Crisis in Ukraine

By the time 2014 rolled in, Ukraine was already in the middle of mass protests. The protests, nicknamed Euromaidan, were initially in response to pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych suspending preparations for the signing of an association agreement with the EU. The harsh crackdown by the government helped to embolden the protesters, which eventually resulted in Yanukovych fleeing the country on the 22^nd of February. Many Westerners assumed that would have meant the end of unrest in Ukraine, however that could not have been further from the truth.

Pro-Russian supporters in Crimea
Source: www.bbc.co.uk/news

The ousting of pro-Russian Yanukovych outraged his supporters and the Russian minority in Ukraine. The outrage was especially concentrated in the south and east of the country, where Yanukovych had drawn much of his support in elections. Outrage was especially pronounced in Crimea, which had the largest Russian minority in Ukraine. In fact ethnic Russians actually outnumbered ethnic Ukrainians in the peninsula. By the 26^th of February pro-Russian protesters had taken control of many positions within Crimea. Many of these ‘pro-Russian protesters’ were actually Russian servicemen in disguise. Many international observers believed that this was actually orchestrated by Russian President Vladimir Putin. When asked about this in April Putin seemed to confirm Western suspicions when he said that “of course Russian servicemen backed the Crimean self-defence forces.” A referendum was held on the 16^th of March on whether Crimea should join the Russian Federation. The vote (which was rigged) went overwhelmingly in favour of joining Russia, as a result Russia now considers the territory Russian, despite little international recognition.

After the remarkable success of Russia in taking Crimea, Putting turned his attention to eastern Ukraine. The eastern Oblasts (provinces) of Donetsk and Luhansk, known collectively as Donbass, have sizeable populations of ethnic Russians. However unlike Crimea, where ethnic Russians make up a majority of the population, they are only minorities in Donetsk and Luhansk. In the former they make up 38% and in the latter 39%. As a result simply taking the Oblasts would be far more difficult, and would be resisted much more by Ukraine. In early March pro-Russian militias began seizing government buildings in eastern Ukraine, many demanding independence from the country. They were remarkably similar to the protests in Crimea the previous month. Over the next six months the unrest turned into a full scale revolt with obvious, though unofficial, material support from Russia. Eventually a ceasefire was signed on the 5^th of September, which has been violated by both sides but is largely holding.

2015 will be an important year for Ukraine. Its government in Kiev is actively pursuing closer ties to Europe, whilst parts of the country are trying to separate. If Donetsk and Luhansk do break off this will be absolutely remarkable, and should worry countries with a Russian border. 

Ukrainian Crisis Approaches Boiling Point

The crisis in Ukraine has continued to get even hotter over the past week despite attempts by diplomats to secure a peace deal.

Eastern Ukraine has a large proportion of ethnic Russians, and many Ukrainians who are supportive of Russia. This is why the Kremlin has moved its focus from Crimea to the rest of eastern Ukraine. The series of events which resulted in Crimea joining Russia has begun to play out across the east. Armed men have taken numerous government buildings, erected Russian flags and demanded that they be allowed to join Russia. Just like the armed men in Crimea they are too well-organised to simply be pro-Russian locals. Rather, they are mostly members of the Russian armed forces. Of course Russia denies that the militia are connected to the Russian military, but they made the same statements about the militia in Crimea and have since admitted that they were actually Russian soldiers.

Yet, as I have said in my previous posts, these areas are not like Crimea. They are not majority Russian and hence the Ukrainian government will put up more of a fight for control of the region. Already Kiev had sent troops in to take some key positions back from the Russians.

Despite the chaotic situation in the east, there did seem to be some hope that a peaceful solution might actually be reached! The governments of Ukraine, Russia, the US and EU reached an agreement in Geneva. The agreement called for the dissolving of all illegal military groups, amnesty for all anti-government protesters and that the militias that have taken control of government buildings must leave them. Unfortunately that deal seems dead in the water as one of the spokesmen for the separatists has said that they are not bound by the deal.

This all plays perfectly into Putin’s hand; he gets to look like a sensible diplomat whilst continuing to destabilise eastern Ukraine through these separatists. If you want any more proof that Putin is planning on take eastern Ukraine, all you need to do is watch the press conference he held earlier this week in which he referred to the eastern parts of Ukraine as “new Russia”! If that isn’t a clear sign that he plans to go even further into the territory of Ukraine, I don’t know what could be!

We Need to Talk About Appeasement

When Russia took Crimea from Ukraine the West responded with shock. The reaction in Eastern and Central Europe was very different, for years leaders in those countries had warned that Russia had never lost its imperialistic ambitions. Fear is particularly rife in the Baltic States who, bar a brief period of independence between World Wards, spent several centuries under the rule of Russia.

If we look at demographics they may have a reason to fear Russian aggression. Estonia and Latvia have sizeable ethnic Russian minorities, particularly in the east of their countries. The county of Ida-Viru in north-eastern Estonia is over 70% Russian, even more ethnically homogenous than Crimea! When Putin decided that he was going to invade Crimea he used the excuse that he was only doing it to protect Russians from the new government in Kiev. In Latvia, Russians are frequently treated like second-class citizens. Perhaps Putin could use this as a pretext to invasion?

Yet there are massive differences between Ukraine/Crimea and the Baltic states. The origins of the Crimean Crisis is the debate of whether Ukraine should tie itself closer to Russia or the EU. There is no such debate in the Baltic States, all three are members of the EU and NATO and are fully within the Western fold. Membership of NATO is of key importance here, no sovereign nation has invaded on of its members since its formation in 1949.

Another difference between Ukraine/Crimea and the Baltic states is of demographics and population. Estonia and Latvia have the highest proportions of ethnic Russians of the former USSR with 24.8% and 26.9% respectively. Compare this to Ukraine which has ‘only’ 17.3% ethnic Russians. But comparing country-wide percentages is not being intellectually honest. Russia has not invaded all of Ukraine, only Crimea. In Crimea 58.8% of the people are Russian. The population of these states is also important. Crimea has a population of 2.4 million, larger than both Estonia (1.3 million) and Latvia (2 million), only Lithuania with a population of 3 million is larger than Crimea. Lithuania has also got far fewer ethnic Russians, who make up only 5.8% of the population. There are more Russians in Crimea than the three Baltic States combined. The Estonian county of Ida-Viru has only 140,000 people in it. Would Putin really risk war with the West over an insignificant Estonian county? (no offence people of Ida-Viru county) When looking at the Baltic States Putin would be forced to do a cost-benefit analysis. He would then find the potential costs way too high and the benefits too few. It would seem inconceivable, but Putin has proved to be unpredictably before and will likely be so in the future.

So if the Baltic States will not be his next target, what will? The most commonly talked about are eastern Ukraine and Moldova.

Moldova is a small, landlocked country sandwiched between Ukraine and Romania. The fact that it does not border Russia, or even the sea, makes it seem strange that it might be the next flashpoint in a new Cold War. The fact that only 9.4% of Moldova is ethnically Russian further confuses the situation. Yet, as was the case with Ukraine, the problem is only part of the country. When Moldova seceded from the Soviet Union in 1991 the eastern portion of Moldova, Transnistria, seceded from Moldova. Although no UN member recognises the independence of Transnistria, it has been de facto independent for over 20 years. Another key issue is the demographics of the pseudo-independent state, it is roughly evenly split between Moldovans, Russians and Ukrainians (32, 30 and 29 respectively). Unlike the Baltic States, Moldova is not an EU or NATO member and hence is not well protected from foreign aggression.

Yet the major problem with invading Transnistria would be how could they get there? The most likely scenario would involve going through Ukraine and possibly Moldova. This could further destabilise the situation in Ukraine, especially since it would put Russian troops extremely close to Ukraine’s 4^th largest city, Odessa. Once they had control of Transnistria there would be the issue of what to do next? To move in/out of Transnistria would involve going through Ukraine, or Moldova and Romania. Considering Russia would have violated the sovereignty of the former two, they would be unlikely to willingly help Russia. Another option would be to take more territory, considering Putin’s actions already, it is not unthinkable. One issue that could prevent Russian action in Transnistria is the reaction that the rest of Moldova would have. Moldova is hoping is one day enter the European fold, Russia violating their sovereignty would likely cause them to seek closer ties with Europe sooner.

So if Transnistria is unlikely to happen, what really are the chances of Russia invading eastern Ukraine? As I have explained previously, no Ukrainian Oblast has more than 40% ethnic Russians (other than Crimea). Yet who says that Russia has to take an entire Oblast, perhaps just part of it. The city of Donetsk is 48% Russian, could Putin decide that he would likely to take that city?

Assigning probabilities is pointless as it all depends on how the West acts going into the future. If the West does nothing then the chances of Russia taking action in Transnistria, eastern Ukraine or the Baltic states would increase. If Putin does go further and the West does not take military action then we are taking about appeasement. I know accusing Putin of acting like Hitler seems drastic, but it is true. Hitler took Czechoslovakia and Poland to ‘protect’ ethnic Germans. If Putin takes Ukraine and Moldova to ‘protect’ ethnic Russians then how is he any different?

Chaos in Crimea

So the results of the referendum in Crimea are in and with a turnout of 83%, 96.6% of people voted to join Russia.

If you believe that, then you’ll believe anything. From the minute I heard about this I was convinced that it would be rigged. There’s certainly no way that the election could be considered fair, after all it’s very hard to have a fair election when there are men with guns that demand that you vote in a particular way.

Elections/referendums in which over 90% of the votes of one way are not necessarily rigged, last year the Falklands voted 99% to remain British, and not even the Argentinian government disputes the results. In the case of Crimea it does seem far-fetched that 96.6% of the voters would want to join Russia considering what we know about Crimea. Crimean Tartars are terrified of joining with Russia after how badly they were treated under the USSR. The Ukrainian population is more split, some supporting Kiev and others supporting Moscow.

I fundamentally believe in the right to national self-determination, within certain limits. I believe that if the Crimeans want to join Russia, then they should be allowed to, but it has to be done in the right way. You cannot hold the referendum whilst Russia is occupying the region and you must wait until the political climate cools, so that people can make rational choices.

Crimea becomes the third territory that Russia has taken off a sovereign nation. In 2008 Russia invaded the Caucasian nation of Georgia and took Abkhazia and South Ossetia from it. They have since become pseudo-independent nations that are in reality satellite Russian territories. Now people are wondering if Crimea will be the last territory that Russia steals, what about southern and eastern Ukraine? What about Transnistria, the pseudo-independent state formally part of Moldova?

It is important to note the special case of Crimea, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Crimea I majority Russia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia declared their independence in the early 1990s. This is important to note as no other Ukrainian Oblast has more than 40% ethnic Russians and Transnistria has no border with Russia. Is it possible that Russia will take more of Ukraine? Yes. Is it likely? No.

Source: wikipedia

Crimean Annexation Imminent & Repeating History

The Crimean Parliament voted yesterday to become part of Russia, pending a referendum. This will further raise tensions between Russia and the West who have been exchanging verbal blows over the crisis. So what will the referendum actually say and when will it be held?

The Crimean Parliament is hoping that it can hold the referendum as the 16^th of March. It will contain the two following questions:

1.       Are you in favour of reuniting Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation?

2.       Are you in favour of retaining the status of Crimea as part of Ukraine?

I have an issue with the wording in the first question, the use of the word ‘reuniting’ looks like an attempt to change the result. A better word to use would be joining.  Another problem with the referendum is over it constitutionality. Article 73 of the Ukrainian constitution states that only an all-Ukrainian referendum can change its territory. For a referendum to be called, the following conditions must be met.

1)      President of Ukraine calls for a referendum

2)      The Verkovna Rada (Ukrainian Parliament) calls for a referendum

3)      The people demand a referendum using the following conditions:

i)                    3 million people eligible to vote have signed a petition on the matter

ii)                   Two thirds of Ukraine’s 24 oblasts have at least 100,000 signatories

It is quite clear that these steps have not been followed, but nonetheless the Crimean Deputy Prime Minister, Rustam Temirgalier, denies that the move is unconstitutional. He claims that since the Crimean Parliament does not believe that the government in Kiev is legal, the move is perfectly constitutional. That makes no sense whatsoever.

There is no doubt in my mind that this referendum will be rigged. There is no way that the Crimean Parliament would pull something like this off without talking to Putin first. So think about this: Putin would be absolutely humiliated, both domestically and internationally, if the referendum were to turn out pro-Ukrainian. So he needs to make sure that there is no chance of losing the election, and so he will definitely make sure that it is rigged.

According to the latest Ukrainian census, Russians make up 58% of Crimea, which means that there is a good chance that they could lose this referendum if it was held fairly.

At this point I feel like Crimea may be a lost cause, but we cannot give in to the Russians.

Repeating history:

7^th of March 1936: Nazi Germany remilitarises the Rhineland, contrary to the Versailles Treaty that ended WWI. Other than some angry speeches, Britain and France do nothing.

12^th of March 1938: Nazi troops march into Austria

30^th of September 1938: Czechoslovakia agrees to hand the Sudetenland over to Nazi Germany

16^th of March 1939: Nazi troops take the rest of Czechoslovakia

1^st of September 1939: Nazi Germany invades Poland and WWII officially begins

August 2008: South Ossetia War results in Georgian loss of territory

16^th of March 2014: Crimea votes to join Russia.

??th of ????? 20??: Russia takes more of Ukraine

Fear of War Rises in Ukraine

The crisis in Ukraine is turning out to be the biggest geopolitical crisis in Europe this side of the millennium. The demands of the protesters, in the beginning, was simply a call for President Yanuchovych to turn towards the EU, rather than Russia.

Then everything changed last week.

The protests descended into chaos when the police attempted to take parts of Kiev that had been controlled by the protesters. As the situation got bloodier, a truce was hashed out between the government and the opposition, but it was not to last. The truce was declared on Thursday the 20^th of January, and dead by the 21^st! Friday turned out to be the bloodiest since protests began with an estimated 100 people killed, mostly on the opposition side.

As a result President Yanuchovych promised fresh elections, but it was too late, the Ukrainian Parliament voted unanimously to impeach him and replace him with the Chairman of the Ukrainian Parliament, Oleksandr Turchynov. Almost immediately Yanuchovych fled the country, fearful of his safety.

Unfortunately things have gotten even worse for Ukraine, the country may actually break apart! It has been evident throughout the portests that support for the EU is highest in the north and west of Ukraine, whilst support for Russia is highest in the south and east. This is because there are higher portions of ethnic Russians in the latter. This schism is being most acutely felt in Crimea, which is majority Russian.

Russia is trying desperately to make sure that Ukraine stays within its influence. Before the breakup of the USSR, Moscow held sway over all of Eastern Europe, today only Moldova, Belarus and Ukraine are under its wing. If Russia were to lose Ukraine, it would be a massive blow to its influence in the region. As a result Russian President, Vladimir Putin, is doing everything he can to make sure that he does not lose Ukraine. On 26^th of February, Putin put 150,000 troops along the Ukraine-Russia border ‘on alert’. Two days later armed men took control of several government buildings in Simferopol, Crimea’s capital, and raised the Russian flag. Some suspect that the level of organisations of the men indicates that they had likely been trained and that the Russians were behind them.

To make matters worse, the Upper House of the Russian Parliament voted today, unanimously, to allow troops to be used in Ukraine! This looks like the beginning of the first war in Europe since Kosovo in 1999!

So what should the West do? I say fight fire with fire. We must promise that if Russia invades Ukraine, that we will send in troops to oppose them. I know it sounds drastic, but the only language Putin understands is brute force. By showing him that the West remains strong, he will have no choice but to stand down.

Horrific Violence in Ukraine

Violence has descended upon the streets of Ukraine once more, as clashes between police and protesters worsened. So far 26 people have been killed, 14 of them protesters and 12 police.

This is absolutely horrific, especially considering that just last week there were hopes of a deal. Protesters had agreed to leave some parliament buildings, in exchange the government would grant amnesty to the protesters. At the moment we don’t know whose fault it is for the violence, as both sides blame each other. Yet in the ensuing chaos it’s pretty clear that the government side has acted a lot worse. They have repeatedly broken promises they made and even set a building on fire, forcing people to jump out of buildings to escape the flames!

It was hoped that a truce agreed yesterday would give the politicians a chance to agree to something more long term. Unfortunately that truce has broken down thanks to the government. It didn't even last 24 hours! Today alone at least 17 protesters have been killed according to the BBC! This raises the total killed this week to 43, 31 of them protesters.

The only way out is for fresh elections, and if the government wins then I would be in favour of ending the Euromaidan protests. The current president, Viktor Yanukovych, won the highly dubious 2010 election with barely 3% more than his opponent. Some people would argue that as he won that election, that the protesters should simply wait until the next election in 2015, after all he was democratically elected! The problem with this argument is that Ukraine is not a stable democracy like Britain or America. This makes it more vulnerable to destruction. Four years may not appear like enough time to turn a democracy into a dictatorship, but remember: it only took Hitler two.

Thankfully the West has decided to act, America is preparing to impose sanctions and the EU is probably going to in the next few days. This has angered the Ukrainian and Russian governments who hope to crush the opposition. Russia’s foreign ministry blamed the West’s “conniving politics” for the protests. The great irony is: it was Russia’s ‘conniving politics’ that was the cause of the protests in the first place!

One of the many injured people
Source: BBC

Ukraine Should Remind us that the EU is Still Important

The EU has not had a great few years, the Euro currency has been in constant pain since the economic crisis of 2007-2009. The wealthier Euro nations such as Germany, Netherlands and Finland have had to support the appropriately named ‘PIIGS’ countries. All across the EU euro-scepticism is rising with the likes of the National Front in France and UKIP in the UK. You might think that with all that pain on the inside, non-EU nations would be hesitant about creating closer ties with the organisation. Especially when there is a viable alternative.

It will then come as a surprise to you to learn that there is a country in which pro-EU sentiment is strong enough to spark a revolution! That country is Ukraine.

The EU has eyed Ukraine as a country that it wishes to create closer bonds with. As part of the European Neighbourhood Policy it was trying to get Ukraine to sign an Association Agreement, so long as it implements certain reforms. The major problem was that the agreement is opposed by Ukraine’s ally, Russia. The President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, really hates the deal as he wants Ukraine to join the Eurasian Economic Community of five former Soviet States and eventually the customs union that includes only Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. The strong opposition from Putin caused Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych to refuse to sign the Agreement on the 29^th of November as he was supposed to. This sparked fury in Ukraine.

For the past ten days people have protested in cities all across Ukraine, but particularly in the capital, Kiev. The Ukrainian people have grown fed up with the historic influence of Russia and the Kremlin. They wish to leave its bitter embrace and join with Western Europe, in the hopes of some fresh air. The statue of Lenin in Kiev was torn down yesterday, as it was seen as a symbol of Russian oppression. It was replaced with the European Union’s flag – now a symbol of hope and democracy in the poor Eastern European country.

This is not the first time Ukrainians have taken to the streets to protest against Yanukovych. In 2004 he won a highly disputed election that resulted in mass demonstrations and the election being annulled. In the second election Yanukovych was easily beaten by his opponent, Viktor Yushchenko. The Orange Revolution, as it was later called, should have served as a warning to Yanukovych that if he messed with the Ukrainian people, then he would pay a high price.

It is difficult to say whether these demonstrations will actually cause a change in government, but they nonetheless show that the European Union is still important. To many people living in well-established democracies like the United Kingdom and France, the EU has outlived its usefulness. Founding it was meant to make war impossible amongst the ‘Great Powers’ of Europe, and in that it has succeeded. Yet to those who live in fledgling democracies, which could fail at any given moment, the EU is a beacon of light. It is something that they can work towards and will help stabilise their countries. It is something that has proven to bring economic well-being to the less advantaged nations. Ireland, Greece and Portugal may seem to be in a bad economic situation now, but it is still better than what it was in their pre-EU days. If the countries that did not ‘need’ the EU were to leave, you would find a significantly weaker EU, one that could not help the nations that need it.