Indian Defence Review

After a very long time, Europe is gripped in an armed conflict within its continent. From 2013 pro democracy protests in Kiev, to President Victor Yanukovych ousting, the situation rapidly escalated. Amid the situation, Russia felt this an absolute moment to protect its strategic interest in the region, which she felt threatened.

The protest resulted due to a failed economic partnership agreement between the President Yanukovych and the European Union, which had been in negotiation for years. “Just like that” Ukraine decided to walk away from the negotiating table. This incident happened shortly after Moscow signed a US $15 billion aid package, which was a clear “naked bribe” to the Ukrainian government. It didn’t take much long to realise what had happened, national commentator’s realised quickly: Ukraine would stop becoming Putin’s “Eurasian Union” rather than a self sustaining post Soviet nation such as Poland or other Balkan states.

Shocked by this “open” corruption, protestors took their anguish to the Maidan square in Kiev and occupied it for weeks. Police presence was heavy outside the parliament in Kiev, facing the Maidan and to attract global attention protestors used mainstream techniques followed by camera shots on brutal strike by Kiev policemen. Molotov cocktails never went out of stock. On 26th February, Ukraine submitted a detail report on the incident to the Security Council along with steps to resolve.

Although Moscow lost its battle, as Brussels signed the EU Economic Partnership agreement another step towards full EU membership. However, the Putin government had another card up its sleeve.

The once EU affiliated Ukraine threatened the end of Russia’s uncontested dominion of the Black Sea, seeing a strategic threat in its own backyard, Moscow became desperate.

Putin’s administration openly declared that the new government posed “grave threat” to the Russian ethnic people, a hint for Russian-speakers angry about a controversial but minor law promoting the Ukrainian language in schools and colleges.

Supported by the Crimean government of Simferopol, Yanukovych loyalists helped Russians with supplies and safe passage to Crimea, and declared themselves as protectors of “Russian language”, and promptly held a referendum in the occupied Crimean peninsula in order to legitimize the transfer of territory to Russia.

Looking at the power projection potential and naval strategic importance of Crimea many experts saw this as a convincing argument: Russia’s geo strategic interests on one side, Crimean peninsula (which was previously in the Soviet government of Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian by birth) on the other.

What happened was very much expected, Eastern Oblasts of Ukraine, specifically Donetsk and Luhansk, proclaimed themselves independent with the city officials alleging themselves to Russia. The new government declared them rebels and fighting is still going on today.

The situation can only be resolved, if there are powerful nations involved in it. Peace is indispensible if we want to avoid another Balkan conflict.

Discussion of the Issue

The conflict is surrounded by two sides, the sovereign nation Ukraine, and the rebels backed by Russia. The United Nations Security Council was called to contain the situation and to maintain peace in the region, as clearly stated in the Article V of the Charter of the United Nations. Hence it was imperative to bring a viable solution which both the nations could agree, as clearly stated in the mandate of Security Council.

On 28th February 2014, Ukraine put a formal request and invoked Articles 34, 35 and 37 to call an emergency session of the UNSC. Less than a month later, Russia occupied Crimea and the General Assembly declared its commitment to Ukrainian territorial sovereignty.

The battle lines were drawn. Irrespective of all the understanding, diplomacy, and sovereign nation was breached, which led to grave political instability and not forget huge loss of lives.

Relevant History

In military history we call it “violation of international law and the national interest of 19th century”. When Soviet Union fell, Ukraine was left in possession of a few Soviet nuclear weapons. This situation was resolved as Ukraine signed the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and handed the nuclear weapons to Russia.

This resulted in the “Budapest Memorandum”, which later came to be known as “Ukraine Memorandum of Security Assurances”. The memorandum clearly stated the prevention of any power nation such as US, the Russian Federation and UK in politically and economically coercing Ukraine, rather assisting the Ukraine if any nations does so (particularly with the Nuclear Weapons that had just been relinquished). With reference to the current situation, the treaty is violated and Ukraine is being coerced in all possible ways.  As a matter of fact Russia has coerced Ukraine both economically and militarily, both the US and UK have failed to prevent it.

“International law” has victimised Ukraine and ripped apart its sovereignty. Russia has again proved her under minded intelligence services, military tactics and use of Special Forces in achieving what once this Soviet Socialist did.

In order to deescalate the situation, both the nations have to compromise. The root cause of the violence is “an already aware fact”: The new Kiev government, the old Crimean reality, and the separatist movement in the east. All lack the true visual facts, “Ukraine is the true land of Ukrainians”.

However the United Nations is equipped in this situation to grant legitimacy. Old habits die hard, as for Putin’s “I can take Kiev in 2 weeks”. Thus, threatening the whole frameworks of Kiev’s fundamental policy.

The problem is not how the fundamental laws are threatened, the problem is how these laws were made, and that eventually led to perpetual support this incident. If the international law and international system has to survive, international community cannot just sit idle and watch a nation burn. The threat is not just Putin’s unethical intervention of Ukraine, the threat it to the entire establishment of P5 nations that were formed after World War II.

Political Hurdles

The whole idea of intervention is to maintain Moscow’s geostrategic presence in the Black Sea. Russia will not hesitate to expand its political agenda’s by any means, along with vetoing any resolution that pose a threat to her in UNSC.

However, international law considers this action as “military aggression”. Russian armed forces occupied parts of Ukraine, military intervention tactics, violating the UN charter, along with dozens of documents with Moscow’s signature on it. This is one of the most severe interventions a nation has faced since 2nd world war. The situation is critical; and it is a duty of third world nations to assist in this crisis, however apart from third world’s international law approach, no nation’s interest is being violated in the crisis – as the only part that “concerns” is Moscow’s unprecedented dominance over Black Sea. The EU was only trying to open up a Ukrainian market not restructure Russian fleet.

As it is truly said, even cheat coins have two faces. Russia uses the argument “self-determination of peoples is one of the first principles of the United Nations”, during the discussion of this issue.

Future Aspects

There are many possible outcomes of this situation as the crisis is intense and escalating as we speak. Some experts fear the possibility of annexation of few more regions, up to and including everything east of the Dnieper, setting a land corridor to Crimea and Transdniester along the borders of Moldova.

Although the more realistic version is the issue becoming a “frozen conflict” like Transdniester, South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus and the Korean War. Frozen conflict is a term that we use to describe a situation that never reaches a solution; it “freezes” in time and slowly consumes the whole nation, creating political instability in the region. Moldova has failed the “independence movement” in the industrial region right after the Soviet fell. As a matter of fact Ukraine’s main industrial regions are the Donetsk and Luhansk which makes this issue more worrying. Like Moldova, it would too hold back the development of Ukraine’s to a first world nation, permanently. The immense resources used in fighting a rebel supported by the neighbouring power, has only one possible outcome.

If UNSC could broker a deal between Kiev and Moscow, there is a possibility of salvaging what left of Ukraine in the crisis and a possibility to develop it a powerhouse in future. To achieve that, UNSC could convince Putin to stop supporting the Novorossiya Armed Forces (NAF) and stop them from “sailing in the same boat”.

Thus UNSC could be seen as a potential broker in the conflict therefore should bring both the affected parties on the table as 40 million Ukrainian’s destiny depends on it.

International Stand

The Western Europe and Others Group (WEOG)

Australia, Luxembourg, United Kingdom, United States, and France comprise together the WEOG group. They are in complete opposition to Russia’s annexation of Crimea.

Latin American Nations (GRULAC)  

Argentina is against the Crimean referendum as it sees it as the same argument with the UK’s dominance over Falkland Islands.

Chile generally supports western decisions. Although, Chile voted during the General Assembly resolution, urging member nations not to support Crimean annexation. The nation is highly volatile in support.

Eastern Europe Group

Lithuania is a NATO member and a nation with large Russian- speaking, ethnically Russian minority. However Lithuania supports WEOG group unconditionally.

Russia, the main actor is obviously on its side and is involved in numerous back channel communication swaying nations on its side. Russia will veto any resolution that comes in its way. Previously being accused of supporting Assad’s government, Russia will play every trick from the book to maintain its dominance over black sea.

African Group

African nations Rwanda, Chad, and Nigeria generally support the western decisions, although Chinese influence on Rwanda and Chad might emerge a third block, with another set of agenda’s.

Asia and the Pacific

South Korea, a victim of “frozen conflict” and a member of SEATO, the Pacific NATO, it is expected to side with the US on decisions. Jordan a very close ally of the US and role player in other conflicts (when it comes to Syria) it will support the WEOG group. However, it is can switch sides on persuasion and dwelling favours.

China

It will not be wrong to call this largest communist nation a “wild card” in this whole conflict. Might go for abstention or switch sides with its arms dealer Russia. China is not a fan when it comes to “self determination” the argument which is used to describe Crimean issue, as many of its own regions are oppressed. However there are rumours of oil swap between Russia and China, as a result it might take a stance.