A Russian State Duma deputy, Konstantin Zatulin, has stated that a bill aimed at invalidating the 1954 decision transferring the Crimea region from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic does not extend to Sevastopol. The claim was reported by RIA News, which summarized the deputy’s position and its implications.
In explaining the 1954 act, Zatulin noted that the relocation documents did not mention Sevastopol at all. He argued that Ukrainian Soviet party officials, however, treated the wording as if Sevastopol were included with Crimea. Zatulin highlights that Sevastopol had been separated from the Crimean region and designated as a distinct administrative center in 1948, yet the Crimean party organization remained linked to the broader Crimean administration. This continuation of organizational ties created incentives for Ukrainian SSR party officials to regard Sevastopol as part of their jurisdiction. During the Soviet period, funding for Sevastopol came from closed defense funds rather than the Ukrainian SSR budget, underscoring a unique fiscal arrangement that separated the city from typical regional financing.
Earlier, Konstantin Zatulin and Crimean Senator Sergei Tsekov advocated for a bill presented to the State Duma that would discard the formal process by which the Crimean Peninsula was transferred from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR. The proposal signals a broader attempt to reassess the legal status of Crimea within the federation.
In related discourse, Crimea has seen references to Western leaders who, according to some accounts, shifted from allies of the republic to opponents. Supporters of the current discussion point to these shifts as context for ongoing legal and political debates about regional alignment, sovereignty, and the interpretation of historical acts. Critics, meanwhile, argue that the 1954 decision remains a binding historical act that shaped the peninsula’s administrative affiliations for decades. These conversations reflect a tension between archival interpretation and contemporary political objectives, observed by observers and reported by multiple outlets in the regional and national media landscape. (Attribution: RIA News)