Since the beginning of the aggression in Ukraine, the civilized countries of the world have imposed strong financial and economic sanctions against Russia. These sanctions, coupled with military support, have become a civilized response that should stop the Kremlin.

We have already written about the impact of these sanctions on the temporarily occupied Crimea. Today, the effect of such sanctions is becoming more tangible every day. But now I would like to dwell in more detail on the reactions of Crimean collaborators, who not only deny the effectiveness of sanctions, but also try to threaten Ukraine with “retaliatory sanctions”.

On the one hand, this looks like the agony of Russian protégés, and on the other hand, it is necessary to clearly understand how the self-proclaimed “powers” on the peninsula can harm Ukraine and its citizens. In times of war, any threat should be considered in order to be able to act on prejudice. The problem was investigated by experts from the Association of Reintegration of Crimea.

Immediately after the imposition of sanctions, the self-proclaimed “head of Crimea” Sergei Aksyonov made confident statements that Western sanctions would allegedly “only benefit”, as most of the Russian companies that fell under them will be able to enter the peninsula. This is especially true of the banking sector, which has systemic problems on the occupied peninsula [1].

At the same time, “as if on instructions”, representatives of the Crimean business also began to proclaim anti-sanctions slogans. For example, some representatives of “large and medium-sized businesses” were forced to join the aggressor’s flash mob “we do work”. Its essence is that the Crimean “business” prepared videos on the instructions of the Russian special services that they allegedly did not stop their activities and “are ready to meet tourists”. For the most part, the flash mob was forced to involve some representatives of the hotel and restaurant business, services and trade [2].

However, Mr. Aksyonov’s rhetoric soon began to change dramatically. This is probably due to the instructions of the Kremlin, which also changed its statements after the sanctions took effect. The fake “authorities” of the self-proclaimed Crimea have announced the development of “final schemes” for the criminal “nationalization” of Ukrainian property on the peninsula. Aksyonov threatened that none of the Ukrainians would have time to re-register the property, and the illegal “nationalization” started in 2014 would be “finally completed” [3].

It is significant that Aksyonov was instructed by the aggressor to “develop a draft federal law”, ie a document that will allegedly “operate throughout Russia” [4]. It can be assumed that the Kremlin is wary of initiating such decisions, and has entrusted it to a person who can later be blamed. It is known that Mr. Aksyonov provided “very short deadlines” for the development of such a “bill” and its submission to the State Duma.

Similar tendencies began a little earlier in the political environment of Russia itself. In particular, representatives of the “United Russia” party propose to “nationalize” the property of foreign companies that have announced that they are leaving the Russian market and closing their production [5]. Since there have been no foreign companies in the occupied Crimea since 2014, Aksyonov has no choice but to “nationalize” Ukrainian property.

With the “trailer” Aksyonov wants to “ban” the Orthodox Church of Ukraine on the territory of the temporarily occupied peninsula and rename the streets. He has already stated that Crimea “needs to get rid of” everything that is somehow connected with the so-called “Ukrainian nazism”. Therefore, the fake local “authorities” hastily launched an audit to identify such “Ukrainian symbols” in the settlements.

In particular, Aksyonov called for the “renaming” of Vyacheslav Chornovil Street in the Armyansk town. It is difficult to explain Aksyonov’s logic, because during his life Chornovol always advocated respect for all citizens of Ukraine, regardless of the language they speak.

But let’s move directly to the property of Ukrainians who want to criminally “nationalize” Crimean collaborators. First of all, the propaganda campaign started with mini-hotels owned by ordinary citizens. Aksyonov instructed the local “authorities” together with the Russian punitive forces to “check the Ukrainian owners who condemned the Russian invasion. It is stated that this allegedly “applies only to those citizens of Ukraine who are engaged in public propaganda” [7].

The “revenge plan” is rather strange and complicated, because it is not clear how such “inspections” will be carried out and what is considered “public propaganda”. The fake “speaker of Crimea” Volodymyr Kostantynov has already reported to Aksyonov that “potential objects have already been identified and previous restrictions have been imposed”. It is not clear what the hypothetical “guilt” of ordinary Ukrainians, who expressed support for their homeland, because, unlike the Kremlin leadership, they did not give orders to bomb peaceful cities of an independent state.

This shows that ownership from the point of view of the aggressor is a very ephemeral thing that can disappear at any time. By the way, this applies not only to the inhabitants of mainland Ukraine, but also to ordinary Crimeans, who can lose everything at any moment. For example, Aksyonov recently stated that in the event of an increase in food prices, he would propose to “nationalize” the Yalta food market [9].

In essence, the key requirement was an immediate reduction in prices. Aksyonov does not even understand that they have increased not because businessmen want to, but because the occupied Crimea, as well as the territory of Russia itself, are under large-scale sanctions. Crimean collaborators have announced with special pride that they will begin criminal “nationalization” of the property of President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky.

Probably in this way the self-proclaimed “power” of Crimea is trying to demonstrate the “infinity” of its “powers”. This is an apartment in Livadia, which the fake “head of the administration” of Yalta planned to hand over to “refugees” from Donetsk and Luhansk regions [10]. There are also illegal proposals from collaborator Mykhailo Sheremet to “sell” the apartment of the President of Ukraine and allegedly “direct funds to restore the infrastructure of Donbass”. By the way, this property was bought before the occupation of Crimea, was declared in the prescribed manner and has a relatively moderate value [11].

Most likely, this is the revenge of the aggressor for the personal sanctions against Vladimir Putin, which were imposed by the United States and Europe. However, there is a very important difference, because the President of Ukraine does not carry out an attack, but defends his own country together with all citizens. However, the desire of collaborators to please their “boss” is much stronger than common sense. However, the occupiers promised not to stop at the President of Ukraine, and they want criminally “nationalize” the housing of all Ukrainians, which is on the occupied peninsula.

The corresponding “proposal” was made by Vladimir Konstantinov, who noted that it is necessary to “nationalize” and “apartments of Ukrainians” in Yalta and other settlements of the occupied peninsula. He has even invented a “formal reason” for such actions – fake “utility debts”.

Given the large number of such apartments, as Konstantinov noted, “the amount of debt is quite significant, and, therefore, nationalization is quite justified”. Crimean collaborators also plan to seize outlets from Ukrainians on the same grounds. But in this case we are also talking about “those who do not support the special operation in Ukraine” [12]. It is not clear just why Ukrainians have to pay for “utilities” to the aggressor’s “budget”. It is also difficult to understand what “right” the impostors have to decide the fate of the property of Ukrainians who have worked for years to buy this property.

However, they decided not to stay in residential premises and mini-hotels. In late March, Aksonov announced his criminal intentions to “nationalize” hotels owned by “Ukrainians who supported the political regime in Kyiv”. There were also calls to “nationalize” the business of Ukrainians, which has not yet been stolen by Crimean collaborators.

In particular, Aksyonov noted that they would “arrest with further seizure” in favor of the aggressor on various “trade facilities owned by Ukrainians”. In this case, the criterion is not variable – “financial support of the Ukrainian army” [14]. The way in which Crimean collaborators are going to “formalize” this is typical. In fact, in the occupied Crimea, such a “prerequisite” will probably be an active civil position, because the support and defense of the Motherland is a constitutional duty of every Ukrainian.

It should be noted that the list of property that may fall under the criminal “nationalization” in the Crimea is expanding almost every day. As already mentioned, in late March, Aksyonov made a criminal proposal to “ban” the Orthodox Church of Ukraine as an alleged “structure of discord” that allegedly “should not exist”; he added that his “assistants” were already working on the bill. On the one hand, such an illegal statement is a kind of “response” to the difficult situation in the Ukrainian structures of the Moscow Patriarchate, which largely do not support the criminal actions of the Russian government [16].

The question also arises: why did the Crimean collaborators become so active around the “ban” of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine? The answer is quite simple. Since 2019, the self-proclaimed “authorities” of Crimea are trying to seize the property of this church under any pretext. For example, in the same year 2019, the occupying “authorities” of Crimea have already sent a criminal “order to vacate the premises” of the Cathedral of Saints Volodymyr and Olga in Simferopol [17]. That is, “nationalization” can become an instrument of seizure of church property, which will later be transferred to structures loyal to the aggressor. At the same time, the aggressor can achieve another ideological goal: to leave only “necessary” believers on the peninsula, which will be fully covered by the Kremlin’s ideas, which are retransmitted on the peninsula by the Russian Church.

Aksyonov’s illegal “nationalization” suggests that for the Kremlin it is primarily an instrument of political and ideological pressure on Ukraine. It is worth recalling that there were in fact several attempts to deprive the state and Ukrainians of their property in Crimea. At the first stage, immediately after the attempted annexation, state property was illegally “nationalized”. In the second stage, the occupiers seized the property of some large financial and industrial groups, which was banally divided between collaborators and businessmen close to the Kremlin. The third stage was marked by the criminal “nationalization” of property of legal entities, ie Ukrainian business [18].

These stages coincide with the imposition of sanctions against Russia and Crimean collaborators for the occupation of the peninsula. The Kremlin is probably angry when the world expresses its position and tries to support Ukraine.

And illegal “nationalization” is used as a demonstration tool, which proves that the fake “powers” of the occupied peninsula allegedly has “signs of statehood”, ie capable of “coercion”. In fact, it is simply a desire to achieve something at the expense of someone else’s property. This is further confirmed by some facts which indicate that the declared “nationalization” may not go according to plan, even without Ukrainian intervention.

For example, in 2015, due to quarrels in the circles of collaborators, the illegal “arbitration court of Crimea” controlled by the occupiers “declared as illegal the decision to nationalize” the Yalta Film Studio. This situation provoked a flurry of outrage from Aksyonov and the fake “prosecutor” of the occupied peninsula, Natalia Poklonskaya, who promised to “bring the judge to justice”. But even without counting these conflicts as property between different clans of the occupiers, the absurdity of the decisions of pro-Kremlin puppets is understood by the whole world.

It should be noted that the process of “nationalization” of Ukrainian property during the war is accompanied by ambiguous statements by Crimean collaborators. In particular, in his speeches, Aksyonov constantly emphasizes that it is not the Ukrainians who are at war with Russia, but allegedly the countries of the European Union and the United States, which “imposed a certain ideology on Ukraine”. Then several questions arise as to why the aggressor, while declaring war on “Ukrainian owners”, at the same time seeks to attract “foreign investors” to Crimea, albeit without success. Under such conditions, the announced “nationalization” of Ukrainian property is reminiscent of the step of despair that the vanquished usually take.

By the way, even some representatives of Russian business have already expressed the opinion of such “nationalization” in the Crimea and throughout Russia. Thus, one of the richest Russians, Vladimir Potanin, said that such initiatives are reminiscent of 1917, and he compared the actions of the Russian government and its Crimean henchmen with the actions of the Soviet regime. According to him, this will lead to global distrust on the part of investors and push Russia back a hundred years [21], which will indeed happen.

It should be added that such “nationalization” will not have an effect on Ukrainians, as most of them have not used their property on the peninsula for a long time and do not want to live in Crimea before its deoccupation. Moreover, such threats will not change the pro-Ukrainian position of Ukrainian citizens, just as the President of Ukraine will certainly not be stopped by the fake “nationalization” of his apartment in the occupied Crimea.

During the years of occupation of the peninsula, the self-proclaimed “government” constantly proved its loyalty to the Kremlin, for which it received “indulgence” to plunder Ukrainian territory. Moreover, Russia has allowed its own oligarchs to buy criminally “nationalized” property from Ukrainian companies.

Recent events have only confirmed the thesis of the pocket nature of “power” on the peninsula, which at one point began to talk about the need for “retaliatory sanctions”. But not having a real opportunity to influence Ukraine and European states, Crimean collaborators began to proclaim already known slogans about “nationalization”. Such are the realities of the “Russian world” – to punish the innocent and praise the guilty.

We are convinced that Crimean collaborators will have to answer for all crimes, and illegally “nationalized” assets will return to their owners in the de-occupied Crimea.