Special thanks to Rossiya 24 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t42-71RpRgI for allowing us to post the documentary on our channel CLICK ON CC for subs on 5 languages: English, German, French. Arabic and Chinese!

Comments

1. I agree.... the only world leader at the moment that tells the truth and plays by the rules. I'm canadian and wish nato and Canada would band with Russia. The fair, truly democratic approach.
2. BRAZILIAN SUBTITLE PLEASE
3. the russians and ukrainians have always been brotherly nations. the americans spoiled it? what? what about the 10 million ukrainians stalin starved to death in the 1930s? perhaps that is the real spoiler? HANDS OFF THE Ukraine
4. Crimea is so beautiful
5. Facebook will not let me post this video/
6. I never got any news about ethnic cleansing of Ukraine nationalists in Crimea after the Crimean decision to join Russia, and I assume that never happened. The history of Ukraine is complicated, take into consideration of the Ukraine famine invoked by Stalin's Sovjet Union. Russia was occupied by zionists parading as communist "liberators" (read Solzhenitsyn's last and most important book '200 years together', so you cannot say that 'Russians' killed at least a million Ukraine people. Later on, real Russians took control of Russia slowly but surely (Zhukov's coup, etc...) and the zionists moved out of Russia. The zionist-oligarch take-over of Russia's oil under Jeltsin's presidency was the last failed zionist attempt to control Russia, which failed because of Putin of course. It would be wise for Russia to somehow distance themselves (as a nation and ethnic group) from its zionist controlled Sovjet past, and to acknowledge the crimes against Ukraine (the terrible famine) organized by Stalin. I hope the elderly Russians, still under mind-control of the old Sovjet-communism program, become less influencial, such that it becomes possible for Russians to distance themselves from the criminal Sovjet past (also the Russians were victims of the zionist communist empire).
7. Russian population pays really high prize for tiny piece of stolen land. Eternal shame russia - once again. Putin have stolen generations future and progress of russia by that popularity shopping.
8. Here you have those innocent Ukraines you western scum!!
9. Crimea is Russian territory,period!!
10. RUSSIAN MYTHS AND PROPAGANDA ABOUT CRIMEA AND UKRAINE..Crimea has never really been Russian. Any more than Norway is Swedish just because Norway was forcefully taking into an union with Sweden and for some time under brutal Swedish occupation and rule dose not make Norway into Swedish lands ... Norway like Ukraine was just a politically and military occupied nation for some time in history of its history that's all.. 
    
    Norway has been from time to time under Swedish occupation and even some Norwegian city's was built by Swedish occupier's But that doesn't mean that Sweden owns Norway or the Norwegians are Swedish ANY MORE THEN Russian owns Ukraine....!!!
    
    The Russian public has long been encouraged to view Crimea as native Russian land.
    
    The 2014 annexation of Crimea was actually the fourth Russian attempt to claim the peninsula in the past 250 years. On each occasion, these efforts have ultimately failed. This video is history of Russian deception about the Crimea.
    
    
    THE LEGAL FACTS 
    
    The earlier published documents, and materials that have emerged more recently, make clear that the transfer of Crimea from the RSFSR to the UkrSSR was carried out in accordance with the 1936 Soviet constitution, which in Article 18 stipulated that “the territory of a Union Republic may not be altered without its consent.” The proceedings of the USSR Supreme Soviet Presidium meeting indicate that both the RSFSR and the UkrSSR had given their consent via their republic parliaments.
    
    One of the officials present at the 19 February session, Otto Kuusinen, even boasted that “only in our country [the USSR] is it possible that issues of the utmost importance such as the territorial transfer of individual oblasts to a particular republic can be decided without any difficulties.” One might argue that the process in 1954 would have been a lot better if it had been complicated and difficult, but no matter how one judges the expeditiousness of the territorial reconfiguration, the main point to stress here is that it is incorrect to say (as some Russian commentators and government officials recently have) that Crimea was transferred unconstitutionally or illegally. The legal system in the Soviet Union was mostly a fiction, but the transfer did occur in accordance with the rules in effect at the time. Moreover, regardless of how the transfer was carried out, the Russian Federation expressly accepted Ukraine’s 1991 borders both in the December 1991 Belovezhskaya Pushcha accords (the agreements that precipitated and codified the dissolution of the Soviet Union) and in the December 1994 Budapest Memorandum that finalized Ukraine’s status as a non-nuclear weapons state.
11. Let’s look at Ukraine’s disgraced former president, the legitimately elected Victor Yanukovych. After he fled to Russia the idea that he remained the legitimate head of state, and therefore the manner in which he was replaced was automatically illegitimate, was commonplace. This line of thinking was heavily promulgated by his new host country for reasons that are self-evident. But was it right, or even logical, to claim this?
    
    The legitimacy of the Yanukovych regime indeed began with a fair election, albeit an election in which the Ukrainian people had no good choices. But could that legitimacy go on unquestioned despite the blatant grand scale theft of state resources? No. Of course it could not.
    
    Common hooligans and thugs were brought to Kyiv by the Yanukovych authorities (first recorded on Nov. 29, 2013 when the revolution was just a few days old) to terrorize the residents of the capital. This act was completely in contradiction to Article 3 of the constitution that Yanukovych was elected to uphold. It was right to question Yanukovych’s legitimacy after this.
    
    Can the legitimacy of a ruling authority survive past the blatantly illegal adoption of laws designed to end democracy and create a dictatorship? No. Of course it cannot. Yet, this is what the Yanukovych controlled Party of Regions attempted to do on Jan. 16, 2014. Later analysis of images taken in parliament that while 235 MPs were declared to have voted for these “dictatorship” laws, only about half of this number of MPs were actually in the session hall when the vote was taken (by a show of hands – also illegal.)
    
    After such clearly anti-democratic and dishonest actions, can anyone consider that authority to be legitimate? The actions were a breach of Article 5 of Ukraine’s constitution - something that Yanukovych was under oath to protect and uphold. But he failed to keep his word.
    
    There were more violations of the constitution by Yanukovych, its supposed protector.
    
    Article 27 of Ukraine’s constitution says that “Every person shall have the inalienable right to life. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of life.” Yet Yuri Verbitsky, a 42 year old geologist from Lviv, was kidnapped, tortured, and murdered by forces belonging to the Yanukovych regime between Jan. 22 and Jan. 25 of 2014.
    
    That Yanukovych had already lost any legitimacy by this point should be beyond question. Later, of course, came the deaths of many more people on Jan. 18 and then Jan. 20, after which Yanukovych fled to Russia, insisting his authority and position were still legitimate. Define legitimate.
    
    The idea that legitimacy carries on from appointment without further question is a complete fallacy. It is something that we should refuse to accept. An elected leader most certainly can lose their legitimacy through illegal and/or unconstitutional, actions. The most recent public attempt at increasing the fog blurring the distinction between legitimately elected and legitimate comes from Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. Bottom line, they are not the same, although it is easy to see why Russia’s ruling clan would seek to pretend that they are.
12. So Putin never had a job outside of government right? He was KGB then he worked for the mayor of St. Petersburg and basically controlled economic investment into the country after the fall of the USSR. He then was an associate to Yeltsin. Yeltsin named Putin successor and Yeltson resigned after facing corruption charges giving Putin the presidency, Putin then pardoned him........hmmmm I wonder why Yeltsin would give an unknown Putin the presidency it would'nt be for amnesty would it?? What I am basically saying is how is the President of Russia the richest man in the world (which many experts predict) while never having a job outside government??
    
    This is a paper that describes how Putin and his cronies control and release their propaganda because there is no free press to counter their propaganda.
    
    http://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html
    
    I think you will see the similiarites Russia, you are good people but your government is a psuedo democracy run by a dictator who will continue getting rich and the russian people will suffer. Putin is not even a good businessman he failed to diversify Russia's economy and now they are paying for it. He takes money from the people and his cronies keep getting richer. Why do you think he keeps attacking the West? He has to discredit the west and destablize it to justify his own afwul decisions made in Russia
    
    Why do you think Putin keeps seeking more terms as President? He is afraid if he is not elected then the next President will charge him and he will spend the rest of his life in jail.
13. Beeindruckend - wenn das alles gewesen ist.
14. THANKS GOD - CRIMEA is back in Russia ! THANKS GOD - Crimeans managed to escape in the last minute from the hands of the Blooded NAZI JUNTA (illegitimate Junta financed by Washington, who keep killing Russian-speaking native population in East Ukraine, who burnt Russian-speaking native population alive in Odessa) ! THANKS GOD - Russia accepted Crimea back ! After the last 20 years of humiliation and poverty, living under the boot of Kiev Nazi !! CONGRATULATIONS, CRIMEANS, YOU ARE HEROES !
15. враньё
16. https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/nikki-haley-us-representative-united-nations-crimea-part-ukraine-transcript-video.html
17. Let’s look at Ukraine’s disgraced former president, the legitimately elected Victor Yanukovych. After he fled to Russia the idea that he remained the legitimate head of state, and therefore the manner in which he was replaced was automatically illegitimate, was commonplace. This line of thinking was heavily promulgated by his new host country for reasons that are self-evident. But was it right, or even logical, to claim this?
    
    The legitimacy of the Yanukovych regime indeed began with a fair election, albeit an election in which the Ukrainian people had no good choices. But could that legitimacy go on unquestioned despite the blatant grand scale theft of state resources? No. Of course it could not.
    
    Common hooligans and thugs were brought to Kyiv by the Yanukovych authorities (first recorded on Nov. 29, 2013 when the revolution was just a few days old) to terrorize the residents of the capital. This act was completely in contradiction to Article 3 of the constitution that Yanukovych was elected to uphold. It was right to question Yanukovych’s legitimacy after this.
    
    Can the legitimacy of a ruling authority survive past the blatantly illegal adoption of laws designed to end democracy and create a dictatorship? No. Of course it cannot. Yet, this is what the Yanukovych controlled Party of Regions attempted to do on Jan. 16, 2014. Later analysis of images taken in parliament that while 235 MPs were declared to have voted for these “dictatorship” laws, only about half of this number of MPs were actually in the session hall when the vote was taken (by a show of hands – also illegal.)
    
    After such clearly anti-democratic and dishonest actions, can anyone consider that authority to be legitimate? The actions were a breach of Article 5 of Ukraine’s constitution - something that Yanukovych was under oath to protect and uphold. But he failed to keep his word.
    
    There were more violations of the constitution by Yanukovych, its supposed protector.
    
    Article 27 of Ukraine’s constitution says that “Every person shall have the inalienable right to life. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of life.” Yet Yuri Verbitsky, a 42 year old geologist from Lviv, was kidnapped, tortured, and murdered by forces belonging to the Yanukovych regime between Jan. 22 and Jan. 25 of 2014.
    
    That Yanukovych had already lost any legitimacy by this point should be beyond question. Later, of course, came the deaths of many more people on Jan. 18 and then Jan. 20, after which Yanukovych fled to Russia, insisting his authority and position were still legitimate. Define legitimate.
    
    The idea that legitimacy carries on from appointment without further question is a complete fallacy. It is something that we should refuse to accept. An elected leader most certainly can lose their legitimacy through illegal and/or unconstitutional, actions. The most recent public attempt at increasing the fog blurring the distinction between legitimately elected and legitimate comes from Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. Bottom line, they are not the same, although it is easy to see why Russia’s ruling clan would seek to pretend that they are.
18. Make crimea great again?
19. close Captions are unreadable with white back on white lettering. Whose bright idea?
20. Spanish Subs?