11 Years of Occupation: Establishment of the Repressive Regime in Crimea
ovd.info
Независимый правозащитный медиапроект ОВД-Инфо

Eleven years ago, Russian authorities illegally occupied Crimea. Since then, the peninsula According to our data, as of 2024, Crimea has recorded the highest number of politically motivated criminal and administrative cases, as well as the highest rate of politically motivated detentions per 100,000 people compared to any Russian region. Since 2014, we have documented 349 individuals prosecuted in politically motivated criminal cases in Crimea and Sevastopol. This number is higher only in Moscow, where the population is five times that of Crimea. Many of those targeted by Russian authorities are Crimean Tatars. Beyond criminal and administrative prosecutions, local residents have also faced other forms of repression, including forced disappearances and torture.

In this report, we use the terms «occupied» and «occupation» in line with the terminology adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in relation to Crimea. These terms aim to emphasise the international community’s non-recognition of Russia’s unlawful annexation of Crimea.

  • Mee@reddthat.comOPEnglish
    17·
    15 days ago

    I know that writing manual comment to debunk your easily dismissed claims for your comment is gonna take time, for the sake of saving my time here is a unedited DeepSeek answer:

    The claim that the 2014 Crimean referendum was a legitimate expression of democratic will and that Crimeans overwhelmingly support Russian annexation is highly misleading and ignores critical context. Here’s why:

    1. The Referendum Was Illegitimate and Conducted Under Duress

    • Held at Gunpoint: The vote took place under Russian military occupation, with armed soldiers and paramilitaries controlling the region. This violates international norms on free and fair referendums.
    • No International Recognition: The UN General Assembly (Resolution 68/262) rejected the referendum’s validity, with 100 countries voting against it. Only a handful of Russian allies (e.g., Syria, North Korea) recognized it.
    • No Option for Status Quo: The ballot offered only two choices—join Russia or return to Ukraine’s 1992 constitution (which implied greater autonomy but was a misleading option). There was no choice to maintain Crimea’s existing status within Ukraine.

    2. The 97% Result Is Statistically Implausible

    • Pre-Annexation Polling: Before Russia’s intervention, support for joining Russia in Crimea was far lower. A 2013 Pew Research poll showed only 41% of Crimeans favored separation from Ukraine.
    • Suppression of Dissent: Pro-Ukraine activists, Crimean Tatars (who overwhelmingly opposed annexation), and independent media were silenced or intimidated.
    • No Independent Observers: The OSCE and other credible monitoring bodies were barred from overseeing the vote.

    3. Russian Propaganda and Coercion Shaped “Support”

    • Media Blackout: Russian state media dominated coverage, portraying Ukraine as a “fascist junta” while glorifying Russia.
    • Economic Incentives: After annexation, pensions and public sector wages were raised—but this was a temporary measure to buy loyalty. By 2019, living standards had declined due to sanctions and mismanagement.
    • Repression of Opponents: Crimean Tatars (12-15% of Crimea’s population) faced persecution, with leaders like Mustafa Dzhemilev banned from returning.

    4. Post-Annexation Polls Are Unreliable

    • Conducted Under Repression: Polling in an authoritarian environment (where dissent can lead to arrest) is unreliable. The “high approval” cited by Russian and Kremlin-linked sources ignores self-censorship.
    • Selection Bias: Pro-Russian outlets (e.g., TASS, Sputnik) highlight favorable surveys while ignoring dissenting voices.
    • Foreign Affairs’ Misleading Take: While CFR is a US establishment think tank, the cited article downplays repression. Even if some Crimeans initially welcomed annexation, this does not legitimize an illegal military takeover.

    5. International Law and Ukraine’s Sovereignty

    • Violation of Budapest Memorandum (1994): Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine giving up nuclear weapons.
    • Breach of UN Charter (Article 2(4)): Prohibits the use of force to alter borders. The annexation was condemned by the UN, EU, and NATO.
    • Crimean Tatars’ Dispossession: The indigenous population, deported under Stalin, opposes Russian rule but is systematically marginalized.

    Conclusion

    The “97% vote” narrative is a Kremlin propaganda tool to justify an illegal land grab. While some Crimeans (particularly ethnic Russians) may support annexation, the referendum was neither free nor fair. The broader context—military occupation, repression, and violation of international law—renders the claim of “reunification” false.

    For further reading:

    The claim of “Crimea’s return to Russia” is a distortion of history—it was, and remains, an act of imperial aggression.

    • TankieTanuki [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      261·
      15 days ago

      Skepticism of the referendum is warranted.

      Ignore it.

      Let’s look at a poll done by a Western organization which clearly does not favor Russia. Take, for example, the very Pew Research poll from the “further reading” section of your AI’s answer:

      Crimea supports secession

      They can’t spin it any other way, even in an article intended to manufacture support for Ukrainian unity. That’s because every poll of Crimeans following the Maidan coup has produced the same result.

      Western liberals support self-determination only when it suits their interests.