President Putin has shrugged off US/EU threats to isolate Moscow economically and has vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution invalidating the results of Sunday’s referendum in Crimea. He’s hardly flavor of the month with Western leaderships but his popularity is soaring at home; his approval rating stands at more than 71 percent, the highest since he reassumed the presidential mantel in 2012. And he’s fast attaining iconic status not only in Crimea but also in cities like Kharkov and Donetsk where massive pro-Russian demonstrations have turned bloody.
Putin has lived up to his nickname “Hardman” throughout the Ukraine crisis and now a slew of analysts are attempting to see into his somewhat impenetrable mind. Some so-called experts assert his determination to re-constitute the Soviet Union. While it’s true to say that he regrets the USSR’s demise, he’s no dreamer. His core concerns revolve around national security.
Put simply, he’s resisting Ukraine’s pro-Western trajectory because he can’t tolerate NATO’s nukes parked in his backyard or to risk the potential loss of his navy’s leased warm water port in Sevastopol. The US would react similarly under similar circumstances. In fact, it already has. In response to US missiles in Turkey and Italy pointing at Russia, in May 1962, Khruschchev signed a deal with Fidel Castro for a missile base on Cuba. President Kennedy was so incensed that he ordered a blockade of the island bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war.
Crimea’s breakaway is a done deal but whether it will be subsumed into the Russian Federation remains an open question. That step has been blessed by the Russian parliament, which has also given Putin a green light to expand his country’s military presence into eastern Ukraine ostensibly to protect ethnic Russians from Kiev’s “fascists and neo-Nazis.” Ukraine’s interim government maintains Russian troops now occupy a village outside the borders of Crimea where they have seized a gas-pumping facility. However, will US and EU sanctions, such as targeted asset freezes and travel bans, give Putin pause is the question being mulled in Western capitals.
The Obama administration has come-up with a solution dubbed an “off-ramp” that involves virtual Crimean autonomy, leaving the peninsula nominally within Ukraine. America’s objection to the referendum is twofold. Firstly, it cannot be free and fair under the barrel of a gun and, secondly, it infringes the Ukrainian constitution. But there are arguments refuting those points.
International journalists monitoring the ballot have confirmed that voters weren’t subject to any intimidation and, indeed, the atmosphere around the polling stations was celebratory. Exit polls show a high-turnout with 93 percent in favor of joining Russia. Moreover, the US had no constitutional qualms when Kosovo’s Assembly announced its declaration of independence from Serbia in 2008. In that instance, the International Court of Justice rubber-stamped the decision. It won’t have escaped your notice that Scotland is set to vote on its independence. Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron is against part of the UK being lopped-off but will abide by the will of the Scottish people. Shouldn’t residents of Crimea, which was part of the Russian Federation until 1954, enjoy the same rights as Scots?
Putin might get Russia off the hook in terms of sanctions by sending his troops back to their barracks and leaving Crimea in a state of territorial limbo but that’s unlikely because that would amount to letting-down Crimean voters and presenting himself as someone who can’t be trusted. No doubt, his playbook includes a few threats of his own to coerce Obama and his EU buddies to back-off—cutting gas supplies to Ukraine and Europe, seizing the assets of American and European companies—Exxon and Ford are heavily invested in Russia for instance—and demanding immediate payment of Ukraine’s debts.
Moscow could also bar the US military from accessing Afghanistan through Russia and stop all cooperation on a diplomatic solution to the civil war in Syria. It’s conceivable that Russia could bring influence to bear on Iran not to proceed with its planned détente with Washington.
The Russian president isn’t saying much but the current massing of 80,000 Russian troops, 140 fighter jets, 90 combat helicopters, armored personnel carriers and advanced missile systems along Ukraine’s northeastern border with Russia speaks volumes. Authorities in Kiev are jumpy; they insist that Moscow is gearing-up for an all-out invasion. I believe the probability of that is slight. Russia would face fierce resistance from Ukrainian nationalists and even though the country’s army is no match for Russia’s it might feel obligated to get involved. I think the Russian build-up is meant as a message—“We can and we will if pushed.”
Lastly, could Ukrainian tensions escalate into war?
The US and its allies have avoided any discussion of military options and rightly so. Russia is flexing its muscles but it’s worth noting that Russian soldiers in Crimea have thus far only fired warning shots. There is little appetite for conflict—and that goes for all involved. That said, Ukraine’s bespectacled acting prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, is throwing oil on smoldering embers; he’s called up the National Guard, he’s placed Ukraine’s military on a war-footing and has requested NATO to provide military assistance. For its part, NATO has deployed reconnaissance planes in Romanian and Polish airspace and has dispatched 12 F-16s to Poland for “a training exercise.”
Yatsenyuk has ratcheted-up the rhetoric vowing to bring separatists to justice. Rather than deter, his words are guaranteed to harden the resolve of pro-Russians.
Mother Russia’s embrace of her prodigal son Crimea is a fait accompli even in the unlikely event the annexation won’t be pronounced as official. There’s no going back. So for the sake of all concerned and to avoid a new Cold War not to mention a global economic slowdown, it may be time for Putin and Obama to do some behind-closed-doors horse-trading.
Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.
RSS
Crimea is decided so what’s next?
Posted on March 20, 2014 by Linda S. Heard
President Putin has shrugged off US/EU threats to isolate Moscow economically and has vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution invalidating the results of Sunday’s referendum in Crimea. He’s hardly flavor of the month with Western leaderships but his popularity is soaring at home; his approval rating stands at more than 71 percent, the highest since he reassumed the presidential mantel in 2012. And he’s fast attaining iconic status not only in Crimea but also in cities like Kharkov and Donetsk where massive pro-Russian demonstrations have turned bloody.
Putin has lived up to his nickname “Hardman” throughout the Ukraine crisis and now a slew of analysts are attempting to see into his somewhat impenetrable mind. Some so-called experts assert his determination to re-constitute the Soviet Union. While it’s true to say that he regrets the USSR’s demise, he’s no dreamer. His core concerns revolve around national security.
Put simply, he’s resisting Ukraine’s pro-Western trajectory because he can’t tolerate NATO’s nukes parked in his backyard or to risk the potential loss of his navy’s leased warm water port in Sevastopol. The US would react similarly under similar circumstances. In fact, it already has. In response to US missiles in Turkey and Italy pointing at Russia, in May 1962, Khruschchev signed a deal with Fidel Castro for a missile base on Cuba. President Kennedy was so incensed that he ordered a blockade of the island bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war.
Crimea’s breakaway is a done deal but whether it will be subsumed into the Russian Federation remains an open question. That step has been blessed by the Russian parliament, which has also given Putin a green light to expand his country’s military presence into eastern Ukraine ostensibly to protect ethnic Russians from Kiev’s “fascists and neo-Nazis.” Ukraine’s interim government maintains Russian troops now occupy a village outside the borders of Crimea where they have seized a gas-pumping facility. However, will US and EU sanctions, such as targeted asset freezes and travel bans, give Putin pause is the question being mulled in Western capitals.
The Obama administration has come-up with a solution dubbed an “off-ramp” that involves virtual Crimean autonomy, leaving the peninsula nominally within Ukraine. America’s objection to the referendum is twofold. Firstly, it cannot be free and fair under the barrel of a gun and, secondly, it infringes the Ukrainian constitution. But there are arguments refuting those points.
International journalists monitoring the ballot have confirmed that voters weren’t subject to any intimidation and, indeed, the atmosphere around the polling stations was celebratory. Exit polls show a high-turnout with 93 percent in favor of joining Russia. Moreover, the US had no constitutional qualms when Kosovo’s Assembly announced its declaration of independence from Serbia in 2008. In that instance, the International Court of Justice rubber-stamped the decision. It won’t have escaped your notice that Scotland is set to vote on its independence. Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron is against part of the UK being lopped-off but will abide by the will of the Scottish people. Shouldn’t residents of Crimea, which was part of the Russian Federation until 1954, enjoy the same rights as Scots?
Putin might get Russia off the hook in terms of sanctions by sending his troops back to their barracks and leaving Crimea in a state of territorial limbo but that’s unlikely because that would amount to letting-down Crimean voters and presenting himself as someone who can’t be trusted. No doubt, his playbook includes a few threats of his own to coerce Obama and his EU buddies to back-off—cutting gas supplies to Ukraine and Europe, seizing the assets of American and European companies—Exxon and Ford are heavily invested in Russia for instance—and demanding immediate payment of Ukraine’s debts.
Moscow could also bar the US military from accessing Afghanistan through Russia and stop all cooperation on a diplomatic solution to the civil war in Syria. It’s conceivable that Russia could bring influence to bear on Iran not to proceed with its planned détente with Washington.
The Russian president isn’t saying much but the current massing of 80,000 Russian troops, 140 fighter jets, 90 combat helicopters, armored personnel carriers and advanced missile systems along Ukraine’s northeastern border with Russia speaks volumes. Authorities in Kiev are jumpy; they insist that Moscow is gearing-up for an all-out invasion. I believe the probability of that is slight. Russia would face fierce resistance from Ukrainian nationalists and even though the country’s army is no match for Russia’s it might feel obligated to get involved. I think the Russian build-up is meant as a message—“We can and we will if pushed.”
Lastly, could Ukrainian tensions escalate into war?
The US and its allies have avoided any discussion of military options and rightly so. Russia is flexing its muscles but it’s worth noting that Russian soldiers in Crimea have thus far only fired warning shots. There is little appetite for conflict—and that goes for all involved. That said, Ukraine’s bespectacled acting prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, is throwing oil on smoldering embers; he’s called up the National Guard, he’s placed Ukraine’s military on a war-footing and has requested NATO to provide military assistance. For its part, NATO has deployed reconnaissance planes in Romanian and Polish airspace and has dispatched 12 F-16s to Poland for “a training exercise.”
Yatsenyuk has ratcheted-up the rhetoric vowing to bring separatists to justice. Rather than deter, his words are guaranteed to harden the resolve of pro-Russians.
Mother Russia’s embrace of her prodigal son Crimea is a fait accompli even in the unlikely event the annexation won’t be pronounced as official. There’s no going back. So for the sake of all concerned and to avoid a new Cold War not to mention a global economic slowdown, it may be time for Putin and Obama to do some behind-closed-doors horse-trading.
Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.