DOCSLIB.ORG

Memorial on Admissibility on Behalf of the Government of Ukraine

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Memorial on Admissibility on Behalf of the Government of Ukraine Ukraine v. Russia (re Eastern Ukraine) APPLICATION NO. 8019/16 Kyiv, 8 November 2019 MEMORIAL ON ADMISSIBILITY ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1. The Russian Federation has consistently denied its involvement in the conflict in eastern Ukraine, and has sought to evade international legal responsibility by adopting a series of measures to disguise and “outsource” its military aggression in eastern Ukraine. The Kremlin’s denials of direct involvement were implausible from the outset, and were roundly rejected by the international community. All of the relevant international institutions rightly hold Moscow responsible for a pattern of conduct that has been designed to destabilise Ukraine by sponsoring separatist entities in the use of armed force against the legitimate Government and members of the civilian population. Almost from the outset, the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the European Union, and the G7 all re-affirmed Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders, and condemned the Russian Federation’s continuing proxy war in eastern Ukraine. As the conflict has continued, the evidence of Russia’s direct and indirect involvement in the violent rebellion in Donbass has become more and more apparent. Despite Russia’s crude attempts to conceal its involvement, the proof of Russian State responsibility has steadily mounted. In the face of the obvious truth, Russia’s policy of implausible deniability has fallen apart completely. 2. Ukraine submits that the human rights violations committed by Russian forces and their proxies, as particularised in this application, fall directly within Russia’s extra-territorial jurisdiction for the purposes of article 1 of the Convention. This is the result of the straightforward application of the Court’s well-settled principles governing extra-territorial jurisdiction and accountability for human rights violations committed by a Contracting State outside its national territory. Ukraine invokes both (a) the principle of effective control of territory (directly and through subordinate local forces); and (b) State agent authority and control over the victims of the violations alleged, as the legal basis for establishing Russian “jurisdiction” within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. 3. The multiple violations alleged in this case plainly constitute a pattern or system: a series of violations of the same or similar character, connected by motivation, place and time. They reflect a joint enterprise amounting to an administrative practice for the purposes of Convention liability in inter-State proceedings. The purpose of the application is to vindicate the human rights of the victims; to bring these 1 administrative practices to an end; and to prevent a recurrence. 4. The international community has rightly categorised the conflict in eastern Ukraine as an international armed conflict to which the Russian Federation is a State party. In her regular reporting to the UN Security Council, the ICC Prosecutor has formally determined that “direct military engagement between the respective armed forces of the Russian Federation and Ukraine indicated the existence of an international armed conflict in eastern Ukraine from 14 July 2014”.1 On 7 September 2014, echoing the Prosecutor’s analysis, Amnesty International categorised the conflict in eastern Ukraine as an international armed conflict involving both Russian regular and proxy forces2 5. The Council of Europe has also recognised the reality of Russian State responsibility for instigating the conflict. On 28 January 2015, the Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) adopted Resolution 2034 (2015) condemning Russia’s role in the conflict in eastern Ukraine, expressly recognising that Russia was responsible for instigating the conflict in the first place, as well for escalating it ever since. The resolution condemned Russia’s actions as a grave violation of international law, in general, and of the Statute of the Council of Europe, in particular.3 The relevant passage reads: “The Assembly is extremely concerned about the developments in eastern Ukraine and condemns Russia’s role in instigating and escalating these developments, including with arms supplies to insurgent forces and covert military action by Russian troops inside eastern Ukraine, which are a gross violation of international law, including the Statute of the Council of Europe as well as of the Minsk Protocol to which Russia is a party. In addition, the Assembly expresses its dismay about the participation of large numbers of Russian “volunteers” in the conflict in eastern Ukraine without any apparent action of the Russian authorities to stop this participation, despite it being in violation of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation itself. It takes note of credible reports of burials of soldiers on Russian territory. The Assembly condemns the violation of the territorial integrity and borders of a Council of Europe member State by the Russian Federation.” 6. On 12 October 2016, PACE adopted Resolution 2133 (2016) which has a direct bearing on the issues before the Court. The resolution was concerned with the absence of effective legal remedies for human rights violations occurring on those parts of the territory of Ukraine that were no longer under effective Government control. The resolution reflects a clear conclusion of the Parliamentary branch of the Council of Europe that Russia bears legal responsibility for the widespread campaign of human rights violations in those parts of Donbass, and unequivocally concluded that the Russian Federation was in effective control of the territory occupied by the DPR and LPR. 1 www.icc-cpi.int/itemsDocuments/181205-rep-otp-PE-ENG.pdf 2https://web.archive.org/web/20150912102834/https://www.amnesty.org/en/press- releases/2014/09/ukraine-mounting-evidence-war-crimes-and-russian-involvement/ 3 http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-EN.asp?fileid=21538&lang=en 2 7. In reaching this conclusion, as one would expect, PACE faithfully applied the legal test for effective control laid down in this Court’s caselaw: “In the “DPR” and the “LPR”, effective control is based on the crucial and well-documented role of Russian military personnel in taking over and maintaining power in these regions, against the determined resistance of the legitimate Ukrainian authorities, and on the complete dependence of these regions on Russia in logistical, financial and administrative matters... Under international law, the Russian Federation, which exercises de facto control over these territories, is responsible for the protection of their populations. Russia must therefore guarantee the human rights of all inhabitants.” 4 8. Based on consistent international reporting, the resolution recorded that in the areas of the Ukrainian Donbass that were under Russia’s effective control, there had been a widespread pattern of grave Convention violations: “In the conflict zone in the Donbas region, the civilian population and a large number of combatants were subjected to violations of their rights life and physical integrity and to the free enjoyment of property, as a result of war crimes and crimes against humanity including the indiscriminate or even intentional shelling of civilian areas.”5 9. The finding that war crimes and crimes against humanity had been committed by pro-Russian forces in Donbass necessary amounts to a conclusion that these violations are legally attributable to the Russian Federation. In light of its findings that Ukraine had lost control of the territory, and that the “courts” of the de facto “administrations” in the DPR and LPR are illegal and illegitimate, the PACE resolution necessarily implies that there are no effective legal remedies potentially available in the national legal system. The European Court of Human Rights is thus the only avenue of effective legal redress available. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 3 CHAPTER 2: THE COURT’S QUESTIONS ON ADMISSIBILITY QuestioN 1: Does the Court have “jurisdiction” to rule on the present case? Ukraine’s answer 10. Yes. The violations alleged in the present case all fall within the “jurisdiction” of the Russian Federation for the purposes of article 1 of the Convention. The Convention applies ratione materiae, ratione temporis and ratione personae to the violation alleged. Article 35 sets out the admissibility criteria to be applied by the Court in an inter-State case. The additional admissibility criteria applicable in an individual application (including the requirement to demonstrate that an application is not “manifestly ill-founded” or “an abuse of the right of individual petition”) have no application at the admissibility stage of an inter-State application. The Court’s evidential standard 11. Russia argues that the quality of the evidence adduced by the Ukrainian Government is inconclusive, and that this provides support for the argument that the application is inadmissible. The submission is inconsistent with the overwhelming body of evidence set out in Chapter 3 and Appendix 1 below and, in any event, does not amount to an admissibility objection in the context of an inter-State application. It is now well-settled that, in inter-State proceedings, the Court is not required to conduct a preliminary assessment of the evidential merits, of the kind that is routinely carried out when considering the admissibility of an individual application. 12. An inter-State application that has been brought within the six-month time limit is only to be declared inadmissible if it is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention, or if the allegations of the applicant Government are “wholly unsubstantiated” or are “lacking the requirements of a genuine allegation in the sense of Article 33 of the Convention”. That threshold is plainly surmounted. Beyond that, it is not for the Court to assess the weight of the evidence at the admissibility stage. As the Court ruled in Georgia v. Russia (I) 13255/07 (30 June 2009), a preliminary consideration of the merits is simply not part of the Court’s function at the admissibility stage in an inter-State case: “43.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Summer 09.Qxd
    David Lewis, senior research fellow in the Department of Peace Studies at the University of Bradford, England, served previously as director of the International Crisis Group’s Central Asia Project, based in Kyrgyzstan. High Times on the Silk Road The Central Asian Paradox David Lewis In medieval times, traders carried jewels, seems like a major threat to the region, spices, perfumes , and fabulous fabrics along since it is so inextricably linked to violent the legendary Silk Route through Central crime and political instability in many other Asia. Today, the goods are just as valuable, parts of the world . More people died in but infinitely more dangerous. Weapons and Mexican drug violence in 2009 than in Iraq. equipment for American troops in Afghan- In Brazil , the government admits about istan travel from west to east, along the 23,000 drug-related homicides each year— vital lifeline of the Northern Supply Route. some ten times the number of civilians In the other direction, an unadvertised, but killed in the war in Afghanistan . And it ’s no less deadly product travels along the not just Latin America that suffers. On same roads, generating billions of dollars in Afghanistan’s border with Iran, there are illicit profits. As much as 25 percent of regular clashes between Iranian counter- Afghanistan’s heroin production is exported narcotics units and drug smugglers. Hun - through the former Soviet states of Central dreds of border guards have been killed Asia, and the UN’s drug experts express over the past decade in fights with heroin grave concerns . Antonio Maria Costa, head and opium traffickers.
    [Show full text]
  • 14819/06 DCL 1 /Dl GSC.SMART.2.C Delegations Will Find Attached The
    Council of the European Union Brussels, 1 August 2018 (OR. en) 14819/06 DCL 1 SCH-EVAL 177 FRONT 221 COMIX 916 DECLASSIFICATION of document: ST14819/06 RESTREINT UE/EU RESTRICTED dated: 10 November 2006 new status: Public Subject: Schengen evaluation of the new Member States - POLAND : report on Land Borders Delegations will find attached the declassified version of the above document. The text of this document is identical to the previous version. 14819/06 DCL 1 /dl GSC.SMART.2.C EN RESTREINT COUNCIL OF Brussels, 10 November 2006 THE EUROPEAN UNION 14819/06 RESTREINT UE SCH-EVAL 177 FRONT 221 COMIX 916 REPORT from: the Land BordersEvaluation Committee to: the Schengen Evaluation Working Party Subject : Schengen evaluation of the new Member States - POLAND : report on Land Borders TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 3 2. Management summary ............................................................................................................... 4 3. General information .................................................................................................................... 5 3.1. Strategy ............................................................................................................................. 5 3.2. Organisational (functional) structure ................................................................................ 9 3.3. Operational effectiveness ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 024682/EU XXVI. GP Eingelangt Am 05/06/18
    024682/EU XXVI. GP Eingelangt am 05/06/18 Council of the European Union Brussels, 5 June 2018 (OR. en) 8832/1/06 REV 1 DCL 1 SCH-EVAL 78 FRONT 89 COMIX 408 DECLASSIFICATION of document: ST8832/1/06 REV 1 RESTREINT UE/EU RESTRICTED dated: 20 July 2006 new status: Public Subject: Schengen evaluation of the new Member States - POLAND: report on Sea Borders Delegations will find attached the declassified version of the above document. The text of this document is identical to the previous version. 8832/1/06 REV 1 DCL 1 /dl DGF 2C EN www.parlament.gv.at RESTREINT UE COUNCIL OF Brussels, 20 July 2006 THE EUROPEAN UNION 8832/1/06 REV 1 RESTREINT UE SCH-EVAL 78 FRONT 89 COMIX 408 REPORT from: the Evaluation Committee Sea Borders to: the Schengen Evaluation Working Party Subject : Schengen evaluation of the new Member States - POLAND: report on Sea Borders This report was made by the Evaluation Committee Sea Borders and will be brought to the attention of the Sch-Eval Working Party which will ensure a report and the presentation of the follow-up thereto to the Council. 8832/1/06 REV 1 EB/mdc 1 DG H 2 RESTREINT UE EN www.parlament.gv.at RESTREINT UE TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4 2. Management summary ............................................................................................................... 5 3. General information ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Urgent Action
    UA: 297/14 Index: EUR 50/045/2014 Ukraine Date: 24 November 2014 URGENT ACTION ESTABLISH WHEREABOUTS OF DISAPPEARED MAN Aleksandr Minchenok, a 31-year-old civilian man from Lisichansk, disappeared on 21 July after being “arrested” by pro-Kyiv forces while travelling with his grandmother in eastern Ukraine. His parents, who have not heard from him since July, fear for his life. On the morning of 21 July Aleksandr Minchenok was traveling in his car with his grandmother Maria Naumova from Lisichansk, a town in Luhansk Region, to Kharkiv. He called his parents to tell them that they had passed the checkpoints controlled by pro-Russian separatist near Severodonetsk. After about 30 minutes, an unknown person who did not identify himself called Aleksandr Minchenok’s parents and told them that their son had been arrested and was being taken to the Prosecutor’s office. After this phone call, neither Aleksandr Minchenok nor the unknown caller could be reached again. Ekaterina Naumova and Yuriy Naumov, Aleksandr Minchenok’s parents, rushed to their son’s last known location and found people who told them that their son had been apprehended by the territorial defence battalion Aidar, one of over thirty so-called volunteer battalions to have emerged as part of the pro-Kyiv forces in the wake of the conflict. Members of the pro-Kyiv forces present at the site told the parents that Aleksandr Minchenok had already been released near Starobelsk, a town a short distance from Luhansk. Aleksandr Minchenok’s grandmother said that they had been stopped by men in military uniforms, but she could not remember what insignia they had.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Persons and Entities Under EU Restrictive Measures Over the Territorial Integrity of Ukraine
    dhdsh PRESS Council of the European Union EN List of persons and entities under EU restrictive measures over the territorial integrity of Ukraine List of Persons Name Identifying Reasons Date of listing information 1. Sergey Valeryevich DOB: 26.11.1972. Aksyonov was elected 'Prime Minister of Crimea' in the Crimean 17.3.2014 AKSYONOV, Verkhovna Rada on 27 February 2014 in the presence of pro-Russian POB: Beltsy (Bălţi), gunmen. His 'election' was decreed unconstitutional by the acting Sergei Valerievich now Republic of Ukrainian President Oleksandr Turchynov on 1 March 2014. He actively AKSENOV (Сергей Moldova lobbied for the 'referendum' of 16 March 2014 and was one of the co- Валерьевич signatories of the ’treaty on Crimea´s accession to the Russian AKCëHOB), Federation’ of 18 March 2014. On 9 April 2014 he was appointed acting Serhiy Valeriyovych ‘Head’ of the so-called ‘Republic of Crimea’ by President Putin. On 9 AKSYONOV (Сергiй October 2014, he was formally ‘elected’ 'Head' of the so-called 'Republic Валерiйович Аксьонов) of Crimea'. Aksyonov subsequently decreed that the offices of ‘Head’ and ‘Prime Minister’ be combined. Member of the Russia State Council. 1/83 dhdsh PRESS Council of the European Union EN Name Identifying Reasons Date of listing information 2. Rustam Ilmirovich DOB: 15.8.1976 As former Deputy Minister of Crimea, Temirgaliev played a relevant role 17.3.2014 TEMIRGALIEV in the decisions taken by the ‘Supreme Council’ concerning the POB: Ulan-Ude, ‘referendum’ of 16 March 2014 against the territorial integrity of Ukraine. (Рустам Ильмирович Buryat ASSR He lobbied actively for the integration of Crimea into the Russian Темиргалиев) (Russian SFSR) Federation.
    [Show full text]
  • Civic Sector of Euromaidan Grassroots Movement
    CIVIC SECTOR OF EUROMAIDAN GRASSROOTS MOVEMENT 2015 EuroMaidan Newsletter # 84 13 - Ukraine says 'record number' of Russian troops on border Why is the conflict in east Ukraine more important than the Greek debt crisis? Ukraine says 'record number' of Russian troops on http://goo.gl/jPhCmv ; live updates July 7 July 7 . border. 50,000 Russian troops and over 30,000 militants http://goo.gl/AohYoP 4 massed on Ukraine border. http://goo.gl/NOMJ3C 8 More than a year later, Euromaidan activists still # Why is the conflict in east Ukraine more important than demand justice for victims. http://goo.gl/CfLCHo R the Greek debt crisis? 'Ukraine far more strategically important to Europe' http://goo.gl/qFZVUu Will Ukraine Change the Law on Local Elections? An Update on Legislative Initiatives and Debates. The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly has approved a http://goo.gl/eAFUBP resolution condemning Russia’s “unilateral and unjustified assault on Ukraine’s sovereignty and Ukraine's former education minister Tabachnyk added to territorial integrity.” http://goo.gl/jfqNJa; country's wanted list. http://goo.gl/MBJqzF http://goo.gl/ui6CU6 Gradual russification continues in Ukraine. The On July 13, President Petro Poroshenko called an Ukrainian language strengthened only in certain areas NEWSLETTE extraordinary session of the National Security Council in according to NGO “Prostir Svobody” analysis. an effort to end a confrontation between fighters from http://goo.gl/r1aecX the radical nationalist group Right Sector and police SBU detains moderator of 500 anti-Ukrainian groups on following a deadly shootout in the western city of social networks.
    [Show full text]
  • International Crimes in Crimea
    International Crimes in Crimea: An Assessment of Two and a Half Years of Russian Occupation SEPTEMBER 2016 Contents I. Introduction 6 A. Executive summary 6 B. The authors 7 C. Sources of information and methodology of documentation 7 II. Factual Background 8 A. A brief history of the Crimean Peninsula 8 B. Euromaidan 12 C. The invasion of Crimea 15 D. Two and a half years of occupation and the war in Donbas 23 III. Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court 27 IV. Contextual elements of international crimes 28 A. War crimes 28 B. Crimes against humanity 34 V. Willful killing, murder and enforced disappearances 38 A. Overview 38 B. The law 38 C. Summary of the evidence 39 D. Documented cases 41 E. Analysis 45 F. Conclusion 45 VI. Torture and other forms of inhuman treatment 46 A. Overview 46 B. The law 46 C. Summary of the evidence 47 D. Documented cases of torture and other forms of inhuman treatment 50 E. Analysis 59 F. Conclusion 59 VII. Illegal detention 60 A. Overview 60 B. The law 60 C. Summary of the evidence 62 D. Documented cases of illegal detention 66 E. Analysis 87 F. Conclusion 87 VIII. Forced displacement 88 A. Overview 88 B. The law 88 C. Summary of evidence 90 D. Analysis 93 E. Conclusion 93 IX. Crimes against public, private and cultural property 94 A. Overview 94 B. The law 94 C. Summary of evidence 96 D. Documented cases 99 E. Analysis 110 F. Conclusion 110 X. Persecution and collective punishment 111 A. Overview 111 B.
    [Show full text]
  • Connecting the Dots of PMC Wagner Strategic Actor Or Mere Business Opportunity? Author: Niklas M
    University of Southern Denmark 1 June 2019 Faculty of Business and Social Sciences Connecting the dots of PMC Wagner Strategic actor or mere business opportunity? Author: Niklas M. Rendboe Date of birth: 04.07.1994 Characters: 187.484 Supervisor: Olivier Schmitt Abstract Russia has commenced a practice of using military companies to implement its foreign policy. This model is in part a continuation of a Russian tradition of using non-state act- ors, and partly a result of the contemporary thinking in Russia about war and politics as well as a consequence of the thorough reform process of the Russian military which began in 2008 under Anatolii Serdiukov. By using the subcontracting firms of business leader Evgenii Prigozhin as a channel for funding Wagner, the Kremlin has gained an armed structure which is relatively independent of its ocial military structures. The group was formed as part of a project to mobilise volunteers to fight in Ukraine in 2014- 15. The following year, Wagner went to Syria and made a valuable contribution to the Assad government’s eort to re-establish dominance in the Syrian theatre. Since then, evidence has surfaced pointing to 11 additional countries of operations. Of these, Libya, Sudan, Central Africa and Madagascar are relatively well supported. In all these coun- tries, Wagner’s ability to operate are dependent on Russia for logistics, contracts and equipment. Wagner is first and foremost a tool of Russian realpolitik; they will not win wars nor help bring about a new world order, but they further strategic interests in two key ways; they deploy to war where Russia has urgent interests, and they operate in countries where the interests of Russia are more diuse and long-term to enhance Rus- sian influence.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Study (In English)
    The Long Shadow of Donbas Reintegrating Veterans and Fostering Social Cohesion in Ukraine By JULIA FRIEDRICH and THERESA LÜTKEFEND Almost 400,000 veterans who fought on the Ukrainian side in Donbas have since STUDY returned to communities all over the country. They are one of the most visible May 2021 representations of the societal changes in Ukraine following the violent conflict in the east of the country. Ukrainian society faces the challenge of making room for these former soldiers and their experiences. At the same time, the Ukrainian government should recognize veterans as an important political stakeholder group. Even though Ukraine is simultaneously struggling with internal reforms and Russian destabilization efforts, political actors in Ukraine need to step up their efforts to formulate and implement a coherent policy on veteran reintegration. The societal stakes are too high to leave the issue unaddressed. gppi.net This study was funded by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Ukraine. The views expressed therein are solely those of the authors and do not reflect the official position of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. The authors would like to thank several experts and colleagues who shaped this project and supported us along the way. We are indebted to Kateryna Malofieieva for her invaluable expertise, Ukraine-language research and support during the interviews. The team from Razumkov Centre conducted the focus group interviews that added tremendous value to our work. Further, we would like to thank Tobias Schneider for his guidance and support throughout the process. This project would not exist without him. Mathieu Boulègue, Cristina Gherasimov, Andreas Heinemann-Grüder, and Katharine Quinn-Judge took the time to provide their unique insights and offered helpful suggestions on earlier drafts.
    [Show full text]
  • Hybrid Warfare and the Protection of Civilians in Ukraine
    ENTERING THE GREY-ZONE: Hybrid Warfare and the Protection of Civilians in Ukraine civiliansinconflict.org i RECOGNIZE. PREVENT. PROTECT. AMEND. PROTECT. PREVENT. RECOGNIZE. Cover: June 4, 2013, Spartak, Ukraine: June 2021 Unexploded ordnances in Eastern Ukraine continue to cause harm to civilians. T +1 202 558 6958 E [email protected] civiliansinconflict.org ORGANIZATIONAL MISSION AND VISION Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC) is an international organization dedicated to promoting the protection of civilians in conflict. CIVIC envisions a world in which no civilian is harmed in conflict. Our mission is to support communities affected by conflict in their quest for protection and strengthen the resolve and capacity of armed actors to prevent and respond to civilian harm. CIVIC was established in 2003 by Marla Ruzicka, a young humanitarian who advocated on behalf of civilians affected by the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Honoring Marla’s legacy, CIVIC has kept an unflinching focus on the protection of civilians in conflict. Today, CIVIC has a presence in conflict zones and key capitals throughout the world where it collaborates with civilians to bring their protection concerns directly to those in power, engages with armed actors to reduce the harm they cause to civilian populations, and advises governments and multinational bodies on how to make life-saving and lasting policy changes. CIVIC’s strength is its proven approach and record of improving protection outcomes for civilians by working directly with conflict-affected communities and armed actors. At CIVIC, we believe civilians are not “collateral damage” and civilian harm is not an unavoidable consequence of conflict—civilian harm can and must be prevented.
    [Show full text]
  • Spinning Russia's 21St Century Wars
    Research Article This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative The RUSI Journal Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-NoDerivatives License (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Spinning Russia’s 21st Century Wars Zakhar Prilepin and his ‘Literary Spetsnaz’ Julie Fedor In this article, Julie Fedor examines contemporary Russian militarism through an introduction to one of its most high-profile representatives, the novelist, Chechen war veteran and media personality Zakhar Prilepin. She focuses on Prilepin’s commentary on war and Russian identity, locating his ideas within a broader strand of Russian neo-imperialism. he Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 brand of militarism that has come to pervade the and the war in the Donbas which began Russian media landscape, Prilepin warrants our T that same year have been accompanied by attention. Studying his career and output can help a remarkable drive to mobilise cultural production to illuminate the context and underpinnings of the in Russia in support of a new brand of state- domestic support for the official military doctrine sponsored militarism. Using a variety of media and policy that is more commonly the subject of platforms and reaching mass popular audiences, scholarship on Russian military and security affairs. a range of cultural celebrities – actors, writers, This article focuses on Prilepin’s commentary rock stars, tabloid war correspondents – have on the nature of war and Russian identity, locating played a key role in framing and shaping domestic his ideas within a broader strand of Russian perceptions of Russia’s 21st Century wars. Despite neo-imperialism in which war is claimed as a vital their prominence in Russian media space, their source of belonging, power and dignity.1 It shows activities have received surprisingly little scholarly how the notion of a special Russian relationship attention to date.
    [Show full text]
  • 40 Individuals 1 Viktor YANUKOVYCH(YANUKOVICH
    （Attachment） 40 individuals １ Viktor YANUKOVYCH(YANUKOVICH) Former President of Ukraine Date of birth：July 9, 1950 Place of birth：Yenakievo (Ukraine) ２ Sergey(Sergei) AKSYONOV(AKSENOV) “Acting Head of the Republic of Crimea” Date of birth：November 26, 1972 Place of birth：Balti (Republic of Moldova) ３ Vladimir KONSTANTINOV “Speaker of the State Council of the Republic of Crimea” Date of birth：November 19, 1956 Place of birth：Vladimirovca (Republic of Moldova) ４ Rustam TEMIRGALIEV Former “Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Crimea” Date of birth：August 15, 1976 Place of birth：Ulan-Ude (Russian Federation) ５ Denis (Denys) BEREZOVSKIY(BEREZOVSKY/BEREZOVSKII) Deputy Commander of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Navy Date of birth：July 15, 1974 Place of birth：Kharkiv (Ukraine) ６ Aleksei(Alexey) CHALIY(CHALYY) Former “Governor of the City of Sevastopol” Date of birth：June 13, 1961 ７ Petr(Pyotr) ZIMA Former Head of the Security Service of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea Date of birth：March 29, 1965 ８ Yuriy (Yurii) ZHEREBTSOV “Counsellor of the Speaker of the State Council of the Republic of Crimea” Date of birth：November 19, 1969 ９ Sergey(Sergei) TSEKOV Member of the Federation Council of the Russian Federation (from “the Republic of Crimea”) Date of birth：September 28, 1953 １０ Mikhail MALYSHEV “Chairman of the Electoral Commission of the Republic of Crimea” Date of birth：October 10, 1955 １１ Valery(Valeriy/Valerii) MEDVEDEV “Chairman of the Electoral Commission of the City of Sevastopol” Date of birth：August 21,
    [Show full text]