Michael Shariff Publishes Personal Reflection Urging Honest Dialogue on Crimea and the Ukraine-Russia Conflict

DETROIT, May 23, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Michael Shariff, Esq., a Michigan-based U.S. attorney, has released a new personal essay on the Russia-America Friendship Society site titled "Crimea and the Path to Peace: A Personal Reflection on the Ukraine-Russia Conflict." 

Shariff writes:
"As someone who yearns deeply for peace between Russia and Ukraine, I believe that honest and nuanced conversation is long overdue." 

He emphasizes:

"Donald Trump already stated in 2018 the advisability of recognizing Crimea as Russian."

Shariff writes:

"While researching the legal aspects of this issue and the recent history of Crimea, I discovered facts of significant importance for determining Crimea's legal status."

Shariff points to a little-known referendum that took place before the dissolution of the USSR:

"On January 20, 1991—while Crimea was still part of the Ukrainian SSR within the Soviet Union—a nationwide referendum was held in Crimea on the question: 'On the restoration of the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic as a subject of the USSR and a participant in the Union Treaty.' An overwhelming 93.26% of Crimeans voted in favor." Source: Ukraina.ru, March 17, 2025.

Shariff further writes:

"Following the referendum, on February 12, 1991, the Supreme Council of the Ukrainian SSR formally restored Crimea's status as the Crimean ASSR within the Ukrainian SSR.

Later that year, on December 1, 1991, a nationwide Ukrainian independence referendum was held under the legal framework of the USSR Law of April 3, 1990, "On the Procedure for Resolving Issues Related to the Secession of a Union Republic from the USSR."

"In Crimea, the Ukrainian independence referendum failed to achieve the qualified two-thirds majority required by that law. According to Article 3, this result granted Crimea the legal right to decide—independently—whether to remain in the USSR or join the seceding republic. It also guaranteed Crimea the right to determine its own state-legal status."

Shariff emphasizes:

"At that moment, Ukraine had no legal authority to override this right. It was still operating within the jurisdiction of Soviet law and never formally contested these provisions and Ukraine's own Constitution prohibits retroactive laws and the restriction of pre-existing rights:

"According to Article 22 of the Constitution of Ukraine, new laws cannot diminish existing rights and freedoms. This means that no Ukrainian law adopted after December 1, 1991, could revoke the right of Crimeans to determine their own future."

However, Shariff argues:

"Crimea should have been considered a sovereign entity based on the 1991 referendum and the legal framework then in force and shortly afterward, between February and May 1992, Crimea's Parliament declared state sovereignty, adopted its first constitution, and scheduled a referendum on independence for August 1992.

"They were fully consistent with the legal rights recognized under the 1990 USSR law."

However, the Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada rejected the Crimean Parliament's decisions, declared them unconstitutional.

"Despite legal legitimacy, the decisions of the Crimean Parliament were overridden not through legal means, but through political force."

Shariff continues:

"Crimeans did not give up. In 1994, they held a referendum to expand autonomy and elected a President of Crimea, who won with over 70% of the vote. But again, Kyiv responded with force."

On the night of March 16–17, 1995:

"An SBU 'Alpha' unit stormed the Crimean Parliament and forcibly removed the President of Crimea—unconscious—from his office. The Ministry of Internal Affairs building was also seized. That same day, the Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada annulled Crimea's Constitution and abolished the presidency."

Source: (https://www.mk.ru/politics/interview/2014/03/17/999422-yuriy-meshkov-togda-v-

kryimuvyisadilsya-ukrainskiy-armeyskiy-spetsnaz.html)

He concludes:

"According to the laws of both Ukraine and the USSR, the results of the 1991 Crimean referendum could not have been annulled by either the all-Ukrainian referendum of December 1, 1991, or any subsequent Ukrainian laws. And yet, those results were nullified—by force—on March 17, 1995."

Shariff emphasizes:

"There is no denying the tragic human cost of the ongoing conflict—on both sides. Countless lives have been lost, families displaced, and infrastructure destroyed. But even amid the media noise, the root legal and historical causes of this conflict remain poorly understood."

And Shariff asks:

"From the standpoint of international law, how should the actions of the Kyiv authorities described above be qualified? If not as violations of the right to self-determination—then what?"

The full article is available at https://rusamcorp.com

For Media Inquiries please contact Michael Shariff, Esq.

 Russia & America Friendship Society

[email protected]

SOURCE Russia & America Friendship Society