As Crimea enters its third year of conflict, the international community seeks an ultimate solution to the dispute.
The original violence commenced following a highly controversial referendum where the majority of Crimeans voted to leave the Ukraine and join Russia. This referendum was later declared invalid by the United Nations Security Council, due to reports of paramilitary presence and possibly vote-rigging.
Following the referendum and in the wake of the Ukrainian Revolution, the Russian Federation intervened and annexed Ukraine. Since March 16, 2014, the Russian government has maintained de facto control of the region.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, along with an abundance of other world leaders, has expressed his opposition to the Russian occupation of Crimea, calling Vladimir Putin “dangerous” and “irresponsible.”
“[Canada remains] committed to the fact that Russia's interference in Ukraine must cease,” Trudeau stated at the G20 Summit in Turkey. He also told press that, “[Canada stands] with the Ukrainian people.”
As the two year anniversary approaches of Russia’s takeover of Crimea, the United Nations Development Programme has begun to discuss solutions to achieving long-term stability in a historically unstable region.
Many nations expressed their concerns with Russia’s actions in Ukraine, questioning the government’s motivations. Some nations even suggested that Russia’s motivations may have been purely financial or for the purpose of simply gaining fertile land.
Despite these criticisms, Russia maintained that their actions had the support of the Crimean people, the majority of whom are ethnically Russian. Russia also continued to explain that Russia has been the historical owner of Crimea in the past, and that Crimeans have little ethnic ties to Ukraine.
“We should respect the wishes of the Crimean people,” the Russian delegate stated. “[They] wish to be part of Russia.”
Other delegations continued to be highly critical of Russia, with one delegate even comparing Russia’s actions to the German annexation of the Sudetenland in 1938.
The Ukrainian delegate also had harsh words for Russia, calling the annexation of Crimea “illegal” and “in violation of the international law.”
Perhaps the harshest criticism of the Russian Federation came from the delegate of the United States of America, who responded strongly to Russia’s attack on corruption in the Ukrainian government.
The delegate of the United States proclaimed that Russia was “one of “the top-ten [most] corrupt nations in the world” and stated that large amounts of political bribery take place in the Russian Federation.
In response, the Russian delegate pointed out political bias within certain news organizations within the United States and also continued to mention the supposed corruption in the Ukrainian government.
Despite the frequent attacks and argument, multiple solutions were presented as well. Some in the committee proposed returning Crimea to the Ukraine, while others supported Russian control. Others were convinced that an independent Crimea was the only way forward. Another suggested solution was the possible division of Crimea into separate Ukrainian and Russian sections. Finally, a popular solution included a possible “global referendum” in order to decide the fate of the Crimean people.
This referendum solution eventually ended up becoming the preferred solution of multiple nations. However, many expressed the possibility of bias influencing the results. Additionally, some delegates doubted that Russia would honour the referendum results.
Perhaps the greatest obstacle to this proposed solution however, was the lack of support from the Russian Federation. The delegate of Russia pointed out that a referendum had already taken place and also questioned the validity of a Ukrainian government in Crimea.
“Ukraine does not care about the Crimean people,” proclaimed the Russian delegate, arguing that Ukraine had cut off water supplies from Crimea.
Ultimately, the committee seemed largely unable to overcome political and regional divides, with much of the committee bogged down by suspicion and heated arguments.
The delegation of Canada was notably absent from the committee, leaving Canada’s voice unheard with regards to this pressing issue.
The original violence commenced following a highly controversial referendum where the majority of Crimeans voted to leave the Ukraine and join Russia. This referendum was later declared invalid by the United Nations Security Council, due to reports of paramilitary presence and possibly vote-rigging.
Following the referendum and in the wake of the Ukrainian Revolution, the Russian Federation intervened and annexed Ukraine. Since March 16, 2014, the Russian government has maintained de facto control of the region.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, along with an abundance of other world leaders, has expressed his opposition to the Russian occupation of Crimea, calling Vladimir Putin “dangerous” and “irresponsible.”
“[Canada remains] committed to the fact that Russia's interference in Ukraine must cease,” Trudeau stated at the G20 Summit in Turkey. He also told press that, “[Canada stands] with the Ukrainian people.”
As the two year anniversary approaches of Russia’s takeover of Crimea, the United Nations Development Programme has begun to discuss solutions to achieving long-term stability in a historically unstable region.
Many nations expressed their concerns with Russia’s actions in Ukraine, questioning the government’s motivations. Some nations even suggested that Russia’s motivations may have been purely financial or for the purpose of simply gaining fertile land.
Despite these criticisms, Russia maintained that their actions had the support of the Crimean people, the majority of whom are ethnically Russian. Russia also continued to explain that Russia has been the historical owner of Crimea in the past, and that Crimeans have little ethnic ties to Ukraine.
“We should respect the wishes of the Crimean people,” the Russian delegate stated. “[They] wish to be part of Russia.”
Other delegations continued to be highly critical of Russia, with one delegate even comparing Russia’s actions to the German annexation of the Sudetenland in 1938.
The Ukrainian delegate also had harsh words for Russia, calling the annexation of Crimea “illegal” and “in violation of the international law.”
Perhaps the harshest criticism of the Russian Federation came from the delegate of the United States of America, who responded strongly to Russia’s attack on corruption in the Ukrainian government.
The delegate of the United States proclaimed that Russia was “one of “the top-ten [most] corrupt nations in the world” and stated that large amounts of political bribery take place in the Russian Federation.
In response, the Russian delegate pointed out political bias within certain news organizations within the United States and also continued to mention the supposed corruption in the Ukrainian government.
Despite the frequent attacks and argument, multiple solutions were presented as well. Some in the committee proposed returning Crimea to the Ukraine, while others supported Russian control. Others were convinced that an independent Crimea was the only way forward. Another suggested solution was the possible division of Crimea into separate Ukrainian and Russian sections. Finally, a popular solution included a possible “global referendum” in order to decide the fate of the Crimean people.
This referendum solution eventually ended up becoming the preferred solution of multiple nations. However, many expressed the possibility of bias influencing the results. Additionally, some delegates doubted that Russia would honour the referendum results.
Perhaps the greatest obstacle to this proposed solution however, was the lack of support from the Russian Federation. The delegate of Russia pointed out that a referendum had already taken place and also questioned the validity of a Ukrainian government in Crimea.
“Ukraine does not care about the Crimean people,” proclaimed the Russian delegate, arguing that Ukraine had cut off water supplies from Crimea.
Ultimately, the committee seemed largely unable to overcome political and regional divides, with much of the committee bogged down by suspicion and heated arguments.
The delegation of Canada was notably absent from the committee, leaving Canada’s voice unheard with regards to this pressing issue.