Defend brave imprisoned Crimean Muslims!

Left to right: Ferat Saifullyayev [with a T-shirt reading: ’Banned again’]; Rustem Vaitov [’Crimean Tatars’]; Nuri Primov [Order carried out as commisioned]; Ruslan Zeitullayev [’The show is over’] Photo: Yana Goncharova

Reblogged with permission.


=====


By Halya Coynash

The first sentences have been passed in Russia’s mounting offensive against Crimean Muslims, with the four Crimean Tatars all sentenced to real terms of imprisonment. The trial was critical since Russia is already holding 14 Crimeans, almost all Crimean Tatars, in indefinite custody on identical charges. The sentences could have been much worse, which is the only positive thing to say since the men were convicted, without any evidence, of involvement in Hizb ut-Tahrir, an organization which is legal in Ukraine.

The verdict will, of course, be appealed, however the convictions had been anticipated. The ‘trial’ was, after all, taking place in the same Rostov military court which in August 2015 sentenced Crimean political prisoners Oleg Sentsov and Oleksandr Kolchenko to huge sentences, and the prosecutor had demanded long sentences in this case also.

The men were accused of involvement in Hizb ut-Tahrir, a totally peaceful pan-Islamist organization which back in 2003 Russia’s Supreme Court declared ‘terrorist’, together with 14 other organizations. No grounds were given and the ruling was effectively concealed until it was too late for the organization itself, and human rights NGOs to appeal against.

There is nothing incriminating against Hizb ut-Tahrir, but there is also no proof that the four men are in fact members. All four men deny such involvement. Almost all the prosecution’s ‘witnesses’ testified essentially in the men’s favour. Russia then resorted to the testimony of a secret witness, who could not even be cross-examined properly. There were long delays while the man was clearly being told what to say. Even then he came up with totally contradictory statements. He could not remember the place or time, for example, but did remember every incriminating word that they were supposed to have spoken.

There was also the testimony of a former Ukrainian SBU officer who betrayed his oath and now works for the FSB. There is considerable evidence that he had long been waging a personal vendetta over two of the men, who had lodged a complaint back in 2012.

These trials are always cynical, since Russia, having never explained why it considers Hizb ut-Tahrir to be terrorist when no other country does, uses secret witnesses to convict people merely of involvement in it. They were especially lawless in Crimea, and not only because the organization is legal in Ukraine. The prosecution kept on referring to events from long before Russia had invaded and annexed Crimea and also concentrated on the men’s negative attitude to Russian occupation.

Aside from highly dubious ‘testimony’, there was evidence only of a ‘kitchen chat’, on the level of what kind of world order would be desirable.

While any conviction of four recognized political prisoners is to be condemned, the sentences could have been worse. Ruslan Zeitullayev had been charged with ‘organizing’ a terrorist organization (Article 205.1 § 1 of the Russian criminal code) with the minimum sentence for this 15 years. Nuri Primov, Rustem Vaitov and Ferat Saifullayev were accused of taking part in it (Article 205.1 § 2), with this carrying a minimum 5-year sentence. The prosecutor last week asked for a 17-year sentence for Zeitullayev, and 7 or 8 years for the other three men.

The court instead changed the charges against Zeitullayev from ‘organizing’ to ‘involvement’ and sentenced him to 7 years, while the other three men received the minimum 5-year sentences. Unfortunately, no Russian judges would have the courage to acquit people of politically motivated charges, but the minimum sentences in this case are effective confirmation of the lack of any grounds for criminal prosecution at all.

The men arrived in court for the sentences defiant and unbroken. Each had a different sign on their T-shirt: “Crimean Tatars”; “Yet again banned”; “The show is over” and “The order carried out [as commissioned]”. As they entered the glass cage, each man put tape over his mouth.

All four men are from Sevastopol and three of them have been in custody since January 2015. Saifullyaev was arrested slightly later, in April 2015.

It seems likely that Russia was waiting to see what the reaction would be to these arrests. There was unfortunately next to no reaction internationally and in February 2016, a further four men were arrested and remain in custody. The armed searches and arrests have now gained pace with 14 men in all held in appalling conditions and facing the same grotesque charges. At least one of the men – Emir-Huseyn Kuku is a human rights activist, almost certainly imprisoned for his monitoring of rights abuses.

Russia has finally come up against resistance to monstrous conveyor-belt ‘trials’ and sentences which it has been carrying out, wholesale, for the last 10 years. It was typical that the indictment in this case had been copied from a 2013 prosecution in the Russian Federation. Challenged by real lawyers who genuinely represent the men’s interests, the ‘case’ was seen in all its squalor.

The Memorial Human Rights Centre has, from the outset, followed such cases in the Russian Federation. It considers all men sentenced purely on the grounds of involvement in Hizb ut-Tahrir to be political prisoners. Given the scale of the repression in Russia, it is frustrating that international rights organizations have long been silent.

That silence has continued since Russia began applying this repressive practice in occupied Crimea, with the armed searches and arrests clearly aimed at intimidating and silencing Crimean Tatars and deterring any other Ukrainian Muslims. Their treatment is appalling and often openly aimed at humiliating them.

As reported, Memorial HRC recognized Primov; Saifullayev Vaitov and Zeitullayev as political prisoners. In its statement it stressed that Crimea was territory which Russia was occupying and that it was accusing the men of involvement in an organization that is legal in Ukraine.

PLEASE WRITE TO ALL FOUR MEN

It is vital for them to feel that they are not forgotten, but it is also critical that Russia understands that it is being followed. Letters or postcards need to be in Russian, and should not contain any discussion of the cases or politics generally. If it is a problem to write in Russian, just copy-pasting the following will be fine.

Добрый день,

Желаю Вам здоровья, мужества и терпения, надеюсь на скорое освобождение.

Мы о Вас помним.

[Hello, I wish you good health, courage and patience and hope that you will soon be released. You are not forgotten.

Address (just copy-paste the address, with the name and year of birth of the person you are writing to).

Ruslan Zeitullayev

344010, Россия, Ростов-на-Дону, ул. Максима Горького, 219 СИЗО-1.

Зейтуллаеву, Руслану Борисовичу, 1985 г.р.

Rustem Vaitov

344010, Россия, г. Ростов-на-Дону, ул. Максима Горького, 219 СИЗО-1

Ваитову Рустему Мамутовичу, 1986 г. р.

Ferat Saifullayev

344010, Россия, Ростов-на-Дону, ул. Максима Горького, 219 СИЗО-1.

Сайфуллаеву, Ферату Рефатовичу, 1983 г. р.

Nuri Primov

344010, Россия, Ростов-на-Дону, ул. Максима Горького, 219 СИЗО-1.

Примову, Нури Владимировичу

The 14 Crimean Muslims arrested so far

Ruslan Zeitullayev

Ferat Saifullayev

Rustem Vaitov

Nuri Primov

Arrested in February 2016

Emir-Huseyn Kuku

Muslim Aliev; Envir Bekirov and Vadim Siruk

April 2016 Arsen Dzhepparov and Refat Alimov

May 2016 Enver Mamutov, Rustem Abiltarov, Remzi Memetov and Zevri Abseitov


See also:

• Sanctions response needed to Sentsov, Kolchenko case
• Russia's eight Crimea myths
• Russia: punishment psychiatry back in vogue 
• Silence on Critical Verdict Will Free Kremlin Hand for More Repression in Crimea
• Terror on a Conveyor Belt in Russian-occupied Crimea 
• Russian FSB jails Crimean Muslims, then terrorizes their children 
• Crimea is not a closed subject, Putin. It’s an open wound. 
• Russia’s Conveyor Belt of Repression in Occupied Crimea

Jamala's win must lead to support for Crimean Tatars

It was clear even during the semi-finals of Eurovision that the presence of Ukraine's Jamala and her song about the genocide of the Crimean Tatars by the USSR had already drawn attention to the plight of her people - I saw a number of tweets saying as much. Her stunning and unexpected victory will undoubtedly lead to much more.

What Jamala's win will also lead to is an already bad situation for the Tatars in Crimea getting even worse, as the lawyer for the kidnapped and imprisoned by Russia Ukrainian soldier Nadiya Savchenko, Mark Feygin, pointed out - only now the world will hopefully be paying more attention. This will also hopefully include the world's Muslims, as she is the third Muslim to win - something which was noted by many on social media, if not by the press.

What the repression must lead to is some concrete action rather than, as explained below, not just more weasel words. This means, as I have argued before, targeted sanctions as (through listening to their wining) it is clear that this is the only language which the Kremlin truly understands.

Reblogged with permission.

====

By Halya Colnash.

Russian pro-Kremlin channels have been in overdrive since Jamala’s victory for Ukraine in Eurovision, however their lies, including the claim that her song remembering the genocidal Deportation of 1944 was about people “leaving for a better life”, began much earlier. The gutter-level campaign to undermine her message and her victory was probably to be expected. Russia has a lot to conceal, and not first and foremost about the Deportation, but about its repression and terror against the Crimean Tatar people now.

Imprisoned Crimean Tatar leader Akhtem Chiygoz earlier welcomed Jamala’s participation in the competition, saying that “the world will hear our pain”. Let’s hope that the world will, and that they begin directly addressing the repression, including the insane trial against Chiygoz and other Crimean Tatars.

Concern has recently been expressed that Chiygoz, who is the Deputy Head of the Crimean Mejlis [representative assembly] could face further charges following Russia’s banning of the Mejlis. This would be legal nihilism at its worst, but so too are the charges under which Chiygoz, Mustafa Degermendzhy and Ali Asanov have been in detention for over a year.

The arrest on May 12 of Ilmi Umerov, another top official of the Mejlis, on ‘extremism’ charges have only exacerbated such fears. Vissarion Aseyev from the Crimean Human Rights Group, had predicted that “the ban of the Mejlis would provide the de facto authorities with a basis for a new wave of administrative and criminal prosecutions of Crimeans, and Crimean Tatars in the first instance”. This has now happened with Umerov accused of - wait for it - “public calls to action encroaching on Russia’s territorial integrity”, through statements opposing Russia’s annexation of Crimea.

The leader of the Crimean Tatars, Mustafa Jemilev meets Jamala in Stockholm before her win

Aseyev believes that the court ruling declaring the Mejlis ‘extremist’ may be used to add ‘extremism’ charges to those the men are already facing. This would mean, for example, that Chiygoz would also be accused of ‘organizing an extremist society’ under Article 282.1 § of Russia’s Criminal Code, with this carrying a sentence of up to 8 years’ imprisonment. Five other men: Ali Asanov; Mustafa Degermendzhy; Eskender Emirovaliev; Eskender Kantemirov and Arsen Yunusov could face up to 4 years for ‘taking part in an extremist organization’. Similar predictions were made recently by Nikolai Polozov, the lawyer representing Chiygoz. Both were speaking before the adoption in its first reading of a terrifyingly repressive package of laws in Russia which would increase all such sentences.

The criminalization of the Crimean Tatar Mejlis has so far resulted in protest from all democratic countries but no threats of further sanctions. This is presumably what Russia expected, as it might from the reaction to the criminal charges against Chiygoz and the others.

A recent UNHHR monitoring mission report confined itself to recommending only that the de facto authorities and Russia “ensure due process and fair trial rights for Crimean Tatars detained in relation to the February 2014 demonstration”.

The Council of Europe’s report by Ambassador Gérard Stoudmann was released the same day that the de facto prosecutor announced that she was ‘suspending’ the Mejlis without a court ruling. The report mentions only that they visited Chiygoz at his request, and that Chiygoz “questioned the lawfulness of his arrest”.

There are undoubtedly cases where it is appropriate to await a court ruling before offering any comment. This is categorically not one of them, as the authors of the reports must have been aware.

From a demonstration held today in Ankara, Turkey

They mention, after all, that the men are charged over alleged ‘mass disturbances’ on Feb 26, 2014, yet do not point out that this makes any prosecution illegal under Russia’s own legislation. Chiygoz and the other Ukrainian nationals are charged under Russian legislation over a pre-annexation demonstration in Ukrainian Crimea over which Russia has no jurisdiction.

According to Russia’s Criminal Code (Article 12 § 3), a criminal prosecution can only be initiated against foreign nationals who committed an offence on the territory of another country if “the crime was directed against the interests of the Russian Federation or a citizen of the Russian Federation.”

It is deeply frustrating that international observers from the UN and Council of Europe should be ignoring this. The Council of Europe also claimed that there was no evidence of any particular persecution of Crimean Tatars. Just this case alone is typical in targeting only Crimean Tatars.

The reasons for questioning the lawfulness of Russia’s actions over this case are legion, and are not ignored by the Russian Memorial Human Rights Centre. In their statement on Feb 15, 2016, they point to the clear lack of jurisdiction and dismiss the formal excuse presented that two of the alleged ‘victims’ are Russian nationals. Neither sought medical treatment at the time, and Memorial says that in their case, as in those of over half the ‘victims’, there are doubts over whether the alleged injuries were genuinely sustained. Memorial specifically notes that the political motivation is demonstrated by the fact that only Crimean Tatars have been targeted.

This prosecution is already a record-breaker in lawlessness. Novaya Gazeta reported in late February 2015, a month after Chiygoz’s arrest, that the Russian Investigative Committee had been short of ‘victims’ and witnesses, and on February 2, 4 days after Chiygoz’s arrest and 11 months after the events, invited Simferopol residents to come forward “even in the absence of bodily injuries”.

If new charges are brought against the men, it can only be by backdating over two years a court ruling issued in April 2016. Western countries need to come up with more than surreal demands that the men “receive a fair trial”?


See also:

• Human Rights Watch: Fear, Repression in Crimea
• Surreal calls for ‘fair trial’ in Russia’s lawless terror against Crimean Tatars
• Russia’s Crimean Tatar show trial proves too shoddy even for the court
• A Crimean Kafkaesque Trial Hidden from Council of Europe Eyes
• Journalist detained & threatened at trial of Crimean Tatar leader
• Crimean Tatar Mejlis Leader on Trial for Obstructing Putin’s Plans?
• Russia’s Attack on Crimean Tatar Leader nears Lawless Conclusion
• Open Lawlessness as Terror against Crimean Tatars
• Imprisoned Crimean Tatar Leader: This is Terror against my People
• Jailed in Russian-occupied Crimea for refusing to give false testimony
• 8 years for a demonstration if you’re Crimean Tatar
• Cynical attempt to sow distrust in Russia’s illegal prosecution of Crimean Tatars

Persecution of Crimean Tatars needs sanctions response

Hoardings on the border. Left: On your way to Crimean Tatar Autonomy. Right: On your way from Crimea to Free Ukraine. Via Olga Klymenko

It is way past time for action by the West against the persecutors of the Crimean Tartar people. As human rights activist Halya Cornash puts it:

Two years after invading and annexing Ukrainian territory, Russia has effectively declared war against the Crimean Tatar people.  More words of concern, without real punitive sanctions, would be frighteningly inadequate.

Russia has demonstrated time and again that it does respond to strength, it ignores weakness, it will butt against the limits of any Western 'tolerance' of its actions.

Its latest action, in banning the Tatars' Parliament, demonstrate just how outrageously they will behave.

The Executive Board of the World Congress of Crimean Tatars, in a recent declaration, called for:

1) That the European Union, the European Parliament and all national parliaments of the world respecting human rights, freedoms, peace and democracy recognize that the Crimean Tatars are the indigenous people of the Crimea and the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People is the self-governing body of the Crimean Tatar People, and develop cooperation mechanisms with the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People,

2) That, to convict the crimes committed against the Crimean Tatar People in the conscience of humanity and history, the big deportation of the Crimean Tatar People on 18 May 1944 be recognized as a genocide by the European Parliament, all national parliaments and institutions,

This is the least that must happen. What is most likely to make Russia think twice in its actions is targeted sanctions that make clear to Russia that they must stop the repression of Crimea's indigenous people.


Reblogged with permission.

====

By Halya Cornash

A Crimean court has formally completed its criminalization of the Mejlis, or self-governing body of the Crimean Tatar people. There have been no serious threats of sanctions or other measures from European structures and western countries although this is a direct attack on the main indigenous people of Crimea carried out by a country which breached international law through its annexation of Ukrainian Crimea.

The banning of the Mejlis as ‘extremist’ has come in stages, with feelers doubtless out to see how the West responded. Beyond statements of ‘concern’ or condemnation, it did not. Russia therefore moved from vague threats to specific action, with the ‘court application’ first lodged in February. The ban was then made a fait accompli on April 13 when the de facto prosecutor Natalya Poklonskaya announced that she was ‘suspending’ the Mejlis without a court ruling. Russia’s justice ministry then also saw no need to await a court ruling and on April 18 added the Crimean Tatar Mejlis to its list of “civic or religious organizations whose activities have been suspended due to their extremist activities.”

The Council of Europe’s disturbingly weak report on a fact-finding visit to Russian-occupied Crimea did acknowledge that a court ban on the Mejlis “would indicate a new level of repression targeting the Crimean Tatar community as a whole”.

There can be no understating how serious this move is. Oliver Loode, a member of the UN Forum on Indigenous Issues, has stressed that “if a representative body is banned, this is not just a hostile act towards a particular organization, in this case the Mejlis. It’s really an attack against the people, in this case Crimean Tatars.” A recent resolution from the European Parliament recognized the Crimean Tatars as an indigenous people of Crimea whose right to self-government is protected under the UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Mejlis as “the legitimate representation of the Crimean Tatar community”.

Russia through its puppet prosecutor and court called the Mejlis a ‘civic organization’ and has now banned it, claiming it to be ‘extremist’.

Nobody is in any doubt of the real reasons for this move, namely the implacable opposition of the Mejlis to Russian occupation. Should any further confirmation be required, this was effectively provided by a chilling suggestion just made by Alexander Bastrykin, the head of Russia’s Investigative Committee. He proposes that the provisions outlawing what the current regime deems ‘extremism’ should be supplemented with provisions criminalizing ‘denial’ of, for example, the pseudo-referendum which Russia used in an attempt to give legitimacy of its annexation of Crimea. The Mejlis had called on Crimean Tatars and all other Ukrainians to boycott this event.

On Monday the ‘proof’ presented to the court of the Mejlis’ ‘extremism’ was crowned by a document published back in Soviet times (1988) by veteran Crimean Tatar leader and former Soviet political prisoner Mustafa Dzhemiliev. Other material includes an extremely questionable ‘warning’ from Poklonskaya to Refat Chubarov, Head of the Mejlis against supposed ‘extremist activities”; the notification of criminal proceedings lodged against Mustafa Dzhemiliev for having tried to enter his homeland; and against Refat Chubarov, for “encroaching upon Russia’s territory”, that is, opposing Russia’s occupation of his native Crimea; the documents about the legally nihilistic charges against the Deputy Head of the Mejlis, Akhtem Chiygoz regarding a demonstration over which Russia has no jurisdiction; the Mejlis’ founding documents which also far pre-date annexation and whose ‘extremism’ is deemed to lied in their stated aim, namely the reinstatement of the Crimean Tatar people’s national and political rights as part of Ukraine.

During the ‘court debate’ on Tuesday, Nariman Dzhelyal, First Deputy Head of the Mejlis demonstrated that the Mejlis is not a civic organization, but a representative assembly and also an international structure with representatives in many other countries. The Mejlis takes part in OSCE and UN activities and is planning to open official representative offices in Brussels and Washington.

Poklonskaya demanded that the Mejlis be banned claiming, for example, that the call from one Turkish organization for the Mejlis to not be outlawed was proof that the Mejlis was an extremist organization. Zair Smedlyaev, Qurultay [Crimean Tatar National Congress] official points out that by the same ‘logic’, the UN, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, European Parliament and a whole range of other international bodies should be considered ‘extremist’.

As reported, it was quite unclear throughout the so-called court proceedings what exactly the prosecutor was trying to ban since there are a large number of regional mejlis which act as autonomous bodies. While the level of knowledge of the de facto prosecutor is certainly pitiful, it is likely that the lack of clarity is quite deliberate. Why explain who is at risk of arrest if you can leave that unknown and therefore particularly frightening? Mustafa Dzhemiliev recently suggested that around 2, 300 people involved in all structures of Crimean Tatar self-government could be immediately at risk.

This court hearing was a farce with the outcome known from the beginning. The only chance of averting the criminalization of a body representing the Crimean Tatar people was a real threat of punitive measures. Aider Mudzhabayev wrote recently that statements in defence of Crimeans facing persecution, in condemnation of repression, are undoubtedly needed, but are still useless – like trying to cure cancer with words.

Cancer spreads.  How far is Russia to be allowed to go?

Refat Chubarov

Edited to add: Today Refat Chubarov, Chairman of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people, ordered that the Mejlis is to perform its activities in an emergency modus operandi for the duration of Russian occupation of Crimea.

Oliver Loode, a member of the Minority Rights Group and the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, described the Mejlis' banning as "a new low in Russia’s treatment of indigenous peoples worldwide, and merits the strongest condemnation from the international community, including the UN system, states and indigenous peoples’ organizations."

He said:

The key to understanding the severity of the situation is the fact that the Crimean Tatar Mejlis is not just another NGO, but a representative institution of Crimean Tatar people who self-identify as indigenous people of Crimea, and who have been acknowledged as such by their home country Ukraine and a growing number of states and institutions around the world, including the European Parliament. As such, the decision to ban the Mejlis directly violates Article 5 of the UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

See also

• BBC's John Simpson incites Brits to break the law
• Crimean referendum second anniversary myths
• 'Very existence' of Crimean Tatars under threat
• Russia painting Crimea's Tatars as 'ISIS supporters'
• Stark warning of bloody provocation planned against Crimean Tatars 
• Kremlin creates agency for national minorities as it axes Crimean Tatar media 
• Crimean Tatar TV silenced, searches and arrests continue 
• Crimean Tatar Leaders ‘”Warned” Not to Protest as Media Silenced

 

Crimean referendum second anniversary myths exposed

Reblogged with permission.

====


By Halya Cornash

It is exactly two years since the so-called ‘referendum’ in Crimea which Russia cites as justification of its annexation of sovereign Ukrainian territory. The anniversary comes as Russia looks set to criminalize the Crimean Tatar Mejlis or elected representative body of the main indigenous people of Crimea which in 2014 called on all Crimean Tatars and others to boycott the event. Since it also comes at a time when the West is pushing Ukraine to agree to ‘elections’ in the Kremlin-controlled areas of Donbas, it seems worth recalling that supposed ‘expression of the people’s will’ and the motley crowd of far-right, neo-Nazi or extreme left-wing politicians who were invited to oversee it.

The ‘referendum’

This was announced on March 6, and held ten days later, on March 16, 2014.

There were two questions. No. 1 asked: Are you for the Crimea re-uniting with Russia, as a subject of the Russian Federation? No. 2: Are you for the reinstatement of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of the Crimea and for the status of the Crimea as part of Ukraine? Neither question allowed for Crimeans to opt for the status quo. Since the second alternative required more knowledge of a largely theoretical constitution in force for only around 13 days in 1992, it was relatively unlikely that anybody would choose that option (more details here).

 

The ‘observers’

Far-right Belgian politician Luc Michel presented by pro-Kremlin TV Rossiya 24 as from the OSCE (which did not observe or recognize the ’referendum’ on Crimea

The event was in clear breach of Ukraine’s Constitution which stipulates that any decision changing Ukraine’s territory must be put to a nationwide vote. It was declared illegitimate not only by the Crimean Tatar Mejlis, but by the USA, EU countries, the European Parliament, the OSCE and Ukraine’s two main election watchdogs - the Committee of Voters of Ukraine and OPORA.

The Kremlin therefore turned to its friends. The team was led by Mateusz Piskorski. He once had links with the Polish far-right, but his main focus, and that of the new Zmiana Party which he headed early in 2015 seems to be an aggressively pro-Russian position on everything, including Ukraine. Piskorski himself has for years now faithfully served as a mouthpiece in support of Vladimir Putin’s Russia, with this including rubber stamping Russia’s ‘electoral’ stunts in, for example St. Petersburg, Moldova, Crimea and Donbas. He claims that he does not receive any funding from Moscow.

At least some of the Crimean ‘observers’ were financed by the Russian-based Eurasian Observatory for Democracy and Elections headed by Luc Michel and Jean-Pierre Vandersmissen, both supporters of the neo-Nazi Jean-François Thiriart and members of the extreme right Parti Communautaire National-Européen (PCN-NCP). The list of supposedly 135 observers included representatives of the far-right parties Jobbik (Hungary); Ataka (Bulgaria); Vlaams Belang (Belgium); Freedom Party (Austria) and others. There were also members of neo-Stalinist or extreme left-wing parties, including Germany’s Die Linke. Two Bundestag deputies from this German party have since twice visited militant-controlled Donbas, providing propaganda stunts for the so-called ‘Donetsk people’s republic’.

Anton Shekhovtsov reports that according to his sources, the ‘observers’ were paid USD 1600 for a 4-day trip to Crimea, as well as USD 250 per diem. Whether the reason lay in remuneration or elsewhere, it is certainly clear that the observers were there to praise everything. Some seemed in something of a hurry to demonstrate their willingness to serve. In a report on March 15, over a day before the event, the Kremlin-funded Russia Today quoted “an American foreign affairs analyst of Serbian origin, Srdja Trifkovic” as describing it as “legal and legitimate, democratic and right”. Trifković, Shekhovtsov notes, was a member of Radovan Karadžić’s wartime Republika and spoke in his defence during the war crimes trial in the Hague.

All these guests were effusive in their admiration. Far-right Catalonian politician Enrique Ravello called the event “an example for us all”.

It should be stressed that despite all of the Kremlin’s claims that it was ‘saving Crimea’ (and Donbas) from far-right anti-Semitic hordes, those invited to act as observers in Crimea – and militant-controlled Donbas, and to visit since have often been from notoriously anti-Semitic parties, such as the Hungarian far-right Jobbik Party.

Fiddled vote-count

The event was widely criticized and it is only Russia and the Kremlin’s friends who seriously call it a real referendum. Even Putin’s own Human Rights Council confirmed, after a visit to Crimea, that the turnout had been much lower than reported, and the results far less overwhelmingly in favour of joining Russia. The report found that while a large majority of residents of Sevastopol (where the Russian Black Sea Fleet was based) had voted for ‘joining Russia’ (turnout of 50-80%), the turnout for all of Crimea was from 30-50% and only 50-60% of those voted for joining Russia.

The authors also noted that Crimean residents had voted less for joining Russia, than for what they called an end to corrupt lawlessness and thieving rule of people brought in from Donetsk (where Viktor Yanukovych and most of his people were from). It was only in Sevastopol, they say, that people genuinely voted for joining Russia. The report was prepared by Council member Yevgeny Bobrov; together with prominent human rights defender Svetlana Gannushkina and lawyer Olga Tsetlina, following a visit to Simferopol and Sevastopol from April 15-18.

Retribution against Crimean Tatars who opposed annexation and refused to take part in the farcical referendum was swift. It has since intensified, and the Mejlis’ leaders are now exiled or imprisoned. Those few still at liberty may not be for long if the Mejlis is outlawed.

See also:

• Excellent Business Ukraine magazine report: 'Debunking Putin’s Crimea Claims'. 
• New interview with Mustafa Dzhemilev, leader of the Crimean Tatar National Movement.
• Russian drug policy has killed at least 100 addicts in Crimea.
• European Parliament gravely concerned over situation LGBTI people in Crimea.
• Russia Declares War on Crimean Tatars
• 2,300 directly at risk if Russia bans Crimean Tatar Representative Body
• Crimean Tatar Mejlis criminalized for opposing Russian occupation of Crimea
• Russia seeks to ban Crimean Tatar Representative Assembly as ‘extremist’
• Russia accuses Crimean Tatar leaders of recruiting for Islamic State
• ‘Anti-terrorist exercises’ as latest intimidation of Crimean Tatars
• Kremlin creates agency for national minorities as it axes Crimean Tatar media
• Crimean Tatar TV silenced, searches and arrests continue
• Crimean Tatar Leaders ‘”Warned” Not to Protest as Media Silenced
• Do Not Let Crimean Tatar ATR and Media be Silenced!

On Russia’s selective ’retribution’ for acts of terrorism

Andrei Lugovoi, FSB assassin and Russian MP

Reblogged with permission.

====

By Halya Coynash

Andrei Lugovoi, Russian State Duma Deputy and the UK’s chief suspect in the killing of Kremlin whistle-blower Alexander Litvinenko has promised “inevitable retribution” for the terrorists who blew up Russian A321 and blamed “European tolerance” allowing “a flow of migrants” into Europe for the terrorist attacks in Paris on Nov 13.

The irony could not be more pronounced. Litvinenko, who like Lugovoi was a former FSB [Security Service] officer, died a hideous death from radioactive polonium in 2006 not very long after publishing a book in which he accused the FSB of being behind the apartment block bombings in 1999 which killed several hundred people and helped Putin come to power. That book was recently placed on the List of extremist materials in Russia, a few months after Lugovoi received a state award from the President “for courage and daring demonstrated in carrying out work duties in conditions linked with risk to life”. *

Litvinenko shortly before his death

Lugovoi became an MP shortly after Britain’s request for his extradition was turned down, and he is now the deputy head of the State Duma Committee on Security and Countering Corruption. It was clearly in this capacity, and standing in front of the State Duma sign that he gave a long interview, entitled “You shouldn’t believe the USA” to Rossiya 24.

After more than a week of vague statements, denials and furious conspiracy theorising, Russia announced on Nov 17 that the Metrojet plane which crashed in the Sinai Peninsula on Oct 31 had been destroyed by a bomb.

Lugovoi called this a “monstrous crime” and said that Russia’s reaction must follow two principles: no negotiating with terrorists and inevitable retribution. He agreed with unnamed government officials in saying that Russia must increase its activity in the Middle East, including in Syria.

There were certain key messages, one being that Russia has allegedly made huge strides in fighting terrorism – through the “effective work” of the FSB, through legislation, etc. The A321 attack is presented as “unique” and as due to “treachery of local security services”. Putin’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov reports that the Kremlin’s leader has ordered “those guilty exterminated”. There is no indication as to how ‘guilt’ is to first be determined. Nor, of course, is there any suggestion that the terrorist act, if such it be, may have been linked with Russia’s active role over the last month in bombing areas under the control mostly of groups opposing Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, including, but by no means exclusively ISIS.

Lugovoi goes on, as have other pro-Kremlin politicians, to point out that Europe is also not safe and he directly blames “European tolerance”. He makes no mention of the thousands of refugees fleeing the Assad regime and the bombing in Syria, and speaks only of a “flow of migrants” which Europeans supposedly clap their hands over.

The Ahmads brought their four children to Russia seeking safety, but they were refused asylum

This, of course, enables him to ignore such shocking violations of international law as the continued presence at a Moscow airport of an entire family of Syrian refugees whom Russia is simply refusing to allow into the country.

Lugovoi basically sings Russia’s praise, suggesting that the FSB’s role should be an example for other countries. The latter, he suggests, must consider closing borders. Numerous reports on pro-Kremlin media have broadcast predictions that France and / or Europe will be forced now to resort to other restrictions on people’s freedom - doubtless also following Russia’s role model.

Asked about an anti-terror coalition, Lugovoi says that Russia’s only ally was its own army and fleet. Lugovoi, who spoke extremely emphatically on all other subjects seems nervous here, and waffles only about some possible “temporary” measures. He does, however, return to a standard theme in Russian propaganda, by saying that the USA will always do everything to reduce safety for Russia and “our western partners”, and that the more “mess” there is between Russia and European countries, the better for the USA who should not be believed.

Lugovoi has long spoken and, doubtless, acted, in unison with Russia’s leaders and his key statements here are similar to those made by others. It is almost certainly no accident that Putin should have taken the opportunity to pass into force a plan on developing the military until 2020. While spending on medicine has dipped catastrophically in Russia, together with the standard of living, more and more money is being spent on the military. Any Levada Centre public survey will make it quite clear whom Russians deem their enemies. ISIS has seldom received a mention.

With respect to Russia’s ‘principles’ of not negotiating with terrorists and “inevitable retribution”, there are many bitter words that can be written about the Kremlin’s funding and support for militants, a large number of them from Russia, responsible for hostage-taking, forced disappearances, extra-judicial executions, etc. in Crimea and Donbas.

There will be cases before the European Court of Human Rights and, almost certainly, the International Criminal Court over Russia’s annexation of Crimea and behaviour in other parts of Ukraine.

Footage on July 17, 2014 which Life News reported as a Ukrainian military plane downed by militants

It is Russia that has blocked an international investigation into the downing of the Malaysian MH17 airliner by a Russian-made BUK missile. This was reported on Russian television as having been downed by Kremlin-backed militants with those reports and incriminating footage only removed after it became clear that a passenger plane had been downed, not a Ukrainian military aircraft.

A European Court of Human Rights judgement is now awaited over one of the most monstrous terrorist acts in the Russian Federation. The Court in Strasbourg has already accepted that Russia must answer for its failure to prevent the tragedy at the school in Beslan, North Ossetia in which 331 people died, more than half of them children. For over two days then Putin even lied about the number of people held hostage in the school, and it is known that the terrorists were so angered by the claim that they were not prepared to negotiate that they refused to give the children water. There are serious grounds for believing that Anna Politkovskaya was poisoned to stop her negotiating, and that the explosions used to justify the storming of a building holding well over a thousand children, parents, grandparents and teachers, did not come from the terrorists. There was no ‘inevitable retribution” and Russia has, on the contrary, done everything to block a proper investigation and bring those responsible to answer.


* The results of a public inquiry into Litvinenko’s murder are due out soon. Lugovoi and Dmitry Kovtun left traces of radioactive polonium everywhere they went, both before and after the meeting with Litvinenko where he drank the fatal substance in a cup of tea. One key point made repeatedly through the hearings was that radioactive polonium is not something that you can buy on the black market.


See also:

• MH17: Russia did it, endof? 
• The Russian People Saw A Strikingly Different Picture Of MH17 Findings
• How Dutch Investigators Rebuffed Russia’s Alternative MH17 Theories
• Russian LifeNews inadvertently told the truth about downed Malaysian airline
• Sent to be shot
• The EU’s Opaque Dealings with Ukraine
• Whose anti-Semitic and Homophobic Choice?
• What should they talk about, Mr Putin?
• The Peace that chokes Russia
• Russia intent on revising unfortunate history
• Alexander Litvinenko lawyer points finger at Putin as inquiry ends 
• Russia refuses to help Syrian refugees

Meaningful art: the KGB HQ ablaze

Pavlensky infront of the Beria-designed ablaze door

Pavlensky is a hero, as far as I'm concerned. This image above will outlive him. Reblogged with permission.


====

By Gabriel Levy

Russian political performance artist Pyotr Pavlensky, who set fire to the doors of the Federal Security Service (FSB) headquarters this week, has asked a judge to treat him the same way as political prisoners from Crimea.

On Monday [last week] Pavlensky poured petrol on the doors of the notorious building on Lubyanka square – used since the 1940s as the offices and detention centre of the KGB, the Stalinist security police – and set light to them. Supporters filmed the action. Pavlensky was arrested and charged with “vandalism motivated by ideological hatred” – to which he responded: “It would be strange to have any other attitude to the Lubyanka.”

In the Taganka district court on Wednesday, Pavlensky said that “the so-called ‘Crimean terrorists’” were charged with terrorism offences for setting fire to doors, in cases fabricated by the FSB. “I demand that I be suspected of terrorism. I consider this to be the logic of your system. Until this demand is met, I refuse to participate in all your juridical rituals.” He then declined to answer further questions.

The Crimean prisoners to which Pavlensky referred are anti-fascist activist Aleksandr Kolchenko and film director Oleg Sentsov, political prisoners jailed for their part in protests against the Russian annexation of Crimea in March 2014. Kolchenko and Sentsov were in August sentenced to ten and twenty years respectively by a court in Rostov-on-Don, southern Russia, on fabricated terrorism charges. A third frame-up victim, Gennady Afanasiev, gave evidence under torture that was used to secure convictions, and is serving a seven-year sentence. Human rights organisations denounced the trial as a parody of justice and demanded the defendants’ release.

The connection made by Pavlensky was to Kolchenko’s admission that he had been involved in causing a fire at a building used by pro-Russian forces in Crimea, in which no-one was hurt and only minor damage done to property. His lawyer argued that a hooliganism charge would have been appropriate. (For detailed information on the Crimea case see the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group site.)

Pavlensky, 32, has been remanded in custody for a month. The court rejected his lawyer’s request for release on 1 million rubles (about £10,000) bail, and/or being placed under house arrest while caring for his children, who are seven and four years old.

Pavlensky named his performance “Threat. The Lubyanka’s burning doors”. In a statement published on line, he said:

The burning door of Lubyanka is a glove thrown by society in the face of the terrorist threat. The Federal Security Service [FSB] operates through continuous terror and holds sway over 146,000,000 people. Fear has turned free people into a sticky mass of isolated bodies. The threat of imminent reprisal hangs over anyone within reach of surveillance and eavesdropping devices and passport checks. Military courts are eliminating the last vestiges of free will. But terrorism can exist only due to the animal instinct of fear. An unconditional defensive reflex makes the individual oppose this instinct. This is the reflex to fight for one’s own life. And life is worth fighting for.

Pavlensky nailing his balls to Red Square

Pavlensky’s previous performances have included lying in St Isaac’s Square in St Petersburg, wrapped in barbed wire, and sewing up his lips in protest at attacks on freedom of speech. He considers himself an actionist, in the tradition of the artistic school of that name established in Vienna in the 1960s. Earlier this year he organised a group of people to burn automobile tyres and bang metal sheets with sticks in the centre of St Petersburg, to echo the atmosphere of the Maidan demonstrations in Kiev that brought down the government of Viktor Yanukovich in February 2014.

Some Russian socialists have argued that Pavlensky’s action was motivated by middle-class individualism. I sympathise with the response by Ivan Ovsyannikov, a socialist and trade union activist:

Yes, I understand all that about “middle-class/ decadent/ individualist rebellion” that “lacks class consciousness”. I’ll even allow that the FSB’s doors are a valuable artistic monument. But I spit on those doors and on pseudo-left phrases. Right now they are cynical, wretched, inappropriate. Pavlensky isn’t a political strategist. But he is a brave person who can serve as an example (no, not in respect of his particular way of doing things, but with his unbending non-conformism at a time when total cynicism prevails). I do not know how good an artist he is, but in any case I know that those who are judging him “wouldn’t do art like that themselves”. Of course, there is no need to imitate Pavlensky, but there’s nothing to despise him for, either. At the end of the day, the Marxists of the early 20th century disagreed with the methods of the People’s Will and Socialist Revolutionaries – but that didn’t stop them from acknowledging their heroism. And of course this is a different case. But from a moral point of view, I repeat, Pavlensky is right. And we need to defend him. And “to defend” does not mean to say “oh, bless him, he didn’t mean anything nasty, just give him 15 days”. No, the main point must be this: [government] power, which has spit on morals, rights and justice, that power, which has surpassed all the limits of good and evil, has no right to judge the artist Pavlensky, even if he burned the whole FSB to a cinder.

St Petersburg picket for Sentsov + Kolchenko

For readers who doubt the rationale of Pavlensky’s action, I would add two points of my own.

First, it is almost impossible either rationally or emotionally to get our minds round the cruelty of the sentences on Kolchenko and Sentsov, and the absurdity of the fabricated case against them. Pavlensky’s courageous action helps.

Russian social and labour movements face a state that is not yet a dictatorship … but under which even small acts of political defiance potentially carry the price of devastating, disproportionate repression. Pavlensky didn’t answer the question “what to do?”, but he focused on the inevitably inadequate nature of our responses to the Crimea case. Of course, inadequate: Kolchenko and Sentsov are in jail and may remain there for years.

Second, the site of Pavlensky’s performance was well chosen. From the 1930s the Lubyanka epitomised Stalinist terror. It crushed and destroyed people – socialists, activists, and innocent bystanders alike – on site. Its continued use in the post-Soviet period as the security police headquarters is a pretty eloquent expression of the continuity between past and present regimes. Resistance continues too.



See also:

• Sanctions response needed to Sentsov, Kolchenko case. 
• Information about the campaign to support the Crimean prisoners on the Kharkiv Human Rights Protect Group site, the Free Alexander Kolchenko facebook page, and on the Ukraine Solidarity Campaign site. A statement by Amnesty International on the trial is here. 
• On Pavlensky’s art, read The Body Politic: how Pyotr Pavlensky’s performance art is breaking the mould – Calvert Journal, 13 November 2014. Information on the Vienna actionists here.
• Articles on People & Nature about Ukraine including an update on workers’ organisations in eastern Ukraine and War as a means of social control by Gabriel Levy (October 2014)
• Russia's brave 75yo protester 
• Moscow Times: Pavlensky's Flaming Doors: The Tweets 
• Pavlensky being slagged off as not very good art, not as good as (Benneton's) Oliviero Toscani!  
• The Moscow Times saying that the Kremlin doesn't know what to do with Pavlensky.

Russia's eight Crimea myths

Ukrainian independence referendum, 1991

Reblogged with permission from Window on Eurasia.

====

By Paul Goble.

“’Krimnashizm’” – as the ideologem “Crimea is Ours” is spelled in Russian – consists of a complex of eight myths that are intended to justify Vladimir Putin’s policies in Ukraine and mobilize support for it, Arkady Popov writes in a 4500-word heavily footnoted article in today’s “Yezhednevny zhurnal.” (ej.ru/?a=note&id=28231).

The eight myths which form the core of “’Krimnashizm,’” in his telling are:

• Myth Number One: Crimea was Given to Ukraine
• Myth Number Two: Russia has a historic right to Crimea
• Myth Number Three: The Crimean people have freely voted to rejoin Russia
• Myth Number Four: Taking Crimea from Ukraine was a matter of “extreme necessity.”
• Myth Number Five: Ukraine is an artificial state.
• Myth Number Six: The Euro-Maidan was fascist.
• Myth Number Seven: Russia has risen from its knees.
• Myth Number Eight: Incorporating Crimea is cost-free.

In today’s edition, the Russian historian and commentator examines the first of these myths, that “Crimea was given to Ukraine and shows that none of the claims Putin and his propagandists have offered in defense of their seizure and occupation of the Ukrainian peninsula stands up to close examination.

The myth that Nikita Khrushchev took Crimea away from the RSFSR and gave it to Ukraine is “the very first brick in the edifice of ‘Krimnashizm.” Many Russian writers had complained about Khrushchev’s action and Boris Yeltsin’s failure to criticize it, but it is perhaps instructive that Putin did not join that “chorus” until 2014, just before he invaded.

“The first feeling” one has in reading statements about Khrushchev supposedly “giving” Crimea to Ukraine is “perplexity,” Popov says. Khrushchev had only been first secretary of the CPSU Central Committee for four months, hardly time enough for him to have enough power to act on his own on something like this.

Moreover, the “Krimnashizm” ideologists act as if Crimea were the only example of part of one republic being transferred to another. In fact, it happened quite frequently – for a listing, see this author’s, “Can Republic Borders Be Changed?” RFE/RL Report on the USSR, 28 September 1990) – and in Soviet times never with any consultation with the peoples involved.

According to Popov, there are three variants of the myth about Khrushchev giving away Crimea: the alcoholic one, the holiday one, and the political one. None is accurate. Khrushchev wasn’t drinking when the decision was made. It didn’t occur at a time linked to any particular holiday. And transferring Crimea to Ukraine might have been expected to cost him more support among Russian CPSU officials than any gains he would make among the less numerous Ukrainian ones.

Propaganda on Crimean street

Politics was involved in the decision, but not the kind the “Krymnashists” describe. After the death of Stalin and the removal of Beria, Moscow faced the problem of expanding agricultural production. Crimea was a disaster area but had the climate and soils to be a productive place.

Khrushchev and Georgy Malenkov visited Crimea in 1953 and concluded that it could be developed if it got water from Ukraine. Without that, its agricultural production would not go up and consequently linking the area to Ukraine instead of the RSFSR made sense, given the policy priorities of the leadership in Moscow.

What should have happened, of course, Popov writes, was the return of the peninsula to the Crimean Tatars “but apparently the time for such radical decisions had not yet come: from the moment of the death of Stalin had passed less than a year,” and Khrushchev’s rehabilitation of the punished peoples lay in the future.

As far as Khrushchev’s “’voluntarism’” on Crimea is concerned, there is no basis for such claims, the historian says. “In January 1954, Khrushchev was still not so strong that he could decide such questions on his own.” And it is clear that he spoke with other members of the leadership and they collectively agreed.

When claims to the contrary fall away, present-day “Krymnashists” argue that Khrushchev didn’t follow constitutional procedures, when in fact he did as much as any other Soviet leader, or that there wasn’t a proper quorum when in fact the record shows otherwise, Popov points out.

And when those are pointed out, the “Krymnashists” try to make a special case out of Sevastopol. But there too, there is no evidence for their contentions that that city was special in a territorial sense. The only reason this false argument is raised, he suggests, is that in 1993, Khasbulatov’s Supreme Soviet declared that Sevastopol had “federal status.”

“This absurd degree was disavowed by the president of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, and the UN Security Council at a special session declared that this decree did not have legal force,” Popov writes. At that time, Russia’s permanent representative did not cast a veto.

Those who raise questions about the transfer of Crimea from the RSFSR to Ukraine clearly forget that there are a lot of other places where similar questions could be raised: Tuva, Vyborg, Sakhalin, Kaliningrad, Karelia, and so on. Thus, making these kinds of arguments about Crimea is potentially very dangerous.

Many of the “Krymnashists” also attack Boris Yeltsin for not demanding “the return” of Crimea in 1991 when the USSR fell apart. But they forget two things: the peaceful dismantling of the Soviet Union was predicated on the absolute acceptance of the union republic borders as fixed and that Ukraine, including Crimea, has just voted to leave the USSR.

To have challenged those borders would have opened “a Pandora’s box” for Russia and all the others, Popov says.

“All myths,” the historian concludes, “offer a false picture of the world,” but artistic ones do not claim they are real. “Political myths are something else: their inventors and distributors angrily insist that in them is given the only reliable conception of reality” and that they must be respected regardless. And that makes them dangerous, even for those who employ them.


See also:

• Russia painting Crimea's Tatars as 'ISIS supporters'
• BBC's John Simpson incites Brits to break the law over Crimea
• Sanctions response needed to Sentsov, Kolchenko case
• 'Very existence' of Crimean Tatars under threat

Russia painting Crimea's Tatars as 'ISIS supporters'

Newly erected hoardings on border. Left: On your way to Crimean Tatar Autonomy. Right: On your way from Crimea to Free Ukraine. Via Olga Klymenko

Reblogged with permission. Although news about the situation of Crimean Tatars is rarely in mainstream media the potency of their fightback for the Kremlin is described in this post. See also Paul Goble on the reaction to the current blockade of the peninsula initiated by the Tatar leadership. Their importance in the information war can be seen in their vile treatment by pro-Kremlin trolls. See, for example, this attempt to fictionalise Tatars fighting for the Nazis in WW2.

====

By Halya Colynash

For the second time in a week, the de facto authorities in Russian-occupied Crimea have publicly claimed via Russia’s official RIA Novosti that Crimean Tatar leaders are recruiting Crimean Tatars to become Islamic State fighters. The allegations are especially ominous given Russia’s current military involvement in Syria which Moscow asserts, in the face of considerable evidence to the contrary, is directed against the Islamic State. They also coincide with the latest unexplained siege by armed enforcement officers of the predominantly Crimean Tatar Ak-Mechet suburb of Simferopol and the ongoing offensive against the Mejlis, or Crimean Tatar self-governing assembly.

On Oct 9, Ruslan Balbek, deputy prime minister of the de facto government in Crimea asserted that the leaders of the Mejlis, and particularly Mustafa Dzhemiliev, had, as Crimean politicians, encouraged the development on the peninsula of radical religious sects, whose militant ideology was alien to most Crimean Tatars. “Therefore now, having settled in Ukraine, they have surrounded themselves with Crimean radicals who during various years [sic] fought in the ranks of the Islamic State, and after Crimea’s re-union with Russia left the peninsula.” Balbek specifically claims that Dzhemiliev is recruiting ‘radicals’ for the Islamic State, and that he has encouraged Crimean Muslims to take part in ISIS in order to “later use their military experience for subversive activities in Crimea”.

71-year-old Mustafa Dzhemiliev’s defence of Crimean Tatar rights and Ukrainian democracy and his unwavering commitment to only peaceful protest, have earned him immense respect throughout the world. As well as numerous international awards, the veteran Crimean Tatar leader and Ukrainian MP has twice been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. It seems safe, therefore, to assume that outside Russia the allegations will be dismissed as scurrilous lies.

The concern is about the purpose of such inflammatory claims and their impact on an audience in Crimea and in Russia which receives its information solely from state-controlled media.

There can be no suggestion here that the state-controlled RIA Novosti is simply reporting Balbek’s words. The agency refers dismissively and wrongly to the Mejlis as “an organization unregistered in Russia” and claims that both Dzhemiliev and the Head of the Mejlis Refat Chubarov “left Crimea”, and were later banned entry to Russia for five years “because of their extremist statements, inciting ethnic enmity”.

Pro-Kremlin media have been particularly active in hurling mud at the Crimean Tatar leaders since they initiated the Crimea Blockade now into its third week. There were initial attempts to mention only ‘Ukrainian radical nationalists’ as involved in the blockade. Then on Oct 5, one of the few Crimean Tatars who chose to cooperate with the Russian occupiers, Zaur Smirnov claimed that Islamic State recruiters had fled from Crimea to (mainland) Ukraine, and were now actively recruiting Ukrainian Muslims. “He excluded any possibility of their returning to Crimea”.

Once again RIA Novosti can be relied on to provide a highly contentious version of events. It claims that “Crimea became a Russian region after a referendum held in March 2014 in which the overwhelming majority of inhabitants …. voted to join Russia” (see: Even Russian human rights body finds Crimean referendum falsified)

The rest of the brief report returns to Smirnov’s claims that “radicals implicated in Islamic State left the peninsula after reunification with Russia”.

Thousands of Crimean Tatars, as well as other Ukrainians, were forced to flee Crimea after Russia’s occupation of their home. Attempts to deny legitimate opposition to annexation, claiming that opponents are ‘radical Muslims’, are a brazen – and menacing - distortion of the facts.

None of it, unfortunately, is new. The first signs that Russia was seeking to use growing fear of the Islamic State and ‘Muslim radicals’ for its own benefit came in early Autumn 2014. News that Russia’s Justice Ministry wanted to get the renowned human rights organization Memorial dissolved coincided with a defamatory TV programme alleging that Memorial was cooperating with terrorists and radicals now fighting for the Islamic State.

Media reports appeared which painted Crimean Tatars as ‘radical Muslims’ who could unleash a wave of violence in Crimea. On Oct 8 a particularly sinister article entitled “Islamists in Crimea are getting up to something” appeared in the Russian newspaper Nezavisimaya. It begins with the words: “Fighters schooled by war in Syria and Novorossiya are amassing on the borders of the peninsula” (more details here Bogus claims of ’Muslim radicalism’ as weapon against the Crimean Tatars. )

Mustafa Dzhemiliev reported within a month or so of annexation that Russian FSB [security service] officials were quite openly watching Muslims in their mosques, and it was not long before armed searches of Crimean Tatar homes, mosques and religious schools began. Russia has increasingly used its excessively broad legislation on so-called ‘extremism’ against Crimean Tatars and all opponents of Russia’s land grab.

Ai-Vasyl Mosque

On August 14, 2015, FSB officers turned up at the Mosque in Ai-Vasyl [Vasilyevka] in Yalta to install video surveillance. They claimed that this was needed to ‘counter terrorism’, although the Crimean Human Rights Field Mission points out that no legitimate grounds were provided.

It remains unclear why police and OMON riot police have effectively surrounded the ak-Mechet district of Simferopol for two weeks, with armed officers appearing at people’s homes from 7 a.m., checking documents, copying out phone numbers, etc. There were so-called ‘anti-terrorist exercises’ in early April, with those obviously targeting Crimean Tatars. There have also been suggestions that Muslims will be called in for so-called ‘prophylactic talks’.

It is fairly widely feared that through its bombing of mostly non-ISIS targets in Syria and open support for Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad, Moscow will face retaliation within Russia. This probably is a real risk from President Vladimir Putin’s latest political game, making the renewed attempts to gain mileage against Crimean Tatar opponents of annexation particularly cynical and dangerous.


See also:

• Another Crimean blogger interrogated by FSB over Facebook post
• Ukrainian swimmer flees persecution in Crimea: “It’s worse than Soviet times!”
• Ukrainian teacher arrested in Crimea on ‘extremism’ charges
• 17-year-old Crimean charged with ‘extremism’ for social network entries
• FSB search Sevastopol home, threaten prosecution for mystery ‘extremism’
• ‘Anti-terrorist exercises’ as latest intimidation of Crimean Tatars
• Kremlin creates agency for national minorities as it axes Crimean Tatar media
• Crimean Tatar TV silenced, searches and arrests continue
• Crimean Tatar Leaders ‘”Warned” Not to Protest as Media Silenced
• Do Not Let Crimean Tatar ATR and Media be Silenced!
• Last desperate attempt to save Crimean Tatar TV channel
• Giving hope that Crimean occupation will end equated to ‘inciting enmity’
• Only Crimean Tatar TV Channel is being forced off air
• Silencing ‘hostile’ media? Crimean News Agency refused licence
• Armed Offensive against Independent Crimean Tatar TV Channel

• Historical Photo Fake: Crimean Tatars in SS Division
• Crimean Tatars: CoE Parliamentary Assembly Discusses Human Rights in Occupied Crimea 
• The Media Has Swallowed Five Russian Myths That Have Helped Putin Win In Ukraine 
• Armed Right Sector & Azov fighters are discrediting Crimea Blockade