Sunday, March 9, 2014

Ukraine and Crimea - Not Primarily an International Crisis

Somehow the future of Crimea has suddenly become an urgent issue we are expected to consider, as if it were the previously hidden heart of Ukraine's problems, as if the rights of Mr. Putin and the Russian nation have been offended by some major misdeed against Crimea's Russian-speaking population. As if Ukrainians are collectively guilty of Crimean atrocities, justifying a Russian intervention. No, neither Ukraine nor Crimea is primarily at the center of an international crisis.

The real problem is the long-lasting, and increasing, misgovernment and mismanagement of Ukraine, dating back two decades or more, but reaching a crescendo this winter. For a big industrialized country to sink so deep in economic woes, there is more than just a bit of ignorance and misfortune behind it all. A country in which the shadow economy is estimated at 50% or more of GDP, where a whole social layer of smart movers - mid-level and higher "managers" - are organized in networks that skim the profits of most sectors of the economy. A parliament filled with collaborators of those shadow-economy chieftains, and a government skimming the skimmers. The corruption networks have been known for years and are well described by the Economist in a recent issue.

 The only surprise is that large numbers of ordinary Ukrainians ultimately find the strength to protest outdoors for months on end - in wintertime, no less. Actually, their behavior fits the old J-curve hypothesis about revolutions, how people revolt when, after gradually experiencing improved conditions, they suddenly see their hopes quashed by some dramatic event. That fits the story of Ukraine's negotiations for EU association during most of 2013, only to call it off when the agreement was ready to be signed. And no wonder they were skeptical about the new government as well when Mr. Yanukovich later fled the country.

Basically, of course, Ukraine is dependent on economic relations both with Russia and with Europe. To Russia, Ukraine is probably more a strategic than an economic asset. To the EU, probably neither. Just a key relay station for Russian gas pipelines to the west, which the EU has - indolently and carelessly - allowed itself to become dependent on.

So, whether Crimea is right or wrong to suddenly demand secession from Ukraine, and a reunion with Russia, this is simply a red herring. Indeed, one can easily sympathize with a demand for a referendum from a population that has several times been shifted like a package between Russia and Ukraine, without anybody asking those involved what they thought about it. Except, why has this demand been raised just now, when the problems of Ukraine are acute, but have nothing to do with Crimea? This is sheer manipulation, and who the manipulator is, is obvious.

But Ukraine cannot escape its cohabitation with Russia. Managing its own internal affairs better is Ukraine's only solution. At this stage, losing Crimea - one way or the other - is likely to be the price they will have to pay for getting through it all. It will be their punishment for allowing themselves to continue after 2004 living in such political and economic disorder. The betrayal of the Orange Revolution says it all.

In international strategic terms, Ukraine's only significance is being the missing piece in Russia's games with its imaginary enemies. Of course, that makes it also of considerable interest to the West. But let no one fool you to feel sorry for Ukraine. 

4 comments:

Ben Soetendorp said...

I completely disagree with your cynical analysis of the Russian military occupation of the Crimea. You put the blame on the Ukrainian people. My first reaction was history repeats itself. Only this time it is not the Sudetenland and Danzig but Crimea and Donetsk. And Hitler Chamberlain and Daladier are replaced by Putin Obama and Ashton. Putin uses the same logic that Hitler used that it is his duty to protect Russian speakers, while Obama and Ashton echo the same appeasement policy of the thirties. From the start Putin knew that Obama and the EU are not willing to pay the price for the Russian occupation of the Crimean peninsula. The current talks between Kerry and Lavrov can only end in a Munich like agreement where the west accepts the Russian seizure of the Crimea. Odessa Kharkiv and Donetsk may follow as there is no political leader in the west that is ready to stop Putin from realizing his real goal of restoring the borders or at least the influence sphere of the former Soviet Union. The ineffective so-called sanctions taken by the US and the EU will certainly not stop Russia's aggression. As a conservative you should be worried about the weak leaders in the west instead of blaming the Ukrainians who stood up against a corrupt tyrant linked to the Russian leader. I am not against using diplomacy instead of military means. But to impress Putin the style should be much more coercive.

Olav F. Knudsen said...


Ben, I am not surprised by your reaction. You were provoked. My statement was obviously and intentionally provocative, aimed to shift ("jerk") the reader's attention away from the Russian manipulations and towards the single dense cluster of factors that make it possible for Russia to play these games: the deplorable state of Ukraine and the depravity of its political and economic elites. You seem to discount this. Your examples from the Hitler era are inappropriate here, because back then such behavior was unthinkable. Being unthinkable made such oppressive moves that much simpler to perpetrate. Now such criminal statecraft is familiar, with Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008 fresh in everybody's mind. Ukrainians nevertheless have kept acting as if the world is completely new to them, apparently thinking a bluff and a gamble is always worth trying. The Ukrainian government's negotiations with the EU during 2013 illustrate such a pattern of crude gambling and bluffing on their part which did little to build trust between the parties.

The Ukrainian people is not to blame, but their so-called "elites" and political leaders certainly are. And here it is difficult to separate the good (presumably the opposition now in power in Kiev) from the bad. I don't envy them when the annexation of Crimea works itself out in the coming days and weeks.

Ben Soetendorp said...

Olav, just a short reaction. If you read the economist you have noticed that in discussing the behavior of Putin in the Crimea the economist refers to the behavior of Hitler in the Sudetenland case as well. Moreover, I read these days once again Kissinger's Diplomacy and the analogy is astonishing. Talking about elites, you can't blame the former opposition who is now in power for the games played by the former evil and corrupt clique that governed the country at the time of the negotiations with the EU. Finally, my reaction had to do with my anger about western gutless leaders who use a lot of rhetoric about a just world order, but when it comes to real deeds they are unwilling to stand up and pay the price.

Olav F. Knudsen said...

The parallels to the 1930s cases are striking, and yet my point still stands - Ukraine's leaders in 2013 and 2014 knew very well what the risks were.