While the diplomatic offensive to resolve the crisis hots up but makes no progress, the position on the ground remains bloodless but grows more unstable. This blog has exhaustively discussed this issue over the last few weeks at each stage of its development and it is now time to take a look at each side’s position separately.
The West. There is near unanimity in the outrage at Russian military activities in Crimea and hostility to both Russia and Russia’s argument to explain its position. Public opinion is generally against Russia’s intervention in Ukraine (only 3% of Brits in a recent poll sympathetic to Russia) but there is as yet no unanimity as to what to do about it. A good deal of the rhetoric is over the top and some of the legal arguments could be used with even greater relevance when applied to the disastrous interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya all of which states are in various forms of civil conflict and governmental dysfunction as a consequence.There is also the serious question, which the West ignores, of the dubious legality of the Kiev government and the neo fascist elements within it.
Russia holds that the legitimate government of the Ukraine was overthrown in an uprising, made worse by EU and US meddling and that the instability which this has unleashed places at risk the welfare of the substantial segment of the population which is of Russian origin, as Ukraine was part of Russia before the collapse of the Soviet Union. This is especially acute in Crimea where Russia has substantial military and naval assets. Crimea was part of Russia since the days of Catherine the Great. Khrushchev gave it to the Ukraine, a symbolic gesture because Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, which then became real when the SU collapsed and Ukraine did not join the Russian Federation. Crimea is about to hold a referendum to rejoin Russia, whose Parliament has said it will welcome her back if the vote is yes.
Meanwhile thousands of Russian troops are everywhere to be seen in Ukraine, although they maintain a peculiarly ambiguous status without insignia. This does not meet with modern nostrums of openness and transparency. There have been arguments and confrontations with more or less disarmed local forces loyal to Kiev, but so far no fighting. As military occupations go this is pretty benign and nowhere near the much more forceful pattern used by the West in its own military adventures.
What to do about it? The Ukraine must own up to significant responsibility through consistent bad government and stoking of ethnic tensions, for the fracture in the integrity of their State and the collapse of their economy. Their country is a complete mess and as they were in charge of themselves it is their fault. This does not mean they should be left to stew.
It is almost a given that Crimea has gone, whatever the West may say. It is possible that eastern Ukraine will follow, but that is by no means inevitable. At some point Russia and Ukraine will have to negotiate, but that will not happen until Crimea has had its referendum. Meanwhile the West should be less strident and work harder behind the scenes to set up realistic options to put on the table when the talking does indeed begin. There are no military options and any major economic sanctions will hurt the west more than Russia. The coolest head in the crisis is Angela Merkel and Germany will be the peacemaker. Obama is powerless and most of his declarations are for his domestic audience but the impact on Moscow is virtually nil.
What should Britain’s position be? So far it has been following the American line in public, although as always is actual position is not so easy to read. It needs to be aware that if it dismisses the Crimean referendum and its subsequent inclusion in Russia as illegal, it will open questions about the status of Northern Ireland, the Falklands and Gibraltar, all of which are part of Britain because of the wishes of the majority who live there, not because their status is never challenged by Ireland, Argentina and Spain. Then there is the question of Kosovo. How can its route to independence be legal and Crimea’s not so? And is not a people’s right to self-determination the cornerstone of everything Britain stands for?
Criticism of Russia’s military engagement is made seemingly hypocritical by British participation in wars in Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq. Any major economic war with Russia would impact the EU significantly and put an end to Britain’s fragile recovery. One can only hope that Whitehall is carefully considering all these things. Its record post cold war is not good.