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.

The Ukrainian Protests and Musings on the State of the EU

At the end of 2013 the Ukrainian government voted to further ties with Russia and reject a deal to strengthen links with the EU. The New Year has heralded mass protest, captivated the world media and destabilised the country as a whole.

This article will look at what makes the EU so attractive to join, Russia’s policy towards its previous Soviet states and whether the EU membership is simply a unifying purpose that opposition leaders are utilising for political progress.

Is the EU the perfect suitor?

It has been a difficult partnership for any states which consider the EU to not be ‘perfect’ per say. The UK has not had good relations with the EU as it seeks to remain independent and dependent – holding this balance is difficult. Likewise, as you move further East states are locked between the might of the EU and the Russians. Both powers carry advantages to cooperating with them.

With fears over the EU typified by Greece's economic turmoil, why are states still eager to join?

Simply economics, grants and freedom of travel between countries have helped states starve off turmoil.

Poland is a prime example of a flourishing state which has adopted wholeheartedly the European Union mechanisms to boost its economy. Reading a 2008 document published by the Polish Government it suggest that the membership helped reduce unemployment from 20% in 2003 to 11.4% by the end of 2007. This was accompanied by a nominal rise in salaries by 58%

From this case example we could conclude that the EU is economically beneficial.

Poland a shining example of EU integration

Not so quick…

The EU has an economic problem as it seeks to make states economically similar to allow freedom of trade. This works when the global economic system is growing. However, logically if economic decline ensues then the similarity of the EU has led economic suffering. Daniel Hannan aptly articulates this when he discusses Spain:

“Nowhere is the failure of the euro clearer than in Spain. A country which was running a budget surplus going into the crash has been reduced to penury and squalor by the determination of its own political class, and Europe's, to maintain the monetary union at any cost. Who has gained? Bankers and Eurocrats. Who has lost? Everyone else.”

Moreover, economists used to believe that an economic monoculture insinuated a positive economic climate but following the economic crash they have turned to the lessons of nature. Indeed a 2009 Bank of England report summarises an argument I have been suggesting for a number of years:

“In consequence, the financial system became, like plants, animals and oceans before it, less disease-resistant. When environmental factors changed for the worse, the homogeneity of the financial eco-system increased materially its probability of collapse.”

Ergo, an economy based on a single currency and economic model makes the states within the EU less resistant to economic shocks.

Has this currency debased our individual economies?

Returning to the Ukraine the economic growth which the EU membership offers seems attractive. Yet, if it is the economy that is a concern then surely the 15 billion dollar bailout from Russia would resolve the dissent and the cut in gas prices is bound to appease protesters?

In the Ukraine the riots have little to do with the economy. The Ukrainians want democracy and see closer ties with Russia as a suppression of their rights as substantiated by the recent anti-protest laws.

(On a side note, Putin’s claim that they are simply helping their ‘brothers’ in the Ukraine and the bailout had nothing to do with the government E-turn on the EU seems unlikely… the coincidence is too high to be an accident.)

What is concerning is that joining the European Union may be being used by the Ukrainian opposition as a unifying focus to join groups together against the current government. They know that by doing this they will draw in the media and tap into the current discussion about joining the EU. The Ukrainians are tired of a corrupt government but by using the EU they debase the organisation. If it is associated with regime-change rather than democracy then the EU has not become a vehicle of democracy but an opportunity for opposition parties. The EU cannot afford to pick sides or the whole concept is threatened.

Democracy or regime change?

I may be overly pessimistic about the oppositions intentions and my political musings could become unfounded. Yet, my experience of politics has taught me to ask these questions, no matter how absurd.

The future of the EU is questionable and democracy promotion is complicated. The battle for Ukraine continues on its snow swept streets.