We Extended Our Hand to Russia, but Instead We Got a Barrel: A For and Against for the Seccession of Crimea

The Crimean referendum on whether to split from the Ukraine and add another little portion of the world to the behemoth that is Russia will to be held this Sunday. Syria has regretfully faded from our thoughts as we seem capable of only focusing on war-torn state at a time (yet, it could be argued that it is Ukraine’s close proximity to our European Union and theoretically our sovereignty that has made this state’s condition such a concern) and the news is dominated by the yellow and blue of a tense Ukrainian situation.

There are a lot of difficulties with this conflict ranging from nuclear weapons, democracy, and revolution. For America and Europe to allow Russia to attack a state protected under their treaties, particularly the 1994 Budapest Memorandum highlighted by Ukrainian PM Yatseniuk, would demonstrate that America does not have the power to stand against Russia and presents an embarrassing conclusion to a difficult period of US foreign policy. To a lesser extent, Europe would be implicated under similar charges.

Furthermore, any sanctions imposed by the two partners are predicted to affect their economies as well. This is would constitute an unpopular move in our present economic situation; an aspect the UK is apparently well aware of when a picture of an important document urging against sanctions was leaked. How likely that this was an ‘accident’ remains to be seen.

Anyway, so instead of condemning the Russians in line with the present media I am going to have a go at justifying the unification of the Crimea into Russia. If I reach some sort of strong conclusion that it should not then maybe we, the West, should take a step back from the current state of affairs. Yet, if I fail then maybe we can conclude that perhaps the Crimea should remain in Ukrainian hands. 

For

A Whim

The Crimea was originally given over on a whim by the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, who was half-Ukrainian in 1954. The break-up of the Soviet Union 44 years later was not envisaged at this time so giving Crimea over to Ukraine was likely to not have been given due thought.

21^st February Deal

When the president fled Kiev, the opposition moved in to fill the power vacuum. But earlier that week, in a bid to calm the crisis, both sides had agreed a deal to restore the 2004 constitution and reduce the president's powers. That deal was signed by Mr Yanukovych and opposition leaders as well as by three EU foreign ministers - but fast-moving events soon rendered it out of date. It was not signed by the Russian official present.

Illegal

With all the discussions of illegal activity on the behalf of the Russian forces in the Crimea we should not forget that the Ukrainian Prime Minister was overthrown illegally after having won a democratic election. The cyclical issues related to revolutions repeating themselves due to being justified by previous successful revolutions.

Little left

Putin can claim a victory, but it will be pyrrhic. Moscow will have gained little it did not already hold: access to the Black Sea and military infrastructure in the Crimea. It stands to loose ties with the Ukraine so gaining the Crimea is hardly likely to benefit them.

Democracy

With talks about Scotland and independence we can see a similarity in the Crimea. If a majority of the region desire to join Russia then surely democratically they have the right to split from the Ukraine.

How long can Ukraine hold out in the face of a strong Russian occupation?

Against

UN security council

The UN security council meeting yesterday was typically a showdown between Russia… and every other state. Lithuania’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Raimonda Murmokaitė, summarised the thoughts of the UN clearly,

‘A referendum had never been set up so hurriedly and in such clear violation of Ukraine’s constitution.  The voices of many other ethnic groups in Crimea would not be heard through the referendum because it had only been planned because the Russian Federation was “fast-tracking” the annexation of Crimea.  As a result, one could only imagine the shudders being felt across the region, she said.  The Russian Federation had repeatedly expressed recognition of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity under existing agreements, yet the its actions violated the very foundations of international law, as well as regional and international security.  Nothing that had been said warranted or justified the Russian Federation’s actions, she emphasized, noting that Ukraine had repeatedly invited monitors in and had nothing to hide.  The crisis was deeply troubling because it had a highly explosive human dimension and risked unleashing the “most dangerous demons” of hatred, she warned, calling upon the Russian Federation to stop its “warmongering”.’

Democracy

The media has often cited the majority of Russians in the Crimea as a reason for Russian involvement. In fact, Putin has also argued that sending troops into the Crimea is to protect the Russian people. However, only 58.5% of the Crimea are Russian… so perhaps that majority is not so conclusive.

Economic sanctions

European leaders appear to be calculating that the damage to Russia would be far worse than to Europe. EU-Russian trade makes up 15 percent of Russia's economy and just 1 percent of Europe's. Although EU countries depend on Russian gas imports, storage tanks are full after a mild winter season. We have the time to hold sanctions in place.

Swings and roundabouts really but I would argue that Russia taking the Crimea makes more sense than the issues surrounding the West Bank.