Blame it on the West

Events leading to Russia’s annexation of the Crimean peninsula were only the first stage of a drama that is unfolding with startling rapidity. The West, including the United States and the European Union, must take a large share of the blame because in their anxiety to co-opt Ukraine into the European Union and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation framework, they were challenging Russia by endangering its vital geopolitical interests.

That President Putin checkmated the Western move was no surprise, and judging by the largely symbolic sanctions imposed on Moscow, the West seemed to accept the fact that it could do little to prise the peninsula out of the Russian Federation. The European Union retaliated by quickly signing Ukraine on, with delayed provisions, to make the point that it was determined to take it into the Western fold.

Again, the West seemed to be acting in haste and out of pique after being checkmated by Moscow. As the series of violent takeovers of provincial offices in the eastern and southern cities of Ukraine by pro-Moscow elements have demonstrated, the peninsula is sharply divided between the west on the one hand and the east and south on the other. The western portion seeks close relations with the EU and the bright lights of the West while the rest of the country — primary Russian speakers — are attached to Russia and largely trade with it.

In the dramatic events that came to pass leading to the flight of President Viktor Yanukovych to Russia after an EU-mediated agreement witnessed by Russia was scrapped, the priority of the opposition forces, volubly backed by the US and the EU, was to form a western-oriented dispensation and set an election date for the presidency considerably shorter than the agreed year-end deadline. The interim government that was brought to power was entirely oriented towards the western part of Ukraine.

Two oligarchs were sent to eastern provinces to calm the east and the south and there was no representation of half of the country in the arrangements made in Kiev. The short-sightedness that has been the hallmark of the Kiev leaders again collided with reality as elements of the pro-Russian supporters made their displeasure clear by seizing government buildings and seeking a referendum on joining the Russian Federation

Inevitably, Ukraine is again on the boil, with the United States warning of further sanctions against Russia, with Russian troops on the Ukrainian border and President Putin warning the West that Ukraine owes Moscow considerable gas payments and he might have to turn the gas taps off if Kiev continues to default. Much of the Russian gas the European Union countries receive is piped through Ukraine. Understandably, Moscow stopped the subsidy it was offering on gas prices after what it construed as a putsch in overthrowing the elected President.

The prize for the West is the 45 million people of Ukraine and the land mass that borders Russia. From Moscow’s point of view, the West is seeking to contain and surround it strategically. President Putin can hardly forget, much less forgive, the Western role in bringing Nato to its very borders, despite all the promises made by the US and European Union leaders, including the Baltic states and Poland. If the resulting conflict has echoes of the Cold War, so be it. The point President Putin is making is that the West is not dealing with the weak state it was following the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the days of Boris Yeltsin and he is prepared to fight for his country’s interests, despite the demon he is painted to be in the West.

President Putin has also made it clear that he is not interested in going into southern or eastern Ukraine as long as his country’s legitimate interests are safeguarded. Moscow has proposed a federal structure for Ukraine to safeguard the linguistic and other interests of the predominantly Russian-speaking population, a suggestion rejected by Kiev thus far. One of the most foolish decisions the opposition forces that took charge in Kiev after prolonged massive protests on the Maidan was to abrogate the official status of the Russian language, a decision held in abeyance by the provisional President.

The warlike words from the two main sides of the conflict are not a good omen. Yet neither side would want to expand the crisis to war-like proportions. Washington and the EU must recognise that Russia has legitimate interests in Ukraine and in their eagerness to relegate it to the status of a regional power, as Washington’s new definition of the country is, will be met with resistance.

Thus far, there seems to be no meeting ground between the two sides. Being cosseted by the West, the Ukrainian leaders in power today are riding their hobby horses and are in no mood to seek a reasonable compromise. Only a more sober approach from Washington and the European capitals will persuade Kiev to take a pragmatic approach.

The Ukrainian crisis cannot be divorced from its past. Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union and Crimea was gifted to Ukraine by Nikita Khrushchev and has been the home of the important Russian Black Sea Fleet for long. President Putin could hardly have been expected to sit back while the West signed on to Nato endangering its only warm weather base and affecting the lives of millions of Ukrainians living in the east and the south.

President Putin has been frequently talking to President Barack Obama over the telephone and the foreign ministers of the two countries have been meeting periodically over the Ukraine crisis. It would appear that the West, rather than Moscow, must make greater adjustments to seek an agreement. Co-opting Ukraine into Nato is a no-go area for Russia and Moscow must receive assurances that the half of the country inhabited by primary Russian-speakers will not be sacrificed at the altar of a pro-West policy.

Over to Washington.