Vince Dhimos answered a question on Quora.
Russia's foreign affairs minister claims, “the protection of Russian speakers and of Russian culture and language is policy." Is it really Kremlin policy that anyone who speaks Russian is a de facto Russian citizen, under the "protection" of Moscow?
Vince Dhimos, knows Russian
Updated Jul 5
I wanted to answer but was unable to find this quote. I also was unable to find confirmation that the Kremlin considers Russian speakers citizens of Russia. Do you have a link? Thank you.
Ok, now that the querier has supplied a link. Here is my response:
This question contains, in the first sentence, a statement that is correct but the question that follows, in the second sentence, is a non-sequitur because the Kremlin most certainly does not consider all Russian speakers as Russian citizens. So why would anyone jump to such a non-sequitur? If this proposition were true, all graduates of Russian departments in all Western universities would be eligible for Russian citizenship. Does anyone really believe such nonsense would ever occur to the highly professional foreign minister Sergey Lavrov?
I do understand the concern, however, because Russia is offering citizenship to people in Donbass, to Ukrainians who were born in the Soviet Union and to others, and possibly, in the future, to any Ukrainian who wants to be a Russian citizen. Although this is not a normal situation, the radical change in the Ukrainian government was not due to a democratic vote but to an illegal and violent coup instigated and promoted by the US, ie, by US NGOs including a Soros foundation, the NED and USAID, all 3 of which are notorious for attempting illegal coups against democratically elected governments, and possibly by NGOs funded by one or more of these groups, and also, incredibly, by the US State Department, which sent Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland to the Maidan to hand out cookies to help con the Kievans into ousting President Yanukovich, who was pro-Russian – which was of course the real motive behind the efforts to oust him, and not any urgent desire to offer Ukraine membership in the EU. In other words, the goal was to eventually make Ukraine a member of NATO and bring this dangerous alliance to within striking distance of Russia (if you think I am exaggerating to call it dangerous, recall that in 1998-9 NATO slaughtered 13,500 Europeans with its air force and destroyed the infrastructure of a European nation, based on a false narrative of “genocide” that was later debunked by a UN investigation, as recounted here at Quora: Vince Dhimos's answer to Why hasn’t NATO evaluated its “peacekeeping”experience to identify and implement best practices for transitioning failed states into functional democracy?.) This same Nuland wielded such unbridled power that, according to a leaked phone conversation with a US ambassador, she disclosed that she wanted (on behalf of the US) a certain Arseniy Yatsenyuk as the president of Ukraine. On the phone, she referred to him as Yats. And sure enough, due to the unlimited power of the US. Yatsenyuk did indeed become president. This effort was done in the name of “democracy,” and yet how can having Ukraine’s president chosen by the US –instead of by the Ukrainian people – be called democracy? It is a total denial of sovereignty and a mockery of democracy! Yet on the whole, the Western people accepted this sham without question.
Senator John McCain also participated in the Maidan coup, meeting with Neonazi anti-Semitic Oleh Tyahnybok (photo here John McCain Went To Ukraine And Stood On Stage With A Man Accused Of Being An Anti-Semitic Neo-Nazi). To achieve this coup, the US agencies and their European partners, including the Adenauer Stiftung, also notorious for its habit of attempting coups d´état (as described in this German language report (use Google Translate if you need to): Deutsche Parteistiftungen arbeiten am Sturz linker Regierungen in Lateinamerika), told Ukrainians they were eligible to be associate members of the EU. This was a false promise, held out as bait (Dutch Foreign Policy and the relations between Russia and the Netherlands.) Their real goal had nothing to do with helping Ukraine at all. They just wanted to control the territory to deprive Russia of an ally and trading partner. It was naked racist hostility aimed at harming an entire ethnicity – the Russian one, though it incidentally harmed the trusting Ukrainians even more. Because after all, there was no longer a Soviet Union inimical to the interests of the West. Russia very much wanted to be part of the West at time.
Also involved were Poland (Dutch Foreign Policy and the relations between Russia and the Netherlands) and Holland, which both supported the Maidan coup.
In other words, although the Western media almost all keep up a false narrative that the Russians are the aggressors, the one who initiated this whole fiasco were the US and its allies. Without their aggressive regime change actions, there would be no need to protect the Donbass or Crimea. If Russia were really aggressive as is claimed, it would have occupied Crimea much earlier, shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union. The reason for holding a quick referendum in Crimea was that Kiev, under pressure from the anti-Russian US government, was starting to ban the Russian language in public in various parts of the country – denying people their own culture that they loved and identified with – and Crimeans saw themselves as being eventually targeted by this law. As for Donbass, the para-military in the Russian-speaking self-proclaimed republics, Lugansk and Donetsk People’s Republics, is not associated with the Russian Federation. It is home-grown, commanded and led by citizens of these republics. But the entire Western Establishment is spreading the narrative that these defenders are associated with the Russian Federation. Any excuse will do to smear the Russians and give NATO a pretext to surround and hem in the RF. One of the main reasons for all the anti-Russian propaganda in the West is to give NATO an excuse to exist. Indeed, the original sole purpose of NATO was to defend against the Soviet Union, and when the Union collapsed in 1991, the US and NATO had to scramble to fabricate a new raison d'être, cut from whole cloth. Otherwise, the bureaucrats who made a cushy living by maintaining this lucrative bureaucracy would have lost their employment and would have had to find real jobs. And the US arms makers would have lost a lucrative market for arms not really all needed for security – purchased with a staggering debt load that threatens to bring down the US economy. Maintaining this scary anti-Russian narrative was an easy task because the existence of a giant communist conglomerate in Europe had struck fear in the hearts of Westerners and all the Establishment had to do was transfer this fear to the Russian Federation in the minds of an ignorant and compliant populace who knew next to nothing about the culture and history of Eastern Europe and would buy any yarn the Western Establishment fed it.
So were there any precedents for the Russian actions in Crimea? For example, the granting of Russian citizenship to Ukrainians? Or the secession of a territory belonging to one country and its accession to another country?
As a matter of fact, regarding the granting of citizenship to residents of Donbass and other parts of Ukraine, there had been a similar situation of a nation that had been granted citizenship in another in one fell swoop. That is, the Algerians were granted their independence from France in 1963, and because Algeria had been a colony up until then where all citizens were also colonial citizens of France, the free Algerians suddenly found themselves with dual citizenship.
The pertinent Article 23 of French citizenship law can be summed up as follows:
"Since Algeria was an integral part of France until 1963 [independence], persons born in Algeria before its independence, count, for the purpose of citizenship, as having been born in France.”
An analogous situation with the secession of Crimea from Ukraine and its accession to the Russian Federation existed in Texas, which in the early 19th Century, filled up with Americans, who eventually became the majority and broke away from Mexico, in 1836, after which Texas became a US state in 1845. The same principle applied as in Crimea. Like the vast majority of Crimeans who perceived themselves as Russians, these American residents of Texas perceived themselves as Americans, and eventually, on this principle, they gained independence and acceded to the US. The same Westerners who claim that Crimea acceded to Russia “illegally” never stop to think that Texas acceded to the US government in the very same way and for the very same reasons, namely, a feeling, or perception, of belonging to another country than the one they found themselves in at a given period of time. The Texans spoke English first rather than Spanish (which they may have spoken only as a second language if at all) and identified with the American culture. Likewise, the Crimeans spoke Russian as their first, or mother, language and spoke Ukrainian only as a second language, if at all. And identified with the Russian culture.
There is only one major difference between the situation around Texas and the situation around Crimea and that is, the people who acceded to the other country went to Russia and not to a Western nation. That is the only difference, because it is a simple matter of a group perceiving itself as a nation with a national identity as Russians, and it is the only reason many Westerners object to the Crimeans officially becoming Russians. In other words, the objections are based on a hatred and mistrust of an entire ethnicity (Russian) – that is, on racism. The entire West is therefore in fact a victim of its own racism, which is so strong that it seems to be leading to a war, and not just any war, but to a nuclear war. Imagine, an entire region allowing itself to be dragged into war and the possible demise of the planet not for any rational motive but simple because of an irrational historical racism whose motivation no one could possibly articulate on the basis of reason!
That is where we stand today. Perhaps the situation will get better if enough people wake up and see the reality of what they are blindly supporting, and put aside the Establishment’s hypocritical narrative of “Russian aggression.” It certainly cannot get worse.