If we do not take into account the collapse of the Russian Empire and the collapse of the USSR, then the most famous (and largest) territorial loss of Russia is Alaska. But our country also lost other territories. These losses are rarely remembered today.

Southern coast of the Caspian Sea (1723-1732)

Having cut a “window to Europe” as a result of the victory over the Swedes, Peter I began to cut a window to India. For this purpose, he undertook in 1722-1723. campaigns in Persia, torn apart by civil strife. As a result of these campaigns, the entire western and southern coast of the Caspian Sea came under Russian rule.

But Transcaucasia is not the Baltic states. Conquering these territories turned out to be much easier than the Baltic possessions of Sweden, but maintaining them was more difficult. Due to epidemics and constant attacks by mountaineers, Russian troops were reduced by half.

Russia, exhausted by the wars and reforms of Peter, could not hold onto such a costly acquisition and in 1732 these lands were returned to Persia.

Mediterranean: Malta (1798-1800) and Ionian Islands (1800-1807)

In 1798, Napoleon, on his way to Egypt, destroyed Malta, which was owned by the Knights of the Hospitaller Order, founded during the Crusades. Having recovered from the pogrom, the knights elected Russian Emperor Paul I as Grand Master of the Order of Malta. The emblem of the Order was included in the State Emblem of Russia. This, perhaps, was the extent of the visible signs that the island was under Russian rule. In 1800, Malta was captured by the British.

In contrast to the formal possession of Malta, Russia's control over the Ionian Islands off the coast of Greece was more real.
In 1800, a Russian-Turkish squadron under the command of the famous naval commander Ushakov captured the island of Corfu, heavily fortified by the French. The Republic of the Seven Islands was established, formally as a Turkish protectorate, but in fact, under Russian control. According to the Treaty of Tilsit (1807), Emperor Alexander I secretly ceded the islands to Napoleon.

Romania (1807-1812, 1828-1834)

The first time Romania (more precisely, two separate principalities - Moldavia and Wallachia) came under Russian rule was in 1807 - during the next Russian-Turkish war (1806-1812). The population of the principalities was sworn to allegiance to the Russian emperor; Direct Russian rule was introduced throughout the territory. But Napoleon’s invasion in 1812 forced Russia to conclude a speedy peace with Turkey, according to which only the eastern part of the Principality of Moldavia (Bessarabia, modern Moldova) was given to the Russians.

The second time Russia established its power in the principalities during the Russian-Turkish war of 1828-29. At the end of the war, Russian troops did not leave; the principalities continued to be governed by the Russian administration. Moreover, Nicholas I, who suppressed any sprouts of freedom within Russia, gives his new territories a Constitution! True, it was called “organic regulations”, since for Nicholas I the word “constitution” was too seditious.
Russia would have willingly turned Moldavia and Wallachia, which it actually owned, into its de jure possessions, but England, France and Austria intervened in the matter. As a result, in 1834 the Russian army was withdrawn from the principalities. Russia finally lost its influence in the principalities after its defeat in the Crimean War.

Kars (1877-1918)

In 1877, during the Russian-Turkish War (1877-1878), Kars was taken by Russian troops. According to the peace treaty, Kars together with Batum went to Russia.
The Kara region began to be actively populated by Russian settlers. Kars was built according to a plan developed by Russian architects. Even now Kars, with its strictly parallel and perpendicular streets, typically Russian houses, built in con. XIX - early XX centuries, sharply contrasts with the chaotic development of other Turkish cities. But it is very reminiscent of old Russian cities.
After the revolution, the Bolsheviks gave the Kars region to Turkey.

Manchuria (1896-1920)

In 1896, Russia received from China the right to build a railway through Manchuria to connect Siberia with Vladivostok - the Chinese Eastern Railway (CER). The Russians had the right to lease a narrow territory on both sides of the CER line. However, in fact, the construction of the road led to the transformation of Manchuria into a territory dependent on Russia, with a Russian administration, army, police and courts. Russian settlers poured there. The Russian government began to consider a project to incorporate Manchuria into the empire under the name “Zheltorossiya”.
As a result of Russia's defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, the southern part of Manchuria fell into the Japanese sphere of influence. After the revolution, Russian influence in Manchuria began to wane. Finally, in 1920, Chinese troops occupied Russian targets, including Harbin and the Chinese Eastern Railway, finally ending the Zheltorossiya project.

If we do not take into account the collapse of the Russian Empire and the collapse of the USSR, then the most famous (and largest) territorial loss of Russia is Alaska. But our country also lost other territories. These losses are rarely remembered today.

1. Southern coast of the Caspian Sea (1723-1732)

Having cut a “window to Europe” as a result of the victory over the Swedes, Peter I began to cut a window to India. For this purpose, he undertook in 1722-1723. campaigns in Persia, torn apart by civil strife. As a result of these campaigns, the entire western and southern coast of the Caspian Sea came under Russian rule.

But Transcaucasia is not the Baltic states. Conquering these territories turned out to be much easier than the Baltic possessions of Sweden, but maintaining them was more difficult. Due to epidemics and constant attacks by mountaineers, Russian troops were reduced by half.

Russia, exhausted by the wars and reforms of Peter, could not hold onto such a costly acquisition and in 1732 these lands were returned to Persia.

2. East Prussia (1758-1762)

As a result of the Second World War, part of East Prussia and Koenigsberg went to the USSR - now it is Kaliningrad with the region of the same name. But once these lands were already under Russian citizenship.

During the Seven Years' War (1756-1763), Russian troops occupied Königsberg and all of East Prussia in 1758. By decree of Empress Elizabeth, the region was turned into a Russian governor-general, and the Prussian population was sworn to Russian citizenship. The famous German philosopher Kant also became a Russian subject. A letter has been preserved in which Immanuel Kant, a loyal subject of the Russian crown, asks Empress Elizaveta Petrovna for the position of ordinary professor.

The sudden death of Elizaveta Petrovna (1761) changed everything. The Russian throne was taken by Peter III, known for his sympathies for Prussia and King Frederick. He returned to Prussia all the Russian conquests in this war and turned his arms against his former allies. Catherine II, who overthrew Peter III and also sympathized with Frederick, confirmed peace and, in particular, the return of East Prussia.

3. Mediterranean: Malta (1798-1800) and Ionian Islands (1800-1807)

In 1798, Napoleon, on his way to Egypt, destroyed Malta, which was owned by the Knights of the Hospitaller Order, founded during the Crusades. Having recovered from the pogrom, the knights elected Russian Emperor Paul I as Grand Master of the Order of Malta. The emblem of the Order was included in the State Emblem of Russia. This, perhaps, was the extent of the visible signs that the island was under Russian rule. In 1800, Malta was captured by the British.

In contrast to the formal possession of Malta, Russia's control over the Ionian Islands off the coast of Greece was more real.

In 1800, a Russian-Turkish squadron under the command of the famous naval commander Ushakov captured the island of Corfu, heavily fortified by the French. The Republic of the Seven Islands was established, formally as a Turkish protectorate, but in fact, under Russian control. According to the Treaty of Tilsit (1807), Emperor Alexander I secretly ceded the islands to Napoleon.

4. Romania (1807-1812, 1828-1834)

The first time Romania, or rather two separate principalities - Moldavia and Wallachia - came under Russian rule in 1807, during the next Russian-Turkish war (1806-1812). The population of the principalities was sworn to allegiance to the Russian emperor, and direct Russian rule was introduced throughout the entire territory. But Napoleon's invasion in 1812 forced Russia to conclude a speedy peace with Turkey, instead of two principalities being content with only the eastern part of the Principality of Moldavia (Bessarabia, modern Moldova).

The second time Russia established its power in the principalities during the Russian-Turkish war of 1828-29. At the end of the war, Russian troops did not leave; the principalities continued to be governed by the Russian administration. Moreover, Nicholas I, who suppressed any sprouts of freedom within Russia, gives his new territories a Constitution! True, it was called “organic regulations”, since for Nicholas I the word “constitution” was too seditious.

Russia would have willingly turned Moldavia and Wallachia, which it actually owned, into its de jure possessions, but England, France and Austria intervened in the matter. As a result, in 1834 the Russian army was withdrawn from the principalities. Russia finally lost its influence in the principalities after its defeat in the Crimean War.

5. Kars (1877-1918)

In 1877, during the Russian-Turkish War (1877-1878), Kars was taken by Russian troops. According to the peace treaty, Kars, together with Batumi, went to Russia.

The Kara region began to be actively populated by Russian settlers. Kars was built according to a plan developed by Russian architects. Even now Kars, with its strictly parallel and perpendicular streets, typically Russian houses, built in con. XIX - early XX centuries, sharply contrasts with the chaotic development of other Turkish cities. But it is very reminiscent of old Russian cities.

After the revolution, the Bolsheviks gave the Kars region to Turkey.

6. Manchuria (1896-1920)

In 1896, Russia received from China the right to build a railway through Manchuria to connect Siberia with Vladivostok - the Chinese Eastern Railway (CER). The Russians had the right to lease a narrow territory on both sides of the CER line. However, in fact, the construction of the road led to the transformation of Manchuria into a territory dependent on Russia, with a Russian administration, army, police and courts. Russian settlers poured there. The Russian government began to consider a project to incorporate Manchuria into the empire under the name “Zheltorossiya”.

As a result of Russia's defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, the southern part of Manchuria fell into the Japanese sphere of influence. After the revolution, Russian influence in Manchuria began to wane. Finally, in 1920, Chinese troops occupied Russian targets, including Harbin and the Chinese Eastern Railway, finally closing the Zheltorossiya project.

Thanks to the heroic defense of Port Arthur, many know that this city belonged to the Russian Empire before its defeat in the Russo-Japanese War. But a lesser known fact is that at one time Port Arthur was part of the USSR.

After the defeat of the Japanese Kwantung Army in 1945, Port Arthur, under an agreement with China, was transferred to the Soviet Union for a period of 30 years as a naval base. Later, the USSR and China agreed to return the city in 1952. At the request of the Chinese side, due to the difficult international situation (Korean War), the Soviet armed forces stayed in Port Arthur until 1955.

After the large-scale loss of land in 1991, it seemed that everything was done, but no, the contours of Russia's territory continue to change. On the one hand, Russia has grown onto Crimea, correcting the voluntaristic decision it once made. But on the other hand, its territory is shrinking - sometimes obviously, and sometimes hidden. Of course, the country is “limitless,” but it is worth remembering 1917 and the loss of the western territories, it is worth remembering 1991, when the territory decreased by a quarter. And it is perhaps worth remembering the 2000s, when the preconditions for the fragmentation of the Russian state were laid.

The reduction of Russian lands is carried out both through the direct transfer of lands within the framework of interstate agreements, and through the provision of territories for economic management. And if the first is on a small scale and is already influencing the present, then the second brings investments to the country in the short term, and creates threats to territorial integrity in the long term.

LATENT “SALE” OF LAND

The most dangerous process has become the latent surrender of Russian lands, which has become large-scale. Territories transferred for temporary economic management to foreigners, especially in border areas, are actually lost lands with a delayed lag of transition to someone else's jurisdiction. And if the transfer of land is isolated cases, then economic management is already a common practice in the East of the country. In 2004, three islands were transferred to China - Tarabarov, parts of the Bolshoi Ussuri Island in the Khabarovsk Territory and Bolshoy Island in the Chita Region, which were objects of strategic importance, despite their small size. A large fortified area and a border post were located on Bolshoy Ussuriysky, above Tarabarov there was a take-off trajectory of military aircraft of the 11th Air Force and Air Defense Army, as well as farmland of local residents - dachas, hayfields. There was a border post on Bolshoi Island and drinking water was collected for part of the region. But the islands were given away as part of the resolution of the so-called territorial dispute.

In 2010, Russia gave part of the Barents Sea to Norway. In 2011, the Federation Council ratified an agreement between the Russian Federation and Norway on the delimitation of spaces in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean. It was on this land that 2 billion barrels of hydrocarbons were found, valued at $30 billion. According to some estimates, Russia produced 60% of the Barents Sea's catch in this area. The concession to Norway is not only the loss of Russian territory, but also a threat to the advance of NATO, which has gained the ability to monitor the submarines of the Russian Northern Fleet.

However, the largest losses occur in that part of the country, the development of which has traditionally lacked budgetary funds. These are the territories of the Far East, which formally belong to Russia, but in fact, through economic management procedures, are gradually transferred in parts to China and Japan. In 2015, the authorities of Transbaikalia leased 150 thousand hectares to China for 49 years. I wonder, in 49 years, will anyone remember that this is Russian soil? Does anyone recognize Russian soil in it? China was supposed to invest 24 billion rubles in this piece of land. in the development of poultry and livestock farming, the cultivation of grain and feed crops. But after “Chinese technologies” for cultivating land, as Russia’s experience has shown, all that remains is scorched earth. The agreement was signed, on the one hand, by the Chinese company Zoje Resources Investment, and on the other hand, by the government of the Trans-Baikal Territory. That is, the issue of “transfer” of Russian lands is resolved at the level of regional authorities, and not the federal center.

If we add to this the fact that the Chinese work in logging and sawing Russian forests, and also work in other territories of the Far East, then the figure of 150 hectares will seem insignificant against the background of what is really happening. In 2015, the government of Buryatia signed an agreement with a Chinese company, according to which water from Lake Baikal will be exported to China. By 2020, the design capacity of the plant should be 2 million tons of water per year. Such a project could lead to a decrease in the water level in the lake. And this is not only the destruction of the Baikal ecosystem, but also, as shown by the decrease in water level in 2015, a factor in creating a fire hazard. Then the shallowing of the lake led to the disappearance of water in the wells of coastal villages and the drying of peat bogs, which caused numerous fires in the region in the spring and summer. But the authorities of Buryatia, without having substantiated research, stated that this project would not harm the ecology of the lake. According to recent reports, the investor has postponed the launch of the enterprise to 2018. Local residents oppose this initiative of the authorities. On the website change.org, a petition for canceling the decision to build the plant has already received over 365 thousand votes. But the most interesting thing is that there should be several such factories. One of them in Severobaikalsk will be intended to supply water to South Korea.

The factor of Chinese managers on Russian soil is dangerous because, firstly, the lands will work for the needs of the Chinese economy. Secondly, long-term economic development is essentially a hidden expansion, when Chinese workers will settle in the region with their families, building houses and forming their own settlements. Before the lease expires, China will make territorial claims to these lands, declaring them disputed territories, and liberal Russia, following the same scenario, will agree to surrender them, declaring that the lands are Chinese, since they are inhabited by the Chinese. Considering that Russian inscriptions in the Baikal direction and in the Irkutsk region are already duplicated in Chinese, there is no need to deny the fact of the still soft Chinese expansion. The scenario for the formation of such disputed territories has already been tested by China, which for several years covered the Kazakevich channel in the Khabarovsk Territory with soil and sank a barge with stones in it. As a result, the Kazakevich channel became unnavigable, and the construction of 600 kilometers of dams gradually led to a change in the river’s fairway, as a result of which a “territorial dispute” arose - a claim against Russia from China. Thirdly, Chinese expansion will harm the Russian ecology, leaving behind burned lands, cut down forests and, in fact, shallowed Lake Baikal.

The situation is similar with the Kuril Islands. The parties came to a formula for joint economic development of the Kuril Islands, which involves Japanese investment in the infrastructure and economy of the islands. By the way, the status is unconstitutional. Since 2011, Russia has been inviting Japan to jointly develop oil and gas fields located in the Kuril Islands area. An invitation to develop territories by a country that previously declared its sovereignty over them actually means that Putin is quietly giving away Russian lands without making too much of a fuss. Economically prosperous Japan will create colonies of its own settlers on the islands in a matter of years, just as China is doing in the Far East.

The latest initiative of the authorities - the transfer of a hectare of land in the Far East into ownership after economic development is increasingly reminiscent of the voucher privatization of the 90s, when behind the free distribution there will be schemes for the concentration of land plots in the ownership of individual latifundists. It is not difficult to understand which country they will be from. In the context of the authorities’ joy for the collective applications, there are increasing fears that a number of wealthy individuals have already started concentrating the lands of the Far East in their hands. Well, then the land will become a market commodity. Entire regions of the Far East may become controlled by individuals, who will certainly create successful schemes for transferring land for economic development by the Chinese. For example, it is possible to register land plots for nominees as part of collective applications. Develop them, and after that, each figurehead who receives ownership of the land will allegedly sell their plots to the person behind these names.

The above facts indicate that, thanks to someone’s efforts, Russia is beginning to trade not only its mineral resources, but also its lands, thereby violating clause 3. Article 4 of the Russian Constitution that “The Russian Federation ensures the integrity and inviolability of its territory.” In liberal Putin's Russia, neither the voice of the people nor the letter of the law counts.

WHY IS THAT?

The transfer of territories is carried out by federal authorities, the decision is approved by parliament by a majority vote, despite the minority that votes against. As a rule, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation opposes the transfer of land, while the Liberal Democratic Party and United Russia vote synchronously. If we are talking about the economic development of land, then the decision is made by local authorities in accordance with Article 72, paragraph 1. The Constitution states that the joint jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and the constituent entities of the Russian Federation includes “coordination of international and foreign economic relations of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, implementation of international treaties of the Russian Federation.” In other words, the decision on the fate of Russian territories is determined by the will of temporary hired managers, and in no way reflects the opinion of the people. This system of transferring territories is due to several reasons. Firstly, the simplicity of the land transfer procedure.

The opinion of the majority of legislators is enough for the issue to be resolved. However, it would be fairer for such a practice to make a decision through a popular referendum. But the Russian authorities consider such issues to be technical procedures and do not bother to agree on a solution with the people. That is why people often come out with protests in the hope of being heard. For example, local residents spoke out against a plant pumping water from Lake Baikal for export to China. All this could have been avoided if this decision had been made taking into account the opinion of the people. Nobody asked the Russians when they transferred the lands to Norway, having lost their position in Spitsbergen. They didn’t ask when the three islands were given to China. One of them is only half. Apparently, what saved it was that the regional authorities took care of this in advance. By that time, the Governor of the Khabarovsk Territory V. Ishaev had built a pontoon bridge connecting Khabarovsk with the island. Bolshoy Ussuriysk, where he erected the chapel of the martyr-warrior Victor in memory of those who died defending the Far Eastern borders of Russia. This half remained part of Russia; Putin voluntarily transferred the other half to China.

Secondly, the transfer of territories is essentially a transaction when Russia exchanges territories for an influx of investment. The investment problem is especially acute for regions that, in the face of a shortage of subsidies and growing social burden on the regional budget, are trying to attract investment at any cost. In the conditions of the stifling sabotage policy of the Central Bank, strict monetary policy and the growing burden on business, one cannot count on domestic investment. Under Putin there is no way out of Putinism. Therefore, the focus is on foreign investment. The federal center made mistakes twice. When he created unfavorable economic conditions in the country. And when he refused to analyze the transactions concluded by the regions related to the economic management of lands, natural resources and subsoil.

Thirdly, although the year of ecology is now taking place in Russia, this issue has traditionally received the least attention. Just look at the forest fires in Transbaikalia, where even in protected natural reserves they begin to extinguish forests only if they threaten a populated area. Or look at massive deforestation, which largely provokes fires. Russian timber is being sacrificed to the Chinese wood industry. Instead of following the example of China to introduce a ban on commercial logging, the Kremlin is only increasing the supply of wood to the Middle Kingdom. And the admission of the Chinese to Russian farmland with their technology for cultivating the land suggests that environmental issues will never be raised where there is a prospect of large investments. Or bribes that hypothetically explain what is happening on Russian territory. The processes taking place in this area are generated by a number of traditional Russian approaches:

The excuse is that there is a lot of land in Russia; we won’t lose any money from the transfer of one piece of territory;

A lack of investment and a focus on foreign investors who will come and develop territories that we have never gotten around to;

Refusal to analyze the consequences of such a transaction. For example, after the transfer of the territory of the Barents Sea, Norway discovered oil reserves, while the Russian side did not carry out relevant geological exploration work. Or, for example, no one assessed the state of the Lake Baikal ecosystem when making a decision on pumping water for China;

Focus on the effect in the current moment, when foreign investments become more important than national interests and issues of security and sovereignty. The desire to resolve controversial issues in favor of the opposite side has already led to the loss of the islands. To which the president responded as follows: “We did not give anything away, these were territories that were disputed and in respect of which we had been negotiating with the People’s Republic of China for 40 years.” This is in Putin’s opinion - they didn’t give it away? By this logic, China has not acquired anything?

During this entire period, Russia acquired only Crimea, inhabited by Russians. It was this event that sharply increased the president's rating. Based on this, it would be natural to assume that the loss of lands and refusal to protect the Russian ethnic group should have undermined the authority of the Russian leader. That is why the facts of the transfer of territory are discussed in the media as an ordinary technical issue, the solution of which will lead to an increase in foreign investment. They don't speak at all. Therefore, the transfer of land for economic use is covered exclusively as the creation of jobs through foreign investment, keeping silent about the fact that there is a hidden transfer of land to foreigners to serve the needs of the economy of a non-Russian state. In the future, these will be new territorial disputes and further concessions to our “partners”.

MORE ON THE TOPIC

Everyone knows that Russia once included Alaska, Poland, and Finland. In addition to these territories, there were, of course, others. Even if they were not so large in size, they were still important. Malta, Kars, Manchuria, Moldova, Wallachia, Port Arthur - all these territories were lost by Russia for various reasons. Some were given away as a result of diplomatic games, some were used as bargaining chips.

In 1986, Russia agreed with China to build a railway that would connect Siberia with the Far East through Manchuria. This is how the landmark project of the CER, the Chinese Eastern Railway, came into being.
Since Russia received the right to lease territory from China on both sides of the CER line, Manchuria soon became a dependent territory. The Russian administration, army, police and even courts appeared there. Of course, settlers moved there. Therefore, it is not surprising that the empire began to consider Manchuria as a territory potentially part of Russia. There was even a special term - “Zheltorossiya”.

They wanted to rename Manchuria to Zheltorossiya

But the defeat in the war with the Japanese put an end to the ambitious plan. This territory fell into the sphere of influence of the Land of the Rising Sun. During the revolution in Russia, many of those dissatisfied with the new government settled in Manchuria. Therefore, in fact, the young Soviet Union had no leverage there. Well, China put the finishing touches on it. In 1920, the troops of the Celestial Empire occupied Harbin and the Chinese Eastern Railway. The Zheltorossiya project was closed.

In 1877, during the war with the Ottoman Empire, Kars was captured by Russian troops. And only a year later, when the Turks admitted defeat, this city, together with Batum, became part of the Russian Empire.

Kars was returned to Turkey in 1918

A stream of Russian immigrants poured into the newly formed Kara region. And the city itself began to be actively built up. Moreover, this was done not in a chaotic manner, but according to a plan developed by Russian architects.
The Kars region was given to Turkey by the Bolsheviks in 1918.

Before the defeat in the war with Japan, this city belonged to the Russian Empire. And the history of its defense has become legendary thanks to the bravery of Russian soldiers.
But then, 40 years later, the city again became part of Russia, only not imperial, but communist. After the surrender of Japan in 1945, Port Arthur, under an agreement with China, was leased to the Soviet Union for a period of 30 years. A Soviet naval base was located there.

Port Arthur was part of the Russian Empire before the war with Japan

But Port Arthur remained “red” for a short time - until 1952. By mutual agreement, the USSR returned the city to China. But the Soviet military nevertheless stayed there until 1955.

The principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia came under the rule of the Russian Empire at the beginning of the 19th century during another war with the Turks. The local population took an oath and was directly subordinate to Russian rule.
But because of the war with Napoleon, Alexander I was forced to hastily “make friends” with the Turks. As a result of the peace treaty, only the eastern part of Moldova – Bessarabia – was ceded to Russia.

After defeat in the Crimean War, Russia abandoned Moldavia and Wallachia

At the end of the 20s of the 19th century, the Russian Empire established its power in Moldavia and Wallachia for the second time. And again thanks to the war with the Turks. And Nicholas I even gave “organic regulations” to the new territories.
The Russian Empire finally lost influence in those lands after the Crimean War.

Moving to Egypt, Napoleon along the way defeated Malta, where the nest of the Knights of the Hospitaller Order was located. Moreover, the French emperor did this thanks to the cunning and weakness of the Grand Master Ferdinand von Hompesch zu Boleym. The latter surrendered to Napoleon, declaring that the order's charter prohibited knights from fighting Christians.
After such a serious blow, the order was never able to recover. It decreased significantly in size and continued to exist by inertia. Of course, the knights tried to correct the situation. They understood that they could not do without an influential patron. And Emperor Paul I was best suited for this role. He was elected Grand Master. The emblem of the Order “settled” in the state emblem of the Russian Empire. This, in fact, was the end of the signs that Malta had come under the rule of the Russian emperor.

Paul I was Grand Master of the Order of Hospitallers

Soon Malta came under British rule. And after the death of Paul in Russia, no one remembered the distant knights.
As for the Ionian Islands, the power of the Russian Empire over them was more obvious. In 1800, naval commander Ushakov managed to capture the island of Corfu. And although the newly formed Republic of the Seven Islands was formally considered a Turkish protectorate, in reality Russia took on the role of manager there. But 7 years later, Alexander I ceded the islands to Napoleon following the Peace of Tilsit.

Russia must return all territories stolen by Ukraine
Alexander Nikitich Brusentsov, chronicler of Ukraine ()

“A thousand years are hardly enough to create a state; one hour is enough for it to fall into dust.”
J. G. Byron.

The collapse of the Soviet Union has determined the development of the world for more than a quarter of a century. Like any global catastrophe, the collapse of the Union made us forget about many small, and sometimes even tiny, territories that were once part of a huge country. Against the backdrop of the death of empires, wars, the redivision of the world, the ruined destinies of tens of millions of people - all this seemed like a mere trifle. But it only seemed.

First of all, let us record the fact that Ukraine – as a state – was created by the Soviet Union. And, even more than that, it was the USSR that achieved recognition of Ukraine as an independent state and subject of international law.

Ukraine acquired the status of an independent state on October 24, 1945, that is, from the moment the Charter of the United Nations came into force. Ukraine has become not just a member of the UN since its founding, that is, an Original Member of the UN - Ukraine is a co-founder of this organization. The signature of Ukraine (Ukrainian SSR), along with the signatures of 25 other founding countries, is under the UN Charter, approved at a conference in San Francisco on June 26, 1945.

Comrade Stalin's joke turned out to be such a bad one. Hypostasis of the biblical parable about the sale of the birthright. For the sake of additional votes at the UN General Assembly, Stalin created two independent (and recognized by the entire international community) states - Ukraine and Belarus. And, by and large, the acquisition of actual independence by these republics (as well as the collapse of the Soviet Union) was only a matter of time. But precisely since then - October 24, 1945 - Ukraine (Ukrainian SSR) enjoys all the rights of a subject of international law: establishes diplomatic relations, has diplomatic missions, votes at the General Assembly of the United Nations, can be elected to the UN Security Council, takes part in the work of international UN organizations from UNESCO to the WTO.

At the same time, it is necessary to clarify that the participation of Ukraine (Ukrainian SSR) in the work of the UN did not contradict the Constitution of the USSR. Since the Ukrainian USSR in 1922 voluntarily transferred its fundamental rights in the field of foreign policy and international relations to the union leadership.

Ukraine has legally recognized its voluntary participation in the Soviet Union, since the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine, adopted by the Verkhovna Rada (parliament) in July 1990 - and forming the basis of the Act on State Independence of Ukraine of August 24, 1991 - explicitly states that this Declaration is a proposal for the signing of a new Union Treaty. That is, voluntary equal relations of all republics of the USSR, created by the treaty on the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of December 30, 1922, are recognized. Ukraine was one of the parties to this treaty and a co-founder of the USSR.

The so-called “Belovezhskaya agreements” - on the termination of the existence of the USSR, of which Ukraine was a party - referred to the right of the founding countries of the USSR to dissolve their brainchild. That is, again, there was a statement of the voluntariness of the unification of independent republics into the Soviet Union. This means that all those statements about the allegedly occupational nature of Soviet power are just demagoguery, devoid of legal meaning.

In addition, Ukraine voluntarily avoided completing the legal procedures for secession from the Soviet Union, which were determined by the USSR Law on the procedure for secession from the Soviet Union. Within the framework of this law, Ukraine had the opportunity to resolve all territorial issues with the former Soviet republics.

Thus, Ukraine has internationally recognized borders as of October 24, 1945. These boundaries are clearly fixed. And, from a legal point of view, they are undeniable.

But now Ukraine includes a number of territories with which this country was enriched after October 24, 1945. And, the inclusion of which in Ukraine – from the point of view of international law – is absolutely not formalized in any way.

Crimea (returned to Russia in March 2014)

First of all, Crimea, which is claimed by Ukraine. The transfer of the peninsula from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR - both from the point of view of international law and according to the norms of the then current Constitution of the USSR - is an absolute legal absurdity. Firstly, it was not formalized as an agreement between the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) and the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) with subsequent approval at the national level. Such an agreement simply does not exist in nature. The decision was made by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR, which did not have the necessary constitutional powers for this. Collegially, but privately.

Although, according to the then-current Constitution of the USSR, the Constitutions of the RSFSR and the Ukrainian SSR, union and republican laws, approximately the following should have happened: the Supreme Council of the RSFSR (which did not even consider this issue) should have sent an appeal to the Supreme Council of the Ukrainian SSR (which also remained on the sidelines) , they had to jointly appeal to the Supreme Council of the USSR, where they must approve changes in the administrative boundaries of the republics. None of this was done.

And, again, Ukraine - at that time already a subject of international law - in no way even tried to formalize the entry of Crimea into its country through international agreements.

Thus, there is every reason to consider the entry of Crimea (Crimean region) into Ukraine (Ukrainian SSR) as annexation. You can even create a commission to calculate compensation. And issue Kyiv the amount to be paid.

Snake Island

The fate of the small Zmeiny Island in the Black Sea is generally striking in its complete and absolute surrealism. Snake Island is located opposite the mouth of the Danube and occupies a strategic position in the Black Sea, allowing you to actually control its entire northern waters.

Russia lost this island after its defeat in the Crimean War (1853–1856). But she never gave up the rights to this island. In 1944, paratroopers of the Black Sea Fleet captured Snake Island from the Romanians, who were allies of Hitler. According to a bilateral agreement between Romania and the USSR, Zmeiny Island became part of the USSR on May 23, 1948.

Snake Island was not even formally part of Soviet Ukraine. It was directly subordinate to the USSR Government. The island was administered by the USSR Ministry of Defense. And all that was on the island was a radar station, an air defense battery and a radio engineering platoon of the coastal surveillance system of the USSR Navy. There were no civilian settlements.

In the chaos of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the island was simply forgotten. And Kyiv quietly stole what was lying badly in the middle of the sea. At the same time, Kyiv itself realized it too late. The decision to create the village of Bely on the island and annex it to the Cilicia district of the Odessa region was made by the Verkhovna Rada only in 2007.

Ownership of Zmeiny Island allows you to create an exclusive economic zone around it and use the resources of the Black Sea shelf. That is why in 2008 a dispute arose between Romania and Ukraine over the rights to Snake Island. The International Court of Justice recognized Snake Island and denied Romania the right to own the island.

The funny thing is that even today it is quite appropriate to raise the question of the legal affiliation of the Zmeiny Island with the Russian Federation.

City of Sevastopol (returned to Russia in March 2014)

By the way, the fate of Sevastopol is absolutely similar. The city of Sevastopol was not administratively part of the Crimean region within the RSFSR. This means that the decision to transfer the Crimean region to Soviet Ukraine did not apply to him. Because the transfer of the city of Sevastopol to Ukraine is separately stated nowhere. Sevastopol was “grabbed” in 1991 just like that, “on the sly.” Simply because “it was bad.”

Subcarpathian Rus'

Also one of Russia’s losses is Subcarpathian Rus’. This is the official and internationally recognized name of the territory, which is now called the Transcarpathian region of Ukraine for political reasons. The name “Subcarpathian Rus” was established at the Versailles Peace Conference following the First World War. And it was finally secured by the Trianon Peace Treaty of June 4, 1920, when this territory was transferred to Czechoslovakia after the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In the Constitution of Czechoslovakia of 1920, Subcarpathian Ruthenia was defined as one of the 5 (five) lands of the Czechoslovak Republic until 1946.

By the way, the name Subcarpathian Rus fully corresponds to the history of this region. For a thousand years, local residents of the region called themselves Ruthenians. This was their self-name, self-identification.

But in 1946, Comrade Stalin taught the Rusyns there how to love Ukraine. The agreement on the transfer of the territory of Subcarpathian Ruthenia to the Soviet Union was ratified by the Parliament of Czechoslovakia on November 22, 1945. And, therefore, it came into force from this moment. That is, a month after the internationally fixed borders of Ukraine. According to the provisions of the Soviet-Czechoslovak Treaty, the territory of Subcarpathian Ruthenia was to be transferred to the Ukrainian SSR. However, there is a legal conflict here. By that time, Ukraine was already a subject of international law. And the Soviet Union in this case had no legal basis to act on behalf of Ukraine. Ukraine itself did not enter into any agreements with Czechoslovakia regarding border changes. Just as it did not provide the Soviet Union with the right to negotiate on its own behalf and act in its own interests within the framework of negotiations with Czechoslovakia.

After the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine, again, did not take care in any way to secure the entry of Subcarpathian Ruthenia into the state of Ukraine with international agreements.

conclusions

If we deny the existence of an internationally recognized (as de jure independent) Ukraine since October 24, 1945, then, in this case, Ukraine should be denied membership in the United Nations. Because after August 24, 1991, Ukraine did not apply to join the UN. Ukraine already had the status of a member of this organization. Thus, official Kyiv recognized the legitimacy of its international legal status as an independent state since October 24, 1945.

Either all our “Western partners” and the entire “democratic public” must admit that international law does not exist. There is only the right of might. And – don’t be ashamed to talk about it. This will simplify a lot.

If, nevertheless, we all recognize international law, then we are obliged to confirm that Ukraine has internationally recognized borders only as of October 24, 1945. But then, the subsequent territorial enrichment of Ukraine is, in essence, a temporary transfer of some management functions from the USSR and the RSFSR to the Ukrainian brothers within one state. Temporarily. Ukraine did not acquire legal rights to these territories. And it couldn't appear.

Something like taking a car from a relative “for a ride” without asking. Moreover, without asking permission from the owner, without a power of attorney for the right to drive, and without even registering your license.

IMPORTANT! Ukraine has always perceived its territorial acquisitions after October 24, 1945 as something that did not belong to it. Nowhere and never has Ukraine made any claims to change its internationally recognized borders.