Crimean deputy: When transferring Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR, the Presidium of the USSR Armed Forces committed a forgery

The question of how and why Crimea became part of Ukraine during Soviet times has been discussed many times by Russian experts.

Let us recall that on February 19, 1954, the Crimean region was transferred from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR. This event occurred on the initiative of Nikita Khrushchev, who from 1938 to 1949 actually headed the Ukrainian SSR.

However, according to the deputy of the Crimean State Council Sergei Trofimov, who also heads the committee on legislation, during the transfer of Crimea by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, a forgery was committed when making this decision. The deputy spoke about this in an interview RIA News.

Trofimov stated that during the transfer of Crimea, the Presidium of the USSR Armed Forces approved a document that “did not exist in nature.” We are talking about a joint submission by the presidiums of the Armed Forces of the RSFSR and the Ukrainian SSR on the transfer of the Crimean region. According to the deputy, separate decisions took place, but there was no joint resolution. Thus, it turns out that the USSR Supreme Council did not make a decision on the transfer of Crimea, but only approved the decree of its presidium.

Based on this, we can conclude that the transfer of Crimea was carried out in violation of both the constitution of the USSR and the constitution of its two republics, Trofimov noted.

Crimea was not legally part of the Ukrainian SSR for a single day

- concluded the deputy of the State Council of Crimea.

Comments

[Insait]

It’s too late to prove something and it’s useless...But if we’re serious, then the borders of Ukraine were not formalized legally after the collapse of the USSR. (at the UN, etc.) Russia is the successor of the USSR and we know all these borders very well how they were drawn in those days (Lenin drew them by hand, although Stalin was against this from history)
Well, I remember Khrushchev ran around in an embroidered shirt and amnestied Banderaism..
It's my opinion

[Msi]

The question of how and why Crimea became part of Ukraine during Soviet times has been discussed many times by Russian experts.

Why are our people raising this issue??? Crimea is Russian and that’s it...discussions are inappropriate.

[guest]

Quote from Msi

Why are our people raising this issue?

Well, actually, theoretically, it is possible to present a demand for compensation for the illegal seizure and occupation of Crimea by Ukraine.

[Msi]

Well, actually, theoretically, it is possible to present a demand for compensation for the illegal seizure and occupation of Crimea by Ukraine. laughing

Why do we need any compensation? We compensate with territories... they are priceless...

[Shurik70]

In fact, the initiator was not Khrushchev, but Kirichenko, Secretary of the Central Committee of Ukraine.
Under the pretext that it will be easier to manage the construction of a cascade of hydroelectric power stations and two irrigation canals (one to Donbass, and the other, North Crimean, to Crimea) if all the work is carried out on the territory of one republic.
But the main fault, yes, lies with Khrushchev. That this decision was “pushed through”, and even in violation of the laws

[dump22]

But the main fault, yes, lies with Khrushchev.

Well, this is a folk myth, invented later because of hostility towards Khrushchev.

At that time (as of February 1955) he had full power in the country and the party was not even in sight; the anti-party group of Molotov-Malenkov-Bulgarin-Kaganovich-Voroshilov had not yet been defeated (this happened in the summer of 1957).

At that time, the Chairman of the USSR Supreme Council was Voroshilov, the Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers was Bulgarin. All signatures are theirs.
And most importantly, the meeting of the Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee on this decision (January 25, 1954) was chaired by Malenkov (by that time already a completely obvious enemy of Khrushchev), and he made the report.

[Ivan Pchelin]

They are preparing to withdraw to the 1991 borders. If these boundaries are clarified in accordance with the law, then it will not even be a complete surrender.

[alystan]

No, it's not too late. Don't just talk about uselessness. We need to check and double-check everything, draw new conclusions and conclusions in order to have something to prove that we are right at the right time.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: alystan

in order to have something to justify your rightness at the right time.

the one who wins will be right and all your idle reasoning is useless
Hitler would have won in 45, the Third Reich would have been right with all the ensuing consequences, we signed the surrender in 91 and the mattresses turned out to be right, we will win now, we will be right, regardless of the decisions of the bald corn farmer, we will lose, no amount of paper will help

[digger]

Khrushchev, in addition to being mean to the Crimea, threw another bomb.
Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of September 17, 1955 "On the amnesty of Soviet citizens who collaborated with the invaders during the Great Patriotic War of 1941 - 1945"
At the request of the West, Khrushchev immediately released, returned the confiscated and closed criminal cases on:
- citizens of the USSR who are members of the OUN UPA
- Bandera
- who were in the service of the Wehrmacht and the SS
- collaborators who worked in the police and camp services
- the above persons who left the territory of the USSR and live abroad.

As a result, 60 thousand ghouls were released inside the country and 60 thousand ran back from Canada and the United States ... moreover, they were recruited by the special services of the United States and Britain.
Since the 60s, these persons began to freely penetrate the local authorities in Ukraine and part of the RSFSR, and by the 80s

[Alexga]

Here is the full Decree: “Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR “on the amnesty of Soviet citizens who collaborated with the occupiers during the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945.”

Moscow, Kremlin September 17, 1955

After the victorious end of the Great Patriotic War, the Soviet people achieved new great successes in all areas of economic and cultural construction and further strengthening of their socialist state.

Taking this into account, as well as the cessation of the state of war between the Soviet Union and Germany and guided by the principle of humanity, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR considers it possible to apply an amnesty to those Soviet citizens who during the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945. out of cowardice or ignorance, they found themselves involved in collaboration with the occupiers.

In order to provide these citizens with the opportunity to return to an honest working life and become useful members of socialist society, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR decides:

1. Release from places of detention and from other punishments persons sentenced to a term of up to ten years in prison inclusive for crimes committed during the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945. aiding the enemy and other crimes provided for in Articles 58−1, 58−3, 58−4, 58−6, 58−10, 58−12 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR and the corresponding articles of the Criminal Codes of other union republics.

2. Reduce by half the punishment imposed by the court for those convicted for a term of more than ten years for the crimes listed in article one of this Decree.

3. Release from places of detention, regardless of the term of punishment, persons convicted of serving in the German army, police and special German units.

Exempt persons sent into exile and deportation for such crimes from further serving their sentences.

4. Do not apply amnesty to punitive forces convicted of killing and torturing Soviet citizens.

5. Terminate all investigative cases and cases not considered by the courts regarding crimes committed during the Great Patriotic War of 1941−1945, provided for in Articles 58−1, 58−3, 58−4, 58−6, 58−10 , 58−12 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR and the corresponding articles of the Criminal Codes of other union republics, with the exception of cases of persons specified in article four of this Decree.

6. Remove criminal records and loss of rights from citizens exempted from punishment on the basis of this Decree.

Remove conviction and loss of rights from persons previously convicted and served sentences for the crimes listed in Article XNUMX of this Decree.

7. Release from liability Soviet citizens abroad who, during the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945. surrendered to the enemy or served in the German army, police and special German units.

Exempt from liability those Soviet citizens now abroad who held leadership positions during the war in the police, gendarmerie and propaganda bodies created by the occupiers, including those involved in anti-Soviet organizations in the post-war period, if they have redeemed themselves by subsequent patriotic activities in favor of the Motherland or turned themselves in.

In accordance with the current legislation, the surrender of Soviet citizens abroad who committed crimes during the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945 is considered as a mitigating circumstance. serious crimes against the Soviet state. Establish that in these cases the punishment imposed by the court should not exceed five years of exile.

8. Instruct the Council of Ministers of the USSR to take measures to facilitate entry into the USSR for Soviet citizens abroad, as well as members of their families, regardless of citizenship, and their employment in the Soviet Union.

Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR K. Voroshilov
Secretary of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR N. Pegov

GA RF. F. 7523. Op. 72. D. 522. L. 110−112"

[Saburov_Alexander53]

"on the amnesty of Soviet citizens who collaborated with the occupiers.."
This is important to note for all Soviet citizens, and not just Banderaites. And many times more (!!!) Russian Vlasovites and Armenians were included in this amnesty. Georgian, Baltic, Central Asian, Tatar and other collaborators. And exactly the same. like Bandera's followers in Ukraine, they played their role in the collapse of the USSR. The monument to Hitler’s henchman Ndzhe (Ter-Harutyunyan) on the central square of Yerevan, instead of the demolished Lenin, was erected not under Pashinyan, but under “the most devoted friends of Russia” (Abrahamyan, Karapetyan, Sargsyan) long before him, in 2016. And to the protest of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs, they sharply responded - It’s none of your business! I believe that among our liberals there are a lot of descendants of those Vlasov collaborators. Yes, it was possible to rot them in camps to death and not allow their offspring to reproduce... Or should there still be correct propaganda and government policy? As an example, the Germans in the GDR, unlike Poland and even Czechoslovakia of those times.

[dump22]

Well, I remember Khrushchev running around in an embroidered shirt

This despite the fact that he was a purebred Russian from Kursk and first came to Ukraine only at the age of 44!

amnestied Bandera ..

On September 17, 1955, the Decree of the Presidium of the USSR Armed Forces “On the amnesty of Soviet citizens who collaborated with the occupiers during the Second World War” was issued. The decree was signed by Voroshilov.

By the way, at the same time, German prisoners who remained in the USSR for forced labor were also released.

[Sergej1972]

He began his career in the Donetsk province, which has been part of the Ukrainian SSR since the 20s. And he worked in Yuzovka before the revolution.

[azkolt]

Quote: Insait

It’s too late to prove something and it’s useless...But if we’re serious, then the borders of Ukraine were not formalized legally after the collapse of the USSR. (at the UN, etc.) Russia is the successor of the USSR and we know all these borders very well how they were drawn in those days (Lenin drew them by hand, although Stalin was against this from history)
Well, I remember Khrushchev ran around in an embroidered shirt and amnestied Banderaism..
It's my opinion

Let's at least do without fairy tales today! All these Armed Forces of the USSR, they were initially enemies of all Russians, because they were often led by notorious Russophobes! Next, about legally fixed borders, you are probably not on the agenda, but in the late 90s I constantly read the newspaper Zavtra and I remember very well how Prokhanov literally begged Zyuganov (let me remind you that the communists had a majority in the Duma) not to ratify the borders with Ukraine, but the communist did not I would be a communist if I put the state interests ahead of the party ones! The thing is. that in Ukraine at that time the position of the Communist Party of Symonenko was strong and this uncle... probably dreamed that if the Russian Federation recognized the borders of Ukraine, then Symonenko would come to power there! And almost immediately after that they pushed him away and where is he Simonenko, oh?!
Now about how Stalin was against it! Remind you who created the KazSSR on the territory of Southern Siberia?

[rotmistr60]

Crimea was not legally part of the Ukrainian SSR for a single day

Is it worth talking about this topic again if Crimea is again Russian territory? If this is just another clarification for the Western public, then they don’t care about it. Crimea is ours and that says it all.

[Insait]

Quote: rotmistr60

Is it worth talking about this topic again if Crimea is again Russian territory? If this is just another clarification for the Western public, then they don’t care about it. Crimea is ours and that says it all.

Well, still, from time to time it is necessary to raise such questions at the global level with documents from the archives and especially who Bandera’s followers were, etc.
Otherwise, in the West, memory is usually very short..Russia has already been accused at the highest level that it was we who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima..It’s scary how everyone turns out to be bastards..

[km-21]

Quote: Insait

From time to time it is necessary to raise such issues at the global level with documents from the archives

Alas, it doesn't work that way.
All issues have to be resolved on the battlefield.
And the documents are then adjusted to the result.

[Fangaro]

However, according to the deputy of the Crimean State Council Sergei Trofimov, who also heads the committee on legislation, during the transfer of Crimea by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, a forgery was committed when making this decision. The deputy spoke about this in an interview

It's time to rant about how Crimea got into the Ukrainian SSR!!!
From the Crimean State Council, does the deputy strive to move somewhere higher? Or have all current legislative issues already been resolved?

[alystan]

Deputy of the Crimean State Council Sergei Trofimov heads the committee on legislation

Don’t you think that this is his direct job responsibility as a people’s deputy of Crimea?

From the Crimean State Council, does the deputy strive to move somewhere higher? Or have all current legislative issues already been resolved?

Such a meticulous person should be transferred higher up, to the same State Duma or to the Federation Council. In place of those sitting there in vain and no longer striving for anything higher.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: alystan

Don’t you think that this is his direct job responsibility as a people’s deputy of Crimea?

actually no, his main duty is a representative function

[A17ttt]

I have a question for this deputy - why did he decide to voice this now, and not in 14 years or earlier?!

and in general the following question - how much of a hero is he?!

[Bingo]

Oh, there's enough there without that. The city of union significance did not enter ANY Crimea/Ukraine and could not enter, but the coolest thing is “the return of Ukraine to the borders of 1991 recognized by the world communities.” The problem is that the Outskirts had borders - only those coinciding with the borders of the USSR, the rest simply did not it was because the Outskirts refused to demarcate them - and the “world community” simply has nothing to recognize. So, to Selyansky’s great sadness, Russia did not even violate any borders. And in general, Crimea was OCCUPIED by military force in 1995, the occupier was Ukraine! In violation of our own Constitution, the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the Budapest Memorandum, everyone - pack your things

[paul3390]

return of Ukraine to the internationally recognized borders of 1991

No problem. On January 1991, XNUMX...

[dump22]

The outskirts have refused to demarcate them - and the “world community” simply has nothing to recognize

Actually there is:
Agreement on the state border between Ukraine and the Russian Federation signed by Presidents Kuchma and Putin on January 28, 2003 in Kyiv and ratified by the parliaments of both countries.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote from: dump22

Agreement on the state border between Ukraine and the Russian Federation

treaty and demarcation are not exactly the same thing

[dump22]

treaty and demarcation are not exactly the same thing

I agree.
First, all border points are agreed upon during negotiations, an agreement is signed, and only then demarcation occurs - the designation of the state border line on the ground. Demarcation began only in 2010 and was not fully completed.

But if there is a ratified treaty, does that mean there is a mutually recognized border line?
Even on paper. Or are marks on the ground more important than any law?

By the way, we still do not have complete border demarcation with Estonia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan!

[Sergej1972]

There were no cities under union subordination in the USSR. The entire territory of the USSR consisted of the territories of the union republics, as well as the waters of the internal Azov and White Seas.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Presidium of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR. Decree. dated October 29, 1948 N 761/2. ...Select the city of Sevastopol into an independent administrative and economic center with its own special budget and classify it as a city of republican subordination. Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR I. Vlasov.

[solar]

But this decree does not say that Sevastopol is being withdrawn from the Crimean region. That is, the order of subordination and financing has changed, but the city was not removed from the region.
According to the then-current Constitution of 1936, the subjects of the Union republics were listed not only in the constitutions of the Union republics, but also in the Constitution of the USSR. Sevastopol was never listed as a separate entity in the Constitutions of the USSR or the RSFSR.
https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/Конституция_СССР_(1936)
https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/Конституция_РСФСР_(1937)
Amendments were made to the Constitution when the territorial division within the republics changed. Something like that.
https://base.garant.ru/3946706/

[would]

This is written in plain text in the line “classify it as a city of republican subordination.” From this moment on, it is a city not of regional subordination, but of republican subordination. By the way, the text of the decree is absolutely standard; they simply changed the names of the cities.

Whether the city was included in the constitution or not does not matter since it was transferred to republican subordination not by the constitution, but by decree of the Supreme Council.

[Ross xnumx]

Quote: Sergej1972

There were no cities of union subordination in the USSR.

Stop talking nonsense...Moscow, Leningrad, Sevastopol, Kaliningrad...

[Sergej1972]

Moscow and Leningrad were cities of republican subordination of the RSFSR, equal in status to the edge or region, while Moscow was the capital of the RSFSR and the USSR. The Supreme Council of the RSFSR and the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR were located in Moscow. The Executive Committee of the Moscow Soviet was obliged to carry out the orders of the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR. Voters in Moscow and Leningrad participated in the elections of deputies to the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR. Sevastopol was a city of republican subordination, first of the RSFSR (since 1948), then of the Ukrainian SSR. Kaliningrad was a city of regional subordination and the regional center of the Kaliningrad region of the RSFSR. Once again, there were no cities of union subordination in the USSR. Moscow, Leningrad, and partly Kyiv were cities of union significance in the political, cultural and economic sense, but not of subordination. Obviously, during the Soviet era, you did not like to attend classes at school in the discipline “Fundamentals of the Soviet State and Law.”

[would]

Sevastopol was a city of republican subordination, first of the RSFSR (since 1948), then of the Ukrainian SSR.

Sevastopol was indeed a city of republican subordination to the RSFSR, but was never transferred to the Ukrainian SSR. Thus, he was never in the Ukrainian SSR.

[Sergej1972]

But de facto it was part of the Ukrainian SSR, its population participated in the elections of the Supreme Council of the Ukrainian SSR, the city party organization was part of the Communist Party of Ukraine. The 1978 Constitution of the Ukrainian SSR mentioned the cities of republican subordination of Kyiv and Sevastopol. It is interesting that along the state line the Crimean region and Sevastopol were separated from each other. And along the party line, the Sevastopol City Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine was subordinate to the Crimean Regional Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine. That is, the chairman of the Sevastopol City Executive Committee was not subordinate to the chairman of the Crimean Regional Executive Committee, but along the party line both he and the first secretary of the Sevastopol City Committee were subordinate to the First Secretary of the Crimean Regional Committee. This was different from Kyiv, in which not only state, but party power was separated from the Kyiv region.

[would]

Everything you listed has no legal significance. The city of republican subordination is transferred by decree of the USSR Supreme Council. Such a decree does not exist in nature. But there is a decree that Sevastopol is a city of republican subordination.

Therefore, despite all of the above, the city of Sevastopol was first part of the RSFSR, and then part of the Russian Federation. Moreover, the latter was again confirmed by a resolution of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation.

It is the legal significance that is important, since the USSR was divided along legal and administrative boundaries.

[Sergej1972]

The problem here is that until the end of the 50s, the status of cities under republican subordination was not entirely clear. On the one hand, in budgetary terms they were separated from the territories and regions, and in this respect they were equal to them. On the other hand, during that period (1936-1957), when the Constitution of the USSR listed territories and regions, cities of republican subordination of both the RSFSR and other republics were not mentioned in it. Even Moscow and Leningrad. There was a period in the RSFSR, until the mid-50s, when the number of cities under republican subordination reached 14. But at the same time, the judicial authorities, election commissions, and police authorities on their territory were united with the corresponding territories and regions. Their city party committees were also subordinate to the corresponding regional or regional committees. In Leningrad there was a Leningrad regional party committee. From 1941 to 1950, the city committee and the regional committee were formally separated from each other, but the first secretary of the regional committee was at the same time the first secretary of the city committee. Since 1950, these positions have been separated. However, from this year, the Leningrad City Committee began to report directly to the regional committee, along with the district committees and city committees of districts and cities of regional subordination of the Leningrad region. The Leningrad City Committee occupied a subordinate position, its apparatus was relatively small, and its first secretary was not perceived as the leader of the city. The main thing both in the region and in Leningrad itself was the first secretary of the regional committee. In Moscow the situation was different. In the 50s, unlike Leningrad, Moscow and the region were completely divided in party terms. Moreover, in the 50s-80s, the first secretary of the Moscow City Committee was a more politically influential figure than the first secretary of the Moscow Regional Committee. By the way, in the mid-to-late 50s in the RSFSR the number of cities under republican subordination was reduced to two cities, Moscow and Leningrad. There were also cities of republican subordination in the Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic within the RSFSR, but this is an analogue of cities of regional (territorial) subordination. And in the Constitution of the RSFSR, mention of cities of republican subordination, as units equal to regions and territories, appeared only in 1978. The Constitution of the Ukrainian SSR of 1978 also mentioned two cities of republican subordination, Kyiv and Sevastopol. As in the case of Moscow and Leningrad, Kyiv and Sevastopol were separated from the Kyiv and Crimean regions in government terms. However, in party terms, only Kyiv was separated, as in the RSFSR Moscow. It should also be noted that the city of Sochi during this period was given special consideration in the budgets of the RSFSR, but at the same time it remained a city of regional subordination of the Krasnodar Territory, which on a number of issues could directly interact with the authorities of the RSFSR.

[Sergej1972]

I also believe that from a legal point of view, there was no transfer of Sevastopol from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR. But you will not deny that in fact the Ukrainian SSR exercised control over Sevastopol since 1954, and since 1978 it has secured its status as a city of republican subordination in its Constitution.

[would]

I give it a plus. Few people know about the territorial affiliation of Sevastopol.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Well, what's all this for?!!!!
this train left in 1954
after that there was already 91 with all the ensuing consequences, it was in 91 that the tragedy came, in 54 they shifted the “wallet” from one “pocket” to another, and in 91 the “suit” was torn to pieces

[Amateur]

that the transfer of Crimea was carried out in violation of both the constitution of the USSR and the constitution of its two republics, Trofimov noted.

Schaub I was so smart before
like my Sara after
(Moishe from Odessa)

[km-21]

In politics, if you wish, you can find confirmation of any position on any topic. Therefore, there is no point in dwelling on the topic of Crimea’s ownership. In any case, it will be determined on the battlefield.
Or rather, I have already decided...

[Vladimir80]

Quote: alystan

in order to have at the right time something to prove that you are right.

At the International Criminal Court? I think they simply won’t listen to anyone from our side...

[Hey]

Enough to stir up the past, this transfer took place within the framework of one state. It was convenient for the economy of that state; for people it didn’t matter who wanted to go there and traveled within the framework of that state.
The territory where I now live is located in such a way that it was convenient for me to travel to Ukraine through Belarus and I did not observe any borders and no one built obstacles for me.
If you look deeper, my land was part of the Chernigov province, the Gomel region, the Oryol region, and now the Bryansk region. So what do I do now? It turns out I’m sitting on a mine that Lenin laid again, but I don’t understand where he planted it, either for Ukraine or for Belarus. I don’t understand who is feeding ideas to the president about “historical mines”, or, as necessary, these “mines” will be pulled out either against Ukraine, then against Belarus (part of the Smolensk lands were transferred to it), or against Kazakhstan (where he has Russian lands all over the north) ). Or we play here, we don’t play here, but we wrap fish here.

[ivan2022]

It is true that any legal action implies a certain procedure.

But THIS is what the chickens laughed at after three dudes, on a night in December 1993 IN THE FOREST, signed a piece of paper that the USSR no longer exists. And after this they were not put in prison or in a mental hospital. It would be better for a deputy of an illegitimate assembly to remain silent.....
Does he understand that his own position is not legitimate?

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: ivan2022

December 1993

well for the sake of truth 91

[bone1]

And what? - Was the collapse of the Union legal?

[Cannon]

However, according to the deputy of the Crimean State Council Sergei Trofimov, who also heads the committee on legislation, during the transfer of Crimea ++++++Here, a person (deputy) is paid a salary, but what is the benefit of his activities? Yes, none. He sits and picks his nose, looking for sensations. No intelligence, no imagination.

[would]

This question about the status of Crimea and Sevastopol was of fundamental importance in the 90s when it was determined. While the Supreme Council, and then the State Duma, pointed out all this, the presidential government in the person of Yeltsin was categorically against the recognition of Sevastopol as Russian and the return of Crimea. This is not some kind of gossip, but recorded in official documents. The presidential power, as having the real ability to make decisions, won.

As a result, Ukraine occupied the Russian city of Sevastopol and annexed the sovereign Republic of Crimea through a military invasion. Well, you shouldn’t forget about cutting up the fleet either.

Well, after Yeltsin and Kuchma (auto-censorship feels bad) the “Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership between the Russian Federation and Ukraine” was signed, during which the parties recognized the borders existing at the time of the agreement. After this, any talk about the legality or illegality of the transfer of Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR lost practical meaning.

In 2014 they lost their meaning again, but “there is a nuance”