Trump envoy praises fraudulent Russian referendums as real
'They're Russian speaking. There have been referendums where the overwhelming majority of the people have indicated that they want to be under Russian rule.'
— Steve Witkoff, real estate developer and Trump special envoy, in an interview with Tucker Carlson, March 21
The emerging Trump proposal to end the war caused by Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine calls for de jure (legal) recognition of Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea and de facto recognition of the Russian occupation of parts of four other Ukrainian regions during the conflict. The plan was largely developed by Witkoff, a close friend of President Donald Trump with no prior experience in diplomacy.
This would be an extraordinary concession that conflicts with U.S. policy in place for generations — a refusal to recognize seizures of territory by other nations. Anyone growing up in the 1960s would remember that every atlas contained a notation that the United States did not recognize the absorption of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania into the Soviet Union. The same principle led the United States to organize a coalition of nations to oust Iraq from Kuwait after it invaded and renamed Kuwait its 19th province.
In his interview with Carlson and in other statements, Witkoff has suggested that the people in these regions want to be part of Russia, citing as evidence referendums held under Russian occupation. Let's examine what actually happened. (A spokesman for Witkoff did not respond to questions.)
On Feb. 27, 2014, Russian forces seized Crimea. Russia already had at least 12,500 troops at Sevastopol, a Crimean port leased by Russia and also used by the Ukrainian navy.
Crimea had been an important part of Russia since Catherine the Great seized it from the Ottoman Empire in 1783. For reasons that remain a mystery, in 1954, Communist Party leader Nikita Khrushchev convinced the Supreme Soviet — which had the formal authority to ratify a transfer of territory — to make Crimea part of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Historian William Taubman, in his Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of Khrushchev, said the onetime party boss of Ukraine had long tried to expand its territory and even tried to take Crimea for Ukraine 10 years earlier, in 1944.
Crimea was populated mostly by Tatars until Russian dictator Joseph Stalin deported the whole population in 1944. According to the last official Ukrainian census, in 2001, 60 percent of Crimea's population was Russian, 24 percent Ukrainian and 10 percent Tatar.
Despite that majority-Russian population, Crimea voted to join Ukraine after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, though it was approved by a narrow majority (54 percent) compared with other areas of Ukraine.
It's also worth recalling that a cache of more than 1,000 strategic nuclear weapons were on Ukraine's soil when the Soviet Union dissolved. That instantly made Ukraine the world's third-biggest nuclear power, with more weapons than Britain, France and China combined. In the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, Russia, along with the United States and Britain, agreed to 'refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine' in exchange for Ukraine's joining the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and giving up the weapons.
Putin's seizure of Crimea violated that agreement.
During his first term and in a recent interview with Time magazine, Trump claimed that President Barack Obama handed Crimea to Russia — when, in fact, Obama rallied European leaders to sanction Moscow.
In 2014, just days after Russia's action, Trump had a different take. In a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference, Trump extolled Putin for the 'smart' idea of invading Crimea after the Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, had concluded. Trump acknowledged that Putin seized the territory.
'You know he didn't want to do it during the Olympics,' Trump said on March 6. 'Boom. The day after. Saw our athletes leave, we all leave and the day after. And you know when he goes in and takes Crimea, he's taking the heart and soul because that's where all the money is. I was surprised I heard that the other day they were saying most of the wealth comes right from that area. That's the area with the wealth. So that means the rest of Ukraine will fall and it's predicted to fall fairly quickly.'
On March 16, a referendum was held on whether Crimea should become part of Russia. But it's ludicrous to say the results were valid. The referendum took place only nine days after it was announced, with television broadcasts by Ukrainian channels blocked.
Moreover, there was no option to vote 'no' and return to the preinvasion status quo. Instead, the two options were to join Russia — what the ballot called 'reunification' — or become a quasi-independent state beholden to Russia.
A McClatchy news report at the time reported serious irregularities. Tatars and the local Ukrainian community announced a boycott of the vote, but witnesses described a convoy of Russian minibuses and cars crossing the border and heading to polling stations in Tatar areas to cast ballots. Putin claimed 82 percent turnout — for a 96 percent 'yes' vote — but McClatchy said data sent by local officials to the Russian FSB intelligence agency showed that only 34.2 percent of the Crimean population took part.
The referendum also did not comply with existing laws.
The Ukrainian constitution, in Article 73, said that 'alterations to the territory of Ukraine shall be resolved exclusively by the All-Ukrainian referendum,' described in Article 72 as a national referendum called either by the parliament or the president, or as a popular initiative with 3 million signatures from at least two-thirds of administrative districts known as oblasts. The Crimea referendum, set up by local authorities, met none of those conditions.
Under the Ukrainian constitution, Crimea, as an autonomous republic, had specially designated powers. But Article 134 states: 'The Autonomous Republic of Crimea shall be an integral constituent part of Ukraine and shall resolve issues relegated to its authority within the frame of its reference, determined by the Constitution of Ukraine.'
Russia also claimed overwhelming support in sham referendums held in regions occupied by Russian forces, which it then used to justify the claimed annexation of the regions its forces partially occupied.
As a matter of international law, an occupying military power is not permitted to gain sovereignty over occupied territory, but instead is supposed to preserve the status quo ante. Thus the referendums, held between Sept. 23 and Sept. 27, were illegal. The U.N. General Assembly condemned the annexation by a vote of 143-5.
The referendums essentially offered one question: Do you approve of joining Russia? Votes were often collected by election officials going door-to-door with ballots, accompanied by armed soldiers, according to news reports and videos, with votes taken verbally by household.
Human Rights Watch collected quotes about the process.
Witkoff made a fortune in real estate and appears to view a peace agreement as a real estate deal. But in accepting the orchestrated Russian referendums as real — 'the overwhelming majority of the people have indicated that they want to be under Russian rule' — in effect, he's allowing squatters to determine what kind of building should be built. We doubt that would be considered acceptable in his business dealings.
The referendums were conducted under martial law, with dubious or coercive election procedures, and offered no real choices. Despite his desire to end the war, Witkoff shouldn't pretend these referendums were conducted in ways that would be allowed in the United States. He earns Four Pinocchios.
(About our rating scale)
Send us facts to check by filling out this form
Sign up for The Fact Checker weekly newsletter
The Fact Checker is a verified signatory to the International Fact-Checking Network code of principles
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
17 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
NATO leaders are set to agree a historic defense spending pledge, but the hike won't apply to all
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — NATO leaders are expected to agree this week that member countries should spend 5% of their gross domestic product on defense, except the new and much vaunted investment pledge will not apply to all of them. Spain has reached a deal with NATO to be excluded from the 5% of GDP spending target, while President Donald Trump said the figure shouldn't apply to the United States, only its allies. In announcing Spain's decision Sunday, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said the spending pledge language in NATO's final summit communique — a one-page text of perhaps half a dozen paragraphs — would no longer refer to 'all allies.' It raises questions about what demands could be insisted on from other members of the alliance like Belgium, Canada, France and Italy that also would struggle to hike security spending by billions of dollars. On Friday, Trump insisted the U.S. has carried its allies for years and now they must step up. 'I don't think we should, but I think they should,' he said. 'NATO is going to have to deal with Spain.' Trump also branded Canada 'a low payer.' NATO's new spending goals The 5% goal is made up of two parts. The allies would agree to hike pure defense spending to 3.5% of GDP, up from the current target of at least 2%, which 22 of the 32 countries have achieved. Money spent to arm Ukraine also would count. A further 1.5% would include upgrading roads, bridges, ports and airfields so armies can better deploy, establishing measures to counter cyber and hybrid attacks and preparing societies for future conflict. The second spending basket is easy for most nations, including Spain. Much can be included. But the 3.5% on core spending is a massive challenge. Last year, Spain spent 1.28% of GDP on its military budget, according to NATO estimates, making it the alliance's lowest spender. Sánchez said Spain would be able to respect its commitments to NATO by spending 2.1% of GDP on defense needs. Spain also is among Europe's smallest suppliers of arms and ammunition to Ukraine, according to the Kiel Institute, which tracks such support. It's estimated to have sent about 800,000 euros ($920,000) worth of military aid since Russia invaded in 2022. Beyond Spain's economic challenges, Sánchez has other problems. He relies on small parties to govern and corruption scandals have ensnared his inner circle and family members. He is under growing pressure to call an early election. Why the spending increase is needed There are solid reasons for ramping up spending. The Europeans believe Russia's war on Ukraine poses an existential threat to them. Moscow has been blamed for a major rise in sabotage, cyberattacks and GPS jamming incidents. European leaders are girding their citizens for the possibility of more. The alliance's plans for defending Europe and North America against a Russian attack require investments of at least 3%, NATO experts have said. All 32 allies have endorsed these. Each country has been assigned 'capability targets' to play its part. Spanish Foreign Minister José Albares said Monday that 'the debate must be not a raw percentage but around capabilities.' He said Spain 'can reach the capabilities that have been fixed by the organization with 2.1%.' Countries much closer to Russia, Belarus and Ukraine all have agreed to reach the target, as well as nearby Germany, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands, which is hosting the two-day summit starting Tuesday. The Netherlands estimates NATO's defense plans would force it to dedicate at least 3.5% to core defense spending. That means finding an additional 16 billion to 19 billion euros ($18 billion to $22 billion). Setting a deadline It's not enough to agree to spend more money. Many allies haven't yet hit an earlier 2% target that they agreed in 2014 after Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. So an incentive is required. The date of 2032 has been floated as a deadline. That is far shorter than previous NATO targets, but military planners estimate Russian forces could be capable of launching an attack on an ally within five to 10 years. The U.S. insists it cannot be an open-ended pledge and a decade is too long. Still, Italy says it wants 10 years to hit the 5% target. The possibility of stretching that period to 2035 also has been on the table for debate among NATO envoys. An official review of progress could also be conducted in 2029, NATO diplomats have said. ___ Suman Naishadham in Madrid contributed to this report.
CNN
28 minutes ago
- CNN
Supreme Court prepares to release major opinions on birthright citizenship, LGBTQ books, porn sites
From digging into President Donald Trump's battle with the courts to deciding whether people can be required to identify themselves before viewing porn online, the Supreme Court in the coming days will deliver its most dramatic decisions of the year. With most of its pending rulings complete, the justices are now working toward issuing the final flurry of opinions that could have profound implications for the Trump administration, the First Amendment and millions of American people. Already, the conservative Supreme Court has allowed states to ban transgender care for minors — a blockbuster decision that could have far-reaching consequences — sided with the Food and Drug Administration's denial of vaping products and upheld Biden-era federal regulations that will make it easier to track 'ghost guns.' Here are some of the most important outstanding cases: The first argued appeal involving Trump's second term has quickly emerged as the most significant case the justices will decide in the coming days. The Justice Department claims that three lower courts vastly overstepped their authority by imposing nationwide injunctions that blocked the president from enforcing his order limiting birthright citizenship. Whatever the justices say about the power of courts to halt a president's executive order on a nationwide basis could have an impact beyond birthright citizenship. Trump has, for months, vociferously complained about courts pausing dozens of his policies with nationwide injunctions. While the question is important on its own — it could shift the balance of power between the judicial and executive branches — the case was supercharged by the policy at issue: Whether a president can sign an executive order that upends more than a century of understanding, the plain text of the 14th Amendment and multiple Supreme Court precedents pointing to the idea that people born in the US are US citizens. During the May 15 arguments, conservative and liberal justices seemed apprehensive to let the policy take effect. The high court is also set to decide whether a school district in suburban Washington, DC, burdened the religious rights of parents by declining to allow them to opt their elementary-school children out of reading LGBTQ books in the classroom. As part of its English curriculum, Montgomery County Public Schools approved a handful of books in 2022 at issue. One, 'Prince & Knight,' tells the story of a prince who does not want to marry any of the princesses in his realm. After teaming up with a knight to slay a dragon, the two fall in love, 'filling the king and queen with joy,' according to the school's summary. The parents said the reading of the books violated their religious beliefs. The case arrived at the Supreme Court at a moment when parents and public school districts have been engaged in a tense struggle over how much sway families should have over instruction. The Supreme Court's conservative majority signaled during arguments in late April that it would side with the parents in the case, continuing the court's yearslong push to expand religious rights. The court is juggling several major cases challenging the power of federal agencies. One of those deals with the creation of a task force that recommends which preventive health care services must be covered at no cost under Obamacare. Though the case deals with technical questions about who should appoint the members of a board that makes those recommendations, the decision could affect the ability of Americans to access cost-free services under the Affordable Care Act such as certain cancer screenings and PrEP drugs that help prevent HIV infections. During arguments in late April, the court signaled it may uphold the task force. The court also seemed skeptical of a conservative challenge to the Universal Service Fund, which Congress created in 1996 to pay for programs that expand broadband and phone service in rural and low-income communities. Phone companies contribute billions to that fund, a cost that is passed on to consumers. A conservative group challenged the fund as an unconstitutional 'delegation' of the power of Congress to levy taxes. If the court upholds the structure of the programs' funding, that would represent a departure from its trend in recent years of limiting the power of agencies to act without explicit approval from Congress. For years, the Supreme Court has considered whether congressional districts redrawn every decade violate the rights of Black voters under the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. This year, the justices are being asked by a group of White voters whether Louisiana went so far in adding a second Black-majority district that it violated the 14th Amendment. The years-old, messy legal battle over Louisiana's districts raises a fundamental question about how much state lawmakers may think about race when drawing congressional maps. The answer may have implications far beyond the Bayou State, particularly if a majority of the court believes it is time to move beyond policies intended to protect minority voters that were conceived during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Arguments in the case, which took place in March, were mixed. A ruling against Louisiana would likely jeopardize the state's second Black and Democratic-leaning congressional district, currently held by Rep. Cleo Fields, a Democrat. And any change to Fields' territory could affect the boundaries of districts held by House Speaker Mike Johnson and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise. The justices will also decide a fight that erupted in 2018 when South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster yanked Medicaid funding for the state's two Planned Parenthood clinics. Technically, the legal dispute isn't about abortion — federal and state law already bar Medicaid from paying for that procedure — but a win for South Carolina could represent a financial blow to an entity that provides access to abortion in many parts of the country. McMaster, a Republican, argued the payments were a taxpayer subsidy for abortion. McMaster's order had the effect of also blocking patients from receiving other services at Planned Parenthood. A patient named Julie Edwards, who has diabetes, and Planned Parenthood South Atlantic sued the state, noting that federal law gives Medicaid patients a right to access care at any qualified doctor's office willing to see them. The legal dispute for the court deals with whether Medicaid patients have a right to sue to enforce requirements included in spending laws approved by Congress — in this case, the mandate that patients can use the benefit at any qualified doctor's office. Without a right to sue, Planned Parenthood argues, it would be impossible to enforce those requirements. The Supreme Court has tended to view such rights-to-sue with skepticism, though a 7-2 majority found such a right in a related case two years ago. The court is expected to release more opinions Thursday and will need at least one other day — and possibly several more — to finish its work.
CNBC
29 minutes ago
- CNBC
Treasury yields inch higher after U.S. bombs Iran
U.S. Treasury yields inched higher on Monday after the U.S. bombing of Iran and as investors awaited a batch of key economic data this week. At 5:25 a.m. ET, the 10-year yield was more than 1 basis point higher at 4.387%, and the 30-year yield moved over 1 basis point higher to 4.903%. The 2-year yield also added 1 basis point to reach 3.918%. One basis point is equal to 0.01%, and yields and prices move in opposite directions. Investors are on high alert after the U.S. entered the war between Israel and Iran on Saturday by attacking Iranian nuclear sites in Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan. "There will be either peace, or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days. Remember, there are many targets left," Trump said from the White House after the strikes. Investors, who were formerly expecting diplomacy, are now bracing for Iran's retaliation. That could include targeting U.S. personnel in nearby bases or closing the Strait of Hormuz, which would disrupt global oil flows. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on social media that the U.S. attacks would have "everlasting consequences," and that "every member of the United Nations must be alarmed over this extremely dangerous, lawless and criminal behavior." Deutsche Bank analysts said in a note, "In terms of the economic impact, the US has turned into a net energy exporter in the last few years so any negative impact would be through deteriorating financial conditions or through higher for longer rates as the Fed have another reason to delay cuts." Investors will also await a series of economic data this week, including existing home sales data for May on Monday, gross domestic product growth rate on Thursday, and the personal consumption expenditures index on Friday.
