Russia's envoy to NATO Dmitry Rogozin sent a warning in Europe's direction: “Russia created Sevastopol for the fleet, not the fleet for Sevastopol”; and First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrei Denisov sneered at Kyiv: “No need to begin talks ahead of time... The main thing is not to make a fuss” (Interfax, RIA Novosti, June 8).
Some of those remarks contain barely veiled threats. The line about potential destabilization of bilateral relations alludes to the possibility of raising the Russian flag in the Crimea, if Ukraine insists on the removal of the Russian Fleet from Sevastopol. The remark about incompatibility with partnership relations alludes to the possibility of Russia abandoning the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation, signed in 1997 with Ukraine and recognizing the existing borders. Russia's abandonment of that treaty could imply freedom of action with regard to Ukraine's borders, particularly in the Crimea. Officials in Moscow argue that the interstate treaty and the fleet basing agreement were signed in a package and that Ukraine's refusal to prolong the agreement would untie Russia's hands on the treaty. Finally, the line about Sevastopol's raison d'etre suggests to the West that Russia regards its Black Sea Fleet as inseparable from Sevastopol, irrespective of treaties and borders, which Russian officials seem to feel increasingly free to disregard.
On June 4 the Kremlin-controlled Duma adopted a resolution asking the government to consider the possibility of abandoning the interstate treaty if Ukraine persists in seeking NATO membership, which Moscow also deems “incompatible with partnership relations” and closely linked with Kyiv's declared intention to terminate the Russian fleet's presence.
Ukraine is asking for Russia to start talks about removing the Russian Black Sea Fleet from Crimea on time in 2017. Russia has taken this as an affront and is attempting to pressure Ukraine into extending the lease indefinitely. In fact, it has been starting to threaten to annex Crimea if Ukraine doesn't do what Russia wants. Bullying at its best.
Devil's Advocate here: Crimea has essentially no Ukranian history. It was only won by the Russian Empire in the Crimean war 1856. Up to that point it was overwhelmingly settled by Turkic peoples. As the Crimean turks went through their first, and then second (1944) diaspora, they were replaced mainly by Russians, with only a minority of Ukrainians moving in. Crimea was an independent province until 1945, when it was assigned to Russia. The Ukraine only got it in 1954.
ReplyDeleteAnd in the present, 58% of the population is Russian, and only 24% Ukrainian.
I think these conflicts come down to the self-determination of the local people. Russian Crimean people want to join Russia, it's their business. The most just thing would be if both colonial forces depopulated the peninsula and, moved in the remaining Crimean turk diaspora, and let it become and independent nation, but good luck with *that* happening.
WB Karl!
ReplyDeleteOTOH, is there any sense that the people there are repressed? Well, the Tatars were, but that happened waaaaaaaay prior to independence. Yes, they are discriminated against, but not oppressed in the Kosovar sense at all.
What are the limits of 'self determination'? Few would argue that just because California is going to be majority Hispanic in the not too distant future that we ought to let it secede to join Mexico - Reconquista silliness aside. Likewise, if 38 million Americans moved to Canada would they have the right to vote to join the whole country into the US?
Besides, eastern and southern Ukraine are majority Russian speakers as well. Should Russia be allowed to take, ahem, should the people be able to secede as well?
Then again, what about the Turks in Germany? WI they wanted to join their enclaves into Turkey...or whatever.
Self determination has limits. IMO.
Ack, wish I hadn't made those typos. Rather embarrassing collection of them.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, what's the alternative to self-determination? Simply throw our hands in the air and say the borders as they have been are set in stone just because? In this case, just because the Soviet Union happened to change the border only 54 years ago, right after a Ukrainian leader rose to power? There is simply *no* claim Ukraine has to this land dating back further, unless you wanted to go to Kievan Rus, which was before Ukrainians and Russians seperated as distinct ethnic groups anyway.
I'd say Eastern and Southern Ukraine are more flexible, as my understanding is that while most people are Russian-speaking, they identify as Ukrainian. It's nothing a generation of education wouldn't fix, and letting Crimea go would make the Russophile population in Ukraine small enough to be a permanent minority in the national government.
Anyway, national pride aside, I'm not sure why Ukraine would want to keep the south and the east if they really wanted to go. Yes, they have all the industry, and the coal, but those are largely creaking Soviet infrastructure. In return for losing those areas, Northwest Ukraine would get to travel in the direction they want, towards the EU, unhindered. And Southern and Eastern Ukraine could become yet another insignificant part of Russia, a much larger state they'd have less say in. I'd say it's clear who would win.
Please note though that I think Russia has been a bad boy of most ethnic conflicts in the near abroad. What they have been doing in Abkhasia and Ossettia has been fairly unconscionable, even given that the present government of Georgia is far, far from perfect.