Nat Rush
The Crimean Crisis - An Overview
KyivPost – an independent Ukrainian newspaper, reports that on the 30th of March, Crimea will adopt Moscow standard time.
Before delving into why there is Russian interest in the area, it would be prudent to quickly cover some basics of Crimean history.
From the 15th century, Crimea, along with much of Eastern Europe, was part of the mighty Ottoman Empire. Between the 18th and 19th centuries The Ottoman Empire and the frontier expanding Russians fought for supremacy in the area, the fighting was particularly intensive when it came to controlling the Black Sea region.
Then came the Crimean War, when British and French forces intervened in retaliation to perceived Russian aggression towards Ottoman held Romania. The British and French forces lay siege to Sevastopol (then and still today the location of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet) for nearly a year until the Russians retreated. The war concluded soon after the taking of the city.
In 1994 Crimea again becomes independent of Ukraine before joining them again in 1997. Throughout the 90’s and early 21st century Crimea was the centre of heated political debate between Ukraine and Russia relating to border and territorial issues. The Russian’s lease of Sevastopol Naval Base was a particularly thorny issue which was settled when the pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych was elected in 2010 and extended the Russian lease to 2042.
In 1917 Crimea was officially recognised as an autonomous region from the recently collapsed Russian Empire, but in 1921 Crimea was the location for the final defeat of the White Anti-Bolshevik forces. This lead to the region once again being incorporated into the Russian Empire. Within Stalin’s Russia, Crimea suffered terribly, first with collectivism and then ethnic suppression in which tens of thousands of native Crimeans died. In 1944 Crimea was declared a region of Soviet Russia with little independent control, ten years later Crimea was passed on to Ukrainian jurisdiction in commemoration of the Pereyaslav Agreement which submitted Ukraine to Russian rule. In 1991 Crimea became an autonomous state within the Soviet Union and quickly passed back to the newly independent Ukraine when the Soviet Union collapsed during the same year.
With this brief look at the turbulent history of Crimea we can see that there is much cause for debate as to the legitimacy of any claim to ownership of the region. It is perhaps worth pointing out that over 50% of those living in Crimea consider themselves Russian.
Before the invasion and subsequent referendum in Crimea came reports from many of the key western media outlets on anti government/pro European Union protests in Ukraine’s capital Kiev. Whilst general media consensus in Moscow is that the protests are an orchestrated US/EU attempt to cause chaos in the area. These protests came after The EU served Ukraine with an association agreement, the preparation for which President Viktor Yanukovych suspended.
The agreement had been postponed previously due to European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy - Štefan Füle insisting that no progress could be made until "action in six key areas" had taken place. These 'recommendations' were reiterated several times with the Ukrainian government implying that any resolution rested with the will of President Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych stated Ukraine will "do its best" to satisfy the EU's requirements.
At the time he was also in negotiations with Russia to "find the right model" for cooperation with the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia. President of the European Commission -
José Manuel Barroso subsequently stated:
"One country cannot at the same time be a member of a customs union and be in a deep common free-trade area with the European Union."
The agreement in question (The Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement) offers Ukraine "the development of political, trade, social, cultural and security links" which as a non-EU country would be highly beneficial seeing as the nation was under a mountain of debt. 20 billion dollars to be precise – this was the amount Yanukovych had asked the EU for as a loan - they retorted with 838 million dollars. Russia then offered Ukraine 15 billion dollars coupled with cheaper gas prices, if Ukraine were to side themselves with the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia (an economic alliance of former Soviet states considered to be a direct rival to the European Union.)
The lure of cheaper gas prices could be seen as almost devious, as the power Gazprom (Russia’s multinational gas company who supply Ukraine, and who’s ties to Russian governance is considered cosy) exercises over countries it supplies is evidenced when they cut off the gas to Ukraine in 2009. Gazprom's pressure is clearly evident from this statement by Chairman Alexey Miller states “We cannot supply gas for free. Either Ukraine clears the debt and pays for current deliveries, or there is a risk to return to the situation in early 2009” a threat that has been carried out already before no doubt strikes panic in an already shaky Ukrainian government already on the brink of crisis.
Vladimir Putin is readily painted as the aggressor in our media, and if you accept the notion that he himself is in a position of complete power in Russia, then it is worth asking what he is set to gain by this move against Ukraine. This weekend a large anti-Putin protest took place in Moscow, and a well quoted poll conducted last year suggests that nearly half of Russian citizens would like to see a new leader replace Putin. A survey taken this month in Russia suggests that Putin’s approval ratings rose by 10% over last month and sits at the highest peak recorded in many years
Perhaps this rise in popularity is doing for Putin what Thatcher’s intervention in The Falklands did for the survival of her Whitehall dynasty?
The respected editor Gabor Steingart notes:
“If Putin gives up Crimea, he gives up a chunk of his own self-image. His aggression is politically, militarily and historically necessary to his continued status as a major world leader.”
This aggression towards Ukraine suggests that Putin is cementing himself as a stalwart of pro-Russian influence. Crimea are surely looking even more favourably on Putin’s Russia now has officially recognised them as a nation.
From the same perspective Putin’s diplomacy has been decidedly harmonious compared with his Western counterparts. Whilst Putin’s international relations have not been completely clean Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Moldova and Ukraine certainly have more effectual government and social systems than Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya. Perhaps from the perspective of 95% of Crimeans; the security offered by Putin's Russia is preferable to uncertainty stemming from a drastic change of power in Kiev, which may or may not be a direct result of a much larger power struggle stemming from cold war twitches.
Vladimir Putin
Miller
Society & Culture
Philosophy & Ethics
What is the role of philosophy in our age?
Societal & Cultural analysis
Freedom to shop, but not to govern:
The erosion of gender roles has created, in a sense, economic equality.
The Death of the Liberal Class takes a highly critical view of American society and its social demise.
"Most writers earn less than £600 a year, survey reveals.."
The Critique is dedicated to changing the status quo of 'free labour' that publishers hold towards writers. We believe that a society lacking in a wide variety of critics is one lacking the tools it needs to progress efficiently. The Critique promises a small payment to those who contribute outstanding works towards the Editorial Themes. See details below..
Editorial Writing Guidelines and Payment.
Community Project News
Connect with @critiquerd
Bloggers Needed!
Our newly established 'Voices' section is in need of contributors. Short, personalised observations of events or traits in society (wherever you are) are all welcome.
Email the team at thecritique.rd@gmail.com with your pieces or message us via social media.
Love in a constantly evolving society.