Free Essay

The Crisis of Crimea and Ukraine

In: Other Topics

Submitted By himu6345
Words 3876
Pages 16
The Crisis of Crimea and Ukraine

Key Lessons for President Obama from Presidents Reagan and Clinton

[pic]
SOURCE: AP/Greg Gibson
President Bill Clinton reads a statement at the conclusion of the NATO 50th anniversary summit, Sunday April 25, 1999, in the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington.
By Rudy deLeon and Aarthi Gunasekaran | May 14, 2014
In the past two months, the Crimea and Ukraine crisis has grown. Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula, the Ukrainian government and pro-Russian militia are engaged in a back and forth standoff in eastern Ukraine, and Russian President Vladimir Putin has threatened that the conflict “essentially puts the nation on the brink of civil war.” The United States has been at the forefront of building international support for Ukraine, and the Obama administration continues to assemble Western support. However, efforts to reach a diplomatic settlement, or at least to reduce immediate tensions, are still in progress.
As the Obama administration prepares its next steps in response to Russia in Ukraine, it can examine lessons from two other administrations in times of crisis. First, the Reagan administration’s reaction in 1983 to the Soviet downing of a civilian Korean airliner and its response to the terrorist attack against U.S. Marines on a peacekeeping mission in Lebanon. Second, the Clinton administration’s initiative to proactively expand and deepen partnerships in Europe during the 1990s through its Partnership for Peace.
President Ronald Reagan faced an exceptional provocation with the downing of the Korean airliner and a month later, with the terrorist attack against U.S. Marines in Lebanon, resulting in significant American and allied casualties. Keeping costly and possibly destabilizing military options as his last resort, President Reagan used vigorous but measured words to condemn these lawless actions and rallied the international community in opposition.
A decade later, President Bill Clinton offered a new and controversial plan called the Partnership for Peace that was inclusive of the new Eastern European democracies. Clinton and his national security team took criticism for their proposal from some of the most established foreign policy commentators of the time, but in a step-by-step process, the Partnership for Peace would bring Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic into the NATO alliance by 1999. As the current crisis in Ukraine continues, this expanded NATO offers the structure for the protection of these new European democracies. While careful to respect the Russian people, the objectives of the Partnership for Peace and its implementation over the past two decades have ensured that this remains true—that even in the face of provocation, the boundaries of the Cold War no longer exist. At the time, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright assured Russian President Boris Yeltsin that NATO was “no longer a situation of you versus us … NATO no longer has an enemy to the east.”
These relevant, historical examples from Presidents Reagan and Clinton offer lessons on how the United States should conduct business when reacting to international crises that pull American leadership and strength into question. They also highlight how the United States has proactively shaped trends and led global coalitions when facing political turbulence from a broad spectrum of critics. For much of his presidency, President Barack Obama’s foreign policy portfolio has been focused on ending the U.S. combat role in Iraq and Afghanistan, taking the fight to Al Qaeda and its affiliates around the world, responding to changes in the Middle East, and rebalancing the overall foreign policy agenda to Asia and other parts of the world. Now, to keep pace with changing dynamics, it is important that President Obama and the West take steady strides against the aggression of President Putin, who is already facing a steady backlog of internal problems.

1983: President Reagan faces two stern tests of American resolve

Korean Airlines 007, September 1983

In September 1983, a Soviet military fighter shot down Korean Airlines flight 007, and all 269 passengers on board were killed, including a U.S. congressman and 61 other Americans. News of the shooting was met with outrage in both Washington and Moscow, with President Reagan calling the attack a “massacre” with “absolutely no justification, legal or moral.” Soviet leader Yuri Andropov responded and described the event as a “sophisticated provocation masterminded by the U.S. special services.”
Although the Soviets refused to admit their involvement, the United States quickly deemed their rebuff inexcusable. Two days later, the Soviets acknowledged that their air force did play a role in the shooting, which plunged U.S. and Soviet diplomacy into crisis. At the time, Reagan spokesman Larry Speakes claimed that “this is not U.S.-Soviet problem, it’s a Soviet versus the world problem.” French President Francois Mitterrand speculated that this situation would bring U.S. and Soviet forces close to war, just as the Cuban Missile Crisis did.
In the days after the shooting, victims’ families grieved even as Moscow closed off access to the crash site. President Reagan addressed the nation with strong rhetoric and careful words, but throughout the crisis, he held to his convictions, urging the international community to deal with the Soviets “in a calm, controlled but absolutely firm manner.” Continuing with this approach to the Soviets, he labeled them “savagery,” “murderous,” and “monstrous”; he did not, however, propose a military response.
George Will, a leading conservative columnist, said at the time that the American people “didn’t elect a dictionary” and it was about time for the president to take aggressive action against the Soviets. Yet President Reagan and senior officials in the White House remained cautious with their words and waited for a full account of the Soviet incident. In the interim, the administration did not propose trade sanctions against the Soviets or any suspensions of arm control talks in Geneva, Switzerland; House Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill (D-MA) agreed, however, that there was a “broad consensus on things that can be done” against the Soviets.Time magazine’s George J. Church noted and was critical of the fact that President Reagan’s tactic was only stern words and that demands for an apology, compensation, and a tightening of aviation rules were ultimatums of which the Soviets were not going to take heed. This provoked American political hardliners to charge that President Reagan was overrun by “faintheartedness.”
In an interview moments before the Flight 007 memorial service at the National Cathedral for those killed, President Reagan described his first reaction. “It was shock,” he said. “It was revulsion. It was horror. It was anger”—a condemnation without any call for action. Explaining the conflict between his natural instinct and practical reaction, he explained that it was difficult to avenge such a deed. When asked whether the United States would suspend negotiations on nuclear arms reductions, the president responded with skepticism, pointing out that weaponry was the strongest element supporting Russian aggression and that arms reductions were therefore crucial.
The Soviet Union ultimately apologized for the incident, but it was never forgotten: President Reagan used it to rally the international community against a Soviet political system that was nearing its end, although that was not recognized at the time.

Beirut, October 1983

A month after the Korean Airlines shooting, President Reagan faced another international challenge when the U.S. Marine headquarters in Beirut, Lebanon, became the target of a terrorist bombing that killed 241 American servicemen. While asserting that the United States would not be intimidated and that the “first thing … to do is find out who did it and go after them with everything we’ve got,” Reagan stood firm while waiting for all the facts to be presented. House Speaker O’Neill backed President Reagan by declaring that the situation should be handled with “patriotism over partisanship.”
Meanwhile, other members of Congress realized that the presence of troops in Beirut had no substantial benefit to U.S. or regional security and began to favor a change in policy, urging Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger to redeploy the Marines to a more secure position. In February 1984, President Reagan directed redeployment of the Marine peacekeeping mission to naval ships off the coast of Lebanon. Throughout these two critical months of intense pressure, he was measured in his words and made no threats of retaliation that he was not prepared to back up.
Korean Airlines incident and the Beirut bombing occurred in consecutive months in 1983 and were critical tests for a president and administration that came into office committed “to rebuild[ing] American military power.” Throughout the moments of crisis, President Reagan chose his words carefully, condemning outrageous international provocations, rallying the global community at all times, and holding to his chosen path of military response only as a last resort. That was not always easy politics, but President Reagan held his ground.

1993: President Clinton creates a new strategy through the Partnership for Peace

In the early 1990s, President Bill Clinton, his Secretary of State Warren Christopher, and Defense Secretary Les Aspin outlined the Partnership for Peace, a program to make permanent the former Warsaw Pact states’ democratic and strategic transition to democracy and a market economy. This partnership opened up participation in some NATO training and exercises to all Central and Eastern European countries that satisfied certain democratic principles, and led to their eventual NATO membership.
In his 1994 State of the Union address, President Clinton noted this developing idea to secure and make permanent the boundaries of the post-Cold War world:
With our allies we have created a Partnership for Peace that invites states from the former Soviet bloc and other non-NATO members to work with NATO in military cooperation. When I met with Central Europe’s leaders, including Leah Walesa and Vaclav Havel, men who put their lives on the line for freedom, I told them that the security of their region is important to our country’s security.
The Partnership for Peace was initiated in 1993 but was formally introduced at the NATO summit the following year. Its policy focus was a strong link between NATO members and the new democratic partners from the former Soviet Union. It was a framework for political, diplomatic, and military cooperation built on strong democratic principles, and it strengthened the standing of countries that had become independent with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. The long-awaited but quicker-than-expected unification of Germany occurred in 1990 under the direction of then Chancellor Helmut Kohl, and the Soviet Union transferred power to the Russian Republic in 1991. The diplomatic breakthrough allowed the enlarged Germany to remain a NATO member, just as West Germany had, and signaled flexibility for NATO expansion. As the Berlin Wall fell and the Cold War ended, there was a hope for former Soviet bloc nations to join an umbrella founded in democratic principles.
Initially, a series of military-to-military Russia and NATO exchanges took place under the leadership of commander General John Shalikasvilli to move the former Cold War enemies “from a partnership of words to a partnership of deeds.” The new partnership had three objectives: democratic control over military forces, transparency in defense planning and budgets, and developing interoperability with NATO forces. In early 1994, Secretary Christopher presented these issues directly to NATO, stating that in the transparent expansion process, members would be judged by their capabilities and their commitment to the NATO treaty principles and have no opportunities for third-party vetoes.
In those early months, the initiative was not without controversy. Henry Kissinger noted that the partnership initiative was premature and would risk diminishing the existing time-tested NATO architecture “in a vague new concept called Partnership for Peace.” However, Kissinger also said that the new democracies “seek some reassurance, if not vis-à-vis the incumbent Russian government then against an unforeseeable government in the future.”
In 1994, with Bill Perry now established as secretary of defense, the partnership effort continued to deepen political and military ties, create joint capabilities, and contribute further to the strengthening of Euro-Atlantic area security. Senior Clinton administration officials—including Defense Policy Chief Walt Slocombe and the late Joe Kruzel, who was killed in a tragic roadside accident in Bosnia—joined their State Department and NATO colleagues in building the key elements of the new plan.
Specifically, joint conviction that stability and security can be achieved only through cooperation and common action drove the partnership efforts. The protection and promotion of fundamental freedoms and human rights, as well as the safeguarding of freedom, justice, and peace through democracy, were shared values fundamental to the partnership. Additionally, operating convictions were to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, to respect existing borders, and to peacefully settle disputes.
An early test for the partnership came in the form of the NATO peacekeeping mission in Bosnia, made possible by the 1995 Dayton Peace Accords. The Dayton Agreement, led by American diplomat Richard Holbrooke, produced a framework that allowed a stabilization force to peacefully enter territories that had been part of a brutal civil war in the Balkans. Secretary Perry established key missions for partnership members, working side by side with NATO nations. Furthermore, Secretary Perry, working with NATO member Turkey, also established a diplomatic framework that allowed military units from Russia to participate in the NATO peacekeeping mission.
Throughout the Bosnia peacekeeping mission, which became a critical test of the partnership concept, the participants maintained the essential concepts of transparency in security planning, democratic control of defense forces, and partnership integration into NATO peacekeeping and humanitarian missions. As Secretary Perry would note after departing the Pentagon in early 1997, “by establishing the Partnership for Peace we have replaced an Iron Curtain which divided the nations of Europe, with a circle of security which brings them together.”
The coalition that came together to preserve stability to Bosnia included Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. By the time NATO held its 1999 summit in Washington, D.C., the three countries had been admitted as NATO members. During the Bush administration, NATO would add seven more members, including the three Baltic countries and Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Croatia and Albania would join in 2009. Article 5 of the NATO declaration from the 1999 summit provided that we must be as effective in the future in dealing with new challenges as we were in the past and that is still its challenge today.
Professor John M. Deutch was deputy secretary of defense when the Partnership for Peace was first presented. In a personal communication, he notes:
Partnership for Peace was an inspired concept that bridged the original highly successful NATO Alliance to counter the Soviet occupation of central Europe, to a NATO alliance with broader participation that offers security to countries that still fear Russian aggression—as we now see with justification.
General Gordon Sullivan was the Army chief of staff during the critical time when the Partnership for Peace was first introduced. Today, he looks back on this period with pride and comments in an internal note:
The partnership for peace was and is a successful program. In repeated conversations with participants, including U.S. National Guard personnel who have accompanied their partners into Afghanistan and Iraq, I get the feeling this program has built bonds which transcend any thoughts the original planners might have had.

2014: Putin’s Actions Tests the Modern NATO

President Putin’s actions in Ukraine are testing the expanded NATO, built on the foundations of the Partnership for Peace. His aggression is challenging NATO’s member states and their EU partners to adopt a strategy that includes regional economic development and energy policy, as well as diplomatic initiatives, while at the same time maintaining security for its members.
Under President Putin, Russia is promoting an anti-West strategy based on nationalist sentiment, disregard for human rights, and unconstrained Russian military hardware sales. At the same time, despite efforts to increase trade with the West and to increase access to Western technology, Putin and his ambitions remain vulnerable to a Russian economy that is dependent on the price of oil and natural gas.
The NATO alliance has been almost singularly focused on the end of the combat mission in Afghanistan. However, it will need to skip the planned deep breath—a pause for the NATO troops after spending 13 years in war—with a revitalization of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP, in order to answer the challenge of the Crimea and Ukraine crisis. NATO members should review their military budgets and respond with selective increases. They have an opportunity to increase the economic vitality of the alliance by reducing dependence on Russian energy and embracing the TTIP.
NATO will face its share of challenges as it responds to Russian military aggression, economic and energy pressures, and regional tensions in eastern Europe that have historic ties with the neighboring Russian people. But the initiatives of the Partnership for Peace—first presented more than two decades ago to new democracies made independent by the end of the Cold War—provide NATO with the right tools for an effective response.

Recommendations for the Obama administration

The Reagan and Clinton presidencies offer great lessons to political leaders in Washington to address the current conflict in Crimea and Ukraine. They also showcase that, given the tools available to him, President Obama is utilizing them as appropriately and effectively as Reagan and Clinton did, and his actions do not differ from his predecessors.
Today, conservatives see Reaganism in foreign policy as placing no boundaries on American military strength; indeed, they see a foreign policy rooted in American exceptionalism. But President Reagan finely balanced how to lead a strong and confident nation. He handled his toughest days with condemnation and pragmatism while recognizing that holding the dominate advantage on the political, economic, and diplomatic side meant that strong military capabilities were the last resorts. That was then—and is now—a sign of strength.
NATO’s expansion to include former Warsaw Pact countries was initially met with great skepticism at home and a wary Russia abroad that was threatened by its expansion into the former Soviet bloc. President Clinton, however, urged that expanding the alliances of the West was essential to maintain stability and ensure that the “gray zone of insecurity [does] not reemerge in Europe.” President Clinton also portrayed these changes as the next steps necessary to build upon the groundwork laid by his Republican predecessors. “President Reagan gave strength to those working to bring down the Iron Curtain,” he said. “President Bush helped to reunify Germany.”
Some American critics argue today that the nations who joined Partnership for Peace and were later selected as NATO members are the cause of or justification for President Putin’s move into Crimea as the growing NATO presence threatened Russia’s regional influence. But this argument ignores the fact that much of Eastern Europe now succeeds as democracies and market economies that have moved well beyond their Cold War experience. They deserved a voice in determining their future, and their freedoms were never a threat to the Kremlin bosses.
President Obama has chosen similar approaches to the Crimea crisis, offering an updated version of “peace through strength,” the hallmark phrase and policy of the successful Reagan strategy. President Obama has rallied our European allies to press economic sanctions against Russia, used the expanded NATO to support alliance solidarity and capabilities, and offered economic assistance to the government in Kiev. These sanctions, if placed properly, can put significant pressure on the Russian economy and ultimately create a drag on Russian growth. The West can deter and negotiate, but it should create an atmosphere where the Russian government faces a choice between economic growth or military expansion.
In the past couple months, the U.S. debate on Ukraine has quickly broken into two familiar camps, and the political divisions have been predictable. In the first camp are those working hard to solve the crisis, being hard-nosed but not reckless. Secretary of State John Kerry, for example, allayed the partisan echo chambers and noted on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that this crisis is not a replay of the Cold War and not a zero sum game. Secretary Kerry highlighted that key aggressor, President Putin, is “creating his own reality, and his own sort of world.”
In the second camp are the critics of the Obama administration’s national security policy. These critics have made calls for a tougher U.S. stance against Russia, with one member of Congress stating that President Putin was emboldened by the administration’s “trembling inaction,” followed by a coalition of Republican senators introducing legislation calling to authorize military assistance for Ukraine.
Despite these critics’ worries, reemergence of the Cold War is very unlikely; Russia is far too stressed economically and far too dependent on Western countries. It is also imperative to recognize that the United States, Russia, and the European Union are not symmetrical players in the field. Former Secretary of State Albright highlighted that a country’s greatness should be measured by its “engagement with the world and stability of relationships with neighbors, and not by military power on its borders.” By comparing the United States’ and Russia’s relative strengths in regard to their size, economic vibrancy, military size and capability, and the attractiveness of their political and economic systems, it is easy to see why the United States still holds many of the cards, with Russia playing a very weak hand.
As the Obama administration focuses on the current crisis in Ukraine, the lessons from President Reagan and President Clinton offer suggestions for what the United States can do when faced with problems abroad to proactively shape trends and expand possibilities. Specifically, it should: ▪ Carefully calibrate actions to underscore America’s inherent strengths and highlight Russia’s weaknesses. ▪ Lead partners and allies in joint actions, a stronger choice than acting alone. ▪ Remember that focusing too much on political criticism can leave policy rudderless and reactive to events. This is especially important today, as the opinion echo chamber is even louder and more distracting than it was during previous administrations. ▪ Build public support to enhance the long-term goals and strategies essential for success.
The divisive partisanship at home and in Congress makes it harder for America to move swiftly and jointly with a common purpose. But President Obama is rightly following in the footsteps of Presidents Reagan and Clinton. The United States and the West are not in a position to go to war over the crisis in Ukraine and Crimea, nor should they. The best steps forward are to diffuse the situation, and these historical examples from President Obama’s predecessors offer guidance on what the United States can do to respond to specific events to proactively shape trends and expand possibilities.
Rudy deLeon is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and a former deputy secretary of defense. Aarthi Gunasekaran is a Research Assistant at the Center.
The authors are grateful for the assistance of Shubham Sapkota, a CAP intern from Hope College in Michigan. CAP Senior Fellow Brian Katulis offered editorial advice. Professor John M. Deutch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and General Gordon Sullivan of the Association of the United States Army conducted a peer review.

Similar Documents

Free Essay

Ukraine Crisis

...Governce of Russia Explain Russian’s invasion in Ukraine and Russian’s action in Crimea by individual level of analysis Background Russia’s invasion in Crimea and Russia’s action in Ukraine were the actions in Ukraine crisis. Ukraine crisis began at the end of February 2014. The cause was the president Viktor Yanukovych refused to sign an association agreement with the European Union on 21 November 2013, and what he did arouse a series of complains in the society. Subsequently, he and his government were removed in the February 2014 revolution by an organized political movement, ‘Euromaidan’. However, people did not accepted who began to protest in flavor of close ties with Russia. Demonstrations and protests were held in Crimea aiming to leave Ukraine’s control and access to the Russian Federation, which lead to the crisis. At the last, Crimea broke away from the control of Ukraine and joined the Russian Federation. And the issues would be analyzed by the individual level analysis. Definition of Individual Level of Analysis Individual level of analysis mainly focuses on decisions made by the individual person who is the important role in the issue. It also shows the influence of the development of international politics by their interactions in 4 aspects, they are personality, perceptions, activities and choices. Putin took a very important role in making decision of action and brought big influence in Ukraine and Crimea. Types of Leader Putin is Vladimir......

Words: 1645 - Pages: 7

Free Essay

The Relationship Between the Crimean Crisis and Globalization

...The Relationship between the Crimean Crisis and Globalization Introduction Beginning in late November, the Ukraine crisis has become a worldwide headline that has encompassed a complex number of both intranational and international issues. The catalyzing event that led to the crisis was the decision by former Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych, to negate trade talks with the European Union and instead pursue closer ties with Russia. This spurred protests from thousands of people, and as the conflict escalated it forced Yanukovych to escape the Ukraine and secede from his position as the Ukrainian President. In a move that can be seen as blatantly opportunistic, Russia effectively used the civil calamity in the Ukraine to annex the Republic of Crimea, a move regarded as highly illegal by the majority of the international community. On the surface, Russia has claimed that the move itself has been carried out to ensure the continued safety of ethnic Russians living within the Republic. However, after careful analyzation of the economic ties that bind Russia and the Ukraine, one can conclude that the annexation of Crimea is part of a larger plan to ensure that the Ukraine continues to comply with Russia economically. When applying this theory through the context of a realist perspective, it becomes obvious that Russia is acting in their own self-interest as a power maximizer in order to ward off the influence of western globalization. In response to increasing Russian......

Words: 2141 - Pages: 9

Free Essay

Canvas

...The Secession of Crimea The crisis in Ukraine has been long cooking since 2004 and the Orange Revolution (1). Since then, there has been a strong opposition to pro-Russian supporters. The situation in the country was relatively calm until 2010, when President Yanukovich won elections and his rival candidate, Yulia Timoshenko, was arrested. In November 2013 the protests started gaining velocity, violent conflicts erupted and opposition blew up in Kiev, responding to Yanukovich’s new agreement on working closer with Russia, whilst stopping negotiations with the European Union. The conflicts did not reach the Crimean peninsula, nevertheless the Crimean Parliament, which is granted limited autonomy, asked Russia to protect them. Crimea has been part of the Ukrainian state –or formerly the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic- since 1954 and provides great strategic value, since the Black Sea ports of Crimea offer unproblematic access to the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. Crimea has been the base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet for several decades and is therefore of great importance to Russian military strategy. For the Russian Federation, the base in Sevastopol is the only access into international waters, since the northern ports in e.g. Siberia are subject to freezing. According to the State Statistics Committee of Ukraine, the population is composed of 58.5% ethic Russians, 24.4% Ukrainians and 12.1% Crimean Tartars among others, amounting to a total population of approximately...

Words: 2091 - Pages: 9

Free Essay

Professor

...Assignment #4: Russia Annexation of Crimea International Negotiation by Therron Allen Reginald Bruno Monekka Munroe Lillia Stroud Norman Thompson ------------------------------------------------- EDD 7812 OL1 32446 ------------------------------------------------- Strategies and Models of Mediation and Negotiation Nova Southeastern University April 13th, 2014 ------------------------------------------------- Russia Annexation of Crimea ------------------------------------------------- This paper will address the Russia annexation of Crimea and an International Negotiation related To the UN resolution for the West to increase the level of sanctions against Russia. Russia finalized its annexation of Crimea in March 2014. Although sudden, this annexation is not a new and instantaneous interest for the Russian government. There is a long history connecting these two countries dating back to many years ago. ------------------------------------------------- Parties involved in the conflict ------------------------------------------------- This international conflict involves the entire world as each country was interested in a peaceful resolution. Countries sharing a border with Russia are extremely anxious and fearful their security may be threatened as a result of this conflict. Therefore, the primary parties in this conflict is represented by the United Nations (UN) representing international law and security; Ukraine, the injured party;......

Words: 4331 - Pages: 18

Free Essay

Crimea

...Ukrainian-Russian state border (in force since 23.04.2004), the agreement on the division of the Black Sea Fleet, its status, and others. According to them, the two sides pledged to respect the independence of the "inviolability of borders" and each other's sovereignty. Russia should respond according to international law. In addition, Ukraine and Russia are parties to a number of multilateral treaties under which undertook similar commitments. First of all, we are talking about the famous 1994 Budapest Memorandum, pursuant to which the US, Britain and Russia (later joined by France and China) have given guarantees regarding Ukraine's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. Give detailed information regarding the historical background of the conflict. Two countries have built entire set of international legal instruments to hope for the continuation of building equitable and mutually beneficial relations in the political, trade, economic, humanitarian and other spheres. In 2004-2005, the situation changed dramatically. In Ukraine, the Orange Revolution took place, which resulted in the president was not the candidate, who had hoped to...

Words: 2094 - Pages: 9

Free Essay

Fsdfsa

...History of Ukraine and Russian Conflict To better understand the origins of this conflict, one must realize that this divide is not natural but rather stems from murderous work by Joseph Stalin and one of the largest Western media cover-ups in history. East Ukraine was once as nationalistic and Ukrainian-speaking as Western Ukraine is today. The dramatic transformation of the area was a result of ethnic cleansing. In 1932 a famine engineered by Stalin killed up to an estimated 10 million people, mostly in East Ukraine. Beginning in 1933, the Soviets replaced them with millions of deported Russians. Western Ukraine was then part of Poland and spared Stalin engineered the famine to rid himself of a stubborn enemy. Ukrainians had fought for their independence during the Russian Revolution, and for a short time, they had beaten back the Reds. Beginning in 1932, Stalin sent in soldiers from Russia to seize the agriculture industry in Ukraine. Impossible production quotas were set, and the overzealous soldiers made sure every single ounce of grain went to meeting those quotas. Soviet soldiers destroyed cooking utensils, ovens and killed pets — anything that could provide nourishment. With the borders of Ukraine sealed by the military, starving Ukrainians, wandering blind and delirious from hunger, were trapped to die a slow, excruciating death. To understand better what Stalin did in simple words he slowly killed de natives Ukrainians of Crimea by starving them to death......

Words: 599 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

2014 Crimean Crisis

...The Crimean crisis is an ongoing international crisis involving Russia and Ukraine. Most developments apply to the Crimean peninsula, formerly a multiethnic region of the Ukraine comprised of the (now defunct) Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the administratively separate municipality of Sevastopol; both are populated by an ethnic Russian majority and a minority of both ethnic Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars. The demographics of Crimea have undergone dramatic changes in the past centuries.[a][b][c][41] The crisis unfolded in late February 2014 in the aftermath of the Ukrainian revolution, when—after months of protests by Euromaidan and days of violent clashes between protesters and police in the Ukrainian capital of Kiev—the Ukrainian parliament held a vote to impeach the President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych.[42][43] However the vote failed to reach the three-fourths majority required to impeach a President according to the Constitution of Ukraine.[44][45] Russian President Vladimir Putin said President Yanukovych was illegally impeached and that he regards him as Ukraine’s legitimate president.[46][d] This was followed by the interim appointment of the Yatsenyuk Government as well as the appointment of a new Acting President of Ukraine, Oleksandr Turchynov—seen by Russia as "self-proclaimed"—in a "coup d'etat".[46][e][f][g] Beginning on 26 February, pro-Russian forces gradually took control of the Crimean peninsula. Russia claimed that the uniformed men were local......

Words: 324 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

The Analytical Difference in Conceptualising the Russia-Ukraine Crises in Realist and Materialist Terms

...Conceptualising the Russia-Ukraine Conflict in Realist and Materialist Terms Kofi Adu Frimpong Kholmati Kholik Global Political Economy Global Political Economy 33423968 33420343 kadfrimpong@yahoo.com kkholik@gmail.com 15/03/2016 Abstract The so called Euromaidan revolution – Ukraine’s struggle to move one step further to closer ties with Europe by liberating itself from the Russian orbit, have created the Russia-Ukraine Crisis. It has re-established and heightened the tensions between Russia and West. Realism has been on the fore front of the academic discussion in explaining the crisis as the power competition between Russia and the West. Alternatively, Materialism has provided a different yet deeper analytical perspective on the conflict by attributing it to the broadening of the transnational class capitalism. This paper will seek to explain and scrutinize the analytical differences in conceptualizing this crisis in Realist and Materialist terms. Keywords: Ukraine crisis, Realism, Security, Materialism, Lockean heartland, Contender states Table of Contents 1 Introduction 4 2 Theoretical framework 5 2.1 Theoretical underpinnings of the Realist school of thought 5 2.2 Theoretical underpinnings of Materialism: Amsterdam School Approach 7 2.2.1 The Lockean Heartland 8 2.2.2 Contender States 9 2.2.3 Ex-contender states, aspirant states, and capitalist class fraction 10 3 The Russia-Ukraine conflict 12 3.1 Russia-Ukraine......

Words: 9639 - Pages: 39

Free Essay

Crimea

...Крымский полуостров, Ukrainian: Кримський півострів, Crimean Tatar: Qırım yarımadası), also known simply as Crimea, is a major land mass on the northern coast of the Black Sea that is almost completely surrounded by water. The peninsula is located south of the Ukrainian mainland and west of the Russian region of Kuban. It is surrounded by two seas: the Black Sea and the smaller Sea of Azov to the east. It is connected with the Ukrainian mainland by the Isthmus of Perekop and is separated from Kuban by the Strait of Kerch. The Arabat Spit is located to the northeast; a narrow strip of land that separates a system of lagoons named Sivash from the Sea of Azov. Crimea—or the Tauric Peninsula, as it was formerly known—has historically been at the boundary between the classical world and the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Its southern fringe was colonised by the ancient Greeks, the ancient Romans, the Byzantine Empire, and the Ottoman Empire, while at the same time its interior was occupied by a changing cast of invading steppe nomads, such as the Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatian, Goths, Alans, Bulgars, Huns, Khazars, Kipchaks, and the Golden Horde. Crimea and adjacent territories were united in the Crimean Khanate during the 15th to 18th century before falling to the Russian Empire and being organised as its Taurida Oblast in 1783. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Crimea became a republic within the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic in the USSR. In World War Two......

Words: 385 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Diplomacy and Negotiation

...the history of the East Ukrainian conflict and recent annexation of the Crimean Peninsula by Putin-led Russia brings one to the scene of Ukraine’s former president, Viktor Yanukovych, facing a difficult choice while his country plowed toward economic cataclysm. He could either opt to form deeper ties with Europe in the form of a long-term, initially challenging deal with the EU to bolster trade, or join the Eurasian Union, for which Putin offered an appealing reward package instantaneously. The pro-Russian president of Ukraine at the time decided not to sign the agreement with the EU in the fall of 2013. This EU agreement wasn’t merely a trade agreement, but also a political agreement through which Ukraine would commit to adhering to certain European values and principles. Following this, widespread demonstrations broke out across Kiev, the city’s capital, in what is considered the Ukrainian Revolution. It is important to note, without overemphasizing, that Ukraine has a history of political and cultural divide, with the West (including the capital of Kiev), leaning more towards Europe, while the East having stronger ties with Russia. In the public’s eye, failure to sign the agreement from EU marked a move away from European principles and values. In the wake of the Ukrainian Revolution, then President Viktor Yanukovych fled the capital, which resulted in the Ukrainian parliament deposing him and appointing an interim President, Oleksandr Turchynov, followed by the......

Words: 1551 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

International Law

...Crimea Joins Russia: What About International Law? The deadlock in the UN Security Council combined with Russia’s disregard for Western approval have the U.S. and its allies stymied Back on March 4, American President Barack Obama talked about the crisis in Crimea: “There is a strong belief that Russia’s action is violating international law. I know President Putin seems to have a different set of lawyers making a different set of interpretations, but I don’t think that’s fooling anybody.” On the basis of Obama’s words, one can assume international law to be nothing beyond a set of beliefs that are classified as acceptable or unacceptable, depending on which side of the spectrum one chooses to stand. As a result, when Crimean voters decided to secede from Ukraine and unite with Russia, what role did international law play in the picture? Again, you cannot properly define something that is viewed as more a matter of ‘strong belief’ than that of ‘codified norms’, but the verdicts and opinions of the International Court of Justice are well worth discussing here. The Examples of Kosovo and Northern Cyprus Kosovo had unilaterally declared its independence in 2008. Two years later, in 2010, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) stated that unilateral declarations of independence were not prohibited under international law and as a result, Kosovo had every right to declare its independence. However, citing the example of Northern Cyprus, the ICJ further added that such......

Words: 831 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

Ukrain

...The Crimean peninsula, the main flashpoint in Ukraine's crisis, is a pro-Russia part of Ukraine, separated from the rest of the country geographically, historically and politically. It also hosts Russia's Black Sea Fleet. Ukraine has accused Russia of invading it. Located on the Black Sea The Crimean Peninsula extends into the Black Sea, all but an island except for a narrow strip of land in the north connecting it to the mainland. On its eastern shore, a finger of land reaches out almost to Russia. Russia plans to build a bridge across the strait. With an area of 27,000 square kilometers (10,000 square miles), it is slightly smaller than Belgium. It is Ukraine's only formally autonomous region, with Simferopol as its capital. Sevastopol has a separate status within Ukraine. It's best known in the West as the site of the 1945 Yalta Conference, where Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill sealed the postwar division of Europe. History Crimea was absorbed into the Russian empire along with most of ethnic Ukrainian territory by Catherine the Great in the 18th century. Russia's Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol was founded soon afterwards. More than half a million people were killed in the Crimean War of 1853-56 between Russia and the Ottoman Empire, which was backed by Britain and France. The conflict reshaped Europe and paved the way for World War One. In 1921, the peninsula, then populated...

Words: 724 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Ukraine Description

...Ukraine as we see it Olga Avramenko University of Tartu Introduction to Studies Lecturer: Anne Aidla Table of content Introduction 3 Geography 4 History 6 Government and political condition 7 Economic factors 9 Conclusions 9 References 11 Appendix 12 Introduction Ukraine — what comes to mind when you hear this name? Maybe the Klitschko Brothers, Andriy Shevchenko, Nikolai Gogol, and maybe Kyiv, the Dnipro, the Carpathian Mountains. But this is just a small part of the brilliant talents and unbelievably beautiful places that grace our country. If you are thinking about traveling - you will find Ukraine as a charming country, with having second biggest territory in Eastern Europe and an amazing variety of natural environment which is truly marvelous! We border with Russia to the east, Belarus to the north, Poland, Slovakia and Hungary to the west, Romania and Moldova to the southwest. In Western Ukraine, you can find the Carpathian Mountains soar, which protect the country from cold winds and makes our summers warm. When travelling around northern Ukraine you will soon be able to feel the warm breath of subtropical Crimea, where in the Crimean Mountains you will feel the aroma of pine, coniferous and cypress forests and enjoy the incredible landscapes which enchant travelers with its primeval beauty. Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital is one of the oldest cities in Europe and even in the world, staying for approximately 2,000 years. In the past Kyivan Rus...

Words: 2232 - Pages: 9

Free Essay

Ukraine’s Impact on Russia Trade

...was an outbreak of war between Russia and Ukraine which resulted in Russia army took over the military facility, airport and TV stations in Crimea of Ukraine. There were some serious fight between the Ukrainian defendant forces and Russian soldier in early March and Russia ended up in control of Ukraine in early April (Erlanger, 2014). The whole objective of military intervention is to influence the result of referendum for voting against joining the Russian Federation. In April, Russia government has announced several times the withdrawal of army from the border of Ukraine but there is no evidence showing that had happened (AF, 2014). On 7th May, Russia Prime Minister Vladimir Putin claimed that they have withdrawn their troops back to their normal positions (Daily News, Brown and Lowen, 2014). A number of countries condemned and expressed great concerns over the Russian intervention in Ukraine (The Telegraph and BBC News, 2014). It is proven that Russian Army had attempted to control the military base of Ukraine using the unmarked army forces and the troops remained stationed in Ukraine (Ukranian Independent Information Agency, 2014). The international reaction expressed supportive of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territory integrity, while also supportive of finding a quick end to the crisis (The Telegraph, 2014). The United States and the European Union threatened and enacted sanctions against Russia for the causing of the crisis. Russia has accused the United States......

Words: 476 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Ukraine

...Ukraine is a country in Eastern Europe. Ukraineborders the Russian Federation to the east and northeast, Belarus to the northwest, Poland, Slovakia and Hungary to the west,Romania and Moldova to the southwest, and the Black Sea and Sea of Azov to the south and southeast, respectively. It has an area of 603,628 km², making it the second largest contiguous country on the European continent, after the Russian Federation. According to a popular and well established theory, the medieval state of Kievan Rus was established by the Varangians in the 9th century as the first historically recorded East Slavic state which emerged as a powerful nation in the Middle Ages until it disintegrated in the 12th century. By the middle of the 14th century, Ukrainian territories were under the rule of three external powers—the Golden Horde, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and the Kingdom of Poland. After the Great Northern War (1700–1721) Ukraine was divided between a number of regional powers and, by the 19th century, the largest part of Ukraine was integrated into the Russian Empire with the rest under Austro-Hungarian control. A chaotic period of incessant warfare ensued, with several internationally recognized attempts at independence from 1917 to 1921, following World War I and the Russian Civil War. Ukraine emerged from its own civil war, and on December 30, 1922 Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic became one of the founding republics of the Soviet Union. The Ukrainian SSR's territory was......

Words: 817 - Pages: 4