(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
In February, Ny Tid had an article that was to have consequences. The couple Rosenlund / Weber wrote a travel letter about their trip to the Crimea in October 2016. Some of us reacted, and they therefore just arranged a trip for us under the auspices of the newly founded "People's Diplomacy Norway" – a movement to improve relations with Russia to contribute to prevent another cold war.
Experience it for yourself. Before leaving, we asked for a meeting in the Russian Embassy. There we were asked what we wanted with the trip. We explained that we wanted to go to Crimea to see for ourselves how the conditions were there – whether they corresponded to the picture the media presented here. Ambassador Andrej Kolesnikov then stated that they did not want to expose us to any kind of influence from the Russian side. They would help with preparation for the trip, but beyond that we were left to ourselves. They encourage
allowed us to move freely among people, as it turned out.
In early October, we departed, despite gloomy warnings that Crimea was in a war zone.
In early October, we departed, despite gloomy warnings that Crimea was in a war zone (Foreign Ministry), and with regrets from our Foreign Minister in the news on TV2. As is well known, Norway practices a strict line for compliance with Western sanctions. Not to mention all the skepticism we encountered from ordinary people.
After a week in Crimea – three days in Yalta and three days in Simferopol – we were back in good stead, without encountering a single soldier. People's life seemed to be commonplace when we traveled. It was even pleasant.
And what did we see in Crimea?
No dissatisfaction. Crimea consists of a multicultural people originating from over 130 countries. We had asked to experience the ethnic diversity, which we got at several meetings – at eateries and so on. After all, we had heard a lot about oppressed minorities. The three languages Russian, Ukrainian and Tatar are equal – unlike in Ukraine where Ukrainian is the only language after the coup in Kiev against the legally elected President Yanukovych. No one we met in Crimea expressed dissatisfaction with the country's government or reunification with Russia. Rather, the tone was a relief to have escaped the traumatic relationship with Ukraine. They also talk about a historical affiliation with Russia.
Met public figures. We had asked for meetings with public figures in Simferopol, and we got that. The Council of the Republic of Crimea welcomed us with full attendance. Georgia Muradov presented a detailed report on the legality of the 2014 referendum that led to reunification with Russia (the term used was "reunion").
Furthermore, a meeting was held in the Crimean State Council (parliament) – also there with full attendance. The leader Vladimir Konstantinov told about the dramatic days in February and March 2014. He and Sergei Aksionov had been central to the events and had avoided very dangerous confrontations with distress and scarcity. During the whole process, they seemed to be driven to elections and actions based on pressure and input from the population – ie "direct democracy". In Parliament's courtyard, we had the events presented by one who had been present himself – Jurij Gempel, Minister of Interethnic Relations.
These meetings were serious, though we felt a hint of humor – as when Muradov asked if we had met many soldiers. The erroneous picture Western media gives is so absurd that it simply arouses cheerfulness there. But when it comes to the problems Western sanctions cause for ordinary people, it provokes outrage – there is no understanding of their purpose. Now they are only looking forward to the bridge over the Strait between the Asov Sea and the Black Sea to be completed in a year's time, with the hope that it will break the isolation. By the way, the sanctions have also had positive effects – it has led to the discovery of new opportunities.
No one we met in Crimea expressed dissatisfaction with the country's government or reunification with Russia – the tone was rather relief.
Patriotic mood. What we noticed was the patriotic mood that prevailed. We were brought to several memorials of fallen in battle, and we followed the country's custom of honoring the fallen by putting down red carnations. The history of the country speaks for itself. Crimea has a tradition of high degree of autonomy – even under the rule of other states. Their country's unique status was the people strongly committed to fight – which was clearly expressed during the crisis of 2014. They are consciously the country's history with noticeable roots from 500 BCE. – Crimea has been the scene of waves of immigration, of lively trade, of fighting and much more. And Crimea today appears as a country with a distinctive character – not as a place that has been reduced to a peninsula with strategic significance for great powers. This beats people there from bitter experience.
We got to talk to people. They claim that if they find support in the Russian Federation, then this is their choice and no violation of international law. And they wonder why this is a problem for us in the West when there is no problem for them.
Travel more to Crimea! So, we can rejoice with the people of Crimea that the bleak picture that is presented does not match the reality there. This is the same conclusion that Rosenlund / Weber drew after his journey there a year ago. They could tell what they saw and what they didn't see. And allegations of blameworthy conditions in Crimea are constantly rebuffed – time and time again. But what does that help? Do people really want to know? Are we spectators of a play? However, it is a play with real consequences, and it can be dangerous. And we can witness that.
Crimea is used and held hostage to justify our hostility and armament against the border of our neighbor. Therefore, we only have to continue to travel to Crimea! We are well received.
