Tag Archives: Sevastopol

Economic, Government, Russia, Society, Ukraine, United Nations

An interventionist approach by Russia in Ukraine is highly dangerous…

Map of Ukraine highlighting Crimea and the strategic importance of Sevastopol on the south-west coast with ease of access to the Black Sea.

Map of Ukraine highlighting Crimea and the strategic importance of Sevastopol on the south-west coast with ease of access to the Black Sea.

Intro: As Vladimir Putin sabre-rattles over Ukraine, the situation is getting murkier

The appearance of armed men at airports in Crimea is a dangerous development in Ukraine’s messy and murky ‘revolution’. They have no insignia to say who they are, but their behaviour is one of a disciplined troop. It is fair to assume they are Russian. They are refusing to talk or elaborate on why they are there. Russia has its Black Sea fleet’s major naval base at the Crimean port of Sevastopol, and two air bases at the airports where the soldiers have appeared. Slightly more than half of the Crimean population identify themselves as being Russian, either by origin or allegiance. Reporters on the ground have even suggested that Russian envoys have been handing out Russian passports to those who want them.

Ominously, manoeuvrings are pointing in only one direction – that Russian president Vladimir Putin, who has deployed his tanks on Ukraine’s borders, has in fact moved some of his troops over the border. The Russian constitution allows for its armed forces to operate outside of Russia ‘in defence of Russian citizens.’ Seizing control of airfields could be a preparatory tactic before invading Crimea, or it might be a prelude in removing ‘Russians’ altogether.

To make matters worse, deposed Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich has resurfaced in Russia, following days on the run after his forced dethronement. Mr Yanukovich has declared that he wants to ‘fight for the Ukraine’ against what he has termed lawlessness and terror. He frequently refers to his usurpers as ‘neo-fascists’.

Russian intervention can only be seen as a highly dangerous move. Mr Putin must know that in this bitterly divided country such an incursion could lead to a bloody conflagration and a darkness comparable to that of the Cold War descending on East-West relations. Moscow will also understand that Mr Yanukovich is under investigation by western banking authorities for plundering his country’s wealth for personal gain. Yet, amid the turmoil, Russian preparations may also include an attempt to restore the discredited regime of Mr Yanukovich. The West should expect to hear a plethora of alibis and excuses as to why Russia is adopting an interventionist stance.

Sensibly, the new Ukrainian authorities under the country’s interim leadership have not risen to the bait. Whilst they do not yet have much authority over a large part of the country, they will be acutely aware that any escalation in belligerence could be the catalyst and excuse Mr Putin is looking for.

Diplomacy is still an option. Ukraine’s most pressing problem is that it is financially destitute. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) can provide loans for the purpose of restructuring an ailing economy, but so can Mr Putin. Most western leaders, too, appear to be willing to pay for a peaceful settlement, with Britain saying it will issue ‘blank signed cheques’ in helping Ukraine find its feet.

Geopolitically, understanding what Mr Putin wants will be a priority and key factor before any advances can be made. Whether that is complete tutelage over Ukrainian affairs or just considerable influence over a country that shares much of its history and culture with Russia, both of which will be an anathema to the protesting crowds in Kiev, a permanent settlement is still some way off. Convincing Mr Putin to keep his tanks away has to be the West’s prime objective.

Standard
Economic, European Union, Government, Politics, Russia, Society, Ukraine, United States

Ukraine and its future stability…

Intro: For Ukraine to have a stable future it is imperative that Russia, the European Union and the US work together in collaboration if that stability is to be assured

Despite all the tumult of recent weeks, the crisis in Ukraine is just at the beginning. Europe’s seventh most populous country will be without a fully-elected government until at least May, a situation that has arisen following its former president who was stripped of his power and who has been on the run since being forced out. It is believed Viktor Yanukovych has found safe haven in Russia, Ukraine’s closest ally in the region.

The underlying mood appears to be one of score settling. Separatism in the east is stirring, especially in Crimea, which is predominately Russian by culture and history. Ukraine is strategically important for Moscow: the Russian’s maintain a major naval base at Sevastopol, allowing the Russian navy to deploy quickly into the Black Sea as the need arises.

Ukraine is broke, precipitated by the immediate origins of the crisis which was economic. The currency, the hryvnia, has depreciated by 12 per cent since the start of the year, and the public finances are teetering on the verge of collapse. According to the interim-government in Ukraine, one which is attempting to aid transition to a newly elected government, the country needs £21 billion between now and the end of 2015 simply to pay its bills. Mr Yanukovych is widely reported as having taken bribes in accepting Russian aid and membership of the Moscow sponsored Eurasian Union, rather than entering into trade deals and agreements with the EU.

The West needs to be careful in any vainglorious attempt of portraying or by assuming it has won following the overthrow of Mr Yanukovych. The geopolitics, best seen as a tug-of-war, is fraught with difficulties. For Ukraine to have a stable future it is imperative that Russia, the European Union and the US work together in collaboration if that stability is to be assured. The danger is that any one of these superpowers treats the country as the prize in a zero-sum game.

America’s approach has been cautious. President Obama has, thus far, shown no desire for a full-scale showdown with Moscow. But this attitude is shared by his European allies, too, as they strive to put together an economic rescue package in which Russia would ideally be involved. In reality, though, the real uncertainty surrounds how Moscow will react to the fate of its southern neighbour. Where culture and history are so closely interwoven, Russia is likely to be wary of any western driven agenda.

The initial response of the Kremlin to events in Kiev was one of ferocious outrage. Dmitry Medvedev, the Prime Minister, accused Europe of turning a blind eye to the dictatorial and ‘sometimes terrorist methods’ used by the new authorities to suppress dissent in eastern Ukraine – the area of the country which is particularly sympathetic to Russian ideals. Mr Medvedev has also declared that the opposition had seized power by an ‘armed mutiny’, a belief which could still lead to direct military action by Russia in the Crimea. A request by the Crimeans for Russian protection would be the pretext for the worst possible outcome.

However, since that outburst, the tone from Moscow has been more restrained. Earlier this week, Sergei Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, indicated that the policy of ‘non-intervention’ would continue. He said, rather curiously, that it was in Moscow’s interests for Ukraine to be part of a ‘broad European family’. However, the Kremlin has an array of options of how it might influence events such as how it will control vital gas exports to all parts of the Ukraine.

Gauging how the crisis will end is no easy task. A form of partition is one possibility, but that can only happen if the considered consent is given by all interested parties. Demarcation along similar lines to the 1993 ‘velvet divorce’ between the Czech Republic and Slovakia is one model that might prove helpful if negotiators are looking for historical references in bringing about an ordered and peaceful outcome in Ukraine.

Standard