As with any situation involving imperial global powers, the crisis that is taking place within the Crimean Peninsula right now is one that has roots deeper than what any single answer could ever lead you to believe.
Any discussion having to do with Eastern Europe and Russia will obviously have, to at least some degree, roots in the Soviet Union and Cold War mentalities.
Seeing any media coverage today of this topic may lead one to believe that our countries are once again at a standoff, but in breaking the situation down, one can see how Russia actually has a number of great reasons to be involved in the situation despite Western cries of foul play.
Currently, citizens of the Crimean Peninsula are called Ukrainian only by default. In looking at the political tendencies, the region identifies most closely with the neighboring Russia. In language, too, nearly 80 percent of Crimean households speak Russian; over 90 percent of citizens believe it should be the national language, according to surveys published in the Washington Post.
Looking to Russia, a tremendous superpower, we can also see evidence that this crisis has logical grounding. For example, despite having parliamentary clearance to do so, there have been no Russian forces placed within the Ukraine with exception to those currently in Crimea. Some of those that have been shown, though, are in fact Crimean soldiers who consider themselves ‘pro-Russian,’ recent investigations have shown.
Russian officials do have a great incentive to ensure the protection of Crimea for reasons other than imperial ones that have been alluded to by many commentators. The Russian Black Sea Fleet is stationed on the peninsula as part of an agreement that has leased land to Russia until 2042. In protecting its fleet, Russia is weary of trusting the country that recently exiled a formerly close ally, President Viktor Yanukovych.
Even when Russian allies were not concerned, such as the Arab Spring events from 2010-2012, the country’s officials denounced violent revolutions akin to those recently seen in the Ukraine.
Any world history book can reasonably explain why Russia may be leery to support a national revolution of that kind, seeing the bloody history contained within its borders. Surely one that also loses the nation a trusted political and economical ally will also be met with concern from Russia’s leaders.
With these impacts weighing down on Russian desires upon the region, one can reasonably see how the country has seen fit to take the actions that it has.
Perhaps it is our American response to be distrustful of Russia even to this day. The American public is being given an image of Russian leaders aspiring to regional domination, some sources even claiming it desires to rebuild the Soviet Union. In actuality the country does have justifiable reasons to involve itself in the region that, in all regards, was in chaos long before a single Russian troop set foot on its soil. Perhaps we as Americans owe it to ourselves to reevaluate the biases with which we approach our fellow global superpowers.
This article is garbage. The facts are as follows. Russia used military force to annex part of a sovereign nation that had shown no military aggression toward it. The Crimea, while an autonomous region of Ukraine, does not under its constitution or the Ukrainian constitution, to which it is legally bound, have the right to secede from Ukraine. Russia forced an illegal referendum regarding succession on Crimea because the will of the greater part of Ukraine is allied with the West, and they ousted Putin’s pet dictator. All the aforementioned points are facts. So why exactly should Russia be reevaluated in American eyes? The fact that other nations, e.g. the United States, have done similar things in the past does not change the fact that it is completely illegal. I suppose we are also supposed to forget and forgive the Russian invasion of Georgia, to illegally make South Ossetia and Abkhazia defacto parts of the Russian Federation. Perhaps we should also ignore Russian support for the illegal separation of Transnistria from Moldova. Where exactly are we supposed to draw the line on the theft of territory from sovereign nations? Russia fears its former puppets joining the west, and apparently it is willing to use military force to satisfy its paranoia. So no, I will not reevaluate my position on the illegal actions of a paranoid oligarchy.
Dear Mark,
Thank you for your interest in this matter. While I respect your right to your opinions, I would also defend myself and my article on a few points.
1. At no point did I condone the activities of Russia. They are indeed illegal as per every international organization’s definition thereof. So, I could not agree with you more.
2. The purpose of this article was not to condemn informed individuals such as yourself, as you clearly have a strong background on the matter. It was, however, intended to reframe the argument that some media outlets have crafted calling Russia and its leadership crazy, insane, etc. This move by Russia is very well calculated, and I’d argue strongly against anyone who says otherwise (hence this article).
My point is that Russia is first and foremost a nation with a vast array of aspirations, not just the dark villainous empire we see portrayed in video games/movies. I join you in condemning their actions, but would echo both your and the article’s sentiment that Russia is a very cunning player in the global landscape that we can’t approach with an archaic viewpoint. I would point to your own argument and ask how frequently the other Eastern European countries that Russia has manipulated over the last 5 years have been mentioned in this discussion by mainstream media rather than them hosting a panel to talk about how good Vladimir Putin looks with his shirt off (I wish I were exaggerating that one).
Valid points all around and I thank you for your interest in the subject.
-MM
Well put, and after reading your rebuttal I am sorry to have called your article garbage. I stand by my points, but I do agree that to view the Russian Federation in Cold War terms is an exercise in ignorance. The article just had a bit to much of a conciliatory tone for my taste, and that is what prompted my rather direct response. Still though, thank you for responding in such a professional and direct manner.
There’s a lot more to this situation than politics, and I don’t think a lot of people understand this. There’s economics to take into account. There’s also cultural geography and the history between the two countries to consider. And Russia may have been a superpower before the Cold War, but today, it’s hardly considered one amongst scholars. It’s more of a “potential superpower”. The country doesn’t just yet have the justifications to swoop in on Crimea. It’s still apart of the Ukraine.
“As with any situation involving imperial global powers, the crisis that is taking place within the Crimean Peninsula right now is one that has roots deeper than what any single answer could ever lead you to believe.”
I don’t think he was implying that politics is the only influencing factor. Rather, that everyone needs to be aware of their individual biases when interpreting international news. There are a TON of factors affecting the region right now, but I doubt Russia’s tendency to be evil at all times is one of them.