Both the European Union and the Russian Federation seek to gain a larger foothold in the former constituent republics of the Soviet Union. This is perhaps one of the key issues that helps in analysing developments in Ukraine.
Russia’s interest in the region is cemented by historic ties and geographic proximity. It has attempted to lure a number of former Soviet constituent republics into forming an economic Customs union to challenge the EU’s proposals for the region.
Moscow’s previous attempts to set up regional institutions have been dogged by a weak institutional framework and the lack of political will. The Eurasian Customs Union is the first serious challenge to the EU’s economic engagement.
Observers believe that the economic rationale of the Eurasian Customs Union is weak. However, it has a robust institutional structure consistent with international norms. If the Eurasian Customs Union is successful, Russia will gain considerable leverage in regional trade and economic policy. This may have adverse effects on the EU’s eastern neighbourhood. Analyst Laurynas Kasčiūnas pointed out that this development could lead to an economic set-up “marked by an unhealthy alliance between authoritarian politics, the economy and business”.
Launched in May 2009, the EU’s Eastern Partnership aims to foster political cooperation and deeper economic integration between EU member states and six partner countries in Eastern Europe. These countries include Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.
Four of these countries are struggling to foster a healthy political environment.
As a result, their economic and political development has either been stalled or dominated by oligarchs and their personal interests.
The situation unfolding in Ukraine and in the Crimean peninsula is partof a wider geopolitical struggle
The situation unfolding in Ukraine and in the Crimean peninsula is thus part of a wider geopolitical struggle.
Crimea is a self-governing region of Ukraine. It is a region with a varied ethnic make-up. Over half of the population claims to be ethnic Russian. The other half consists of ethnic Ukrainians and Crimean Tartars.
The Crimean port of Sevastopol and its capital, Simferopol, have an intensely pro-Russian population. The rest of the population, particularly the Crimean Tartars, fiercely oppose Russian rule. These two polarising attitudes may lead to a rise in domestic tensions in the coming weeks. The territorial integrity and political independence of Ukraine is safeguarded through the Budapest Memorandum.
The United States, the United Kingdom and Russia are the three signatory countries and they all pledged not to use economic sanctions, military threats or outright violence to coerce the Ukrainian government into a particular course of action.
However, the Russian Black Sea fleet is based in two large leased military facilities in Sevastopol. The lease agreement is valid until 2047 and the loss of this base could have serious repercussions on Russia’s military standing. Following the ousting of the pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, the Putin administration may be reluctant to take its chances.
At the time of writing, about 150,000 troops are engaged in military exercises on the Ukrainian border. The Russian forces stationed in Crimea have successfully disarmed Ukrainian forces.
Russian separatists seized government buildings and armed gunmen took control of the Supreme Council of Crimea – the parliamentary assembly. During an emergency session, the Assembly dismissed the Council of Ministers and appointed Sergey Aksyonov as Prime Minister of Crimea.
Aksyonov is allegedly linked to organised crime and fraud. The Acting-President of Ukraine deemed his appointment to be unconstitutional. Aksyonov responded by turning towards Moscow for help. He claimed that ethnic Russians in Ukraine are under threat.
Russian troops are now on high alert and Crimea is under de facto Russian control. The Crimean Assembly voted to integrate the Peninsula with Russia and a referendum to confirm this decision is scheduled for Sunday. The Ukrainian Prime Minister has declared that this move is invalid.
During a crisis meeting in Brussels, the EU responded to the crisis by offering financial aid to the interim Ukrainian government. However, it ruled out military intervention. It also seems to be reluctant to impose economic sanctions on Russia.
Nonetheless, President Vladimir Putin must tread carefully. His gamble might be a blunder with serious negative consequences. He already finds himself isolated internationally on a number of issues. This crisis could lead to further isolation.
Concerns over possible negative economic repercussions and energy security may deter several governments from imposing trade sanctions. However, open conflict could lead to an economic decline which Russia can ill afford.
Russian military intervention would be in flagrant breach of previous international agreements. The interim Ukrainian government asked Nato for help. With the exception of Georgia and the Ukraine, most major ports in the Black Sea are held by Nato allies.
Georgia is actively seeking Nato membership and has a rather tumultuous relationship with the Putin administration. This crisis could effectively lead to a Nato military build-up in Russia’s underbelly.
President Barack Obama is one of the most vocal opponents of Russia’s incursion. The US threatened to remove Russia from the G8 forum for leading industrialised countries. Paradoxically, Putin’s show of force is weakening his position.
Putin must not allow hubris to take over. Rather than raise Russia’s profile internationally, by threatening to breach Ukraine’s territorial integrity, he comes across as a bully desperately trying to cling on to – what he claims to be – his territory.
Safeguarding citizens should be the priority of all parties concerned. It is regrettable that this aim is being used as a smokescreen for military and economic ambitions in the region.
andre.deb@gmail.com