Crimea’s secession
A New Dawn or Soviet Reemergence?
HORIZONS
The Crimea’s secession from the Ukraine has posed many questions to the international intelligentsia. The immediate question may be that what does it signify and what can be its implications beyond the borders of Ukraine? Does it vindicate one more sign of United States downfall in the geo-strategic domain of the world? Or is it simply a resurgence of Soviet Union in a different paradigm.
The Ukraine had been ruled for long time by the Polish in its western parts and Russia from its eastern parts almost up to the 19th century. The very existence of Ukraine as a unified state has been contested throughout its modern history, as shown by the treaty of Riga in 1921 dismantling the country, and the prospective united Ukraine was only felt in 19th century.
In 1954 Crimea was gifted by Soviet Union leader Nikita Khrushchev to the Ukraine and up to the breakdown of Soviet Union in 1991 Ukraine per se was also part of Soviet Union. After the collapse of former Soviet Union Ukraine got independence like other states which were part of the Soviet Union. Notwithstanding, the fact that Crimea was earlier gifted but in 1991 it was more because of US involvement and its geo-strategic calculations that Crimea became part of Ukraine.
The Crimea and the whole eastern side of the Ukraine are ethnically, culturally more Russian than Ukranian. Majority of its people (about 59%) speak Russian language and rely more on Russia for their development. Russia is providing the cheap energy to the Ukraine and has helped it economically as well. That is one of the reasons that eastern Ukraine is accepting the Russian influence in the Ukraine.
On the other side the western Ukraine which is more inclined to the West particularly to the European Union has opposed its pro Russian President Victor Yanukovich. The people in the western Ukraine are ethnically and culturally Europeanized and are supporters of western based liberal economy.
The present crisis in Ukraine started over the issue of free trade agreement with the European Union. The opposition in Ukraine mainly based in its western part was eager to sign the trade deal with the European Union and were asking closer ties with its western neighbors. But the government of pro Russian leader Victor Yanukovich was not in favour to sign the deal with EU (may be because of Russian pressure), rather it was more inclined towards the Russian Custom Union Deal.
The two opposite fronts were not ready to compromise on their respective stands which ultimately made pro western section to come on Kiev streets and oppose their leader. This is the intra raison d’être of the present crisis.
The reason without is the new cold war between United States and Russia. Despite the fact that the old cold war cannot be revived simply because of the reason that Russia is no more Soviet Union and is not that much powerful as it used to be during the cold war days. But, there is some sort of emerging scenario which portrays same kind of cold war situation.
The Russian narrative of the Kievian crisis is based on their apprehensions about the people who are actually instigating the present crisis. Moscow believe that people who support the opposition in Kiev are the same who were supporters of Orange Revolution in 2004. The revolution was moving Ukraine in the western camp of NATO. Russia considers any kind of NATO’s movement in Eastern Europe as direct threat to the Russian influence. This is paradox of ‘milean islands” of ancient Greece. Russia believes any kind of US involvement or interference in the Eastern Europe as a threat and encirclement of Russia.
Some commentators in Russia believe that the current battle in the Crimean region of Ukraine is against the unilateralism and uni-polarism of United States. Russia is apprehensive about the policies of United States in the Eastern Europe as it believes that the opposition to pro-Russian leader Victor Yanukovich was actually to squeeze Russia and close its access to Caucasus and Mediterranean region. It is a well known fact that Russia plays its energy card so for its interest and grip on the Eastern Europe is concerned. Russia cannot deliver its energy resources to the European States without the transit or supply routes, for which Black sea is very important. Crimea is the region which can ensure and secure the supply routes for Russia to the rest of Europe.
There is one more Russian narrative of present crisis. Russia believes that US and NATO interference in the Ukraine was actually to come very close to the Russian borders and make Ukraine a launching pad against Russia in the future.
Notwithstanding the fact that Russia has a greater geo-strategic designs in the Eastern Europe. Moscow under the Putin’s administration has started the project of reviving the old Russian controlled zone and earlier we have seen what Russia did in the South Ossetia and Abkhazia after US backed independence of Kosovo in 2008. Moscow under its president Vladimir Putin has accelerated the project of Eurasian Custom Union which United States and its European partners believe is nothing but some kind Eurasian Economic Union.
Now the million dollar question. Can this be applied/permitted in other areas of the world. We know there are many regions in the world where majority of people are against the status quo and are not happy under the present regimes. We know what is happening in Palestine, Chechenia, Kashmir etc. Can these regions get opportunity to realize their free future or it is simply a big power show which actually sees a light of day. The time will tell us can Russia limit itself to the Crimea or it will move beyond it. What will be its impact on the other regions of the world? Can it leave an example to the regions that are under occupation or it will simply be limited to the influence of big powers.
No comments:
Post a Comment