Among the main topics of the past week was the notorious “letter from Yanukovych,” which Churkin waved at the UN Security Council three years ago and which the Kremlin is now strenuously rejecting. " " decided to first understand the facts and then move on to the versions.

Is “Yanukovych’s letter” legitimate?

According to Art. 85 of the Constitution of Ukraine, approval of the decision on the admission of units of the armed forces of other states to the territory of Ukraine falls within the powers of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

On March 1, 2014, Yanukovych, who fled to the Russian Federation, signed the “Statement of the President of Ukraine,” which states: “As the legally elected President of Ukraine... I appeal to Russian President V.V. Putin with a request to use the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation to restore legality, peace, and order , stability and protection of the population of Ukraine."

Under this statement, as can be seen from the photocopy, is Yanukovych’s autograph, but there is no presidential seal. By the way, Yanukovych continued to publish “documents” of this kind - with an autograph, but without a seal. For example, on March 21, 2014, he issued a “decree” on the renunciation of Ukrainian citizenship by 590 prosecutors from Crimea annexed by Russia. Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko received this document from the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation on September 29, 2016 and commented on it as follows: “The twice-unconvicted ex-President Yanukovych is trying to increase his thieves’ status. From a simple cormorant, he is trying to rise to a trump fraer. But to drive bullshit, you need brains. The GP must also disappoint "of the Russian Federation, and a rogue swindler - on this Decree of the President of Ukraine, in addition to the signature, there must be a State Seal. Fortunately, Yanukovych forgot to steal it."

In case of giving consent to the admission of Russian troops, not only a seal was needed, but also a resolution of the Verkhovna Rada. Therefore, the “document” signed by Yanukovych on March 1, 2014 is absolutely illegitimate, no matter what you call it: “statement”, “appeal”, “letter”.

Did Putin declare “Yanukovych’s letter” legitimate?

“Yanukovych’s letter” is dated the same day when the Federation Council of the Russian Federation adopted resolution No. 48 “On the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine,” which states: “Having considered the appeal of the President of the Russian Federation ... 1. Give consent to the President of the Russian Federation on the use of the Armed Forces Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine until the socio-political situation in this country normalizes. 2. This resolution comes into force from the date of its adoption."

According to Art. 102 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the decision on the possibility of using the RF Armed Forces outside the territory of the Russian Federation falls under the jurisdiction of the Federation Council of the Russian Federation. But, after the consent of the Federation Council was received, the decision on the implementation of this consent, i.e. on the use of the Russian Armed Forces on the territory of Ukraine, depended solely on Putin. And Putin twice in one day (first through Churkin, then personally) publicly used the “Yanukovych letter” to legitimize the invasion of Ukraine. It is fundamentally important that the “Yanukovych letter” contained exactly the wording that is provided for by the Russian Constitution (“to use the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation”), while the Constitution of Ukraine does not talk about “use”, but about “tolerance.”

On March 3, 2014, the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the UN, Churkin, at an open meeting of the UN Security Council on the situation in Ukraine, reported on the above-mentioned resolution of the Federation Council of the Russian Federation No. 48 of March 1, 2014, and immediately after that he stated: “Today I am authorized to also announce the following. By the President of Russia The following appeal from the President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych has been received." Then Churkin read out the full text of “Yanukovych’s letter” from the first word to the very date at the bottom “March 1, 2014,” after which he stated: “Dear colleagues, I have the opportunity to demonstrate to all those present a photocopy of the original address of the President of Ukraine to the President of Russia.”

Churkin ended his speech with words about his desire to “emphasize once again that Russia’s actions are completely adequate and legitimate.” On March 4, 2014 in Moscow (a few hours after Churkin’s speech at the UN Security Council in New York), Putin held a special press conference on the situation in Ukraine.

First of all, he directly and unequivocally stated that he considers Yanukovych legitimate. “There is legally only one legitimate president. It is clear that he has no power, of course. But I have already said this, I want to repeat: this legitimate president, purely legally, of course, is only Yanukovych,” Putin said.

And then he tried to justify the legitimacy of sending troops into Ukraine - and referred specifically to “Yanukovych’s letter”: “Concerning the introduction of troops, the use of troops. So far there is no such need. But there is such a possibility... What could serve as a reason for using the Armed Forces? This, of course, an extreme case, just an extreme one. Firstly, about legitimacy. As you know, we have a direct appeal from the current and legitimate, as I said, President of Ukraine Yanukovych about the use of the Armed Forces to protect the life, freedom and health of citizens of Ukraine" .

After this, Putin again and again recalled Yanukovych’s “letter”: “If people ask us for help, and we already have an official appeal from the current legitimate president, then we reserve the right to use all the means at our disposal to protect these citizens. And We believe that this is completely legitimate. This is an extreme measure... Once again I want to emphasize: we believe that even if we make a decision, if I make a decision on the use of the Armed Forces, then it will be legitimate, fully consistent with the general norms of international law, since we have an appeal from a legitimate president, and corresponding to our obligations..."

These words of Putin clearly show that in his plans the “Yanukovych letter” played a very important role as a legal pretext for the invasion of Ukraine.

Why is the Kremlin now rejecting “Yanukovych’s letter”?

This is now the main question in this story. Indeed, Churkin clearly stated that he was authorized to report that Putin had received Yanukovych’s appeal. Then Putin himself clearly confirmed three times: “We have a direct official appeal from the current and legitimate President of Ukraine Yanukovych.” However, when the Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine turned to the RF GP with a request to provide this document, the RF GP responded on March 7, 2017 that neither the Putin administration nor the Federation Council had received any statement from Yanukovych with a request to use the RF Armed Forces on the territory of Ukraine and these government agencies were not considered; any statements by Yanukovych were not the basis for Putin’s appeal to the Federation Council to give consent to the use of the Russian Armed Forces on the territory of Ukraine.

On March 16, Putin’s press secretary Peskov also said that the “Yanukovych letter” is not in the Putin administration. “The fact is that no letter was officially received by the presidential administration. No such document was registered by the presidential administration,” Peskov told reporters. And when he was reminded that Churkin at a meeting of the UN Security Council spoke about the existence of such a letter and that he was authorized to report on it, Peskov said: “I don’t know this. I can only state the situation de facto and de jure, then there is what I have already said."

On March 17, Maria Zakharova, director of the information and press department of the Russian Foreign Ministry, made an explanation. First, she confirmed to the radio station "Moscow Speaks" that Yanukovych had indeed signed a statement asking Putin to send troops to Ukraine. “Churkin was authorized to quote it in the UN Security Council, which he openly stated. Also, the statement was distributed as a Security Council document - a common practice of bringing relevant materials to Council members. The technology for sending instructions to Russian representatives abroad is a matter of internal coordination,” she explained Zakharova.

She didn't stop there and gave affidavit on your Facebook page. “Unfortunately, black disinformation has once again blossomed with its poisonous flowers in the global media space,” Zakharova almost cried. “This time they began to invent a “story” around V. Yanukovych’s statement of March 1, 2014, in which he asked for entry of Russian troops into Ukraine. On March 3, 2014, this statement was read by V. Churkin at an open meeting of the UN Security Council. The material was also distributed as a Security Council document - there is such a form of informing Security Council members about current information (publications in the media, television reports on relevant to the agenda of the topic, declaration, letter, appeal, etc.)". Further, Zakharova recounted the position of the RF GP and Peskov and added: “In other words, the statement was signed by the President of Ukraine, read out to the UN Security Council as very indicative information about the situation in Ukraine, but no decisions on it were made by the Presidential Administration or the Russian Federation Council.”

It is not difficult to see which version Zakharova is promoting: they say that Yanukovych wrote a statement, but did not send it anywhere (hanged it on the fence?), the Russian Foreign Ministry found out about it (saw it on the fence and photographed it?) and sent a photocopy to Churkin, who made it public at the UN Security Council as “indicative information”, along with television reports, media publications and other illustrations of “Ukrainian horrors”.

It is not difficult to see the fact from which Zakharova diligently diverts attention: from the fact that Putin personally received Yanukovych’s appeal, Churkin announced this at the UN Security Council, and Putin himself three times publicly called this appeal a legitimate basis for his, Putin’s, use of Russian troops on the territory of Ukraine.

Why was Churkin killed?

So much has been written about the fact that Churkin, who died on February 20, 2017, was poisoned, that there is no point in retelling it. But let’s mention Irina Gerashchenko’s post "Mordor covers its tracks and gets confused in its testimony", in a commentary under which Yevgeny Marchuk noted: “And before that, Churkin, who was showing at the UN Yanukovych’s letter to Putin with a request to send troops to Ukraine, suddenly died.” As representatives of Ukraine in the Trilateral Contact Group on Donbass, Irina Gerashchenko and Yevgeny Marchuk carefully consider their words before making such transparent hints.

In any case, it is obvious that the Kremlin is now trying to distance itself from Yanukovych’s “letter.” At a minimum, they are trying to present the matter as if Putin did not receive Yanukovych’s appeal and Putin did not even see it. And if they try their best, then it’s possible that someone else will go to hell after Churkin.

It is very unlikely that all this was done to save Yanukovych from the encroachments of Yuriy Lutsenko. Moreover, nothing threatens Yanukovych. Well, they will condemn him in absentia for treason, so what? All the same, Putin will not hand him over to Ukraine, and everyone knows it.

Here’s another point: Yanukovych’s lawyer Vitaly Serdyuk insists that Yanukovych asked not to “send in troops,” but rather “to use troops to protect the population in Ukraine.” (In fact, “using the RF Armed Forces” is even worse than simply “sending in troops,” because this is a broader formulation that, in addition to sending in troops, also allows air raids, rocket attacks, etc., up to and including the use of nuclear weapons. But the defense may have its own thoughts on this matter.) If Yanukovych’s defense sees some kind of clue in this, then Maria Zakharova from the Russian Foreign Ministry does not care about this, at least in her written testimony quoted above, she ignores this legal subtlety and talks about “V. Yanukovych’s statement dated March 1, 2014, in which he asked for the entry of Russian troops into Ukraine.” That is, contrary to the position of Yanukovych’s defense, Zakharova considers “bringing in troops” and “using the RF Armed Forces” as synonyms.

Moreover, if the Kremlin cared about Yanukovych, it would simply declare that “Yanukovych’s letter” is fictitious. Although the Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine

Illustration copyright Reuters Image caption Churkin showed a letter from Yanukovych requesting the deployment of troops

Former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, removed from his post by the Verkhovna Rada, sent a written request to Russian President Vladimir Putin to use Russian armed forces to protect the population of Ukraine, Vitaly Churkin, Russia's permanent representative to the UN, said at an extraordinary meeting of the UN Security Council.

“...I appeal to Russian President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin with a request to use the armed forces of the Russian Federation to restore the rule of law, peace, order, stability, and protection of the population of Ukraine. Viktor Yanukovych, March 1, 2014,” Churkin quoted Yanukovych’s words.

Earlier, Viktor Yanukovych stated that he continues to consider himself the president of Ukraine.

On February 28, during a press conference in Rostov-on-Don, Yanukovych said that he was “categorically against the invasion of Ukraine and violating the integrity of a sovereign state.”

Was there an ultimatum?

On Monday, the Russian army issued an ultimatum to the Ukrainian military in Crimea until 5 a.m. Tuesday to defect to the Crimean authorities, the Ukrainian Defense Ministry said.

"I confirm this ultimatum. I spoke with officers of the Ukrainian fleet. They had Vice Admiral Alexander Vitko on board, he put forward this ultimatum. From today, two of our ships are blocked in the Sevastopol Bay by ships of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. This is the ship "Slavutich" and the corvette "Ternopil". They are blocked by several ships," Vladislav Seleznev, head of the press service of the Ministry of Defense in Crimea, told the BBC Ukrainian service.

Later, the Russian Ministry of Defense denied this information.

“This is complete nonsense,” said a representative of the headquarters of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in an interview with the Interfax-AVN agency. “We are already accustomed to daily accusations of carrying out some kind of forceful actions against our Ukrainian colleagues.”

He emphasized that “it will not be possible to push our heads together in Crimea.”

Illustration copyright AFP Image caption Russian troops blockade Ukrainian military bases

The world's reaction

Western countries condemned Russia's actions and called on it to return its troops to their bases. US Under Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland said: “This observer mission will be based on a very broad consensus. We call on Russia to join this consensus, make the right choice and withdraw its troops.”

"We will use all our dialogue capabilities to convince Russia that it must take a solution worthy of the 21st century to resolve the problem through political means, through negotiations, rather than military force."

A joint statement adopted following a meeting of EU foreign ministers said Russia had violated the UN charter and its troops must immediately return to their bases in Crimea. If this does not happen before Thursday, when EU leaders meet in Brussels, the negotiations will turn into possible sanctions - diplomatic and possibly economic.

It was also decided at the meeting to suspend negotiations with Russia on a visa-free regime. Russia and the European Union have been negotiating a visa-free regime between citizens of EU countries and Russia since 2007. The initiative largely came from Russia. The issue of this was raised at every meeting between representatives of Moscow and Brussels.

US President Barack Obama said Russia had violated Ukraine's sovereignty and urged Vladimir Putin to change course.

“Russia’s actions in Ukraine violate international law and the sovereignty of Ukraine. Russia is trying to oppose itself to the course of history. Ukraine must decide its own destiny,” Obama said, speaking about the situation around Ukraine.

Possible sanctions

Media playback is unsupported on your device

The US Senate announced preparations for the introduction of sanctions against Russia. Among possible sanctions, the introduction of restrictions on the activities of Russian banks and the freezing of assets of Russian organizations and some Russians are being considered.

However, according to American legislators, US actions will not have the desired effect without the active participation of Europe in the process.

Meanwhile, BBC political commentator Nick Robinson reported on his Twitter microblog that, according to information he received from an official document, the UK is not going to curtail current trade volumes with Russia and close access to its financial centers for Russians.

The document also states that British ministers need to “discourage any discussions (for example, within NATO) to prepare for possible military action.”

Flag of Russia

Anti-Russian and pro-Russian demonstrations took place in some Ukrainian cities. In Donetsk, participants in pro-Russian protests occupied the regional administration building.

Illustration copyright AP Image caption The Ukrainian ship "Slavutich" hung the national flag as a sign of disobedience to Russian troops

About three hundred people burst into the building, while the rest remained in the square, chanting pro-Russian slogans and waving Russian flags.

In Odessa, two rallies took place on the square in front of the regional state administration building. In the morning, representatives of pro-Russian forces tore the Ukrainian flag from the flagpole in front of the Regional State Administration building and hung up the Russian one.

At 19:00 local time, there were about a thousand supporters of Ukrainian unity in the square, who demanded the return of the state flag. As a result of morning clashes between protesters, one person was hospitalized.

Moscow convened a meeting of the UN Security Council to finally convey this to the international community. Russia's permanent representative to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, explained: we are talking about protecting the interests of the citizens of a fraternal country, with which we are connected by a common centuries-old history.

This time, Russian speech was heard more often than usual at the UN Security Council meeting. The fact is that Ukraine’s permanent representative to the UN suddenly spoke Russian. And although this is one of the six working languages ​​of the Security Council, previously Yuri Sergeev sought a common language with his colleagues more and more in English.

The Ukrainian diplomat expressed the point of view of the new government in Kyiv, which many even in Ukraine itself consider illegitimate.

And the permanent representative of Russia showed a copy of the letter that President Viktor Yanukovych sent. The document states that due to the illegal seizure of power, Ukraine was on the verge of civil war, the lives and safety of people, especially in the southeast and Crimea, were under threat.

“I appeal to Russian President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin with a request to use the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation to restore the rule of law, peace, order, stability, and protection of the population of Ukraine. Viktor Yanukovych, March 1, 2014,” read out the document from Russia’s permanent representative to the UN Vitaly Churkin.

At the same time, Russia does not at all set the goal of returning Yanukovych to power, said Vitaly Churkin. The goal is to normalize the situation and protect the Russian-speaking population.

“Russia has so many ways to guarantee the rights of ethnic Russians! So many ways besides military,” said US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power.

“The United States sent troops and captured Grenada. At the same time, President Reagan said that he was protecting the American citizens who live there. And there are one thousand of them. And there were no threats from the authorities. And we have millions of citizens there who fear such atrocities,” — Vitaly Churkin retorted.

Representatives of Western countries wondered why Moscow can’t, because they can send an OSCE mission.

“In Kosovo, not just some international forces were deployed, but NATO armed forces. And what did they do in 2004 to prevent Serbian pogroms? As a result, thousands of Serbs were forced to leave the region. They did nothing. What do you want? ", so that an OSCE observation mission would go there. Do these national radicals know what they think about this OSCE observation mission? They don’t want to hear anything about it," replied Russia’s permanent representative to the UN.

The Ukrainian permanent representative publicly acquitted the Ukrainian Bandera nationalists at the UN, saying that the accusations against them presented by the USSR at the Nuremberg trials were falsified. And he assured that today there is no threat to national minorities. But the question is: why then is Crimea defending itself?

“These people in Crimea have been incited to do this since the beginning of our independence. Because these are people who were not born there. These are people who came there after retiring, there are a lot of military people, especially party workers there. They show their Ukrainophobia too zealously,” — says Ukraine’s permanent representative to the UN Yuriy Sergeev.

After this, the assistant to the Ukrainian diplomat apologized to journalists for answering in Russian. For some reason, the question from French journalists and the answer from the Ukrainian permanent representative in French did not bother him.

A copy of a letter from former President Viktor Yanukovych to Russian President Vladimir Putin with a request to send troops to Ukraine was at the disposal of the publication "Censor.NET".

“As the legally elected President of Ukraine, I declare. The events on the Maidan, the illegal seizure of power in Kiev led to the fact that Ukraine was on the verge of a civil war. Chaos and anarchy reign in the country, life, security and rights of people, especially in the southeast and in Crimea is under threat. Under the influence of Western countries, open terror and violence are carried out, people are persecuted on political and linguistic grounds,” the ex-president’s address says.

“In this regard, I appeal to Russian President V.V. Putin with a request to use the armed forces of the Russian Federation to restore the rule of law, peace, law and order, stability and protection of the population of Ukraine,” says the appeal, signed by Yanukovych.

Churkin certified the authenticity of the demonstrated document with his letter. Both documents have been in the case file on charges of treason against Yanukovych since November 2016, a law enforcement source told reporters.

Vitaly Churkin certified the authenticity of the document with his letter Photo: censor.net.ua

The day before, the Prosecutor General of Ukraine Yuriy Lutsenko said that the Home Office had requested the introduction of Russian troops into Ukraine. The head of the GPU believes that the start of the trial of Yanukovych is “getting closer.”

Yanukovych was elected president of Ukraine in 2010. On February 22, 2014, after three months of protests on the Maidan, after which new presidential elections were announced. That same month, Yanukovych left Ukraine, now.

Several criminal proceedings have been opened against Yanukovych in Ukraine. He is accused of mass murder of citizens, seizure of state property, seizure of power by unconstitutional means, and actions aimed at overthrowing the constitutional order. Regarding the ex-president.

During Kyiv, Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko notified Yanukovych of suspicion of treason. Written to the ex-president's lawyer. The defense believes that this was done unlawfully.

That Yanukovych sent a letter to Putin asking for the deployment of troops. And now the Kremlin press service and Yanukovych say that there was no request for the deployment of troops. Like, somehow, someone is lying.

Here you need to understand a simple thing, as Comrade Bismarck said: “They never lie so much as during the war, after the hunt and before the elections.” If we look at this particular conflict, which includes the Cold War with the United States and the hot wars in Ukraine and Syria, then I would say that it would be the height of naivety to believe that Russian officials in the current environment are always telling the truth. Just like any other officials, because as another no less famous comrade Sun Tzu said, “War is the path of deception.” All participants in the ongoing conflict, among other tasks, solve problems of disinformation of the enemy at different levels and banal deception, in the interests of achieving the goals of the war. Therefore, Putin can lie, and Obama, and Merkel, and even more so some Poroshenko. For those who believe that state leaders always and everywhere tell the truth, including to the people, I would recommend watching less TV series about little colored ponies.

Therefore, what was recently officially recognized as truth in one situation ceases to be so in another, as the military-political situation has changed. In some circumstances, the presence of such a letter (regardless of whether it existed or not) was beneficial. In the current conditions, it has become unprofitable, because in 2014 Russia pursued one policy towards Ukraine, and in 2017 it was completely different. For example, in 2014 the United States in every possible way denied its involvement in the coup in Ukraine, and then Obama directly admitted that yes, they helped change the government in Ukraine. Here we can also observe a typical example of a changed political situation, which also changes the official position. Or we can recall the example of the official denial of the participation of Russian troops in the Crimean Spring, which was then just as officially recognized, regardless of previous denials. Or, for example, official European denials of the presence of fascist formations in Ukraine and subsequent official recognition of this fact. And there were many such moments during the 3 years of the war in Ukraine on both sides, especially if you start comparing what the parties said in 2014 with what they said and did in 2015, 2016 and 2017. And if we take it in general, then we can Just give as an example the story of guarantees for the non-expansion of NATO to the East, when they prove that there were guarantees, but in the West they say in good faith that there were no guarantees.

For the current conflict, which is taking place in the format of a hybrid war, with increased attention to conducting information and psychological operations, such ambiguity of the official position sometimes creates similar collisions, when on the one hand there seemed to be a letter, but on the other, it seemed there was not. And without the presence of the original letter, one can only guess how, in what form and to whom exactly Yanukovych addressed then and whether he addressed at all. I would bet that I addressed it one way or another, but now in light of the changed role of Yanukovych and the changed policy of the Russian Federation in Ukraine, this topic is no longer very interesting for the party line and therefore the fact of the existence of the letter is denied. The main problem with such contradictions is that when they are identified (as was the case, for example, with Obama’s confessions), they provide ample ground for carrying out information and propaganda activities, where, by comparing contradictory statements, they try to convey to the audience the idea that in this or that case , the state is deceiving, and if it deceives in small things, then it deceives in everything else too. In general, the usual routine of information and psychological warfare waged by both sides against each other.

Accordingly, regardless of the fact of the existence of Yanukovych’s letter, on our part they will most likely try to hush up this topic or cover it up with a similar topic of turning the tables on opponents. On the contrary, the enemy will try to promote this topic as much as possible through the mass media, because for routine propaganda, it is completely win-win, regardless of the fact of the existence of the letter. A letter, which in 2014 could have had real military-political significance, now can only have historical and propaganda interest, although for Yanukovych personally, this issue is far from abstract, since the junta uses this letter as an argument to prove Yanukovych’s villainous plans . It was not possible to prove the fact that the order was given to shoot the Euromaidan, which is why the topic of the letter surfaced, a copy of which Churkin showed. Since Churkin died, he naturally will not clarify this question in any way. The Russian Foreign Ministry has so far refrained from commenting, although it is quite obvious that Churkin would not show to the UN Security Council a document that was not agreed upon with the higher authorities, who certainly should know what exactly was shown on March 4, 2014. But however, judging by statements from the Kremlin and from Yanukovych, there was no letter, and without the original of such an appeal in hand, this letter cannot have legal consequences in any case, because statements from Europe that “you see , Churkin showed the letter, the Kremlin will say “we don’t have such a letter.” Therefore, from a legal point of view, there is a guaranteed dead end, but from an information and propaganda point of view, there is room for action.

In my opinion, there is a kind of blind spot here, due to the fact that many details of the Russian strategy in Ukraine carried out in January-April 2014 are not completely clear, and without knowing all the circumstances of plans to work with the South-East and the role of Yanukovych, it is difficult draw informed conclusions. I would bet that there was an appeal in one form or another, since it can be logically linked with the right granted by the Federation Council to send troops into the territory of Ukraine. There is a request, there is permission. But since plans changed in April 2014 and the importance of Yanukovych changed, the permission was not used (and later completely revoked), which neutralized the value of the request, there really was one and Churkin showed a real document, and not just paper with which Russia tried to put pressure on opponents in the UN Security Council.