Emergency talks on Ukraine between US Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov in London on Friday did not prevent today’s referendum in Crimea from taking place.
Both the US and the EU have prepared a wide range of economic sanctions against Moscow in the event that Russia annexes Crimea, and Mr Lavrov was made aware of this in his meeting with Mr Kerry.
To make matters worse, over the weekend a number of people were killed and others injured in clashes between pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian activists in Ukraine’s eastern city of Kharkiv. The Ukrainian government has blamed agents of Russia for stirring up trouble and provoking the violence, and I have absolutely no reason to doubt such a claim.
In other developments yesterday, Russia was expected to veto a UN Security Council resolution, drafted by the US, declaring Crimea’s referendum to be illegal. The US also announced that Vice President Joe Biden will shortly travel to Poland and Lithuania, two Nato members who have had direct experience of Russian aggression in the past.
Crimeans are being asked to choose either integration with Russia or independence and integration with Russia later
In today’s referendum, in which two million people (60 per cent of whom are ethnic Russians) are eligible to vote, the people of Crimea will be asked whether they want to become part of Russia or whether they should declare independence and then join Russia at a later stage. So in reality, the people of Crimea are not even being given the option to remain part of Ukraine.
The position of the Ukrainian government, supported by the US and EU, is that this referendum is clearly illegal.
According to Ukraine’s Constitution, the country’s territorial integrity can only be changed if the entire country votes in a referendum, not part of it.
Moscow cites the case of Kosovo’s independence to support its position. Kosovo, it insists, was recognised by the West even though Serbia insisted that it had no legal basis to declare independence. Of course, the irony is that Russia did not, and still does not, recognise Kosovo as a sovereign state.
Even so, Kosovo’s declaration of independence came about after many years of diplomatic negotiations and not, like in the case of Crimea, a couple of weeks after a takeover of the country by foreign troops.
Furthermore, it is clear that in the present tense situation in Crimea, a free and fair referendum cannot take place.
Another crucial difference between Crimea and Kosovo is the fact that the Kosovars had been subjected to ethnic cleansing and genocide by Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, so the desire for independence was perfectly legitimate.
The same cannot be said about the Russian speakers in Crimea or Eastern Ukraine, who have not been persecuted at all, despite Russian claims to the contrary.
Furthermore, Russia’s support for Crimea splitting off from Ukraine is in direct contrast to what it always preaches about respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a country.
This has been highlighted, for example, by the way it crushed Chechnya’s attempt at independence as well as its unconditional support for President Bashar al-Assad’s brutal regime in Syria.
I have no doubt at all that Russia will not let go of Crimea and that the region will soon be declared part of Russia.
There will be economic consequences for Russia, which will be followed by counter-measures against the EU and the US. Both sides will suffer, but Russia will suffer more.
Sanctions will have to be applied because Russia has set a very dangerous precedent by annexing Crimea.
Will it now invade eastern Ukraine under the pretext of defending Russian speakers? What about Estonia and Latvia, who both have a very large Russian minority (25 per cent)?
Of course, Russia has the right to insist that Russian speakers are treated equally before the law, and yes, Moscow has legitimate interests in Crimea, where its entire Black Sea fleet is based. It also has to be acknowledged that Crimea, which has a majority Russian population, was part of Russia until 1954.
However, it also has to be recognised that Ukraine, once the world’s third-largest nuclear power, gave up its nuclear warheads inherited from the Soviet Union in return for a 1994 promise from the US and Russia (the accord was also signed by Britain) not to use force or threaten military action against the newly independent state.
Russia could have easily chosen a diplomatic path if it wanted to discuss Crimea’s status and I am sure some sort of solution could have been found; increased self-determination for the region or even some form of join sovereignty between Moscow and Kiev could have been possible ways out.
Unfortunately, it chose to act aggressively, and as its options narrow, it has increasingly painted itself into a corner.