The publication is aimed at representatives of international organizations, diplomatic missions, government bodies and professional legal community, who need information on the practical application of international human rights standards under occupation of the Crimea. Thematic Review is published in electronic form and is for free distribution. The materials are available in three languages - Ukrainian, Russian and English. Use of Content is permitted with the obligatory reference to the source and authorship. If the author of the material is not explicitly stated, all rights to the material belong to the expert-analytical group CHROT. The materials included in the publication, as well as other materials on the topic can be found on the website http://crimeahumanrights.org/ By the time this issue is published, the following issues has already came out or are ready for publication: Issue 1. The right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose residence. Issue 2. Right to property. Issue 3. Right to citizenship (under preparation). Issue 4. Freedom of expression (under preparation).

The publication is destined for representatives of international organizations, diplomatic missions, government bodies and professional legal community, who need information on the practical application of international human rights standards under occupation of the Crimea. Thematical Review is published in electronic form and is for free distribution. The materials are available in Russian and English. The materials included in the publication, as well as other materials on the topic can be found on the website crimeahumanrights.org By the time this issue is published, the following issues has already came out or are ready for publication: Issue 1. The right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose residence. Issue 2. Right to property. Issue 3. Right to citizenship (under preparation). Issue 4. Freedom of expression (under preparation).

During the occupation and subsequent annexation of the Crimean peninsula, the Russian Federation announced all Ukrainian nationals living in Crimea its subjects. Residents of the occupied territory faced a difficult choice. On the one hand, by obtaining Russian passports, they formally took the oath of allegiance to the State which had committed an act of aggression against their sovereign-country. On the other hand, during a short period of time (in fact - 18 days) they could try to submit the “declaration about the willingness to retain the nationality of Ukraine” to one of the four offices which accepted such declarations in Crimea. In this case, they suddenly became foreigners at home and were severely limited in their rights. Using the imperfection of international standards in this ng situations of statelessness and resolving cases of dual nationality. Arbitrary change and imposition of a nationality became a new challenge to which the world was not ready. Having imposed its nationality, the Russian Federation «forced into loyalty» the population of the occupied peninsula under threat of criminal liability (see. Art. 275 of the Criminal Code «High Treason»).

How will Russia redraw post-Soviet borders? In the wake of recent Russian expansionism, political risk expert Agnia Grigas illustrates how—for more than two decades—Moscow has consistently used its compatriots in bordering nations for its territorial ambitions. Demonstrating how this policy has been implemented in Ukraine and Georgia, Grigas provides cutting-edge analysis of the nature of Vladimir Putin’s foreign policy and compatriot protection to warn that Moldova, Kazakhstan, the Baltic States, and others are also at risk.

In this new Brookings Marshall Paper, Michael O'Hanlon argues that now is the time for Western nations to negotiate a new security architecture for neutral countries in eastern Europe to stabilize the region and reduce the risks of war with Russia. He believes NATO expansion has gone far enough. The core concept of this new security architecture would be one of permanent neutrality. The countries in question collectively make a broken-up arc, from Europe's far north to its south: Finland and Sweden; Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus; Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan; and finally Cyprus plus Serbia, as well as possibly several other Balkan states. Discussion on the new framework should begin within NATO, followed by deliberation with the neutral countries themselves, and then formal negotiations with Russia. The new security architecture would require that Russia, like NATO, commit to help uphold the security of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and other states in the region. Russia would have to withdraw its troops from those countries in a verifiable manner; after that, corresponding sanctions on Russia would be lifted. The neutral countries would retain their rights to participate in multilateral security operations on a scale comparable to what has been the case in the past, including even those operations that might be led by NATO. They could think of and describe themselves as Western states (or anything else, for that matter). If the European Union and they so wished in the future, they could join the EU. They would have complete sovereignty and self-determination in every sense of the word. But NATO would decide not to invite them into the alliance as members. Ideally, these nations would endorse and promote this concept themselves as a more practical way to ensure their security than the current situation or any other plausible alternative.

This report assesses the annexation of Crimea by Russia (February–March 2014) and the early phases of political mobilization and combat operations in Eastern Ukraine (late February–late May 2014). It examines Russia’s approach, draws inferences from Moscow’s intentions, and evaluates the likelihood of such methods being used again elsewhere.