Military Review

"All opponents of the Russian Crimea are afraid of the repeal of the 1954 act of the year"

53
"All opponents of the Russian Crimea are afraid of the repeal of the 1954 act of the year"



The conference "Russia, Crimea and Modern International Relations. Forum of Friends of Crimea" ended in Yalta, in which representatives from more than 30 countries took part. And, quite possibly, this conference is already part of history as a starting point to the undoubtedly Russian Crimea.

One of the most notorious statements was the proposal of the First Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on CIS Affairs, Eurasian Integration and Relations with Compatriots Konstantin Zatulin on the abolition of the act of transferring Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR from 1954 of the year. He is confident that this will help to avoid constant claims from both Ukraine and the world community, because "we are tired of hearing that in 2014, we took someone’s land, sea and deprived Ukraine of its native, dear and belonging to it, which is a complete lie — historical and factual. "

The Federation Council supported this idea, and, according to Konstantin Zatulin, support it in the State Duma. Therefore, the bill can be submitted to the lower house before the new year. Konstantin Zatulin spoke about this and many other things in an interview on the eve of www.RU.

Question: Tell us more about your offer? What caused it and when did it appear?

Konstantin Zatulin: My proposal has not yet been discussed in the new State Duma, but was discussed before my election [to this composition]. In particular, I organized a discussion of this issue in the Public Chamber.

This proposal concerns the interpretation of the ownership of Crimea as such in the Soviet and post-Soviet period during the time when Crimea was actually transferred to the Ukrainian SSR and then ended up in the Ukrainian state that declared its independence after 1991.

I argue that 1954's decisions of the year were at least illegal from the point of view of Soviet legislation. And there are numerous confirmations. This is often discussed.

I think this is important, including in order to stop the claims of the Ukrainian side and, of course, so that our attitude to this will be confirmed and used for counter-propaganda, in order to explain the real situation and the historical truth to the doubters not only in our country. in the country, but also abroad - for this, it seems to me, it would not be superfluous to overturn the decision of the Soviet Union 1954 of the year.



Question: Who can do this?

Konstantin Zatulin: In fact, no one except our Federal Assembly can do this, because only the Russian Federation is recognized as the successor to the Soviet Union. And, as you know, a whole series of symbolic and practical things after the collapse of the Soviet Union was carried out precisely in connection with this recognition of Russia as the successor - not only a place in the UN, but also debts, for example, we paid, including, by the way, Ukraine .

Question: And such an initiative will help to avoid constant attacks from Ukraine?

Konstantin Zatulin: We hear Ukrainian propaganda everywhere. It is also used in the international context - in stating the need for sanctions, on the "annexation" of Crimea by the Russian Federation, and so on. And it is used for internal use - for raising the hatred of Russia among the young generation of Ukrainian citizens.

I affirm that Crimea was illegally registered in the Ukrainian SSR, and then it turned out to be part of the Ukrainian state. Therefore, everything that happened in 2014 was not only the restoration of historical justice, but also the rule of law, because the rule of law in 1954 was grossly violated. There was no right for these bodies to make such a decision.

In fact, we perfectly imagine that such issues cannot be resolved without taking into account the opinion of the population. There was no consideration of the opinion of the population - neither in the Crimean region, nor in the RSFSR as a whole. Nobody asked them whether it is necessary to transfer Crimea or not — for example, in the form of a referendum. Nobody asked the Crimeans themselves - can or should they be transferred to Ukraine.

Look, with what a touching concern Ukraine is now telling that Crimea always belonged to it and that it is necessary to proceed from the logic of general secretaries like Khrushchev, who were entitled to transfer entire areas, even exceeding the emperors. Therefore, I believe that we can and should do it both from the moral and from the formal legal point of view.



Question: Why hasn't they done this before?

Konstantin Zatulin: I always thought that this had to be done, but there were many other concerns in 2014. But in 2015, I remember very well how the chairman of the Federation Council began talking about it. As it turned out, the bill was never prepared, mainly due to the fact that the senators persuaded. And the lawyers of the presidential right-hand department persuaded them, who then proceeded from the fact that we didn’t need to return to the Crimean issue anymore, we decided, and that’s it.

I think that time has shown that this was an erroneous position. And in any audience - by the way, in a foreign audience, among our compatriots with whom I have just met - they consider this idea very relevant. Because indeed, people abroad, without being guided in the history of Russia, of the Soviet Union, of course, from a formal point of view, they see it this way: he was part of Ukraine and suddenly became part of Russia. And all the rhetoric about "annexation", "aggression" and so on is strung on it.

Question: That is, the project has been developed and can already be submitted to the State Duma if they have declared work on it?

Konstantin Zatulin: He was trained in the Federation Council, but he, of course, had to enter the State Duma first. But he did not act, was not finalized.

I have the outline of this bill. Naturally, I will consult with my colleagues from the faction, once again I will consult with the leadership of the State Duma. But this idea is supported - it is fully approved by the leadership of the Republic of Crimea itself. Everyone with whom I spoke, deputies, believe that the idea is correct.

Question: And what kind of reaction do you expect?

Konstantin Zatulin: I read the first reaction to this effect both in Ukraine and in Russia, especially in Ukraine, of course, immediately tried to discredit this idea. It is no coincidence because they are afraid of adopting such a document. In connection with the adoption of this document, it will be possible to once again analyze those events of the 1954 of the year and once again demonstrate that they do not fit into any norms of the law, neither the current nor the Soviet.

While in Ukraine they are trying to make fun of my position. And I am not so naive a man, I perfectly imagine that this law will not stop Ukraine either in the person of the current leaders or the anti-Russian forces in the West, but it will become harder for them to “prove” their point of view.

And most importantly - for those who are trying to really figure it out, this will be a weighty argument. They will have to examine the reasons why we canceled this act, and either agree with us or not. So I would see how in the democratic countries of the West they will tell that the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine in 1954 was the height of perfection.

Question: And in some of our media have already written that you are thus struggling with the Soviet past ...

Konstantin Zatulin: I'm not going to fight the Soviet past. First of all, I am not crazy, unlike Zhirinovsky. The Soviet past is very multidimensional, and I am not at all a fighter against the Soviet authorities. Under this Soviet regime I received an education, began to work, achieved some results - I have great respect for many things that existed then, and now, unfortunately, do not exist. From this point of view, I have no such task to fight the Soviet order, the Soviet power. I am a historian, I objectively evaluate it.

You just need to be able to put our opponents in a difficult position - this is something that some, unfortunately, quite high-ranking lawyers and jurists who do not think that everything comes down to legal chicking do not understand us. No, it’s not just that, it’s all down to a fairly serious argument, which in this case will be involved.



Question: If we talk about practical issues, when can a bill be submitted to the State Duma?

Konstantin Zatulin: I think this bill before the new year can be introduced.

Question: Can something interfere?

Konstantin Zatulin: There are opponents of this project, in any case, they were, and they are familiar to me - these people who convinced themselves that this is their position - “we don’t return to this issue”, she convinces everyone, Indeed, it convinces few people. And I have the impression that they themselves are not completely convinced and do not want a conversation on this topic. For example, I am quite convinced that we are right in the case of the Crimea. I was convinced of it even before the Crimean Spring 2014 of the year happened. After all, I promoted this topic throughout my entire political activity - from the first State Duma.

That is, I did not advocate in the 90-ies for the immediate return of the Crimea to Russia - I was in favor of forcing Ukraine to take into account the special character of the Crimea and force it to sign a federal treaty with the Crimea.

This position was always defended by me - I considered it necessary, knowing that Ukraine was very interested in such an agreement not because she wanted to be friends with us, but because she wanted its borders together with Crimea and Sevastopol to be confirmed by us. And so that they get what they want, I believe they could go for it if we made such a complaint to them. But we did not show it under Yeltsin and let it all go on the brakes.

There was also another position - I said that let them give us all of Sevastopol for rent. Not moorings, 5% of the water area, as was actually the case with the basing agreement fleet, and the whole of Sevastopol. As, for example, all of Baikonur rents Kazakhstan to us. That was my position. Today, it may seem moderate, because, in the end, the case ended in the return of the Crimea as a whole. But then I also hoped that I would be able to convince Ukraine, and this would be a prologue to stronger relations between Russia and Ukraine, which are now absent.



Question: Can you predict how long you can expect the consideration of the bill?

Konstantin Zatulin: I cannot answer this question. At the moment I am actively involved in a very relevant for us editing of legislation on citizenship, where I also have to deal with the same windmills. And my laws are without movement since the end of last year, although they have been submitted to the State Duma - these laws, it would seem, are obvious. And, nevertheless, there are people who, not feeling the situation and not wanting to get acquainted and put up with it, reject these long-overdue changes in the legislation.

It would seem that the thing is obvious, and nevertheless, it does not receive support until you reach the very top. Well, here the same situation is possible.
Author:
Originator:
https://www.nakanune.ru/articles/113433/
53 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. afrikanez
    afrikanez 12 November 2017 06: 10
    22
    This act, the transmission of the Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR from 1954, had to be canceled three years ago, and maybe even earlier. And then they paid a rent, do not understand to anyone, for our land.
    1. Spartanez300
      Spartanez300 12 November 2017 07: 13
      +5
      The main thing is that Crimea is again Russian and that no matter who says it forever.
      1. Monarchist
        Monarchist 12 November 2017 14: 08
        +2
        I agree with your table, but it suits me, and let the horses ride by. Who agrees? Unanimously
    2. Esoteric
      Esoteric 12 November 2017 07: 53
      +6
      Quote: afrikanez
      And then they paid a rent, do not understand to anyone, for our land.

      Repeal the act and demand the payment of the subsidies that Russia paid for the rent ... lol
      1. Lycan
        Lycan 14 November 2017 17: 26
        0
        Quote: Esoteric
        claim subsidies

        From whom??? Porazhenko has not given those 15 yards since Yanukovych. Yes, and does not think ...
        (https://strana.ua/articles/analysis/84490-sud.ht
        ml)
        You can demand something from a candy tycoon only by holding it tightly by Something like this, for which they kept Yanukovych so that he wouldn’t let the Berkut soldiers to the maydauns. And for this you need to be able to not let Petya out permanently in Gishpaniya.
        https://ru.tsn.ua/groshi/u-poroshenko-nashli-neza
        deklarirovannuyu-villu-v-ispanii-745930.html
    3. siberalt
      siberalt 12 November 2017 13: 28
      0
      The cancellation of the act on the transfer of Crimea will logically entail the abolition of other acts, such as: on the transfer to Ukraine of Russian territories by the conscientious authority, taking into account the tsar’s “twin mates”. And according to the "chain reaction", a revision of the Yalta agreements is inevitable. And then what remains of Ukraine and Poland? belay This topic is painfully dangerous.
      1. GAF
        GAF 12 November 2017 15: 35
        +1
        Quote: siberalt
        And according to the "chain reaction", a revision of the Yalta agreements is inevitable.

        Do not mix flies with cutlets. Yalta agreements are international. Signed on behalf of the USSR. Crimea is the unconstitutional tyranny of Khrushchev, who was snubbed by the authorities. So this thing has nothing to do with the Yalta agreements. In fact, the issue has been resolved. Whoever doesn’t like it, let them try. There is no great sense in adopting a law justifying the return of Crimea. To whom is it justified ?. In front of those or something, to declare white as black as two fingers .... Dissatisfied send away to the Farm near Dikanka.
        1. Sargas
          Sargas 14 November 2017 19: 01
          +1
          That's just the ass, that the Anglo-Saxons just collect a gang of people who want to try again.
          They themselves, of course, expect once again to sit overseas.
      2. INTER
        INTER 12 November 2017 18: 01
        0
        Quote: siberalt
        . And according to the "chain reaction", a revision of the Yalta agreements is inevitable. And then what remains of Ukraine and Poland? This topic is painfully dangerous.

        So even if so, we have the right to cancel or not, what we need to cancel, what we need to leave, although the GDP most likely will not cancel anything.
      3. balian
        balian 13 November 2017 20: 26
        0
        how can the “transfer to Ukraine” of the territories of the former Russian Empire be “logically” crossed out?
        "Cancellation of the act of transfer of the Crimea" is generally meaningless action, which has nothing to do with international law.
        1. Sargas
          Sargas 14 November 2017 19: 03
          +3
          And we are not talking about "international law." This is an "intra-departmental instruction."
    4. Antianglosax
      Antianglosax 12 November 2017 14: 25
      +3
      Quote: afrikanez
      This act, the transmission of the Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR from 1954, had to be canceled three years ago, and maybe even earlier. And then they paid a rent, do not understand to anyone, for our land.

      To the very point! Is this stupidity or open betrayal? I think stupidity and incapacity, given the quality of our close-minded balabol-sovereigns.
    5. Olgovich
      Olgovich 14 November 2017 09: 15
      0
      Quote: afrikanez
      This act, the transmission of the Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR from 1954, had to be canceled three years ago, and maybe even earlier. And then they paid a rent, do not understand to anyone, for our land.

      I agree, especially since Putin hinted about it.
    6. antivirus
      antivirus 14 November 2017 21: 21
      0
      better late than never said a Jew looking after the departing train and laid his head on the rails

      the great reformers did not ripen until 2014.
      are ripe now?
  2. Grandfather
    Grandfather 12 November 2017 06: 12
    +2
    it turns out, they regained their property, but we have no documents for it ... what urgently needed at the MFC ...!
    1. a housewife
      a housewife 13 November 2017 21: 01
      +1
      This is their document to the Crimea is invalid!
  3. izya top
    izya top 12 November 2017 06: 29
    13
    I won’t say for the whole Crimea, the devil is a judge crushing, well, Sevastopol was NEVER transferred to the Ukrainian SSR, it remained directly subordinate to Moscow yes
    1. balian
      balian 13 November 2017 20: 30
      0
      Quote: iza top
      I won’t say for the whole Crimea, the devil is a judge crushing, well, Sevastopol was NEVER transferred to the Ukrainian SSR, it remained directly subordinate to Moscow yes

      This is complete nonsense, anyone can see the Soviet Constitution of the Ukrainian SSR
      Article 77. In the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic there are areas: Vinnytsia, Volyn, Voroshilovgrad, Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk, Zhytomyr, Transcarpathian, Zaporizhzhya, Ivano-Frankivsk, Kiev, Kirovograd, Crimean, Lviv, Nikolaev, Odessa, Poltava, Rivne, Sumy , Kharkov, Kherson, Khmelnitsky, Cherkasy, Chernivtsi and Chernihiv. The cities of republican subordination in the Ukrainian SSR are Kiev and Sevastopol.
      1. izya top
        izya top 13 November 2017 20: 36
        0
        Quote: balian
        Cities of republican subordination in the Ukrainian SSR are Kiev and Sevastopol

        yes? and kit do not agree request
      2. a housewife
        a housewife 13 November 2017 21: 03
        +1
        You never know what is written in your constitution. It is recorded illegally.
  4. samarin1969
    samarin1969 12 November 2017 06: 37
    11
    Konstantin Zatulin really worked for Russia. He came to us very often, supported the Russian community. No wonder Ukraine introduced bans on his visits. Indeed, in fact, contributed to the approach of 2014. Of course, in the modern world, the whole strength of the army decides. Well, Konstantin Fedorovich provides justice with a convincing legal cover.
  5. Thunderbolt
    Thunderbolt 12 November 2017 06: 45
    +9
    There was no account of the opinion of the population — neither in the Crimean region, nor in the RSFSR as a whole. No one asked them whether Crimea should be transferred or not, for example, in the form of a referendum. No one asked the Crimeans themselves - can or should they be transferred to Ukraine.
    The referendum and the USSR are not compatible things. How was it going? Not only Crimea, but also some other parts of the territory were freely transferred to other republics. The borders of the republics and regions were constantly changing. This was all done for the convenience of administrative management. It is quite natural by its natural location Crimea was more connected with the Ukrainian SSR than with the RSFSR and probably from Kiev it was easier to manage the territory than from Moscow.
    Regarding the abolition of Soviet decrees, I think that this is not a strong move and will in no way affect the opinion of the West and Ukraine on the Crimean issue. Therefore, Zatulin must first recognize that, in particular, his activity (or rather complete inactivity) as a profile worker of the committee allowed us to defeat our influence in Ukraine. Let it admit that Western politicians outplayed them and put their puppets in Kiev. Without such an honest “debriefing,” his activities will still be ineffective to confront already new challenges in other former republics. they need to concentrate all their efforts, and not look for those to blame for the distant Soviet past. It’s easiest to blame everything on Khrushchev, but I repeat, the sense of canceling the old decree will be 0.
    P.S. He was well done in the Crimea, he was active in acting. But it was necessary in Kiev to cultivate pro-Russian forces that could be relied upon at a decisive hour. Nothing was done.
    1. Esoteric
      Esoteric 12 November 2017 07: 59
      +2
      Quote: Thunderbolt
      By its natural location, Crimea was more connected by communications with the Ukrainian SSR than with the RSFSR and probably from Kiev it was easier to manage the territory than from Moscow.

      It was easier to coordinate all plans for the development of the national economy. There was one country, the people were united (Soviet), and interdepartmental upheavals did not contribute to the rapid implementation of projects.
    2. a housewife
      a housewife 13 November 2017 21: 04
      +1
      Our Maykop region was attributed to Adygea from a great mind. Return us to the Krasnodar Territory !!!!
  6. Sars
    Sars 12 November 2017 08: 00
    +6
    Khrushchev another territory of Russia was given to the national republics. East Kazakhstan region.
    Cancel, so immediately all the "gifts."
    1. Reserve officer
      Reserve officer 12 November 2017 15: 25
      +3
      In this case, it is worthless to forget about Lenin’s gifts to Ukraine. The lands of the Southeast were transferred in order to strengthen the role of the working class in the general composition of the population.
      And the current western regions in the 39-40 years, strictly speaking, became part of the Soviet Union, and only then they were annexed to the Ukrainian SSR inside the USSR. And Russia is the successor of the USSR.
      But digging all this is now too late. This question had to be understood in 1991 immediately after the collapse of the USSR, when the borders of new countries were determined. As these new borders Russia recognized. So thanks to the alcoholic. He transferred Crimea to Ukraine, although it was possible for Crimea to become part of Russia even then. But he was not up to it. Such euphoria, the Great Country was ruined by three "authorities", let's soon share the heritage.
      As regards the strengthening of positions on the belonging of Crimea to Russia and the repeal of the 1954 act of the year, now it is not necessary, too much, Crimea is already Russian. Everything is legal. The people in a referendum said their word and there is no need to make excuses to anyone and convince anyone. The question is closed.
      But a revision of the ownership of the USSR lands to current countries may cause an unpredictable chain reaction.
  7. fa2998
    fa2998 12 November 2017 09: 24
    +3
    Quote: SarS
    Khrushchev another territory of Russia was given to the national republics. East Kazakhstan region.
    Cancel, so immediately all the "gifts."

    And not only Khrushchev, the transfer of the territory of the Russian Federation began even with Lenin. It would be nice to delve into the archives, evaluate the legal assessment of these transfers. Did they have authority under the then Constitution of the RSFSR? Or just a strong-willed principle? If contrary to the Constitution - declare anti-constitutional and repeal. Our legal scholars do not catch mice! Or is it profitable for the authorities? request hi
    1. captain
      captain 12 November 2017 12: 11
      +1
      In the USSR, all the lands were transferred by an allied and autonomous formation by a willful decision of the party top. And the cries of "true Leninists" (more precisely, admirers of Trotsky and Lenin) about democracy in the USSR are the result of their inflamed left-wing radical thinking. In the 1-th constitution, and in the 2-th (considered Leninist) the voice of one worker cost the votes of 5-peasants. Well, what is this equality? What is justice? Therefore, they distributed the lands inhabited by Russians; Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, etc. The Kremlin is simply afraid to cancel all these acts, we will immediately look aggressors in the eyes of the whole world.
  8. APASUS
    APASUS 12 November 2017 09: 43
    +3
    Why wave fists after a fight?
    If this act was canceled, then it was required to do this in the early days and relying on the will of the people to include territories in Russia. Now it looks very strange. It seems that someone doubts and begin to look for methods to block backward moves.
  9. silver169
    silver169 12 November 2017 09: 56
    +2
    How, Russia still has not canceled this act? I still haven’t done what was necessary to do three years ago !!! Truly a country of fools.)))
  10. midshipman
    midshipman 12 November 2017 10: 47
    +5
    Good luck in your business Dear Konstantin.
    I had to work a lot in Crimea. All 26 airdromes were created with my participation (6 GU MCI USSR). The aerodrome in Simferopol, under my leadership, was finalized in two months as an alternate aerodrome for the landing of the ISS Buran. With Air Marshal E.Ya. For two months, Savitsky led the military exercises from the Crimea. Good luck to you, Konstantin. I have the honor.
  11. Glory1974
    Glory1974 12 November 2017 11: 10
    +6
    Khrushchev, Lenin passed, we are indignant. And who remembers the deeds of Medvedev, for example? I gave the territories in the Barents Sea to the Norwegians. Part of the territory of Dagestan was given to Azerbaijan.
    And also no referenda are asked by the population.
  12. bratchanin3
    bratchanin3 12 November 2017 11: 16
    +2
    Zatulin correctly and logically raises the question of repealing the 1954 Act. This will eliminate all speculations on the topic of Crimea ownership.
  13. Brigadier
    Brigadier 12 November 2017 11: 53
    +2
    Quote: glory1974
    And who remembers the deeds of Medvedev, for example? I gave the territories in the Barents Sea to the Norwegians. Part of the territory of Dagestan was given to Azerbaijan.


    Not mine ... don't mind ...
  14. koshmarik
    koshmarik 12 November 2017 12: 17
    +1
    I’m afraid that the lawyers of the president’s right-wing administration will lay bones in defense of the uniform’s honor and “cut off” this law that the country needs so much.
  15. pafegosoff
    pafegosoff 12 November 2017 12: 34
    +4
    As Westerners or Ukrainians like to tutuykat about "international rules or law", laws, and other euphemisms ...
    Ie - an attack on Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria - is it legal? And the guarantees of Yanukovych not to use force on the Maidan, given by the West and a day later, charmed by the same West? What about Kosovo? What about African abominations? What about the attack on North Vietnam? And the destruction of the Iranian plane? But the bombing of Tokyo, Dresden and other peaceful cities? What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
    So much for the "international standards." Not to mention the direct intervention of the CIA in the affairs of the USSR and Russia from 1985 to the present ... And what about the Western media?
    So - they come with their claims on the accession of Crimea to Russia into a deep cesspool!
    Well
  16. akm8226
    akm8226 12 November 2017 13: 20
    +1
    Absolutely logical! Everything had to be done even earlier. But, as I understand it, frank saboteurs are sitting in the Duma. Personally, this is my opinion. What should they discuss and cancel? It's not a wave of Kyle in a granite career! Moreover, the gift of Dolbyatel Khrushchev was made in violation of all norms of jurisdiction and law, including the Constitution of the USSR, which was in force at that time.
  17. Lelek
    Lelek 12 November 2017 13: 21
    +1
    (... according to Konstantin Zatulin, they support her in the State Duma. Therefore, the bill may be submitted to the lower house before the new year. )

    A very correct, albeit belated, decision. Russia has a legal right to this, as a recognized legal successor of the USSR. With any development of events, Crimea is the territory of Russia and there is no reverse course.
  18. panzerfaust
    panzerfaust 12 November 2017 13: 25
    +3
    It was necessary to cancel this act in 1991. And the EBN lost (and ... take it away!), And Crimea and Sevastopol and the fleet!
    1. a housewife
      a housewife 13 November 2017 21: 07
      +2
      And who will consider these vile "documents" on the abolition of the USSR? After all, they are also illegal!
  19. Monarchist
    Monarchist 12 November 2017 14: 09
    0
    Quote: iza top
    I won’t say for the whole Crimea, the devil is a judge crushing, well, Sevastopol was NEVER transferred to the Ukrainian SSR, it remained directly subordinate to Moscow yes

    And the cat witness it
  20. Monarchist
    Monarchist 12 November 2017 14: 14
    0
    Quote: pafegosoff
    As Westerners or Ukrainians like to tutuykat about "international rules or law", laws, and other euphemisms ...
    Ie - an attack on Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria - is it legal? And the guarantees of Yanukovych not to use force on the Maidan, given by the West and a day later, charmed by the same West? What about Kosovo? What about African abominations? What about the attack on North Vietnam? And the destruction of the Iranian plane? But the bombing of Tokyo, Dresden and other peaceful cities? What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
    So much for the "international standards." Not to mention the direct intervention of the CIA in the affairs of the USSR and Russia from 1985 to the present ... And what about the Western media?
    So - they come with their claims on the accession of Crimea to Russia into a deep cesspool!
    Well

    All of the above was done for the benefit of the triumph of liberal values, and therefore in the name of the highest good. I don’t remember how the wording in the tribunal of the Holy Inquisition sounded literally, but the essence is
  21. borys
    borys 12 November 2017 14: 19
    0
    It has already become a tradition to transfer the Crimea to blame exclusively on Khrushchev. But this is not entirely true.
    Or not at all true. The fact is that in February 1954 the USSR was headed by G. M. Malenkov, but not at all
    Khrushchev.
  22. Antares
    Antares 12 November 2017 15: 04
    +3
    According to article 30 "The USSR Supreme Council is the supreme body of state power." And article 31 reads: "The Supreme Soviet of the USSR exercises all the rights assigned to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in accordance with Article 14 of the Constitution, since they do not fall, by virtue of the Constitution, into the competence of the organs of the USSR accountable to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR; the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, the Council of Ministers of the USSR and ministries of the USSR. "
    And since we are considering the transfer of the region from one union republic to another, then there is a change in the relevant articles 22 and 23 of the Constitution of the USSR, which lists the regions that are included in the RSFSR and USSR, respectively. According to Article 146, “Amendment of the Constitution of the USSR is made only by decision of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, adopted by a majority of at least 2/3 of the votes in each of its chambers.”
    That is, only the Supreme Soviet of the USSR had the right to change the borders between union republics and their composition. Which was implemented in practice on April 26, 1954 with the adoption of the "Law on the transfer of the Crimean region from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR", which, after its publication in print, entered into force.
    According to the text of article 13 of the Russian Constitution, "the RSFSR provides for the USSR in the person of its highest bodies of power and bodies of state administration the rights determined by article 14 of the Constitution of the USSR." Under these rights, in paragraph 14 (e) of Article XNUMX, it is meant “approval of changes in borders between union republics”. That is, the RSFSR did not have the right to transfer its own territories - it transferred this right to the USSR.
    Nevertheless, Russia could give its consent to a change in its borders or administrative-territorial composition. Moreover, without her consent, such a transfer would have been impossible. This right was ensured by article 18 of the Constitution of the USSR: "The territory of the Union republics cannot be changed without their consent," and also by article 16 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation: "The territory of the RSFSR cannot be changed without the consent of the RSFSR"
    In general, politicians can say anything, cancel, accept anything. Lawyers can justify / refute any decision.
    It's all about Friedrich and the province ("If you like a foreign province and you have enough strength, take it immediately. Once you do this, there will always be enough lawyers who will prove that you have all the rights to the occupied territory.")
    to cancel the decisions of the USSR is impossible and stupid. And there will be a precedent! And not in favor of the Russian Federation.
    It is strange that everyone is preoccupied with the act of 1954, when there are treaties of this century, where the Russian Federation and Ukraine, being themselves without the guardianship of the USSR, determined the borders and agreed not to have territorial claims. And it is their violation, and not 1954, that lies at the heart of this conflict.
    1. izya top
      izya top 12 November 2017 16: 17
      +5
      Quote: Antares
      there is a treaty of this century, where the Russian Federation and Ukraine, having been without the guardianship of the USSR, determined the borders and agreed not to have territorial claims. And it is their violation, not 1954, that underlies this entire conflict.

      yes? and I thought, it’s based on "mockalyaku on gilyaku" what not? request
  23. Curious
    Curious 12 November 2017 19: 48
    +1
    The resolution of the Council of People's Commissars and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Soviets of Workers 'and Soldiers' Deputies on the state independence of the Republic of Finland of January 5, 1918 can also be canceled. Arrange for the Finns, so to speak, the centennial of independence. That would make a noise.
    1. balian
      balian 13 November 2017 20: 39
      +1
      Quote: Curious
      The resolution of the Council of People's Commissars and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Soviets of Workers 'and Soldiers' Deputies on the state independence of the Republic of Finland of January 5, 1918 can also be canceled. Arrange for the Finns, so to speak, the centennial of independence. That would make a noise.

      It's pretty funny to read local kitchen lawyers. Russia can’t “cancel” anything neither in Crimea nor in Finland, it can only proclaim what it cancels, the reality is that in this case it will simply VIOLATE its international treaties and obligations of only everything that Russia ALREADY PRACTICALLY did.
      1. The comment was deleted.
  24. zoolu350
    zoolu350 13 November 2017 10: 59
    +3
    And cancel the Bialowieza Agreement of 1991. deputies weak? Of course, weak, because these agreements are the basis of the power of the oligarchy of the Russian Federation.
  25. bratchanin3
    bratchanin3 14 November 2017 08: 55
    0
    Indeed, why the Act of 1955 has not yet been repealed? Cho forgot about him or didn’t have enough mind?
  26. Sotskiy
    Sotskiy 14 November 2017 10: 23
    +2
    All opponents of the Russian Crimea are afraid of the repeal of the 1954 act of the year

    Why should they not be afraid if Zatulin sets a precedent. If the law is adopted, then you can immediately raise the question of Yeltsin’s “legitimacy” as president, the authorities ignoring the results of the 1991 referendum, the legitimacy of the Bialowieza gathering that destroyed the Union, and then like a snowball, the legality of the results of “privatization”, etc. d.
    Is it necessary for the current "masters" of life? "Lure" this bill to the grandmother do not go!
    1. Jurkovs
      Jurkovs 16 November 2017 09: 34
      0
      Quote: Sovetskiy
      Is it necessary for the current "masters" of life?

      By and large, we also DO NOT need it yet.
  27. master2
    master2 14 November 2017 23: 15
    0
    The most interesting of the events of March 2014 is that the history of the transfer of Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR Nikita Khrushchev, who is credited with this gift supposedly from the noble shoulder of Kiev, in fact, has no official connection. The fact is that the event took place on February 19, 1954, on the eve of the 300th anniversary of the Pereyaslav Rada. And by this time N. Khrushchev had not yet decided anything on his own, although he had been the first secretary of the CPSU since September 1953.

    Crimea was transferred to Ukraine by G. Malenkov, and K. Voroshilov signed a decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR.

    There is another very important detail, which for some reason everyone is silent today. What instead of Crimea from Ukraine to the Russian Federation at the same time (protocol of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU No. 49 of January 25, 1954) transferred Taganrog and the land bordering it, in the territory equal to the area of ​​the peninsula
  28. Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 16 November 2017 09: 32
    0
    In fact, no one but our Federal Assembly can do this, because only the Russian Federation is recognized as the successor of the Soviet Union.

    Russia, as the successor of the USSR, can really do a lot, and not only in the Crimea. Russia can repeal the laws on the entry of South Ossetia into the Georgian USSR, revise the status of Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria and much more. But is it necessary to do this? And most importantly, do you need to create a precedent for such actions?
    1. balian
      balian 18 December 2017 05: 31
      0
      On its territory, the Russian Federation can do anything.
      Russia cannot “cancel” anything, if only because inside the USSR there was relevant legislation on decision-making procedures, and decisions were made by the relevant state bodies of the USSR subjects.