The protracted story of the “Krymnash” implies in any case to try to put the endpoint in this case. But before we discuss this topic, I think that we need ourselves and others to be determined in fairness to this issue.
Due to the fact that Russia for several centuries repeatedly led defensive war caused by external aggression, directed to the Crimea, including the great Patriotic war of 1941-45, it is not difficult to conclude that the Crimean Peninsula is a key point to ensure the sovereignty in General and military security of the Russian state.
Discretionary the decision to transfer Crimea from the RSFSR (Russia) to Ukraine, which itself was acquired statehood, it passed from hand to hand, could not bring special harm to the Soviet Union. And for many Soviet citizens could wear a nostalgic character, nothing more.
After the separation of Ukraine from Russia Crimea has again become a key character in the kinds of security of the Russian state. Undeniable proof of which are the military efforts of the US ships to introduce in the black sea basin, the obvious aspiration of Ukraine in NATO, which has also identified the establishment of a naval base of NATO (USA) in the Crimea.
I’m not going to touch the moral side that is associated with the number of dead Russian soldiers and sailors who laid down their lives in the defense of the Crimea. Although this is a matter of great importance. But today it is, as has been said, about the security of Russia as a whole.
Probably, hardly anyone will dispute the duty of the state and, of course, its leaders, in ensuring the sovereignty and security of the state. This is top priority, and beside her all other problems recede into the background. Therefore, it would be not just weird, and irresponsible — at the level of criminal negligence — not ensuring the safety of their country, if the Crimean lock wouldn’t be locked.
And now a few words on the legality of the conduct of the Russian state, then there are problems that simply knackered in internal and external discussions. So, we turn to the legal side of this issue.
Quoting article 39 of the criminal code: “is Not a crime of infliction of harm to legally protected interests in a state of extreme necessity, i.e. to eliminate the danger directly threatening the identity and rights of such person or other persons legally protected interests of society or the state, if this danger could not be eliminated other means and thus has not been admitted excess of limits of extreme necessity.
Exceeding the limits of extreme necessity is recognized harm, is clearly not an appropriate nature and degree of threatening danger and circumstances at which danger was eliminated when these interests have been harmed equal to or greater than prevented. Such excess entails criminal liability only in cases of intentional excess damage.”
Apparently, the comments and explanations are not required here. The responsibility of the head of the state for the preservation of state sovereignty and its defenses not just the obvious, but also provided for in the Constitution.
Moreover, the population of Crimea overwhelmingly expressed a desire to join Russia. So, the acceptance of Crimea into the Russian Federation is the action dictated by extreme necessity. And it stands at the head of the corner.
Now it would be interesting to know or to hear substantive arguments against the position indicated.