Crimea: Russian In Perspective

For centuries, Crimea attracted famous Russian authors searching for poetic inspiration, served as a retreat for wealthy European citizens, provided a stable and fruitful source of crops and pearls and played a pivotal role in trade. And yet, somehow, brutal conflicts, lengthy wars and international disagreements have consistently shadowed Crimea’s allure as emperors and tyrants vied for the land. Russia’s March 2014 invasion of Crimea sparked a fierce debate regarding Putin’s politics and revived tensions between Russian and the U.S.. The genuine motives of such an unlawful and shortsighted operation remain shrouded. In the modern era, can any factor (i.e. ethnicity, political views) trump the very foundation of international law and the trust that binds two nations together?

The Crimean War of 1853 to 1856 represented a conflict between Russia and the Turks, who were supported by France and Britain. The original dispute resulted from Russian’s demand to exercise protection over the Orthodox subjects of the Ottoman sultan. However, it was Russia’s occupation of Danubian principalities (modern Romania) that sparked the Turkish declaration of war on Russia. Not much of this has changed over the past 150 years. Putin continues to threaten the sovereignty of other nations. A recent CNN article echoes this idea: “The same day that Russian President Vladimir Putin sent congratulations to the White House to mark July 4, the U.S. military was tracking Russian bombers off the coast of Alaska and California.” By challenging the patience of other leaders, Putin hopes to exhibit his confidence and dominance in the global stage, but in the process, ruins Russia’s reputation.

After a yearlong siege of Sevastopol and a successful French assault, Russia accepted preliminary peace and complied with the Treaty of Paris, which guaranteed the neutralization of the Black Sea. This major loss opened the eyes of Russian emperors to the importance of progress in relation to European powers. But more importantly, it portrayed the power of combatting Russia collectively and the value in standing up ideologically against its regime.

The Russian media and pro-Putin propagandists manipulate the grounds of the 1954 Crimean Transfer to justify the annexation. The deal was approved by the Presidium of the Communist Party in 1954; little information about the transfer was revealed until the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991. Pravda, a Soviet newspaper, confirmed in a February 1954 issue the “joint presentation on the transfer of Crimea Province from the Russian Republic to the Ukraine Republic.” Russian government officials use the presumed illegality of the transfer to support their cause. However, both presidiums (Ukrainian and Russian) consented to the transfer and therefore carried out the move under the 1936 Soviet Constitution. Furthermore, Russia acknowledged Ukraine’s autonomy in 1994 under the Budapest Memorandum and promised to “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.” A recurring trend in Russian foreign policy is the government’s denial of formal agreements as a means to achieve certain goals. Even more, Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet leader at the time, implemented the transfer to consolidate his position in the Communist Party and reiterate his affinity with Ukraine. During World War II, Khrushchev enforced Stalin’s ruthless policies as a representative of the Soviet government in Ukraine and wanted to increase Ukraine’s territory to garner support from Ukrainian politicians. Putin’s unannounced siege of Crimea ignores the foundations of the 1954 deal and reaffirms the notion that politics is a game of deception, a game of chess for Russian leaders.

The referendum in March 2014 ignored certain procedures set by the Ukrainian constitution and presumed the independence of Crimea “before the fact.” The major flaw in this logic is that a region bounded to a country cannot break away without the consent and acknowledgement of the country’s citizens and government. Vladimir Putin’s actions undermine the democratic procedures that are inherent in a democracy. By consistently acting out of his own will and eliminating political dissidents, Putin secures his grasp over the minds of Russian people, as the nation did in the Soviet era. Instead of easing the tensions between Russia and Ukraine, Russia’s invasion of Crimea has left a scar in their relationship, forever separating the countries both morally and culturally. Russia’s negative influence in the Crimea has spread to Donbas; pro-Russian separatists now conduct operations with the aid of Russian weapons and materials. Putin’s indirect presence in Ukraine threatens the security of its citizens and inflicts harm on the unity of the nation.

Russia’s foreign policy in the status quo relies on Putin’s competitive stance toward the West. Though the Kremlin uses our sanctions to depict the West as an “evil power,” Russia’s military aggression has also been the impetus for a significant drop in Russian stocks and the ruble. If Russia continues on this path, the overall well-being of Russian people will inevitably deteriorate. Putin has an “outward” approach to politics, but perhaps he should consider looking “inward” and focusing on what the Russian people need most: a safe country with a working economy and a good quality of life. Or maybe we just need to ask Putin the following question: “Is Russia better off now than it was a year ago?” ♥