Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Crimea Faces a ‘Frozen Conflict’

In the absence of a political settlement in Kiev, Crimea could remain under Russian control indefinitely.

Inter Press Service

Crimea could remain under Russian control indefinitely as the current crisis – described by some politicians as Europe’s gravest since the end of the Cold War – threatens to turn into a “frozen conflict”, experts say.

The Ukrainian peninsula is now under de facto Russian military control with Ukrainian military bases surrounded, and control of infrastructure and strategic buildings across the region in the hands of Russian commanders.

And despite increasingly harsh rhetoric and threats of the strongest possible diplomatic action from U.S. and European leaders, many experts believe that there is little the West can do to loosen Moscow’s grip on the region.

Ian Bond, Director of Foreign Policy at the Centre for European Reform (CER) think tank in London, told IPS: “Unfortunately, things have got to the point where it looks that the best case scenario for the development of the present situation is that Russian troops end up staying in Crimea, the situation there will remain as it is now, and this becomes a ‘frozen conflict’.”

Crimea, today an autonomous republic in Ukraine, has long had close cultural ties with Russia. It is home to the majority of Ukraine’s ethnic Russians, many of whom came there during the forced repatriation of more than 200,000 Tartars – Turkic Muslims who lived in the region for centuries – in 1944.

They were sent to labour camps in Central Asia and replaced by Russians on the orders of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin who was angry at alleged collaboration between local Tartars and the Nazis during World War II. Tartars today make up a significant minority of Crimea’s population.

The Crimea was also part of Russia until 1954 when then Soviet leader Nikita Krushchev made it a part of Ukraine republic within the Soviet Union.

Russia has maintained a physical presence on the peninsula in the form of its massive naval base in the Black Sea port of Sevastopol, which it holds under a lease agreement with Kiev and which gives Russian troops the right to move around parts of Crimea.

Many in Crimea regard themselves as Russian, and since the break-up of the Soviet Union local secession movements have had varied levels of support.

The Euromaidan protests in Kiev, a series of protests through winter to demand closer integration with the EU, failed to gain support on the peninsula. As the revolution came to an end, calls for independence in Crimea grew louder, as did those for help from Moscow as clashes broke out among pro-Russian and pro-Kiev groups in some parts of eastern Ukraine.

The calls were answered by Moscow with the Kremlin claiming its troops were needed to protect Russian citizens. The troops, although not universally feted by locals, have not faced any aggression.

Locals in Crimea who spoke to IPS said that there was a wary peace in many towns and cities in the region and that the situation was far less tense than the media had been reporting.

Alexandr Yakushechkin, 45, from Simferopol, said: “Things here are actually quiet and peaceful. There are Russian soldiers only in front of two main administration buildings in Simferopol but nowhere else.”

He added that he did not expect Russian soldiers to stay in Crimea past a March 30 referendum on the region's future status.

But others are already planning for the long-term presence of Russian soldiers and what that could mean for the economy in a region which relies heavily on tourism.

Gala Amarando, who works in the local tourist industry in Simferopol, told IPS: “People in Crimea live for the tourist season and they know things this summer may be complicated. They are already thinking of having to slash prices and ways to attract holidaymakers.”

With Moscow showing no signs of backing down on its intervention and moving more and more soldiers into the peninsula every day, some experts believe Russian troops could become a permanent presence, citing the 2008 invasion of the Georgian breakaway region of South Ossetia.

Georgia had tried to bring the region to heel with force but Moscow sent in troops amid claims that the people of South Ossetia were in danger. Georgia lost one-fifth of its territory in the ensuing battle and while the West imposed sanctions and Russia signed a ceasefire agreement saying it would withdraw troops, it never honoured it fully, and troops remained.

This raises questions over the effectiveness of any potential Western sanctions against Russia this time around.

The CER’s Bond told IPS: “What Russia learnt from the 2008 conflict in Georgia is that there were sanctions for a while and then they were forgotten fairly soon, and Barack Obama came into office and started to try and reset relations between Washington and Moscow.

“What Vladimir Putin may be thinking now is that if no blood is shed, the consequences may not be that bad, and the next U.S. president may try and reset relations with Moscow again. Perhaps Putin is thinking it is worth the risk.”

Some believe that targeted sanctions – particularly against the massive wealth of Russia’s ruling elite held abroad – may have some effect in making the Kremlin at least consider its position, others argue that Crimea will be used by Putin as collateral until he gets what he wants – a government that will have the support of all Ukrainian regions and honour previous deal he had made with Kiev.

Nikolai Sokov, a Senior Fellow at the Vienna Centre for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation (VCDNP), told IPS: “The only thing that can change his mind [about holding Crimea] is an effective government in Kiev that can hold the country together and stick to earlier agreements.”

However, there is a fear that Putin may, having successfully gained control of Crimea, try to intervene in other parts of East Ukraine where pro-Russian sentiment is also strong – with terrible consequences.

Support for Russia and its military is seen as far less clear cut in regions in East Ukraine outside Crimea, and armed conflict between Russian troops and either the Ukrainian army or paramilitary pro-western groups would be almost certain.

Bond told IPS: “While the best case scenario is a ‘frozen conflict’, the worst case scenario is that Putin intervenes in other parts of Ukraine. Then it would get really bad. The consequences of this, not just for Ukraine but the wider world as well, really do not even bear thinking about.”

Pavol Stracansky is a contributor to Inter Press Service.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Haim Saban is a media mogul and major donor to the Democratic Party known for his hardline stance on Israel and opposition to the Iran nuclear deal.


Nikki Haley, Donald Trump’s first U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and is widely considered to be a future presidential candidate.


Brian Hook is the director of policy planning and senior policy advisor to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and is the head of the Iran Action Group.


Josh Rogin is a journalist known for his support for neoconservative policies and views.


Laurence Silberman, a senior justice on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, was a mentor to controversial Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and has been a vocal supporter of right-wing foreign and domestic agendas, including the campaign to support the invasion of Iraq.


The People’s Mujahedin of Iran, or MEK, advocates regime change in Iran and has strong connections with a wide range of top political figures in the U.S.


Eli Lake is a columnist for Bloomberg View who has a lengthy record of advocating for aggressive U.S. foreign policies towards the Middle East.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The tragic end of Jamal Khashoggi should serve as a reminder that it’s time for the United States to move on and leave the motley crew of undesirable Middle Eastern partners, from Israel to Saudi Arabia, to their collective fate. They deserve each other.


Jobs should not be an excuse to arm a murderous regime that not only appears to be behind the assassination of a U.S. resident and respected commentator but is also responsible for thousands of civilian casualties in Yemen—the majority killed with U.S-supplied bombs, combat aircraft, and tactical assistance.


The contradictions in Donald Trump’s foreign policy create opportunities for both rivals and long-standing (if irritated) US allies to challenge American influence. But Trump’s immediate priority is political survival, and his actions in the international arena are of little concern to his domestic supporters.


While the notion that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic is decades old, it has been bolstered in recent years, by the campaign to add to the definition of anti-Semitism any criticism that singles Israel out and doesn’t apply the same standard to other countries. The bottom line is that this entire effort is designed not to combat anti-Semitism but to silence criticism. 


Short-term thinking, expedience, and a lack of strategic caution has led Washington to train, fund, and support group after group that have turned their guns on American soldiers and civilians.


Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps — or someone worse — to come.


The United Nations has once again turn into a battleground between the United States and Iran, which are experiencing one of the darkest moments in their bilateral relations.


RightWeb
share