Economic, European Union, Government, History, Russia, Society, Ukraine, United States

An outcome in Crimea must be fair…

CRIMEA

Intro: The current situation in Ukraine has been described as the biggest crisis in Europe since the turn of the 21st century

Russian troops are now controlling Crimea in the south-east of the country. The chaos in the former Soviet state is the most troubling development on European soil since the turn of the millennium. The crisis has all the hallmarks of a 20th century conflict; one that resembles the days of the Cold War, or even beyond it. The American missile destroyer USS Truxton has arrived in the Black Sea and will permitted to stay there for a period of only 21 days under the Montreux Convention, an international agreement that allows a warship of any non-Black Sea country to be in its waters.

Whilst European leaders have spoken about ramping up tough diplomatic measures against Russia, Vladimir Putin is unperturbed and so far seems untroubled by the prospect of their disapproval. Mr Putin is determined to see the Crimean peninsula become part of his wider Russian Federation, particularly given the economic advantages to the Russian economy of its offshore gas fields. There also remains a strong pro-Russian element in the Crimea, a factor that Mr Putin will wish to capitalise upon. It was, after all, fierce disagreement over whether Ukraine should forge closer links with the European Union or Putin’s Russia which brought about the crisis in the first place. The very idea that former Soviet states be integrated into the European Union is an anathema to Mr Putin as he seeks, instead, to build a Russian dominated Eurasia Union.

The American missile destroyer USS Truxton has arrived in the Black Sea and will permitted to stay there for a period of only 21 days under the Montreux Convention.

The American missile destroyer USS Truxton has arrived in the Black Sea and will permitted to stay there for a period of only 21 days under the Montreux Convention.

But with European measures to find a solution reaping little success, the arrival of a US destroyer in the region seems likely only to exacerbate the situation. Russia has a strong naval presence in the Crimean port of Sevastopol, the deployment of US gunboat diplomacy surely misreads the temperature in the Ukraine and the temperament of the Russian president. The Americans insist that Truxton is merely participating in a ‘planned exercise’, but the timing of its arrival will be more suspicious to those who doubt such an announcement.

Observers and analysts have turned to the 20th century to draw parallels with the actions that led to both world wars. It is not unthinkable that the crisis in Ukraine could be allowed to escalate with similar consequences.

On 16 March, the people of Crimea will be offered two choices in a referendum – they can either vote to become subjects of the Russian Federation or by favouring the restoration of the 1992 Crimean constitution (which would be a declaration of independence from Ukraine). Transparent democracy seems the only hope for a peaceful solution.

Crucially, however, this referendum doesn’t offer citizens the choice to remain with the status quo, with Crimea as an autonomous republic within Ukraine. The options on offer are either to join with Russia or declare independence, then join with Russia soon after.

The referendum has no credibility. How can it be when the outcomes it promises amount to no more than a stitch-up? The West should be concerned that the people will be asked to make a decision while their homeland has effectively been seized by Russian forces. Putin may tell the world that his troops are there to protect Russian speaking people, but that argument ran out the very moment Russian soldiers displayed their intention to protect by pointing their threatening weapons in the direction of their Ukrainian counterparts.

Mr Putin’s troubling empire-building is at the heart of the issue. It may well be that a majority of the people of Crimea will choose to enter the Russian fold. We would have no concerns if such a transition took place openly and democratically, and in full view of the world. A vote is needed that is open, honest and fair, and a plebiscite that is carried out without Russian soldiers prowling the streets.

Standard
European Union, Foreign Affairs, Government, Politics, Russia, Society, Ukraine

Ukraine and the difficulties ahead…

UKRAINE

Over the past two weeks events in Ukraine have moved fast. No day over the last fortnight has past in which something critical has happened. Following the ferocious rioting that led to 88 deaths, Viktor Yanukovych, the country’s former president, was dramatically dethroned. Events in Kiev, Ukraine’s capital, are being perceived as one of the most epochal developments in central Europe since the end of the Second World War. Disruption is far from over.

Ukraine is deeply divided, with half of the population in support of joining the European Union. These people see the benefits brought to Poland, a country of similar size to the Ukraine, that is now firmly embedded within the EU and Nato. Poland’s GDP is now three times what it once was and people there enjoy living standards that are envied by those Ukrainians who wish to see their country afforded similar benefits. The other half, though, are deeply loyal to Russia’s Vladimir Putin and aim to see Ukraine integrated as part of Putin’s wider Eurasia Union, a new and emerging federation of countries aligned to the political aspirations of Moscow.

Ukraine’s future leadership and direction is far from settled. With no clear coalescence around an alternative leader, Ukraine remains more representative of a volcano that has erupted with extraordinary violence and with the after-effects still yet to be felt. Russia has been a dominant force over much of Ukraine’s history, and the world awaits to see how Putin will play his hand.

Hidden from view in the confrontation that has ensued in the centre of Kiev is a chronic economic and financial crisis. Whoever replaces Mr Yanukovych will need to tackle pressing issues to secure continued Russian funding of the country’s debt. Without this, a more widespread collapse beckons.

For its part, the EU needs to look critically at its mooted trade agreements with the country to ensure a fair balance of reciprocal benefits. A major criticism at the present is that these favour EU exports over Ukraine’s well-endowed agricultural sector. Given this delicate economic situation, it is not just Russia but also the West that needs to proceed with great caution before the election of a new government in Ukraine.

The great fear for Western leaders is that Russia will intervene militarily in the affairs of its most important geopolitical neighbour. Such a threat cannot be ruled out. Putin will view this kind of struggle as a matter of personal prestige – he has a renowned reputation in humiliating his rivals, rather than a record of striking appeasement and deals with them. While in power, Mr Yanukovych, became one of Russia’s main allies.

That Mr Putin may act rashly in the days ahead was one of the ‘many dangers’ that William Hague, the British Foreign Secretary, has alluded to. Mr Hague also highlighted the possibility of renewed violence, or that ethnically Russian parts of the country, such as Crimea, will attempt to secede. This situation represents more of a direct challenge to the EU in particular, which has been attempting to woo Ukraine with a trade deal worth hundreds of millions of euros a year. Such a deal is not the same as membership of the EU, but for many it will not be far off. It would, for example, offer Ukraine guaranteed entry into a huge and developed market on its doorstep. Unlike Mr Putin’s recent offers and bribes to his neighbour of cheap gas and serviceable debt, the EU deal has few strings attached.

Ukraine needs a government, and elections will be held in May. In the coming days and weeks, Western leaders must do everything they can to promote a working economy in Ukraine so that its institutions can be free from corruption and outside interference.

Setting out a path to normalisation will be difficult, not least because the opposition forces in Ukraine are deeply divided. Hatred of Viktor Yanukovych masks profound differences in belief and ideology. An early and sympathetic engagement is vital if Ukraine’s open revolt and revolution is not to shatter the country even further and spark dangerous unrest across the entire region.

Standard