Crisis in Ukraine: A New US/Russia Cold War - Research Paper Example

On November 21, President Viktor Yanukovych under Russian influence abandons the plans to sign an association agreement with the European Union. This led to mass protests by the Euromaidan movement culminating into his ouster from office on February 2014 and installation of a provisional government. Protests broke out in the east and southern Ukraine leading to separatist movements of Donetsk and Luhansk (Donbass) and proclamation of new Republics after an illegal election. Russia in retaliation for Ukraine government support for EU began to support the Pro-Russian insurgents (separatists) in Donbass and annexed Crimea on March 18 thus fuelling the crisis. The US responded by offering support in economic aid to the pro-Western government and sanctions on Russia. This crisis has sparked a lot of debate as to whether the Cold War ever ended, and whether a new conflict is building. Given research evidence, it is clear that realism theory is the most valid in describing this conflict. It is a conflict to regain superpower status in the international system by Russia. The most appropriate remedy is to strengthen sanctions on Russia to tighten its gas and oil revenues that are used to finance insurgents hence tame its imperial ambitions. Crisis in Ukraine: A New US/Russia Cold War? Introduction On the 100th anniversary to mark the war that was meant to end all wars, and on the 75th anniversary after World War II and 25th anniversary since the end of Cold War, we are witnessing another conflict in Europe which is threatening to culminate into a World War III or a nuclear war. The crisis that began in Ukraine on November 2013 as an internal political crisis has transformed into an international crisis pitting Ukrainians against Russians and pro-Western supporters against Pro-Russian supporters The crisis is the sharpest manifestation of post-Cold War international system and a continuation of the East-West conflict. The strategic location of Ukraine between Russia and Europe makes it the center of attraction and has also been a center of other conflicts throughout history. One serious problem facing Ukraine is identity crisis especially after a long struggle for independence from domination by Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Polish and Russia and occupation by Germany during the WWII (1941-1944). The very name Ukraine is derived from Russian word “Oukraina” meaning borderlands and throughout history, Russia has considered Ukraine as “Malorossiya” (little Russia) more like the Scots in UK. However, the Ukrainians view themselves as a separate nation and a distinct people and the Russians as invaders. A lot of blame game has been going on as to who provoked the crisis with Russia blaming the European Union and US while the West blames Russia. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that this current conflict in Ukraine has to do both with the pursuit of power by Russia and an attempt to regain its lost glory and reassert itself as a world power especially after a long period of isolation since the end of Cold War. Historical Background The crisis in Ukraine which began on 21st November 2013 after president Viktor Yanukovych abandoned plans to sign an association agreement with EU resulting into his ousting out of office on February 2014 is a culmination of a long struggle for freedom and creation of a national identity. The country located between Russia and Europe has for centuries been under the influence of Eastern and Western nations. Sakwa argues that “the present contest between Europe and Russia is a constituent element of Ukraine’s historical DNA” (9). Ukraine first declared independence in 1918 after the collapse of Russian Empire in 1917 but not for long as it was then conquered by Russia under Vladimir Lenin in 1919 and Poland in 1921 thereby becoming part of USSR in 1922. The Ukrainians suffered under the Soviet Union as mass executions and deportations were carried out by Vladimir Lenin and worst of them by Joseph Stalin who deported 200, 000 Crimean Tatars to Siberia and Central Asia to avoid rising nationalism sentiments from affecting Russia (Yekelchyk, 2014). It was then occupied by Nazi Germany on onset of WWII in 1941 until 1944 leading to mass deaths and wiping out of the Jews (BBC, 2015). The Ukrainians were reunited at end of WWII in 1945 through the annexation efforts of Stalin’s Red Army. In 1954, the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev transferred Crimea from Russian republic to Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic as a gift. For Yekelchyk, this was “a shrewd economic move, as much as a symbolic political gesture” (2014, nap). Most of these Crimean were Russians after massive deportations of Tatars by Stalin. Ukraine is a fertile land and strategically placed hence is of interest to Russians. Moreover, Russians wanted to minimize resistance of its rule by Ukrainians by pretending to cooperate with them. At the end of Cold War in 1991, the Soviet Union disintegrated and Russia declared independence in 1991 followed by Ukraine following a 90% support in the independence referendum. The Ukraine’s independence was not the end of conflict for Ukrainians but just the beginning. What followed were political wrangles with accusations of voting fraud and malpractices, corruption, and emergence of capitalist oligarchs (Taylor, 2014). The country entered into a friendship treaty with Russia in 1997 for Russia to use the Black Sea Fleet. The most pronounced of these was the Orange revolution of 2004 after Viktor Yanukovych was elected president through what western and independence observers considered as rigging. Mass protests and civic disobedience followed led by opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko. The results of the poll were annulled and after a re-run, Yushchenko emerged the winner and Yulia Tymoshenko became prime minister. In 2006, the socialist party formed a coalition with Yanukovych’s party of regions and communists thus forcing president Yushchenko to appoint Yanukovych as premier. In the elections of Feb 2010, Yanukovych was elected president and promised to collaborate with Russia and extend lease on Black Sea Fleet for 25years in return for cheap gas imports (BBC, 2015). The country also agreed to forge a trade pact with the EU and also abandon NATO membership aspirations. President Yanukovych was more aligned to Russia as he often bowed to their pressure in return for economic gains such as gas supply. However, his continued plan to forge a relationship with EU was not received well by Russia. Russia halted imports of chocolate from Ukraine in pretense that they were below safety standards forcing Yanukovych to abandon the proposed trade pact in November 2013. In return, Russia agreed to slash gas prices by one-third and also lend $ 15 billion to Ukraine to mollify protesters (Hall, 2014, p. 65). During his reign, Yanukovych was famous for unlawful arrest and detention of opposition leaders such as Tymoshenko and Yuriy Lutsenko the interior minister in pretext of abuse of power. He was also accused of corruption and other malpractices which added to his refusal to sign the association agreement with EU led to mass protests in the city Kiev and other places. He was ousted out of office on February 2014 and a provisional government of pro-Westerners established. Interim president was Olexander Tuchynov and acting premier Arseny Yatseniuk. However, Russia refused to recognize the takeover. The Crisis Escalation The crisis escalated on March 2014 and became international in nature when Russia annexed Crimea and also helped pro-Russian separatists to seize Donetsk and Luhansk (Donbass) areas on the eastern and southern Russian border prompting a military response by government. On May of 2014, a businessman Petro Poroshenko won the presidential election on a pro-Western platform and signed the trade pact with EU in July. The conflict now was between the pro-Russians in the east and the ruling Pro-Westerners in the western side. The easterners who mainly comprise the Russian-speakers or ethnic Russians felt left out of the government and were dissatisfied with ouster of Yanukovych who was pro-Russian. The Donbass region was assisted by Russia in terms of military and other aid. At first, Russia denied the men who helped pro-Russians attack Crimean peninsula were not Russian soldiers but later admitted. The government on the other side, received help from the US, EU and the west in general especially Germany and also the NATO forces. There are various factors as to why Russia intervened in Ukraine crisis. The most cited reason is NATO enlargement in the region which threatens the security of Russia. NATO has been gaining members from Baltic regions and was on the process of gaining acceptance from Georgia and Ukraine leading to the Russo-Georgia war of 2008. Since then, Russia has been building up its military and nuclear arsenal in preparation for war as it realized its weaponry was not sophisticated for modern use. Russia justified its invasion of Ukraine as protecting ethnic Russians especially after the passage of law that downgraded the Russian language relative to Ukrainian language (Stoner, 2014, 83). This was a pretext as ethnic Russians only comprise 20% of Crimean population. According to Stoner, the main reason for attacking Crimea was “to reestablish what Russians historically before Bolshevik revolution of 1917 viewed as theirs” (p. 85). These areas include Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Belarus, and Moldova. What makes Ukraine and Georgia more important is that they lay on Europe’s border hence serve Russian interests. This is supported by Putin’s statement in 2001 that collapse of Soviet Union was ‘the worst geopolitical catastrophe since WWII” (P. 85). Moreover, Crimean peninsula is where the Sevastopol naval base that houses Russia’s Black Sea Fleet is located and Ukraine does not have a huge army enough to even try to attack Russian base. It also provides revenue for Ukraine hence attacking it would have been unfeasible. Lough (2015, nap) believes Russian attack on Crimea was a broader effort by Moscow to weaken and disrupt Western institutions and also force Kiev to reform its system of government. Although Putin government after the Cold War managed to revive the economy leading to a 7% annual growth up to 2008, it did not lay the foundation for modernization (Sakwa, 2015, p. 6). Instead, it was dominated by capitalist oligarchs whose interest had to be safeguarded. The emergence of a western-oriented independent Ukraine is thus a challenge to survival of the Russian system and this meant it had to be undermined. This is due to fear that Russians would also begin to emulate Ukraine and start demanding better economy and living standards, accountability, corruption free and open government which Putin is not ready to embrace. This would lead to his ouster and as such, he must ensure his survival by maintain command at home and internationally. For Giles, Ukraine is “the test bed for Russian’s new army” (2014, nap). Russia according to reports by NATO has been bringing in tanks and other weaponry to east and southern Ukraine without Ukraine’s permission. It has developed UAVs and drones for surveillance and targeting and also electronic warfare thus intercepting and jamming communication in Ukraine. It also shot down the Malaysian Airline Flight MH17 on separatist-held territory killing all 298 people on board and has experience a lot of misses on NATO airspace. To Gile (2014) this proves “Russia is assessing how its forces would fare in a direct confrontation with NATO.” This is aimed at splintering NATO alliance and destabilizing its neighbors hence become a global superpower. U.S Government Position While the US and West are blaming Russia for the crisis, Russia categorically blames US and EU for the crisis. Russia believes that the orange movement of 2004 and Euromaidan movement which ousted Yanukovych were under the influence of US and EU in an effort to undermine Russia. Putin states that “opposition leaders heard the signal and with support of US State Department began active work” (Taylor, 2014, p. 94). He thus prohibited the U.S Agency for International Development from operating inside the country. This is supported by John Mearsheimer who blames US and European allies for the crisis. He says that the “taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West” Mearsheimer, 2014). This view is also supported by Sakwa who blames the failure to create genuinely inclusive and symmetrical post-communist political and security order as the reason for the “new cold war” (2015, p. 2). He argues that the way one war ends determines the shape of the next. WWI ended with the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 whereby Russia was not invited to attend; WWII ended with signing of Paris Peace Treaties by Wartime Allies in 1946 but there was no peace conference or treaties signed to end Cold War. Instead, Russia became the continuer state assuming burdens, treaty obligations and nuclear responsibilities of Soviet Socialist “(p. 4). Uneven peace was imposed in Europe and is the cause of current crisis. The US government on the other side, views the crisis as a violation of international law, including the nonintervention provisions in the UN Charter; the 1997 Treaty on Friendship and Cooperation between Russia and Ukraine, which requires Russia to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity and violation of Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty (McMahon, 2014). The US wants Ukrainians to determine their own future and become a stable democracy with firm economic and political connections with EU. Hillary Clinton the U.S Secretary of State then even went ahead to criticize the conduct of 2011 elections (Taylor, 2014). The US responded to crisis by sending economic aid to Ukraine and imposing sanctions on Russia. Washington has promised $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees and technical assistance. President Barack Obama also signed an executive order sanctioning those involved with crisis both individuals and entities and a visa ban was imposed on Russian and Ukrainian on officials and individuals responsible (McMahon, 2014). AS concerns energy aid, U.S lawmakers are attempting to approve sale of natural gas to Europe to avoid overreliance on Russia. The State Department’s Bureau of Energy Resources, headed by Carlos Pascual, a former ambassador to Ukraine, and is also working with Ukraine and other European states to find other sources for gas supplies, like Africa. However, while some western countries like Germany are advocating sanctions only, some U.S quarters are pushing for provision of defensive weapons to Ukrainians although they have been providing non-lethal aid such special radars to pinpoint source of incoming motar fire. This is proved by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former adviser to US president Jimmy Carter book The Grand Chessboard where he states “….we should be able to give defensive weapons to Ukraine, because if we fail to do so, everything Putin has to do to triumph is simply bring the situation to further escalation” (Russian Peacekeeper, 2014). As such, the US may also be helping Ukraine for personal interests such as the control of the mineral rich Eurasian region. This was also confirmed by Stephen Landman an American political scientist who argued that “Ukraine is but a weapon against Russia” (Ibid). The aim is to strengthen Europe dependence on Washington and weaken Russia hence eliminate major competitors in struggle for Eurasia. Moreover, US refuses to sign legally binding document on the US missile defense not being directed against Russia. System Level Theories Various theories of international relations explain why nations get into conflicts. Such theories include realism, liberalism and class system theories. The realists argue that conflicts are inherent in the world system as states try to balance power and security. The main actors in this case are the self-interested states. Realists also believe that there exists a situation of anarchy in the world system as there is no world government (Goldstein, 2013). Realism is the main explanation of why the crisis in Ukraine is there; it is a fight for global dominance. Liberalism on the other hand, is based on the democratic peace theory which states that democratic states never fight. The freedom of individuals and independence is critical for liberalists hence the theory is centered on human rights, individual rationality and progress (Andrew, 2006). It also recognizes the role of organizations such as World Trade Organization (WTO), NATO and EU. At the center of contention in the Ukrainian crisis is the enlargement of NATO into the Baltic areas and cooperation with EU hence liberalist theory is in use. The other theory relevant to this crisis is the class system theory. The theory is based on enhancement of wealth for elites. Ukraine and Russia have long been under powerful oligarchs who control most of the political decisions. It is clear that Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine is purely to regain its superpower position by reshaping the international order. The desire to reassert itself did not start with Ukraine but long before as evidenced by the war with Georgia in 2008 and its intervention in Syria in 2013 to prevent US attack. Stoner in her article “Putin’s Search for Greatness” argues that “great powers assert where their interests are threatened” (Stoner, 2014, p. 85). In this case, an independent Ukraine which is European -oriented is a threat to Russia’s dominance. If Ukraine sides with the West and leave Russia’s sphere of influence, nothing would stop other nations from following suit hence it had to stop further Western incursion. If the Orange revolution of 2004 and Euromaidan revolution of 2013-14 is something to go by, then Russia have something to fear about as this fever could spread to Russia leading to calls for democracy and his downfall would be imminent. As such, applying Nicollo Machielli’s advice to rulers in The Prince that the end justifies the means, Putin is ready to use every means possible to maintain power at home and also bring Russia superpower status. In a news conversation with Alex Lantier of World Socialist Web Site, President Putin indicated that he was ready for “the most adverse development of events “referring to an all-out nuclear war with the US-led NATO (Lantier, 2015). Realism also is based on the idea that in international system, there can never be peace as even enhancement of national security is viewed as offensive by other states. States in quest for security and self-preservation end up in competition that can lead to conflicts (Mearsheimer, 1995, p.7-9).The measures Ukraine took to enhance own security (getting rid corrupt leaders and allying with EU) provoked the crisis as Russia viewed such nation-building efforts as offensive. For a nation to emerge as the most powerful it has to be the most powerful in terms of military capabilities and this explains why Russia is bent on increasing its military budget and building up its military capability and nuclear systems. Military budget for the last five years shot by 80% and Kremlin is committed to spending 40% more on security and defense (Grose, 2015). In 2014 Dmitry Rogozin, the head of military industrial complex said Russia would invest $560billion in modernizing army and navy and $85bn on defense plants (Sakwa, 2015, p. 6).Ukraine says Gile “is an ideal opportunity for Russia to measure the success of its military transformation..” (Gile, 2015). In retaliation, NATO is also setting up very High Readiness Joint Taskforce (VJTF) of 5,000 troops special unit (Grose, 2015). It is not only Russia involved in this spending but the U.S has also been building up its nuclear arsenal. The Obama administration in 2014 unveiled plans to spend more than $ 1 trillion in upgrading its arsenal and Russia in return is also building its nuclear arsenal to be able to deter a US first nuclear strike (Lantier, 2015). The crisis in Ukraine is thus resulting into some kind of an arms race threatening a repetition of Cuban missile crisis in 1962 during the Cold War. Realists also argue that nations gain power by conquering other nations. Russia began to expand its influence in Soviet peripheral and Baltic States in 2004 and has been using geopolitics to gain ground (Wilson, 2009). It claims it is the US waging war against multipolar world (Russia, china, India) in order to control areas of geographical and economic value such as Eurasia. This area is rich in natural resources such as natural gas, oil, iron ore, gold and copper. Putin had proposed a Eurasian Economic Union and Brzenzinski is of the view that “without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian Empire” (Russian Peacekeeper, 2014). The US also wants control of the same region hence the crisis in Ukraine may be termed as a new cold war between Russia and US. During Cold War, the two superpowers used proxy wars to exert their influence and the same case applies in Ukraine as Russia is helping pro-Russian insurgents while US is siding with pro-Western government. Russian imperialistic ambitions are apparent in a March 4, 2014 press conference whereby he stated that “if Russia decided to fight, it would be “to protect Ukrainian citizens” (Taylor, 2014, p. 99). This meant Russia was broadening its scope from protecting ethnic Russians to all Ukrainians. Ukraine has been harboring anti-imperialistic sentiments against Russia and fought hard to regain independence in 1991. The influence of Russia in its internal affairs is unwelcome especially to pro-Westerners (Rose, 2004, p. 80). For example, Russia pressed Yanukovych to abandon the EU trade pact and offered it a loan of $15 bn in order to make reliant on Russia. This interference is what sparked the crisis. Ukraine aims at ridding the country of imperial legacy of referring it as “little Russia” and be a wholly separate Ukrainian nation (Sakwa, 2015). This is especially by reclaiming the Ukrainian language which had been standardized to Russian language. The prove to this is passage of Article 10 of 1996 constitution which states that “the state language in Ukraine is Ukrainian” but free development of other languages of minorities was guaranteed (P. 18). Another theory that explains this conflict is the class systems theory which applies to financial benefits of conflict. Russia is what is regarded as a resource curse nation as it is mineral rich but dogged with corruption. It is highest supplier of oil and natural gas to European countries via Ukraine. Ukraine is thus a transport corridor for Russia hence the great need to incorporate in the Eurasian Empire. However, gains from oil and gas are now used to finance the pro-Russian insurgents in Ukraine. Russia has also been using its oil and gas supply to force Ukraine to submit to its demands. For example, it cut gas supply to Ukraine in 2006 in row over prices but according to BBC news (2015) it was due to constitutional changes that gave more powers to parliament and diminished power of president. Gas supply was also cut in 2009 due to support for NATO and EU. Gas supply was also a weapon to gain economic advantage such as access to Black Sea Fleet. Another instant is slashing of gas prices in 2013 for agreeing to abandon EU pact by president Yanukovych (BBC 2015). Ukraine and Russia also were under powerful oligarchs who benefited from gas and oil (Sakwa, 2015, p. 7). The two major companies of oil and natural gas Rosneft and Gazprom were state owned hence Putin had control over resources. Taylor argues that the Ukrainian complaints about their regime-corrupt kleptocracy based on close links between ruling elites and economic oligarchs combined with fragile Russian economic and political system fuelled the crisis as Putin feared the Ukraine revolution would impact Russia (Taylor, 2014, p.95). Putin’s associates were wealthy and also benefited from Sochi Olympics. These oligarchs had great influence on direction of foreign policy as Ukrainians nor could Russians not risk disappointing them for fear of support. It was these wealthy and powerful people in Ukraine that the new government was trying to get rid of hence nation-buiding based on democracy. This was viewed as threat by Russians hence the crisis in Donbass and Crimea. In conclusion, the crisis in Ukraine was a result of desire for power and domination. It was Putin’s attempt to reshape international order by using Ukraine as a test ground. Since 2004, Russia has been influencing its eastern neighbors especially Baltic countries who chose to join EU or NATO but the most important were Georgia and Ukraine as they lie at the border of Europe and act as transport corridor for oil and natural gas to European countries. Realist theory is thus the most valid in describing this conflict. The international system is inherently at conflict and in competition for power and security. Russia viewed a democratic Ukraine which is pro-Western as a threat to its security hence needed to be contained. This was to enable it assume its place in the international system as a superpower, a position it lost at the end of Cold War when US emerged as the only superpower. It is likely that Russia will end up with parts of Ukraine but to stop further crisis, more sanctions should be placed on Russia to strain it economically hence not able to sustain financing of insurgents in Ukraine through its gas and oil revenues. References BBC (2015). Ukraine Profile: A Chronology of Key Events. Retrieved 17 March 2015, from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-18010123 Giles, K (2015). Ukraine Test Bed for Russian’s New Army. Retrieved 17 March, 2015, from http://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/16856. Goldstein, JS., Pevehouse,JC and Sandra Whitworth,S (2013). International Relations, 3rd ed. Canada: Pearson Grose, T.K (2015). Putin’s ArmyBuilt to Reassert Russian Influence in a Modern World. U.S News and World Report. Retrieved 17 March 2015, from http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/03/11/vladimir-putins-army-built-to-reassert-russian-influence-in-a-modern-world Hall, M.C (2014). The Crimea: A Very Short History. Lulu. Lantier, A (2015). Russian President Putin Says Ukraine Crisis Threatens Nuclear War. World Socialist Website. 17 March 2015 https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/03/17/nucl-m17.html Lough, J (2015).Debate Over Arms for Ukraine must not Split West. Retrieved 17 March, 2015 from www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/16867 Mearsheimer, JJ (1995). The False Promise of International Institutions. International Security, 19(3):5-49. McMahon, R (2014). Background Briefing: What You Should Know about Ukraine Crisis. Retrived 17 March 2015, from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/background-briefing-ukraine-crisis/. Rose, G(ed). (2014). Russian Revisionism: Putin’s Plan for Overturning the European Order. In: Gideon, R. Foreign Affairs: Crisis in Ukraine. Foreign Affairs. Russian Peacekeeper (2014). Ukrainian Crisis. Retrieved 17 March 2015, fromhttp://peacekeeper.ru/en/?module=news&action=view&id=24700 Sakwa, R (2015). Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands. London: I.B Tauris & Co Ltd. Stoner, C (2014). Putin’s Search for Greatness: Will Ukraine Bring Russia the Superpower that it seeks? In: Gideon, R. Foreign Affairs: Crisis in Ukraine. Foreign Affairs. Taylor, B.D (2014). Putin’s Own Goal: The Crisis in Crimea and Putin’s Political Future. In: Gideon, R. Foreign Affairs: Crisis in Ukraine. Foreign Affairs. Wilson, A (2009). The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation, 3rd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press. Yekelchyk, S (2014). The Ukrainian Crisis: In Russia’s Long Shadow. Vol. 7( 9). http://origins.osu.edu/article/ukrainian-crisis-russias-long-shadow Read More