In
April-May 2015, I was invited to attend an International business conference in
Crimea. I was one of the only two Indian delegates. Aside from the conference,
I was interested to see firsthand what was happening there, to talk to people,
to find reality. Reality was trapped in the crossfire between Western and
Russian propaganda. I managed to get a business visa from the Russian
consulate. As a matter of curiosity, I phoned the Ukrainian embassy in Delhi,
and after several attempts a man picked up.
‘I’m
planning to visit Crimea, could I please apply for a visa at your embassy?’ I
asked.
‘Don’t
you watch TV?’ the embassy man sounded surprised. ‘Russia has illegally annexed
it. Crimea belongs to Ukraine. And once we get it back, we’ll start issuing
visas again. Right now I won’t advise you to go there. Not safe.’
Since
March 2014, you can fly to Crimea only via Moscow. From the time I landed at
the Simferopol airport, and throughout my Crimean stay, I talked to taxi
drivers, waiters, hotel receptionists, businessmen, the President of Crimea, the
conference’s young organisation team, bureaucrats, local journalists, and Yalta
film studio representatives.
Crimea
was Russian since 1783
The
Black Sea separates Crimea to its north and Turkey to its south. In fact,
Crimea was annexed by Russia way back in 1783. In the Russia-Turkey war,
Catherine the great, the legendary Russian empress, defeated the Ottoman Empire
to capture Crimea. Since then, for more than two centuries, the majority of the
Crimean population is Russian.
Nikita Khrushchev’s
gift
Once the
USSR was formed, Russia was its largest republic, and Crimea continued to be
part of the Russian republic, until 1954. That year, Nikita Khrushchev, the
head of the USSR, decided to gift Crimea to Ukraine, ostensibly because of
their proximity and cultural ties. Several possible motives have been suggested,
and the legality of the decision questioned. Analysts agree that Khrushchev was
fond of Ukraine, and this was his personal symbolic gesture.
In
1954, that gesture made little difference, because both Russia and Ukraine
belonged to the same country, USSR. If Las Vegas was transferred from Nevada to
California, it wouldn’t matter much…. Unless California were to become an
independent nation.
1991:
Russia and Ukraine independent nations
Before
the fall of the USSR, in a prescient move, Crimea organized a Crimean
Sovereignty Referendum on 20 Jan. 1991. Supported by 94% of the voters,
Crimea became an autonomous republic; with a right to leave Ukraine when/if it
so wished. In 1993, the “President of Crimea” position was created.
With
USSR disintegrating into fifteen republics, the Crimean problem became acute.
Russia demanded back the peninsula it had de facto owned for two hundred
years.
The
third biggest nuclear state
Crimea
was only one of the hundreds of problems confronted by Yeltsin. Communism had
collapsed, prices were freed, hyperinflation had set in, pensioners were dying,
daily necessities were in shortage, Chechen terror attacks had started. But
these were Russia’s domestic problems. For the West, the biggest headache was
the sudden appearance of three new nuclear states: Ukraine, Belarus and
Kazakhstan. Russia was admitted as USSR’s successor state. Ukraine was the
third biggest nuclear power after Russia and the USA. It had nuclear stocks and
installations, but the control remained with Moscow. As the Chernobyl disaster
(Chernobyl is in Ukraine) of April 1986 showed, nuclear plants are dangerous no
matter who controls them. (A similar situation would arise if Scotland were to
leave the UK).
Belarus
and Kazakhstan agreed, but Ukraine was reluctant to give away its nuclear
status. After prolonged negotiations, the official nuclear club and the three
new accidental entrants met in Budapest in Dec. 1994. The Budapest
Memorandum on security assurances was signed by Ukraine, Belarus
and Kazakhstan promising denuclearization; and USA, UK and Russia as nuclear
powers. In exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear arsenal, Russia assured
to respect its territorial integrity (meaning obviously Eastern Ukraine and
Crimea as well). USA and UK assured immediate action in case Ukraine was
attacked with nuclear weapons.
Within
three months, in March 1995, Ukraine cancelled Crimea’s constitution. The post
of President of Crimea was also revoked.
Two
peaceful decades
Almost
for the next twenty years, nothing cataclysmic happened between Ukraine and
Russia. Putin was in power for more than 12 years. He didn’t start a border
war, he didn’t annex Crimea, Russia continued to supply cheap gas to Ukraine.
After all, Russians and Ukrainians belong to the same tribe- they are Slavic.
Russia and Ukraine were the founding members of CIS (The Russian commonwealth).
At one time, the Russian Tsardom had Kiev, the current Ukrainian capital, as
its centre. Like Australia and New Zealand, like USA and Canada, Russia and
Ukraine were considered to be
neighbours unlikely to engage in a war. What changed and why?
My
German friends
In
2014, after Crimea was taken over by Russians, two German friends of mine were
visiting me. We were discussing issues of sovereignty and annexation. My German
friends knew I was in essence a pro-EU person, a democrat, liberal; I support free
speech and free market. So, they were surprised when I said, “you are not a
sovereign nation either.”
“Of
course we are.” They said. “In Germany, we elect our own leaders.”
I asked
them to show me their passports. The cover had Europรคische Union
written at the top.
“Is
your currency exclusive to your own country?”
“No, we
share it in the Euro zone, by agreement.”
“Is
Germany not part of the
Schengen
area?” The girls chose not to answer.
“So you
have a country which has European Union written on its passport cover, doesn’t
have its exclusive currency or borders, and still you consider yourself to be a
sovereign nation?”
“But…
this is all voluntary…. And democratic.” The German girls protested.
Expansionism
vs. Imperialism
Yes,
European Union’s expansionism has been democratic, voluntary and essentially
bloodless. But in some cases that voluntary membership is like corporate
slavery – where you sacrifice your soul for material gain. (Ask the Greeks).
The processes of standardization (currency, freedom of movement, detailed
regulations), influence of the central bank, wealthy men and companies purchasing
property and exploiting cheap labour (e.g.
Germans in Eastern Europe) are common factors whether membership is voluntary
or by force. EU was doing fairly well when it had its six founding members, or
even with 15 members until 2003. Then it became greedy, and included eight
Eastern countries on 1 May 2004. Even greedier was their act of including
Bulgaria and Romania in 2007. Romania is possibly the worst qualified country to
become an EU member. And then EU had its
eyes on Ukraine, geographically the largest country in Europe. (Russia
is bigger, but it’s in Europe and Asia).
EU=
USA= NATO
EU equals
USA equals NATO is the perception of Russia and cold analysis supports it.
EU has always been complicit with and has actively supported American military
aggression worldwide. The talks for EU membership and NATO membership start surprisingly
close to one another. Five Eastern countries became members of both blocks in
the same year, 2004. They were previously the members of the Russian NATO
(Warsaw Pact) that died along with the USSR.
Ukraine
applied for NATO membership in 2008.
Infidelity
In
2012, EU (the lover) started an affair with Ukraine (the wife). Ukraine should
leave Russia (her long married husband) and marry the lover (eventually), EU
said. The engagement was due to happen in March 2014. The husband, on learning about
the infidelity, tried to sweet-talk the wife with a variety of new proposals,
but alas, the wife was attracted to this apparently rich man from another
culture. Finally, the furious husband took steps to prevent his wife from meeting
her lover, and also began torturing her in every possible way. The lover,
instead of challenging the husband in a duel, made loud noises of protest and
ran away, leaving the ill-fated wife in dire straits.
Buffer
States
In the
cold war, both the Soviet Union and the USA had a strategy of not letting the
opposition come close to their respective borders. USSR had buffer states such
as Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Romania. Russia continues that strategy
with Ukraine and Belarus as its new buffer states.
The Ukraine-EU
agreement was scheduled to be signed on 21 March 2014. Hurriedly before
that on 16 March, Crimea held a referendum to free itself from Ukraine, and
joined Russia on 18 March. Ukraine was in such bad shape that it would not be
ready to become an EU member for at least 25 years. Instead of solving the current
problems (Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy), inviting Ukraine was clearly a
greedy expansionist move on EU’s part. The EU-Ukraine marriage was not on the cards,
but using the engagement, NATO (read Americans) would have definitely created
new bases in Ukraine and Crimea. Putin, or any rational strategic leader, could
not allow it. An American Black Sea fleet is a concept repulsive to
Russians.
Crimean
conflict also includes the independent city of Sevastopol. The Russian Black
Sea Fleet is located there since 1783. Black Sea Fleet is Russia’s pride. Though
Crimea belonged to Ukraine until 2014, Russia had signed a long-term treaty
with Ukrainians, leasing Sevastopol until 2042. Just as Russian remained the
language of Crimea, the Black Sea Fleet has remained mainly Russian. Giving up
Sevastopol and the Black Sea Fleet (particularly to Americans) was not only a
military but a deeply emotional issue.
Keep your enemy away
The
question of whether Russia has annexed Crimea becomes moot. Russia is entitled
to keep the US military and nuclear bases away for as long as it can manage. An
enemy’s nuclear bases positioned at your buttocks is an unpleasant feeling.
Those fond of history will remember the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962), when the
same Khrushchev agreed to place nuclear missiles in Cuba (90 miles from
Florida) for Cuba’s defence. Americans and their president John Kennedy
went bananas and were about to start a nuclear war with Russia. The war didn’t happen;
a settlement was reached with missiles withdrawn and both sides offering
concessions. The current Russia-Ukraine-EU-NATO situation is very similar.
In
Crimea, I talked to Russians, Ukrainians and Tatars, Crimea’s three demographic
components. Many showed me their new Russian passports with pride and delight;
Russian was the first language for most of them. Everyone (except two) I spoke
to said they had voted to join Russia; it was a homecoming for them. In the
past twenty years, Ukraine had treated Crimea as a stepchild shrinking Crimean
budgets and investments, they said. Now they looked forward to the mighty
Russia helping them. The transfer had
happened peacefully and efficiently. Unlike what the Ukrainian Embassy official
in Delhi had warned me, my stay in Crimea was absolutely safe.
(The
only Crimean people who complained were the Ukrainian bureaucrats and ministers
who ran Crimea until 2014. They said they sincerely governed Crimea with
whatever little money they got from Ukraine. They disapproved the term
‘stepchild’, which is a perception of the Russians.)
Verdict:
Crimea will be in Russia forever, and Ukraine will have to split in two parts if
it wishes to join EU
Based
on my visit and analysis, I can confirm Crimea will remain with Russia no
matter what, definitely in our lifetime (or should I say Putin’s lifetime). The
city of Sevastopol will continue to host the Russian, and not American, Black
Sea Fleet.
If
Ukraine were to ever join EU/NATO, Putin/Russia will make sure Ukraine splits
into two parts: The pro-Russian East and the pro-EU West. Then the pro-Russian East
Ukraine by whatever name can become the new buffer state. If Ukraine is
keen to avoid splitting into two parts, it will need to sign an agreement with
Russia guaranteeing no US military bases anywhere in Ukraine. (A similar agreement
was signed to resolve the Cuban missile crisis). If Ukraine were to agree to
that, unfortunately USA and NATO will lose interest in it. And if
NATO/Americans can’t enter Ukraine, EU is not interested in Ukraine. Ukraine is
a burden that the crumbling EU can’t afford now or in the foreseeable future.
Ravi
No comments:
Post a Comment