquest has caused, many living here don't blame him for their hardship. In interviews, residents accused Ukrainian banks and the government in Kiev of stealing their money. That distrust indicates – at least for now – a victory for Russia in the propaganda war and suggests that Kiev's chances of regaining the peninsula soon are slim.

The international community has condemned Russia's annexation of Crimea, with the United States and the European Union imposing economic sanctions on Russian individuals, companies and banks. Russia has retaliated with its own sanctions and support for pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine.

Andriy Pyshnyy is chairman of the management board of Ukraine's state-owned Oschadbank, which until March had 296 branches in Crimea. He described how one day they were taken over by Russian banks. "In the evening (our) outlets work," he said. "In the morning, a new bank is opened and just the name is changed to RNCB Bank." Russian National Commercial Bank is one of at least 30 Russian banks that have rushed in to fill Crimea's financial vacuum.

Many in Crimea – where average monthly wages last year were less than $400 – still can't access their Ukrainian bank accounts.

The situation was exacerbated in April when Putin offered Crimeans who had leased their cars through Privatbank, Ukraine's largest bank, some unusual financial advice.

Toward the end of a live television broadcast in which Putin answered viewers' questions, he dipped his hand into a folder and read out this one: "I hired a car on lease from Privatbank. It will take me only two years to repay the loan," he said. "Privatbank no longer operates in Crimea. What am I supposed to do?"

The president's answer: "Please use the car and don't worry."

The remark may have been related to an ongoing feud between Putin and Ihor Kolomoisky, one of Privatbank's largest shareholders. Russia has accused Kolomoisky of funding Ukrainian battalions fighting the separatists.

In any case, following Putin's suggestion, thousands of individuals and companies that had borrowed money from Ukrainian banks stopped repaying their loans.

russian roubles
Vasily Fedosenko/Reuters
A waiter counts Russian roubles and prepares Ukranian hryvnia for change in a restaurant in Sevastopol March 24, 2014.

"If the ruler of the country told them not to pay, why would they pay?" asked Alexander Dubilet, chairman of Privatbank, which had lent more than $1 billion in Crimea.

In all, Ukrainian banks had loaned Crimean businesses and individuals about $1.8 billion at the time Crimea was annexed, according to Ukraine's central bank.

Pyshnyy of Oschadbank says "99.99 percent" of its loans in Crimea - which totaled more than $500 million - are now delinquent.

The surge in bad loans has made it more difficult for Ukrainian banks to repay Crimean depositors, according to an official with Ukraine's central bank. The fact that the Russians also seized many of their branch offices and records didn't help, either. "To function properly, we need ... access to our branch network, our outlets, our ATMs, to our documents, our files," Pyshnyy said.

FROZEN FUNDS
People stand in line to withdraw money at an automated teller machine (ATM) of Ukrainian bank Privatbank in Simferopol, in this March 14, 2014 file photo. REUTERS/Vasily Fedosenko/Files
Thomson Reuters
File photo of people standing in line to withdraw money at an ATM of Ukrainian bank Privatbank in Simferopol

To help Crimeans, Moscow has been compensating depositors with accounts at Ukrainian banks through a fund that insures Russian bank deposits. According to the Fund for the Protection of Depositors in Crimea, which is part of Russia's Deposit Insurance Agency, as of Nov. 6 it had paid out more than $500 million to 196,400 depositors.

The compensation is capped. Yevgenia Bavykina, Crimea's new deputy prime minister in charge of economic affairs, told Reuters last month that depositors were owed more than $425 million in part because the fund has a limit of about $15,000 per bank account.

She said the fund still hopes to repay depositors the rest of their money by selling property confiscated from Ukrainian banks. Crimea's government also is urging people who took out loans to repay them to the deposit protection fund, rather than to Ukrainian banks. Expressing confidence they will comply, she said, "People here are notable for their decency and their volunteering."

Bavykina said the fund has compensated most people who have applied. In thousands of cases, however, it has had difficulty verifying exactly how much money was on deposit, she said.

With no Ukrainian bank branches left operating in Crimea, the required verification records often aren't available, frustrated Crimeans say.

Pobudilova, the retired factory worker, had invested about $3,600 in a one-month deposit at Ukraine's Kyiv Rus Bank in February. By the time her investment matured, the Russians had invaded Crimea, and Ukrainian banks were being forced out. She said she has no access to the money because the bank blocked her debit card.

She applied to the deposit protection fund, but was told it could not compensate her unless her investment contract with her bank was extended. The fund advised her to write to Kyiv Rus Bank.

Her grandson, Vladimir, said she tried to contact the bank. "They did not even want to talk to her," he said.

Kyiv Rus Bank declined to comment.

Pobudilova said she had planned to give the money to her grandchildren but now doesn't know what to do. "The fund is saying I am supposed to receive the extended contract from the bank," she said. "I'm 77 years old. I'm not able to deal with that."

"I WILL LOSE LOTS OF MONEY"
Russian roubles
Shamil Zhumatov/Reuters
A woman receives her pension pay off in Russian roubles in a post office at the Crimean city of Simferopol March 25, 2014.

In another case, a retiree named Iryna, who declined to provide her last name, said she has no access to more than $100,000 on deposit at Privatbank and has received no satisfaction from either the fund or the bank.

She said her problems began with her passport. She has lived in Crimea for 40 years but had replaced her passport two years ago in Ukraine's capital, Kiev, after the pages split apart. The new passport stated she lived in Kiev.

After the annexation, she said, "I realized I was in trouble." She said she spent months trying to change her passport to list her address in Crimea, eventually going to court.

When she tried to withdraw her money from Privatbank, she said the bank only offered her a five-year savings agreement that paid 7 percent annual interest – much less than Ukraine's annual inflation rate. She said she refused. Privatbank said it could not comment on the specifics of her case without more information.

By the time she won her court case and obtained an official document stating she is a Crimea resident, she said she had missed the deposit protection fund's deadline for applying.

The fund is now offering her only partial compensation. "I will lose lots of money," she said. "And I need that money for my son's education."

ANY CHEATING?
Legally, Ukrainian banks are required to repay Crimean depositors because Ukraine does not recognize the Russian annexation, said Oleksandr Pysaruk, first deputy governor of the National Bank of Ukraine, the country's central bank. But he said the hundreds of millions of dollars in delinquent loans make that difficult.

"If you're liable on the savings but the loans don't get repaid, you've got a capital hole," he said.

Ukrainian banks' policies towards their Crimean customers vary. Some give priority to Crimeans who have moved to other parts of Ukraine. But only 19,150 people out of a population of nearly two million have migrated, according to Ukraine's Ministry for Social Policy. As for delinquent loans, Privatbank is continuing to charge interest; Oschadbank's chairman says his bank isn't. "We want to understand the position of the borrowers," said Pyshnyy.

Executives with state-controlled Ukrgasbank in Kiev, which had 11 branches in Crimea, said any of its customers there could travel to other parts of Ukraine and withdraw their deposits. By August, depositors had withdrawn 80 percent of the $25 million in funds on deposit.

Oschadbank has a similar policy of allowing customers to access their funds elsewhere in Ukraine, and "is the only bank in Ukraine where the individuals' funds and placements are guaranteed by the state for 100 percent," said Pyshnyy. He said the bank carefully checks records submitted by customers, especially those who still reside in Crimea. "We want to be sure about any cheating of the bank by customers."

Pysaruk, the central bank official, said some Crimeans have tried to double-dip by seeking compensation from both the Russian fund and Ukrainian banks. "We don't have numbers, but they were not just random occasions," he said.

Privatbank, which in Crimea had 321,000 clients with deposits, has suspended all of its bank accounts there. Crimeans who have moved elsewhere in Ukraine can receive part of their deposits back, Dubilet said. For those still living in Crimea, "we're asking our clients to wait some time until we have solved these issues in the courts."

RUSSIAN PRESSURE
How long that will take remains unclear.

The Crimean protection fund said it has paid out more than $250 million to 109,300 Privatbank customers. But Privatbank and other banks do not know which of their depositors have been reimbursed or how much.

Privatbank chairman Dubilet said the Russians seized more than $150 million of the bank's real estate and equipment, $30 million from its safes and another $10 million from its ATMs. In April, Privatbank sold its Moscow subsidiary, saying it was the victim of "unprecedented political pressure" by Russian authorities.

Dubilet said Privatbank hasn't yet calculated its total losses in Crimea. He said its lawyers are considering legal action against Russia in several jurisdictions. Meanwhile, a Crimean court ruled this week that Privatbank owes local depositors $232 million and should pay them back.

Privatbank's problems in Russia and Crimea appear to be related to a nasty spat between Putin and Kolomoisky, a billionaire businessman who is one of the bank's largest shareholders.

In March, after Kolomoisky was appointed governor of a region in eastern Ukraine, Putin called him "a unique imposter." In telling Crimeans not to worry about car loans owed to Privatbank, Putin added, "If Mr. Kolomoisky and Mr. Finkelshtein don't want your money, it's their problem." Boris Finkelshtein is the former head of Privatbank's Crimea operations.

Russian authorities later launched a criminal case against Kolomoisky, issuing an arrest warrant, confiscating some of his property in Russia and accusing him of organizing and funding Ukrainian forces in the separatist conflict. The case remains open.

At a press conference in March, Kolomoisky referred to Putin as "completely unstable, completely mad. He has this messianic urge to restore the Russian empire to the borders of 1913 or the Soviet Union to the borders of 1991."

Kolomoisky didn't respond to a request for comment.

Dmitry Peskov, Putin's spokesman, said the president had no conflict with Kolomoisky. "The only thing is that Mr. Kolomoisky is sponsoring units of extremists in the eastern regions (of Ukraine). This is the problem, and this is the reason why he's being treated in Russia as a guy sponsoring extremists."

As for Putin's suggestion not to repay loans to Privatbank, Peskov said the president was referring to the fact that the banks' branches were closed. "That's the meaning: because if you don't have any branch to make a payment then you don't pay."

The tensions between Kiev and Moscow will make it harder to solve problems like the one Ukraine's central bank faces. The Russians did not confiscate the central bank's building in Simferopol, but the bank has no access to about $250 million in Ukrainian currency in its vault.

Pysaruk, the first deputy governor, said the bank has held discussions with Russia's central bank and while the Russians indicated they might be willing to buy the building and return the cash, no agreement has been reached.

Calling the annexation of Crimea "a land grab," Pysaruk said Russia should be responsible for all costs, including compensating Ukrainian banks for their losses. "The simplest way, if you ask me, would be for the Russians to pick up the check for everything," he said.

(Additional reporting by Natalia Zinets in Kiev,; Maya Nikolaeva in Paris and Michael Shields; in Vienna; Edited by Simon Robinson)



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/r-special-report-crimean-savers-ask-wheres-our-money-2014-11#ixzz3JhXWjJfH

Crimea – The War That Didn’t Boil
By Anant Mishra
Issue Net Edition | Date : 10 Dec , 2014



The Crimean crisis was an international crisis in 2014 principally involving Russia and Ukraine over the control of the Crimean Peninsula, until its annexation by Russia. Crimea is populated by an ethnic Russian majority and a minority of both ethnic Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars. Prior to the crisis, Crimea comprised Ukraine’s Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the administratively separate municipality of Sevastopol. The Russian Federation has organized them as the Crimean Federal District.

Russia accused the United States and EU of funding and directing the ouster of Yanukovych, maintaining he was illegally impeached and remained the president of Ukraine.

The crisis unfolded in the aftermath of the Ukrainian Revolution. On 21st February 2014 President Viktor Yanukovych fled Kiev, the capital. The Ukrainian parliament deposed him the next day, and the next week appointed an interim President, Aleksandra Turchynov, and formed an interim government. The new government was recognized by the United States and European Union. Russia and a few other countries condemned the Turchynov government as illegitimate and the result of a coup d’état. Russia accused the United States and EU of funding and directing the ouster of Yanukovych, maintaining he was illegally impeached and remained the president of Ukraine. Beginning on February 26, pro-Russian forces began to gradually take control of the Crimean peninsula. Media sources reported that military personnel in Russian-made uniform without insignia, and former members of the Ukraine military were involved. While these troops were in Crimea, the Crimean parliament voted to dismiss the Crimean government, replace its Prime Minister, and call a referendum on Crimea’s autonomy.

A referendum on whether to join Russia, held shortly after takeover of the Supreme Council of Crimea, had an official turnout of 83% and officially resulted in a 96.77% (Crimea) and 95.6% (Sevastopol) affirmative vote, but was condemned by the EU, the US, Ukraine and the representatives of the Crimean Tatar as violating Ukraine’s constitution and international law. On March 17, the Crimean Parliament declared independence from Ukraine and asked to join the Russian Federation. On March 18, Russia and the separatist government of Crimea signed a treaty of accession of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol into the Russian Federation. On March 27, the UN General Assembly passed a non-binding Resolution 68/262 that declared the Crimean referendum invalid and the incorporation of Crimea into Russia illegal. On April 15, the Ukrainian parliament declared Crimea a territory temporarily occupied by Russia.

History

On February 23 in Sevastopol, tens of thousands protested against the new authorities and voted to establish a parallel administration and civil defence squads created with the support of Russian Night Wolves bikers. Same were created on February 22 in Simferopol, where about 5,000 had joined such squads. Protesters waved Russian flags and chanted “Putin is our president” and claimed they would refuse to pay further taxes to the state. On the morning of 27 February, Berkut units from Crimea and other regions of Ukraine (dissolved by the decree of 25 February) seized checkpoints on the Isthmus of Perekop and Chonhar peninsula. According to Ukrainian MP Hennadiy Moskal, former Chief of Crimean police, they had armoured personnel carriers, grenade launchers, assault rifles, machine guns and other weapons. Since then they have controlled all land traffic between Crimea and continental Ukraine.

There has been a range of international reactions to the crisis. A U.N. General Assembly passed a non-binding resolution 100 in favour, 11 against and 58 abstentions in the 193-nation assembly that declared invalid Crimea’s Moscow- backed referendum.

Also on the early morning of 27th February, armed men in Simferopol, the capital city of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, seized the Crimean parliamentary building and the Council of Ministers building and replaced the Ukrainian flag with the Russian flag. They ousted the prime minister appointed by the President of Ukraine and installed a pro-Russian politician, Sergey Kasyanov, as Crimea’s prime minister.

Reactions in Ukraine

Three ex‐presidents of Ukraine accused Russia of interfering in Crimean affairs. Interim president Oleksandr Turchynov at the start of the protests warned that there is a “serious risk” of separatism in parts of the country. On February 27th, 2014, the Central Election Commission of Ukraine claimed that regional referendum is impossible due to lack of necessary legislative basis for such. On February 27, 2014, the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Oleksandr Turchynov was instructed to develop a new law “about language”. On February 28, a freelance journalist wrote on Twitter that President Yanukovych said that any military actions are unacceptable and he will not ask Russia for it. According to President Yanukovych he believed that Crimea must remain part of Ukraine. The new Prime Minister of Ukraine Arseniy Yatsenyuk stated in his maiden speech on February 27 that “Ukraine will use all legal constitutional methods to preserve the territorial integrity of the state. Crimea was, is and will be a part of Ukraine.

Reactions in Crimea

The Ukrainians in Crimea called on Ukrainian officials to secure peace and security for Crimean’s and for European officials to influence the Russian position in regards to separatist attitudes. The new chairman of the Council of Ministers hopes to receive financial help from the Russian Federation with support from Viktor Yanukovych.

International Reactions

There has been a range of international reactions to the crisis. A U.N. General Assembly passed a non-binding resolution 100 in favour, 11 against and 58 abstentions in the 193-nation assembly that declared invalid Crimea’s Moscow- backed referendum. In a move supported by the Lithuanian President, the United States government imposed sanctions against persons they deem to have violated or assisted in the violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty. The European Union suspended talks with Russia on economic and visa related matters; and is considering more stringent sanctions against Russia in the near future, including asset freezes. Japan announced sanctions which include suspension of talks relating to military, space, investment, and visa requirements. The EU Commission decided on March 11 to enter into a full free-trade agreement with Ukraine this year. On March 12, the European Parliament rejected the upcoming referendum on independence in Crimea, which they saw as manipulated and contrary to international and Ukrainian law.

…the referendum seems inconsistent with the Ukrainian constitution, which says all Ukrainians would have to vote on Crimea’s secession – not just those living in Crimea.

The G7 bloc of developed nations (the G8 minus Russia) made a joint statement condemning Russia and announced that they will suspend preparations for the upcoming G8 summit in Sochi in June. NATO condemned Russia’s military escalation in Crimea and stated that it was breach of international law while the Council of Europe expressed its full support for the territorial integrity and national unity of Ukraine. The Visegrád Group has issued a joint statement urging Russia to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity and for Ukraine to take into account its minority groups to not further break fragile relations. It has urged for Russia to respect Ukrainian and international law and in line with the provisions of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.

Legality of the Crimean Referendum

At first, Russia’s argument about Crimea sounds a bit convincing: the best way to decide whether Crimea should remain part of Ukraine or instead secede and become part of Russia is by holding a referendum to let the people of Crimea decide. On second thought, though, that creates major problems ahead of Sunday’s scheduled vote: what if the presence of Russian troops intimidates voters, so the process is not ―free and fair? What about the possibility that Russia is bussing in large numbers of native Russians to stack the deck? Then there’s the bigger problem: the referendum seems inconsistent with the Ukrainian constitution, which says all Ukrainians would have to vote on Crimea’s secession – not just those living in Crimea.

These logical defects in the Russian proposal are obvious, and Secretary of State John Kerry no doubt brought them up during his meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in London today. But the real difficulty heading into this pivotal weekend for the crisis is more fundamental: the Russian proposal is based on an outdated theory of secession. Once upon a time, the right to secede was analyzed in terms of nationalist, linguistic, ethnic or religious homogeneity. Woodrow Wilson, for example, proposed redrawing the boundary lines in Europe to preserve the integrity of nationalist groups – Poland for the Polish, Serbia for the Serbians, and (now) Crimea for the Crimean’s. This was thought to be the best way to promote self-determination and, therefore, democracy. If this is right, then all people living in Crimea should ideally vote to decide what to do. By this logic, the self-determination principle is the central consideration, and other problems – like intimidation – are just practical problems.

Does no one remember the former Yugoslavia? Using principles of self- determination to justify imposing ethnic homogeneity has resulted in genocide and ethnic cleansing. This brand of nationalism carried to its logical conclusion is ugly, plain and simple.

If a referendum were the right way to decide these issues, Russia ought to be holding a referendum to determine the future of Chechnya. Of course, it isn’t. International law is unambiguous on how countries should decide the fate of disputed territories like Crimea.

Arguments about ethnicity also overlook the central question: who owns the territory that constitutes Crimea? The answer is unambiguous: the Ukraine does. If people living in Crimea want to be Russian citizens, they can move to Russia – and that’s the right recourse. By voting for annexation to Russia, these would-be Russians are actually trying to take the territory away from Ukraine to give it to Russia. Their objective – and, of course, Russia’s, too – is not just to make these people Russian citizens but to take Ukrainian land, and it cannot be justified by a referendum about the preferences of those who live in Crimea today.

It’s a matter of international law: territory cannot be annexed simply because the people who happen to be living there today want to secede. If that were the case, then under international law, any geographically cohesive group could vote on independence. That would mean the Basques should be free from Spain and France, and the Kurds would have an independent nation; the large community of Cubans living in Miami could vote to separate from the United States.

If a referendum were the right way to decide these issues, Russia ought to be holding a referendum to determine the future of Chechnya. Of course, it isn’t. International law is unambiguous on how countries should decide the fate of disputed territories like Crimea. Countries can acquire territory by discovering uninhabited land, signing a treaty – as with Khrushchev’s transfer of Crimea to Ukraine in 1954 – or occupying an area peacefully over a long period of time. The legal methods for resolving questions of sovereignty are founded on widely recognized principles of international law. These do not include, and have never included, a simple referendum of people living in a contested territory. That is why every successful secessionist movement has founded its claim on legal entitlement to the territory that they seek to ―liberate. Thus the Baltic States argued that they were illegally conquered by the Soviet Union; Tibet says the same about China; and Eritreans fought for decades to reverse their illegal annexation by Ethiopia.

What makes a secessionist claim successful in the eyes of the international community – indeed, in the eyes of the people fighting for secession – is the existence of a historical grievance over territory. No such legal claim can be made surrounding Crimea.
Rate this Article