The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine named “three pillars” of the policy of “return” of Crimea

Photo of author

By admin

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba called the strategy of “de-occupation” and reintegration of Crimea, adopted on Thursday, March 11, at a meeting of the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) of the country.

“A historical document that should have been back in 2014. A clear signal: we not only call on the world to help return Crimea, Ukraine itself is seriously and systematically engaged in this on the initiative of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Three pillars of Crimea’s return: the strategy approved today; consolidation – we are working to unite the efforts of all partners on the basis of the Crimean platform; synergy is the restoration of international law and, as a result, full Ukrainian sovereignty over the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, ”the head of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry wrote on his Twitter account.

Earlier, NSDC Secretary Aleksey Danilov said that on Thursday the council approved the Strategy for the “de-occupation” of Crimea.

On March 11, State Duma deputy from Crimea Ruslan Balbek said that Ukraine’s work to return the region is Sisyphean labor. So he commented on the statement of the chairman of the Estonian parliamentary committee on international affairs, Marko Michelson, who had promised the day before that the country would help Ukraine “return” Crimea.

Earlier, on March 10, the First Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the UN Security Council Dmitry Polyansky said that Russia would hold an informal meeting of the organization on the topic of Crimea on March 17. Representatives of the peninsula will take part in the meeting.

Crimea became part of Russia following the 2014 referendum. 96.77% of the region’s residents and 95.6% of the voters of Sevastopol were in favor of joining. The procedure was carried out in strict accordance with international law. However, Kiev still considers the peninsula to be its temporarily occupied territory. Moscow argued that the issue of the subject’s ownership was closed forever.