Viewpoint: Ukrainian crisis and big power politics

By inciting revolt in Ukraine the Western countries have put themselves in a difficult situation, provoking a measured yet aggressive response from Moscow. Russian President Vladimir Putin had watched quietly as public demonstrations against Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych’s decision to join the Russian Customs Union became more and more intense, and the European Union foreign ministers intervened to broker a deal under which President Yanukovych was to stay on until December when fresh elections were to be held.

Putin had adopted a reasonable stance saying the unrest in Ukraine was an internal matter of that country and that outsiders, neither the US nor Russia, should meddle in the affair. But the Western-backed opposition occupied the parliament and forced democratically-elected President Yanukovych to flee and find refuge first in eastern part of the country and then in Russia. The US and EU ignored the agreement they had helped achieve, quickly recognising the new interim government in Kiev even as people in the eastern part of the country rejected the change staging huge demonstrations in support of the president, occupying government buildings and raising Russian flags on them.

For anyone familiar with the history of Ukraine the reaction in the east and south of the country was unsurprising. Ukraine has historically been part of the Russian empire for three and Crimea for two centuries until it was handed to the Soviet Republic of Ukraine in 1954. Crimea is still inhabited by ethnic Russians while much of eastern Ukraine is also dominated by Russian-speaking population having a strong affinity with the old country. That has provided an alibi to Moscow to deny reports of Russian troops having poured into Crimea, and insist local people have taken control to resist Western-backed opposition’s rule. Even if it is a covert move, it can soon become an overt invasion if the West does not change its interventionist policy.

Russia will not allow any trouble in what it regards as its backyard. Back in 2008 it sent its troops into Russian-speaking South Ossetia and Abkhazia to stop Georgia from integrating them into the country. Ukraine is much more important for reasons of history as well as present-day power politics to be allowed to fall in the Western lap. Russian parliament has given unanimous approval to President Putin’s proposal to deploy armed forces in Crimea, where Russia already maintains its largest naval base outside its borders.

While US President Barrack Obama has been accusing Russia of violating international law, President Putin who had kept his silence since the crisis began spoke out on Tuesday refuting reports of Russian soldiers occupying Crimea but reserving the right to protect Russian-speaking people in Ukraine. He made his case against the developments in Kiev staying within accepted norms of democratic behaviour. He described the toppling of President Yanukovych’s government as an “anti-constitutional” coup which is what it was. It is a point to ponder. Yanukovych’s government may be corrupt and incompetent as alleged, but he was a constitutionally-elected president. Even so, he had agreed to bow down to public pressure, calling early elections. His forcible ouster sets a bad example. Actually, precedents already exist, like the removal of Philippine’s popularly-elected President Joseph Estrada in 2001 through ‘people power’. The current Prime Minister of Thailand Yingluck Shinawatra faces a similar situation even though she sought a fresh mandate in an election boycotted and later disrupted by the opposition for fear of losing to her. Western democracies need to show respect to constitutional rule instead of encouraging agitators to stage civilian coups against legally-elected governments, like the one in Kiev. Violations of one kind invite violations of another kind such as the one Obama is accusing Moscow of.

It is now clear that the Western countries cannot pull off this coup unless division of the country is acceptable. The military option as Republican Senator John McCain admitted “cannot be exercised now.” Economic sanctions are not practicable, either. While threatening to impose sanctions on Russia US Secretary of State John Kerry mentioned visa bans, assets freeze and trade isolation. But Britain, where many of Russia’s billionaires have made heavy investments, has made known its aversion to putting visa restrictions or freezing assets. The situation is somewhat similar in other EU countries. They are also dependent on Russian gas, and find trade ban unpalatable, too. Besides, Ukraine is on the verge of debt default, and needs major financial injections. EU economies are already in trouble and hence in no position to help Ukraine. Obama has offered $1 billion in economic and energy aid, which is far too little for Ukraine’s needs. Further hardships await Kiev in the form of Russian withdrawal of major concessions on its gas supplies and trade ties cut-off.

The only option for the Western countries to preserve Ukraine’s territorial integrity is to step back and look for a negotiated settlement of the situation. Putin left that option open when he denied Russian troops had taken over Crimea. Actually, he does not need to send in soldiers to occupy the large and economically more viable Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Ethnic Russians have already called a referendum for May 21- the day the interim set-up in Kiev has secluded election for a new government- on joining Russia. The result is not difficult to predict. That reality seems to be sinking in. Ukraine’s interim Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk disclosed on Tuesday that talks had taken place between Russian and Ukrainian ministers, terming them as “rather timid” but “first steps.”

Interestingly, the Russio-Western stand-off is the second episode in less than a year’s time when Putin has shown himself to be taking a principled stand while the Western democracies acted in a devious manner. He stayed the US’ hand in the Syrian crisis by brokering a chemical weapons elimination deal, and now is using Western countries backing of an “anti-constitutional” coup to claim higher moral ground. A resurgent Russia under Putin is all set to act as an effective countervail to Western countries rampant resort to aggression – something missing since the demise of the Soviet Union.

saida_fazal@yahoo.com