As the Ukrainian crisis drags on, with the situation in the Southeast worsening and US vice-president Joe Biden making a short visit to Kiev to symbolise his country’s support, the contours of the crisis are beginning to emerge in black and white. They revolve round the simple fact of the Western concept of Russia’s place in Europe and the world.
In the war of words over Ukraine that reigns between Russia and the West, the United States let the cat out of the bag by describing it as a regional power. Indeed, after the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the apparent weaknesses of the new rulers of the rump Russian Federation, the West, led by the US, resolved to cut Moscow down to size.
The German reunification was a landmark event in determining the future because, contrary to assurances, the West not merely took Poland into Nato but also the Baltic states which were constituents of the Soviet Union. Ukraine gained salience because, apart from smaller states such as Georgia, it was the only remaining landmass of 45 million people bordering on Russia outside the Western orbit. Russia meanwhile had graduated from a succession of weak leaders to the Putin era, first as president and reverting to the presidency after a gap.
President Putin had famously described the disintegration of the Soviet Union as the greatest tragedy of the 20th century. Whatever his views of recent history, he was determined to assert the authority of the Russian state and sought ways to strengthen his country’s position through a Eurasian economic grouping of former Soviet states in which Ukraine figured prominently.
Ukraine had a special place in Moscow’s plan, given its size, its cultural and religious links and its Crimean region, gifted to Ukraine by Nikita Khrushchev and the home of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. Even as the European Union was negotiating with the then Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych, to sign up his country, President Putin was able to prevent it happening by giving a generous loan of $15 billion and discounted gas. All hell broke loose in Kiev as protests mounted and thousands of people massed in the central Maidan in Kiev to erect barricades and protest against the decision. The West made its much advertised support by patronising the protests. President Yanukovych sought to control the situation without success, ultimately leading to sniper firing and dozens of deaths. While the foreign ministers of France and Poland among others with Russian participation signed an agreement calling for a fresh presidential election by the end of the year, the protesters smelled victory. They tore up the agreement and forced President Yanukovych to flee to Russia.
In seizing power and setting new elections for late May, the Kiev establishment and its Western backers chose to forget a few basic facts.
Ukraine is a divided nation. While the western portion wants to belong to the European Union, roughly half the country in the East and the South is primary Russian-speakers and are deeply attached to Russia in religion, folk customs and trade. The Ukrainian revolution, as it is called by the West, had no representation of half of the country.
The Crimean peninsula has, of course a special affinity with the Russian Federation, and as demonstrations and protests mounted, Moscow took the expedient of annexing it. For most Russians and their cousins in Crimea, the peninsula had always remained Russian.
Further, the pro-Russian demonstrators in the East felt that if the Kiev demonstrators could make the Maidan their battleground, they could similarly emulate them by seizing provincial offices in eastern cities and towns and erect barricades. This stalemate was broken for a time by a meeting in Geneva of the foreign ministers of the US, Russia, the European Union and Ukraine.
Contrary to expectations, they agreed to a peace deal. The problem, of course, was that there was no enforcing mechanism. The demonstrators who had seized and barricaded official buildings in towns and cities refused to give up their protests and go home to enjoy immunity from arrest. The Russians and Kiev blamed each other for events and the interim Kiev authorities mounted an offensive. It is clear what the West and Russia want. The West seeks to absorb Ukraine in its orbit and Moscow has made it clear that it wants a large measure of autonomy for the regions while the country should be non-aligned between the West and Russia.
Kiev has promised to give greater autonomy to the South-eastern regions but is against the federal proposal and still seems wedded to the West. On his part, President Putin has warned that he reserves the right to intervene to save the Russian-speaking popu-lation of Ukraine. In the meantime, the US and the European Union has imposed some sanctions on Russians close to the establishment and one Russian bank.
Further sanctions are being threatened.
Obviously, the two main sides are looking at the crisis from very different viewpoints. For one thing, it is unlikely that Moscow will accept the American definition of it being a regional power. Second, for the West to indulge in the Kiev fancy of it being a potential EU and Nato member is asking for trouble. And as President Putin asserts his country’s legitimate interests, he will run up against a western wall.
There are no easy answers, but one way to ease the crisis would be for Kiev to show to the South-east that it is serious about amending the Constitution to do so, instead of making promises. Obviously, the demonstrators’ demand for a referendum to determine their future is a maximalist one.
The world will hope that wiser counsel will prevail on both sides and back channels will be employed to break the deadlock. It is clear, however, that as long as Washington views Moscow as a regional power, the chariot of peace will not move.
