Sanctions are the problem of Crimea

As a reminder: the economic sanctions against Crimea were decided in the UN in 2014 with 100 out of a possible 193 votes, that is, with three votes above the absolute majority. The yes-Sagers included the four European miniature States Liechtenstein, San Marino, Andorra and Monaco with a combined population of less than 200,000, while China and India with a combined population of 2.8 billion abstained. “Democracy” of a special kind.

In a report by NZZ correspondent Ulrich Schmid on 5 December, it was reported that the economy in Crimea was not going well and that the inhabitants there exchanged their joy at the reunification of Crimea with Russia after initial enthusiasm for disillusionment and disappointment. It was not mentioned at all that the economic Situation in Crimea is still unsatisfactory primarily because of precisely these Western sanctions. According to the NZZ, Russia is, of course," to blame " for the economically unsatisfactory situation in Crimea.

After criticism of many alternative media a second report appeared and behold there it is written differently.

Despite the boom in state-fired construction, Crimea is still a poor Region. It is not easy to bring the Peninsula in drive. Around 700,000 people, more than 30 percent of the population, are pensioners. The productive economy has little of them. The EU sanctions weigh heavily.

A large part of the new report describes the problems with the water in Crimea since Ukraine closed the Soviet-built canal from the Dnepr to the relatively dry northern Crimea with a dam after the separation of Crimea from Ukraine in order to dry up the local agriculture.

Ukraine has done everything since 1991 to destroy the people of Crimea’s identity as belonging to Russia and Russian culture. “Kiev” long wanted to know nothing more about the autonomy granted to Crimea via vote in 1991, and for more than 20 years tried everything to expel the Crimean people from their native language, Russian, and to force the Ukrainian language on them. similar to the population in Luhansk and Donetsk. But while this forced “nationalization” in Luhansk and Donetsk led to a civil war with more than 13,000 deaths so far, the attempt to “de-Russify” Crimea in spring 2014 led to a Referendum in which the vast majority agreed to secede from Ukraine and reunite Crimea with Russia, which was then also carried out in a very short time.

And how did Ukraine react? It suspended the Crimea from the Ukrainian power supply and closed the channel that brought water from the Dnieper over 400 km to the arid north of Crimea. As a result, the local agriculture is massively affected, Hunger is not far away.

The question is allowed: is cutting off the water supply permitted under international law and morally in order to make former citizens compliant? And this from a state which in turn publicly claims that the famine “Holodomor” of 1932/33 was deliberately created by Stalin and must be classified internationally as genocide? Is cutting off the water supply not also the conscious generation of Hunger?