Crimean Standoff Worsens American-Russian Relations

Henry Srebrnik, [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian

Russia has deployed troops to the Crimea following a request for help from its pro-Moscow prime minister, Sergei Aksyonov, following the overthrow of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in Kyiv. Interim Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk of Ukraine has called this a declaration of war.

Is Russia’s action illegitimate or do they have cause to intercede?

No independent Ukrainian state existed, except for very brief periods, until 1991. Its western areas were under Austro-Hungarian rule, then Polish, while the east was governed by the tsars in Moscow.

The Crimea was wrested from the Tatars by Russia in 1783 and has always had an ethnic Russian majority. It was never part of the Soviet Ukrainian republic until Nikita Khrushchev, the then leader of the Soviet Union, foolishly handed it to Kyiv in 1954 as a “gift,” to ingratiate himself with Ukrainians as he solidified his hold on power following the death of Joseph Stalin.

It also supposedly marked the 300th anniversary of the 1654 treaty unifying the eastern Ukraine with Russia.

But Ukraine is now an independent country, and the Crimea’s rule from Kyiv has been a major source of Russian resentment -- inside and outside Crimea -- and a major thorn in Ukraine’s relations with Russia.

Why can’t Russia have it back, if the local population supports this, as they no doubt will make it explicit in a referendum on secession scheduled for March 30? Crimea already has autonomy, with its own parliament and organs of government.

The Ukrainian nationalists who overthrew Yanukovych clearly have little interest in allowing any voice to the ethnic Russians and Russified Ukrainians in the east and south, so they shouldn’t be surprised that secession is now on the table.

President Barack Obama has accused Russia of a breach of international law and condemned the country’s military intervention, calling it a “clear violation” of Ukrainian sovereignty, and demanding that it desist from any action that might imperil that country’s territorial integrity..

It’s rather rich for the United States to be giving Russia lessons on international law. Such legal niceties didn’t stop the U.S.-led NATO bombing of Serbia for 78 straight days, 15 years ago, also in contravention of international law. This eventually forced the Serbs out and eventually allowed an independent Kosovo to emerge (despite pledges that it wouldn’t happen).

Why should the Russians trust what they consider an illegitimate government in Kyiv to protect their ethnic Russian compatriots; the U.S. certainly didn’t trust Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic when it came to protecting Kosovar Albanians. If spheres of influence are to mean anything, the Russians certainly have more cause to intervene in Crimea than NATO did in Kosovo.

The Kosovo case, which the West sought to make sui generis, a non-precedent, has indeed become one. What’s sauce for the goose, and all that.

(Washington has also had no compunction in toppling governments it didn’t like around the world, from Panama to Iraq.)

Since 1989, the Russians have lost, first, their east European empire, then their non-Russian Soviet republics. They were humiliated during the 1990s, as the Baltic states and other east European countries joined NATO. Russia’s borders are already further east than they were at any time in the past three centuries. How far does the United States think they can be pushed?

Note how quickly Cold War tropes have reasserted themselves, even though this has nothing to do with ideology. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s actions have been compared to the Soviet invasions of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968.

Or are we also returning to an older, 19th century image: Russia as the “bear” seeking to dominate its neighbours and crush freedom. This was a favourite theme of British politicians and writers, as they competed with the Russians in Asia and also defended the Ottoman Empire against them.

How many people in the West today know about the Crimean War of 1853-1856, when Britain and France attacked Russia? Most of the fighting took place for control of the Black Sea, with land battles on the Crimea.

You can be sure the Russians remember it. As the British historian Orlando Figes has written, “Memories of the Crimean war continue to stir profound feelings of Russian pride and resentment towards the west.”