About CrimeaWatch#

CrimeaWatch is an independent monitoring initiative that documents Ukrainian officials, entities, and state bodies who make statements or take actions recognizing Crimea as part of Russia. We hold public servants accountable to Ukraine’s territorial integrity and constitutional principles through transparent, evidence-based documentation.

Our Mission#

Our mission is to ensure transparency and accountability in matters of Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Since 2014, when Russia illegally annexed Crimea, maintaining accurate records of positions taken by Ukrainian officials has become essential to defending national sovereignty.

By documenting and publicizing violations, we aim to:

Maintain a comprehensive public record of officials who undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty
Provide verified information to journalists, researchers, legal professionals, and citizens
Hold public servants accountable to their constitutional duties and oath of office
Support Ukraine’s territorial integrity through transparency and public awareness
Preserve historical documentation for future accountability and legal proceedings

Our Values#

Transparency#

We provide evidence-based documentation with full source verification. All our findings are publicly accessible, properly sourced, and backed by verifiable evidence. We believe sunlight is the best disinfectant for positions that contradict Ukraine’s national interests.

Accountability#

We hold officials, entities, and institutions responsible for their public statements and actions regarding Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Public servants must answer to the Ukrainian people and uphold their constitutional obligations.

Integrity#

We defend Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty without compromise. Our work is guided by Ukraine’s constitution, international law recognizing Crimea as Ukrainian territory, and UN General Assembly resolutions affirming Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

Accuracy#

Every entry in our database is thoroughly verified before publication. We maintain the highest standards for evidence and documentation, and we correct errors promptly when brought to our attention.

Legal Framework#

Under Ukrainian law, Crimea remains an integral part of Ukraine’s territory. Despite clear legal protections, numerous Ukrainian officials, NGOs, media, and opinion leaders have made statements recognizing Crimea as Russian territory or subjected Ukrainian citizens of Crimean origin to discrimination.

Protection of Ukrainian Citizenship#

According to Part 6 of Article 5 of the Law of Ukraine “On Ensuring the Rights and Freedoms of Citizens and the Legal Regime in the Temporarily Occupied Territory of Ukraine,” the forced automatic acquisition of citizenship of the Russian Federation by citizens of Ukraine residing in the temporarily occupied territory is not recognized by Ukraine and is not grounds for loss of Ukrainian citizenship.

Illegality of Occupation Authorities#

According to Parts 2 and 3 of Article 9 of the same Law, any bodies, their officials and officers in the temporarily occupied territory and their activities are considered illegal if these bodies or persons were created, elected or appointed in a manner not provided for by law.

Any act (decision, document) issued by the bodies and/or persons specified in part two of this article is invalid and does not create legal consequences, except for documents confirming the fact of birth, death, registration (dissolution) of marriage of a person in the temporarily occupied territory, which are attached to the application for state registration of the corresponding act of civil status.

Why Documentation Matters#

Despite this clear legal framework, there are numerous cases where Ukrainian officials, civil society organizations, media, and opinion leaders:

Recognize the Russian citizenship of Crimean residents
Recognize Crimea’s belonging to Russia
Subject Ukrainian citizens of Crimean origin to repressions in Ukraine

This documentation serves as a public record of these violations and supports accountability.

Our Methodology#

Verification Process#

Every entry in our database undergoes rigorous multi-step verification to ensure accuracy and fairness:

1. Source Collection#

We gather evidence from multiple channels:

Official government statements and press releases
Video and audio recordings from public events
Court documents and legal rulings
Media reports from credible news outlets
Social media posts from verified accounts
Public records and archived documents

2. Cross-Verification#

We confirm information through multiple independent sources whenever possible. Single-source claims are clearly marked and treated with appropriate caution.

3. Documentation & Archiving#

We archive all evidence to prevent loss or manipulation:

Screenshot capture with timestamps
Video clip archiving
Web page archiving via Internet Archive
Document preservation in multiple formats
Source link verification and backup

4. Review & Updates#

We regularly review entries based on:

New information that provides additional context
Corrections submitted by subjects or third parties
Changes in position or public statements
Verification of previously unconfirmed information

Severity Classification System#

We classify documented violations into three levels based on clarity, authority, and format. This helps users understand the nature and weight of each documented instance.

HIGH SEVERITY#

Violations that are clear, unambiguous, and made in official capacity.

Criteria:

Explicit, direct statements recognizing Crimea as Russian territory
Made in official capacity (government position, official events, formal settings)
Clear, documented evidence (video recordings, official documents, court rulings)
No ambiguity in meaning or intent
Public and attributable

Example: A government minister stating “Crimea is part of Russia” at an official press conference, with video documentation.

MEDIUM SEVERITY#

Violations that show implicit recognition or are made in less formal contexts.

Criteria:

Implicit or indirect recognition of Crimea as Russian territory
Explicit statements made in informal settings (social media, interviews, private events)
Statements made by lower-authority officials
Passive endorsement (attending pro-Russia events, signing documents implying recognition)
Actions that effectively recognize Russian authority over Crimea

Example: A government official attending a conference titled “Crimea’s Return to Russia” without objection or clarification of Ukraine’s position.

LOW SEVERITY#

Violations that are ambiguous, historical, or difficult to verify definitively.

Criteria:

Ambiguous or unclear statements open to multiple interpretations
Questionable or difficult-to-verify evidence
Very informal contexts (unverified reports, second-hand accounts)
Historical statements made before assuming current position
Statements requiring significant contextual interpretation

Example: An official saying “Some people believe Crimea belongs to Russia” without explicitly endorsing or rejecting this view.

Evidence Standards#

We accept the following types of evidence, listed from strongest to weakest:

Primary Evidence (Highest Quality):

Video or audio recordings of statements
Official documents, letters, or government publications
Court rulings and legal documents
Sworn testimony or official transcripts

Secondary Evidence (Strong Quality):

Verified news reports from credible media outlets with journalistic standards
Screenshots of social media posts from verified accounts (archived)
Photographs of events, documents, or gatherings

Corroborated Evidence (Acceptable Quality):

Eyewitness accounts corroborated by multiple independent sources
Second-hand reports verified through multiple channels
Circumstantial evidence supported by contextual documentation

We clearly indicate the type, quality, and limitations of evidence for each documented instance. Weaker evidence receives lower severity classifications and appropriate contextual warnings.

What We Document#

For each profile in our database, we provide comprehensive documentation:

Identity Information:

Full name and any known aliases
Current and previous positions
Organizational affiliations
Biographical background relevant to the violation
Public contact information (when available)

Documented Instances:

Specific violations with precise dates and locations
Context and circumstances of each statement or action
Severity classification with justification
Multiple violations tracked chronologically

Evidence & Sources:

Direct quotes in original language (with English translation)
Links to primary sources (official documents, videos, recordings)
Links to secondary sources (news reports, analyses)
Archived versions of all online evidence
Screenshots and visual documentation

Verification Details:

Date of initial verification
Verification method used
Names of media outlets or sources
Updates and corrections log
Confidence level in the documentation

Limitations & Transparency#

We acknowledge the following limitations of our work:

Information Constraints:

We rely on publicly available information and cannot document private conversations or closed-door meetings
Our database represents documented cases, not necessarily all instances of violations
Some credible reports cannot be published due to insufficient verification

Language & Translation:

Translations may not capture exact linguistic nuance
We provide original language statements whenever possible
Context may be lost in translation across languages and cultures

Temporal Limitations:

Historical statements before 2014 may lack context of the post-annexation situation
People’s positions may evolve over time
Verification standards may prevent timely publication of recent events

Verification Challenges:

Some evidence degrades over time (deleted posts, removed videos)
Sources may become unavailable
Verification can take time, delaying publication

We are committed to transparency about these limitations and clearly mark entries where these factors apply.

Corrections and Updates#

Accuracy is fundamental to our mission. If you believe we have made an error or have new information:

How to Submit a Correction:

Contact us at [email protected]
Provide specific details about the alleged error
Include evidence and sources supporting your correction
Allow reasonable time for review and investigation

Our Correction Process:

We review all correction requests within 7 business days
Verified errors are corrected immediately with a public note
Subjects of profiles are given opportunity to provide context or response
All significant corrections are documented in the entry’s update log

We are committed to accuracy and will correct errors promptly and transparently.

Who We Are#

CrimeaWatch is an independent monitoring initiative dedicated to defending Ukraine’s territorial integrity through transparency and accountability.

Our Independence:

Not affiliated with any political party or government agency
Not funded by any governmental or political organizations
Not connected to any advocacy groups or NGOs
Guided solely by our mission to document violations of Ukraine’s sovereignty

Our Team: We are Ukrainian citizens, journalists, researchers, and legal professionals who believe in the rule of law, constitutional governance, and Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

Our Funding: CrimeaWatch operates through volunteer efforts and private contributions. We accept no government funding to maintain our independence.

Frequently Asked Questions#

Is this a government project? No, CrimeaWatch is completely independent and has no affiliation with any government agency or political party.

How can someone be removed from the database? Entries are based on documented public statements and actions. We do not remove factually accurate entries, but we do add updates, clarifications, and statements from subjects when provided.

What if someone’s position has changed? We document position changes and updates in the profile. Historical statements remain documented with appropriate context about subsequent position changes.

Can I submit anonymous tips? Yes, but anonymous tips require stronger corroboration before publication. We prefer submissions with verifiable contact information.

Contact Us#

Submit Information: [email protected]
Report Corrections: [email protected]
General Inquiries: [email protected]
Media Requests: [email protected]
Technical Issues: [email protected]

Last updated: January 2026