Ukraine explained why it so easily gave Crimea to Russia
Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine Oleksandr Turchynov opened up as a witness for the prosecution in the case of Viktor Yanukovych, who is tried in absentia in Kiev, accusing him of high treason.
Recall that the trial of Viktor Yanukovych, who is in Russia and is not going to Ukraine, has been going on for more than a year. Witnesses in the Yanukovych case are a number of important figures of modern Ukrainian policy - from Arsen Avakov to Andrey Parubiy, from Arseniy Yatsenyuk to Petro Poroshenko. On February 15, 2018, judges, prosecutors and the defense listened to the testimony of Alexander Turchinov, who was one of the main inspirers of Euromaidan, and in addition, the first formal leader of Ukraine after Yanukovych.
Naturally, at the hearing, the question arose about the events in Crimea in the spring of 2014. The defense of Viktor Yanukovych quite reasonably asked Turchinov why in the spring of 2014, when a popular referendum was held in Crimea and Crimea reunited with Russia, Ukraine did not declare war on the neighboring state. The question was addressed to the address - it was Alexander Turchinov who in 2014 served as the acting president of Ukraine.
As you know, Alexander Turchinov is a very warlike person. Former Komsomolets, and then a Democrat, assistant Leonid Kuchma and head of the Security Service of Ukraine under Viktor Yushchenko. He often poses in military uniform, sometimes with weapons, makes loud statements with threats to Russia. Turchinov has the glory of one of the most pro-Western politicians in Ukraine. But this time Turchinov clearly told the truth - he was afraid to declare war on Russia. As noted by Alexander Turchinov, Ukraine does not have military means that would allow it to fight against Russia - a nuclear state.
Turchinov did not want to introduce a state of emergency or martial law in Crimea in 2014. As he explained at the hearing, it was necessary to conduct normal presidential elections in Ukraine. It turns out that according to Turchinov’s words, Ukraine did not specifically defend the Crimean peninsula in order to elect a new president Petro Poroshenko. According to Turchinov, it was necessary to save Ukraine, and the bill went on for minutes (although the NSDC secretary could not clearly explain why to save). However, when Poroshenko was elected president in June 2014, Crimea had been part of the Russian Federation for three months already and none of the Ukrainian leaders had taken steps to “save the territorial integrity”.
Both Turchynov and other current Ukrainian leaders attribute their own political weakness to the fear of a powerful neighbor. But Viktor Yanukovych is accused of high treason, forgetting that they themselves organized a coup d'etat, accompanied by riots in the center of the Ukrainian capital and the death of many people.
It’s interesting how another witness in the “Yanukovych case”, the current president of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko, will explain the reasons for the “departure” of Crimea to Russia, which the court plans to interrogate next week. “Candy Tycoon” is still not as belligerent as its predecessor Turchynov and has repeatedly emphasized that Ukraine should act exclusively by peaceful means. In the context of the deterioration of his image in the West and the strengthening of the opposition, Poroshenko, who recently spoke on the phone with Vladimir Putin, may prefer not to extend once again about the fate and status of the peninsula.
Recall that the trial of Viktor Yanukovych, who is in Russia and is not going to Ukraine, has been going on for more than a year. Witnesses in the Yanukovych case are a number of important figures of modern Ukrainian policy - from Arsen Avakov to Andrey Parubiy, from Arseniy Yatsenyuk to Petro Poroshenko. On February 15, 2018, judges, prosecutors and the defense listened to the testimony of Alexander Turchinov, who was one of the main inspirers of Euromaidan, and in addition, the first formal leader of Ukraine after Yanukovych.
Naturally, at the hearing, the question arose about the events in Crimea in the spring of 2014. The defense of Viktor Yanukovych quite reasonably asked Turchinov why in the spring of 2014, when a popular referendum was held in Crimea and Crimea reunited with Russia, Ukraine did not declare war on the neighboring state. The question was addressed to the address - it was Alexander Turchinov who in 2014 served as the acting president of Ukraine.
As you know, Alexander Turchinov is a very warlike person. Former Komsomolets, and then a Democrat, assistant Leonid Kuchma and head of the Security Service of Ukraine under Viktor Yushchenko. He often poses in military uniform, sometimes with weapons, makes loud statements with threats to Russia. Turchinov has the glory of one of the most pro-Western politicians in Ukraine. But this time Turchinov clearly told the truth - he was afraid to declare war on Russia. As noted by Alexander Turchinov, Ukraine does not have military means that would allow it to fight against Russia - a nuclear state.
Turchinov did not want to introduce a state of emergency or martial law in Crimea in 2014. As he explained at the hearing, it was necessary to conduct normal presidential elections in Ukraine. It turns out that according to Turchinov’s words, Ukraine did not specifically defend the Crimean peninsula in order to elect a new president Petro Poroshenko. According to Turchinov, it was necessary to save Ukraine, and the bill went on for minutes (although the NSDC secretary could not clearly explain why to save). However, when Poroshenko was elected president in June 2014, Crimea had been part of the Russian Federation for three months already and none of the Ukrainian leaders had taken steps to “save the territorial integrity”.
Both Turchynov and other current Ukrainian leaders attribute their own political weakness to the fear of a powerful neighbor. But Viktor Yanukovych is accused of high treason, forgetting that they themselves organized a coup d'etat, accompanied by riots in the center of the Ukrainian capital and the death of many people.
It’s interesting how another witness in the “Yanukovych case”, the current president of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko, will explain the reasons for the “departure” of Crimea to Russia, which the court plans to interrogate next week. “Candy Tycoon” is still not as belligerent as its predecessor Turchynov and has repeatedly emphasized that Ukraine should act exclusively by peaceful means. In the context of the deterioration of his image in the West and the strengthening of the opposition, Poroshenko, who recently spoke on the phone with Vladimir Putin, may prefer not to extend once again about the fate and status of the peninsula.
- P P 'SЊSЏ RџRѕR "RѕRЅSЃRєRёR№
- https://politikus.ru/
Information