Testing for a new ‘Cold War’ in Crimea

By Paul Reynolds

World affairs correspondent, BBC News website

Cheers for a Russian warship as it enters Sevastopol

The Russian military operation against Georgia and its recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia have led to concerns amounting at times to near panic about whether a new Cold War is under way.

The Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has said that he does not want a new Cold War but is not afraid of one either.

So is the conflict a turning-point heralding a new age of confrontation or just a limited Russian action to resolve two border disputes left over from the Soviet era?

Or something in between, a sign of uncertainty on both sides which will mean tension but not the kind of ideological struggle and military stand-off that was the Cold War itself?

New test

A good test of Russian intentions could come in Crimea, the territory jutting out in the Black Sea. It is part of Ukraine.

The French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said: “It’s very dangerous. There are other objectives that one can suppose are the objectives of Russia, in particular Crimea, Ukraine
and Moldova.”

The problem over Crimea is this. Crimea was handed over to Ukraine from the Russian Soviet Republic by Nikita Khrushchev in 1954. However ethnic Russians still make up the majority of its nearly 2 million inhabitants. It is also home to the Russian navy’s Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol, on which Russia has a lease until 2017.

Sevastopol has resonance in Russian history, from the siege by the British and French in 1854-55. There have been small demonstrations there recently calling for Crimea to be returned to Russia. Valery Podyachy, head of the Sevastopol-Crimea-Russia Popular Front, said: “While Russia sent aid to flood-hit Ukrainian regions, Ukraine failed to help Russia to force Georgia to peace, and took an openly hostile stance.”

There is the potential therefore for trouble. If Russia started to agitate on behalf of its “brothers” in Crimea and argued that it must have Sevastopol (even though it is building another base), Crimea could provide certainly a test of Russian ambitions and possibly a flashpoint.

Western worries

This fear of future Russian actions partly explains the Western worries. The British Foreign Secretary David Miliband has gone to Ukraine talking of forming “the widest possible coalition against Russian aggression in Georgia”.

Mr Miliband is positioning himself at the hawkish end of the Western response. He said in a speech in Kiev that events in Georgia had been a “rude awakening” and that a “hard-headed engagement” with Russia was needed. But he added: “The Russian President says he is not afraid of a new Cold War. We don’t want
one. He has a big responsibility not to start one.”

The US Vice President Dick Cheney is going to Georgia. Nato has met to declare that there can be no “business as usual” with Russia.

People are looking up the principles laid down by US diplomat George Kennan after World War II that called for the “containment” of an aggressive Soviet union.

The other view

There is another view, though, and this holds that while Russian intentions are not to be trusted, it cannot be wholly blamed for what happened in South Ossetia.

The former British ambassador to Yugoslavia, Sir Ivor Roberts, said: “Moscow has acted brutally in Georgia. But when the United States and Britain backed the independence of Kosovo without UN approval, they paved the way for Russia’s ‘defence’ of South Ossetia, and for the current Western humiliation.

“What is sauce for the Kosovo goose is sauce for the South Ossetian gander.”

The borders issue

Behind all this also lies the problem of European borders. During and after the Cold War, it was held (and still is) that borders, however unreasonable to the inhabitants, could not be changed without agreement.

This has given governments a veto. Serbia tried to veto the break-up of Yugoslavia. Georgia has not allowed Abkhazia and South Ossetia to secede. Ukraine holds on to Crimea etc.

The potential for a clash between the competing interests of local people and central governments is obvious.

The fear that borders may unravel also helps explain why the Russian recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia has upset Western governments so much.

Their problem, however, is that they offer no solutions to those disputes beyond best intentions and a status quo policed by peacekeepers, a status quo that can easily be upset.

3 Responses to “Testing for a new ‘Cold War’ in Crimea”

Ukraine » Poland, Ukraine dijangka kekal anjur Euro 2012 Says:

September 25, 2008 at 9:48 am
[…] Testing for a new ‘Cold War’ in CrimeaCrimea was handed over to Ukraine from the Russian Soviet Republic by Nikita Khrushchev in 1954. However ethnic Russians still make up the majority of its nearly 2 million inhabitants. It is also home to the Russian navy’s Black Sea … […]

Reply
S.Makovecky Says:

October 23, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Crimea – the second Ossetia?
Correctly or not the Russian management has decided, having “force Georgia to the world”, any more has no value. Whether there is South Ossetia and Abkhazia the separate states, whether will enter into structure of the Russian Federation, or remain with the uncertain status, also it is unimportant. The fact is the fact – the military conflict has led to loss of a part of the territory by Georgia. Also it is necessary to reflect, who can become the following victim of the similar scenario. Unlike a number of the European countries which won territories behind the seas (that has led to their further loss), Russia extended at the expense of absorption of the next territories. Such “internal colonization” not only has allowed mother country to supervise them, but also subsequently has provided preservation of considerable Russian influence after a parade of sovereignties – both in 1917-1918, and in 1990-1991. And claims on this influence only amplify recently. Including Ukraine.
Some of the Russian politicians repeatedly declared necessity of revision of the status of the Crimean peninsula. Considering, that in the Kremlin similar demarches are invariably perceived with favourable silence, it is necessary to expect, that on this line pressure upon Kiev will amplify only. It is not necessary to forget, that Crimea till 1954 was in structure of RSFSR, and for today remains for Russia the important strategic base. It concerns as military sphere – the base in Sevastopol provides the control of Black sea, and political – thanks to a manipulation with moods of the population of Crimea.
Russia renders essential moral and material support of activity of the Prorussian public and semimilitary organisations (for example, cossacks). Ostensibly at the initiative of the specified public organisations in Crimea the question of carrying out of a referendum on revision of the status of Crimea as making Ukraine is regularly brought up.
Throughout last two years reception process by the Ukrainian citizens of the Russian passports considerably became more active. It is necessary to remind, that the pretext of protection of own citizens living in Ossetia (they received the Russian citizenship in the same way, as well as inhabitants of Crimea) became the justification for war against Georgia.
Until recently hardly probable not a unique part of the population of Crimea, not captured by the Russian attention, were Crimean Tatars. However and this omission of the Kremlin is gradually corrected. And the rate becomes first of all on youth. Russia under own initiative has started to hold annual forums of the Tatar youth in Kazan which pass under the aegis of formation of national consciousness and preservation of cultural traditions of the people.
Under this plausible excuse passes systematic ideological and political processing of the Crimean-Tatar youth for the purpose of rearrangement further national consciousness in the Prorussian direction.
This work has already started to bear fruit. In the middle of September representatives of the Crimean-Tatar political organisation «Mele Firka» (“People’s party”) have addressed to the president and the prime minister of Russia, and also to the president of Tatarstan with the request to protect them from “the Ukrainian nationalist regime”.
“Mele Firka” throughout September of this year, took part in quality of the claimant in a number of proceedings on business about genocide of the radical and small people in Ukraine. This organisation accuses the Ukrainian and Crimean authorities of genocide of the Crimean Tatars, and also oppressions of representatives of other radical and small people of the Crimean peninsula.
Reaction to the reference has followed immediately. The vice-president of committee of the State Duma of the Russian Federation on affairs of compatriots Konstantin Zatulin, the known friend to the Ukrainian statehood, has promised, that Russia will understand with the specified problem. He has paid attention that from the end of reorganisation and till now the Crimean Tatars “have been engaged by the authorities of Ukraine” which considered them as convenient “leverage” of intimidation of the Russian-speaking majority on peninsula. However, Zatulin’s overall objective was Crimean-Tatar Majlis, which deputy has exposed hardly probable not a puppet of the Ukrainian authorities. This organisation really is the partner of Kiev, and Moscow tries to create for a long time the alternative centre of influence on the Crimean Tatars. So “Mele Firka”, most likely, is the provocative project which purpose is not only discredit of Kiev, but also split among Tatars.
Certainly, their relations with the Ukrainian power far are not cloudless. To recollect at least the long train of self-captures provoked by enough that Kiev and has not managed to offer intelligible model of distribution of the land. However Tatars and Ukraine as more than once happened, have appeared again in one boat. Split will be only on a hand to the further strengthening of positions of Russia, whose relation to national minorities well-known. And who knows, whether it will intend to protect again the citizens in another’s territory.
Force of any people in its unity. Only joint efforts and close cooperation with operating Ukrainian power Tatars can achieve the decision of present problems. Eventually, Ukraine itself initiated returning to territory of Crimea before the deported Tatars.
Otherwise the situation in Crimea will be modelled under the scheme already tested on Southern Caucasus. Therefore the probability of similar results as Moscow continues work in this direction is high enough also.

S.Makovecky

Reply
Praful Says:

October 23, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Hi S. Makoveky.

Thanks for you view on this issue.
and hope you will return again

Reply

Voice of Bihar