The Russians Are Coming : What You Need to Know About the Ukrainian Crisis

DISCLAIMER : This article was prepared or accomplished by the author in his personal capacity. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not reflect the view of the Foreign Service Institute, the Department of Foreign Affairs, or the Philippine government. 


That time of the month folks so get your nerd on and dive right in ! Today we talk about the Ukrainian crisis and the Russian Federation's annexation of Crimea, a part of Ukraine. These past few weeks have stunned the most bookish international relations experts and took everyone and his dog by surprise with Russia basically saying nyet to everybody and anybody complaining, so allow me to walk you through the basics. As usual please leave any comments, criticism, or questions at the comments section at the bottom of the page

 Right, let's get straight to it. Let's start off with a brief timeline of the Ukrainian crisis I pirated off BBC :

• 21 Nov 2013: Russian-leaning Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych abandons an EU trade deal in acquiescence to Russian pressure  
• Dec: Start of Ukrainian Revolution. Pro-EU protesters occupy Kiev city hall and Independence [Maidan] Square
• 20-21 Feb 2014: At least 88 people killed in Kiev/Kyiv [capital of Ukraine] clashes
• 22 Feb: Mr Yanukovych flees; parliament removes him and calls election
• 27-28 Feb: Pro-Russian gunmen seize key buildings in Crimea. 
• 6 Mar: Crimea's parliament votes to join Russia
• 16 Mar: Crimea voters choose to secede in disputed referendum [95%]
• 17 Mar: Crimean parliament declares independence and formally applies to join Russia
• 18 Mar: Russian and Crimean leaders sign deal in Moscow to join the region to the Russian Federation

What's this deal about, the one Ukraine was about to sign with the EU ?

It's basically a negotiation between Kyiv and Brussels that bestows economic rights on Ukrainians many EU citizens already enjoy : higher freedom of movement of businesses and peoples within EU countries, elimination of customs and barriers to trade, EU investment in Ukrainian cities, the works. On paper this seems like a pretty fair and non-political deal, but a big loser in all this would have been Russian President Vladimir Putin who would like to keep the Ukrainian economy tied to Russia's. Russia has always viewed itself as fundamentally different and a counterweight to the perceived hegemony of first Western Europe and then the United States. In addition, there is a real fear in Russian circles that such an economic deal might lead not just to a political one [e.g. full EU membership for Ukraine], but also to a military one [e.g. NATO membership]. 

NATO expansion as of 2011, with former Soviet republics Ukraine and Georgia in membership discussions. With Ukraine right on its border, Russia sees Ukrainian accession to NATO as a threat to its national security.
(Source : Phil Ebersole)

NATO, if you recall, was the military alliance mainly of the United States and Western Europe to combat the Soviet Union back during the Cold War. Well, the Soviet Union collapsed but NATO didn't and has even since expanded ever closer to Russia's border, something which Mr Putin resents. Since Russia perceives Ukraine as firmly being in its backyard, its sharp and aggressive reaction becomes, if not sympathetic, more understandable in such a context. I explain why Ukraine represents a red line for Russia in this other article. 

What is the Crimea ? 

The Autonomous Republic of Crimea is/was a part of Ukrainian territory, a peninsula jutting out into the Black Sea. A look at a political world map will tell anyone of its geo-strategic importance. It houses both the Russian Black Sea Fleet and, until recently, the Ukrainian Navy. In addition, Russia maintains soldiers, bases, and other military assets in the region, as stipulated by an agreement between Russia and Ukraine signed in the 1990s.

Crimea contains the historically and militarily important port of Sevastopol. Controlling it allows greater control of the Black Sea and greater access to the Bosphorus (Turkey) and the Mediterranean Sea.
(Source : Consortium News)

Formerly Russian territory dating back to Catherine the Great in the 18th century, it was gifted by then Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev to Ukraine from Russia in 1954, presumably as a token of friendship. This is why there are many ethnic Russians and Russian speakers who live in the region and comprise the majority ethnic group here. Yet because both Russia and Ukraine were then part of a single country, the Soviet Union, this didn't really matter especially in the international sphere. Sort of like how the ongoing spat between the cities of Taguig and Makati over who owns Bonfiacio Global City will ultimately not amount to much in the international arena since it's all still territorially part of the Philippines anyway. Of course, the Soviet Union has since dissolved, and a legacy of which is that Crimea remains today part of Ukraine -- well, not anymore for the Russians. 

How were the Russians able to "invade" Ukraine ? Is it true that they did it without firing a single shot ?

The "invasion" was remarkable because Russia was able to snatch a sovereign part of Ukraine without the accompanying violence or bloodshed associated so much with military action save for the killing of a single Ukrainian serviceman just recently. Now, I keep using the quotation marks for "invasion" because from the Russian perspective they don't see it as an invasion; instead, their version is that local "self-defence units" or civilian volunteers composed of local ethnic Russians were the ones responsible for seizing important government buildings and besieging Ukrainian soldiers in their bases. While this isn't entirely untrue, it's a really ridiculous claim since, aside from many local Crimean Russian civilians genuinely in favour of Russian annexation, a lot of these self-defence units wear Russian military uniforms, carry Russian weapons, drive Russian vehicles with Russian plates, and speak Russian. Also, they appear extremely well-trained and organized for a supposedly militia outfit. What enables President Putin to distance himself from these troops is that they don't wear Russian military insignia on their uniforms, and he insists they are locals who must have gotten hold of the uniforms in stores.

They may be armed with sophisticated weaponry and look dangerous, but they can't possibly be military because they don't have those shiny Russian buttons.
(Source : Global Post)

Further complicating the issue is the existence of Russian bases on Crimean territory owing to the bilateral agreement I mentioned earlier. After the breakup of the USSR, Ukraine and Russia worked out a deal that saw Russia leasing Sevastopol, the all-important naval port, and other important military facilities until 2042. The treaty further stipulates that Russia can host up to 25,000 troops and other materiel within these bases, and so it's easy to conclude that a lot of these uniformed men have come from these bases and have taken direct orders from Moscow. That's one reason why this "invasion" was so perfectly executed since Russian troops were already in the vicinity anyway.

Of course you might be thinking, well that's pretty dumb of the Ukrainian government to have signed the treaty, but hindsight's always 20/20; nobody could have foreseen the current explosive situation since Russia and Ukraine have traditionally enjoyed warm relations. So strictly speaking, the existence of Russian troops on Ukrainian and specifically Crimean soil doesn't amount to invasion; it's the fact that these troops have gone out of their bases and occupied cities and bases all over Crimea that have riled up international legal experts, along with the controversial referendum.

Do Crimeans actually want to be part of Russia ? 

Around 60% of Crimeans are ethnic Russians, and it's an even greater percentage for Russian speakers. That said, not all Crimean Russians want to be part of Russia, and it's hard to see Crimean Ukrainians and Tatars, another local ethnic group, sharing Mr Putin's vision. 

It doesn't help either that Ukraine's new interim government possesses nationalist and extremist far-right members. What's worse is that early on after Yanukovych's ouster, these nationalists passed a language bill which banned Russian as an official language. Not a good political move since it only angered Russia and justified the latter's right to intervene on behalf of its citizens against Nazi and nationalist elements. Another fallout is the unrest spreading also in Ukraine's eastern regions, centered on the cities of Kharkiv and Donetsk. These were also formerly Russian cities and contain lots of ethnic Russians as well, and they have seen their Crimean brethren act and have been ratcheting up the clamour for reunion with Mother Russia as well. This is actually what the West fears the most right now : a general invasion of Ukraine's eastern region (since Mr Putin appropriated the "right" to invade Ukraine if Moscow feels that Kyiv isn't doing enough to protect ethnic Russians) and the spark for a wider European war. 

Is the referendum legal and does Putin have a basis for subsequently annexing Crimea ?

International law guarantees that people have a right to self-determination. This was upheld and confirmed by an International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling. Essentially, self-determination means that a nation or a people has the right to choose its own sovereignty and political status. This was used by many countries in the past in to justify their existence : South Sudan, Kosovo, and even the Philippines (and also the Bangsamoro people). It is in this manner that Russia justifies its annexation of Crimea since, according to the Russian narrative, the initiative came from the Crimean people themselves through the holding of the referendum, and that Russia but only acted accepted the democratic wish of the Crimean people.

At the same time, international law also guarantees the territorial integrity of states, meaning that international borders are sacrosanct and that no outside state has any right to exercise undue pressure on other countries to effect border changes -- something which the Russians are clearly guilty of despite their insistence on innocence. This opposition of two conflicting objectives -- self-determination and territorial integrity -- has always been a headache for many international relations scholars. Also, at a national level, Ukraine's constitution doesn't allow for separate, localized referenda on state issues such as secession; these can only be done at a whole, national level, meaning non-Crimean Ukrainians also have a legal say in the future of other parts of their country.

So what's the international community doing about it ? 

As expected, the West is outraged and waxes indignant by what it sees as a blatant land grab and a grave violation of the international order. Western critics have made emotional appeals to the world community comparing Russia's move with Nazi Germany's annexation of parts of Czechoslovakia. The US and EU have already imposed asset freezes and visa bans for lower-ranking Russian officials and have threatened deeper economic sanctions if Russia doesn't desist. They have, however, ruled out a military option; I'd say they're not too keen on fighting an all-out war with a nuclear-armed Russia, so you can rest easy that World War Three's not coming any time soon. 

More interesting are China's and to a lesser extern India's reactions. Last week the United Nations Security Council voted on a resolution drafted by the United States declaring the referendum invalid. Even though Russia used its veto, the vote was telling since all the rest of the members voted for the resolution, politically isolating Russia. Well, everyone except China, which abstained. 

What gives ? The Chinese vote is in essence a balancing act. On the one hand, China and Russia are strategic partners cooperating in many areas. China sees Russia as a useful counterweight against American hegemony and intrusion into its own backyard -- the South China Sea/West Philippine Sea. It also resents Ukraine's revolution and the toppling of Mr Yanukovych since these also represent a threat to its own Communist Party-led regime. 

On the other hand, China doesn't want to antagonize the Americans outright. It still has all these lucrative trade and financial links with the West that make it the second biggest economy in the world. Furthermore, Russia's actions also threaten unrest within China's own borders. Remember that little kuento earlier on territorial integrity and self-determination ? China has restive minorities itself in Tibet and Xinjiang, and thus outright supporting Crimean separatism would breathe new life into China's own separatists. As a rule of thumb, Chinese foreign policy is dominated by the principle of non-interference in other states' domestic/internal affairs. Walang pakialamanan. 

And so it is that China is taking the path of least resistance: abstaining. 

A really neat infographic that sorts out countries' positions on the annexation. Only Cuba, Venezeula, and Syria (and I think North Korea ? Can't see clearly) fully support Russia's actions. Philippines is yellow.
(Source : Wikimedia Commons)

This is getting long again. Just tell me what to expect in the coming days. 

I can't tell you that but I can give you a general feel of the direction.

I mentioned earlier the possibility of Western economic sanctions. Trouble is, this cuts both ways. Russia has threatened economic retaliation of its own, and since Russia is the largest trading partner of the EU -- it exports a ton of its natural gas and oil to Europe -- the Europeans aren't as keen as their American allies in rushing for sanctions.

Russian-American diplomatic cooperation will probably suffer in other arenas too. Weapons proliferation, terrorism, Iran's nuclear programme, the Syrian Civil War, you name it. Whether the White House likes it or not, Russia still has significant heft in the international arena.

Finally, the Chinese will be closely watching developments in Europe as well. As I mentioned earlier, any distraction for the United States is welcome so they can have a freer hand acting against the Philippines and Vietnam. And if the West fails to give a strong and unified response to Russia, the Chinese (and the Iranians, Venezuelans, North Koreans, and Syrians with them) will take that as a sign of Western weakness and American decline and reluctance for conflict, boosting even more aggressive actions in certain parts of the world. 

I only hope that Filipinos don't pay the price for it.