Russia's role in Ukraine: Benign or Cold War II?

As Crimea turns to Russia, many wonder whether Moscow is interested in reviving military hegemony over ex-Soviet states

For almost three months mass protests have been taking place in Maidan Nezalezhnosti, the main square of Ukraine's capital of Kiev.
Recently, there has been a great deal of speculation regarding Russia's involvement in the crisis in Ukraine.
As time passed, events in Crimea started to intensify and became the centre of attention for the international community and for Western powers in partcular.
On Tuesday, pro-Moscow lawmakers in Crimea voted for independence from Ukraine in a precursor to a referendum this weekend on the region becoming part of Russia.
Sunday's referendum will give the public two options: becoming part of Russia, or remaining in Ukraine with broader autonomy.
Many expect Crimea to break from Ukraine and to join Russia. Ukraine itself started to appeal to the West as Crimea turned to Russia.
The international community is rife with speculation whether Russia is seeking to restore its Cold War era Soviet Union status, or whether Russia merely seeks to establish a Eurasian model that focuses on non-military cooperation.
Russia's hegemony over ex-Soviet states
Ahram Online spoke to Ievgen Vorobiov, an analyst at the Polish Institute of International Affairs, who said that the current situation in Crimea may indeed be a template for similar invasions elsewhere in the former USSR.
Demonstrations first erupted last November, largely as a response to President Viktor Yanukovych's rejection of a free trade agreement with the European Union and suggestion that the country would join the Eurasian Customs Union, led by Russia, which has dominated Ukraine for centuries in different forms.
The Yanukovych government is also facing pressure from Russia. Vladimir Putin has indicated that he will withhold the distribution of loans to Ukraine until a stable government emerges from the present situation.
”The pattern of Russia's intervention in Crimea is clear: using pro-Russian local groups to instigate political instability, then transporting militants to block Ukraine's military bases and try provoking them into an open conflict,” Vorobiov stated.
Reuters reported Wednesday that Ukraine's government appealed for Western help to stop Moscow annexing Crimea, but the Black Sea peninsula, overrun by Russian troops, seemed fixed on a course that could formalise rule from Moscow within days.
“Moscow, which to widespread scorn denies its troops have any role in the takeover of the once Russian-ruled region, says people in Crimea, a small majority of who are ethnic Russians, should have the right to secede,” Reuters reported.
Norhan El-Sheikh, lecturer at Cairo University and expert on European politics, seemed to have a different view than that of Vorobiov. In interview, El-Sheikh said Russian involvement in Ukraine should not be labeled an intervention in the first place.
“The Russian Navy is already in Ukraine; the most important Russian naval base is based in Ukraine's Black Sea. Hence Russia didn't literally intervene; it's not like the US intervention in Afghanistan, for example,” El-Sheikh explained.
Also, we must not forget that there is an agreement that cover's Russia's naval presence in Ukraine.
“This is why I wouldn't call it intervention. This is the phrase that the US and the EU uses, which is not accurate, as Russia didn't send forces. The forces already exist in Ukraine,” El-Sheikh added.
“Russia does not seek any military hegemony over ex-Soviet states; it is interested, though, in having future economic cooperation and in having a Eurasian model that will unite ex-Soviet states in a model that similar to the EU. Russia is not interested in any military intervention,” El-Sheikh asserts.
Casey Mitchel, an expert in Russian and East European studies at Columbia University, told Ahram Online that military hegemony in the post-Soviet region has long been both a goal and an achievement for Moscow.
The Crimean intervention, while unique in method, is a continuation of Russia's willingness to expand military operations and support, for the sake of hegemony in its purported sphere of influence, according to Mitchel.
Where will Russia's “expansion” stop?
Western powers have used the term “expansion” continually during the past few weeks. If we go with the term, we might as well consider where Russia's next expansion will be, or where will this expansion stop.
Aleksei Malashenko, co-chair of the Carnegie Moscow Centre, told Ahram Online that Russia's expansion may continue to Moldavia. Moldavian regions Gagauzia and Pridnestrovie are likely to join Russia as well, but we will have to wait and see.
On the other hand, El-Sheikh told Ahram Online that expansion in ex-Soviet states is not among Russia's priorities.
“Actually, Russia did not expand in Georgia when it had the chance. Russia could have invaded Georgia in less than 24 hours,” El-Sheikh said.
El-Sheikh also affirmed that Russia could have intervened in Ukraine, as the balance of power between Russia and Ukraine would have been in Moscow's favour.
El-Sheikh also explained that Russia cannot engage in war with Ukraine, in particular due to ethnic variations. This scenario would have been more believable in Georgia.
Only in the case of NATO intervention, or US intervention, might Russia take action in order to defend Russians who are in Ukraine and to protect its interests and its navy.
“If the Ukrainian scene continues as it is I predict that at least semi-island Crimea will separate from Ukraine and will join Russia, as Crimea has a Russian majority population of 60 percent who will agree to join Russia,” El-Sheikh said.
Mitchel, on the other hand, told Ahram Online that Russia has a distinguished history of supporting the arms trade and armed expansion in the post-Soviet sphere, with a notable uptick under the Putin regime.
“In Crimea, it is clear that Russia seeks to maintain both economic and militaristic hegemony over the former Soviet sphere. Arms support played a large role in strong-arming Armenia into joining the Customs (soon to be Eurasian) Union instead of forging closer ties with the European Union,” Mitchel adds.
Ukraine and Western diplomacy
The use of diplomacy in any crisis can have a major influence on the parties' actions. Especially in a crisis that involves Russia.
Due to Cold War flashbacks, the US, the EU and France share an interest in making statements about the crisis, or being a part of the negotiations.
Reuters reported that the US and Russian foreign ministers did speak by telephone. But the US State Department said Moscow's position offered no room for negotiation while the Russian foreign ministry issued a statement condemning US financial aid to the "illegitimate regime" in Kiev, which it calls ultra-nationalists with "Nazi" links.
El-Sheikh says that the US used the same strategy in diplomacy in both Georgia and Ukraine. What the US basically did in both crises was either imposing sanctions or highly criticising Russia.
“None of the methods used by the US were useful, nor did they help in ending the crisis,” El-Sheikh adds.
The EU, on the other hand, reacted differently on Georgia, as the EU was more understanding of the Russians, and mediation played a great role at the time.
But now, the diplomacy used by the EU in Ukraine is very similar to the US's. And the stance of France is also the same as that of the US in condemning Russia.
Mitchel commented on the use of diplomacy by stating that Western diplomacy has been, unfortunately, far from ideal. The EU's response has been tepid and timid — waiting for meetings, waiting for sanctions.
This is understandable, in a sense. With about 30 percent of its natural gas coming from Russia, the EU has a strong incentive not to anger Moscow.
The US has not been similarly constrained: a handful of sanctions, and a very vocal backlash. That being said, there is little impetus for the US to offer more than this response.
“While there is militaristic movement in the Black Sea from the American Navy, there is almost no likelihood of any kind of engagement. This is the EU's fight, and it is failing Ukraine,” Mitchel concluded.
http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/96519.aspx