What is your evaluation of the ongoing situation in your country? And what about the foreseeable developments? Is a real armed conflict between Ukraine and Russia possible?
On the one hand, the country has gradually stabilized after removal of the Yanukovych regime that can be described as a regime of kleptocracy, corruption and crime. Society prepares for presidential elections on May, 25. On the other hand, feeling of the war came to life of the Ukrainians, after the beginning of intervention on the Crimean peninsula of Ukraine in late February. Unfortunately, the military scenario cannot be excluded. Putin's Russia is committed to this particularly rejecting diplomacy. A year ago yet at a conference in Warsaw, I called his policy towards Ukraine as Anschluss similar to Hitler's policies in respect to Austria in 1938
As to Crimea, it seems that the majority of the local population be in favour of Crimea’s independence, if not of joining Russia. Is the situation really this way? Is it conceivable a compromising solution respecting all rights, the one of Ukraine to freedom and to territorial integrity and the right of the Russian-speaking people to self-determination?
The situation in the Crimea cannot be conceived only in terms of relations between the Ukrainians and Russians. Crimea is the only region of Ukraine, where the Russians actually make up the majority of the population. Its ethnic composition is following:Russians - 58 %, Ukrainians - 24 %, Crimean Tatars - 12%. However, first of all Crimea is a land of indigenous Turkic Crimean Tatars ethnos. The сensus of population in Crimea in 1897 recorded a relative majority of the indigenous ethnic group - 35.6%, while 33.1 % were Russians. The current ethnic composition of the population is aresult of Stalin's deportation of the Crimean Tatars in 1944 and settlement the Russians on the peninsula after the Second World War. These figures are important to understand that region cannot be considered only in the light of the interests of the Russian majority on peninsula. Russians are their own state. It's called the Russian Federation. Crimean Tatars have no other land, except the Crimea, and the possibility to return to their motherland they received only when Ukraine became an independent state after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Namely being the part of Ukraine Crimea received constitutional recognition of its autonomous status, but Crimeacannot be regarded as "Russian autonomy" of Ukraine. Crimean Tatars did not see themselves as part of Russia, a country that destroyed their four centuries state in the XVIII century having occupied the Crimea, and completely deported them from their native land in the XX century. Ukraine is the guarantor of the rights of the Crimean Tatars. This is one of the most important reasons why Ukraine cannot agree on the "return of the Crimea" to Russia.
How is the stance of the Russian speaking population in the Eastern and Odessa regions? There is the same risk of a request of secession as in Crimea.
The so-called "request for separation" is instigated from outside, exactly by Russia. This is an element of Anschluss scenario for Ukraine, implemented by Putin regime. The issue is not just that Putin is insulted that the people of Ukraine depose the similar by its nature kleptocratic regime of Yanukovych. The problem is that Putin does not accept Ukraine as an independent state. He believes that Ukraine is a part of Russia, which in accordance to his definition temporarily, as a result of the largest of "geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century - the collapse of the USSR," accidentally fell beyond. It should be recalled, that at the NATO summit in Bucharest in 2008, Putin said emotionally to U.S. president George W. Bush that Ukraine is "not a state at all." Perhaps Putin belives that now time is ripe for liquidating the consequences of the “geopolitical catastrophe”, that is return of Ukraine to the composition of the neoUSSR, named the Eurasian Union. Now he chooses the way of fragmentation of Ukraine with the further adherence of its parts: of Crimea, of the South and the East immediate to Russia, and on the rest of the territory a marionette state have to be created with the loyal to Kremlin regime.
What kind of actions do you expect from Europe? And from the United States?
We are grateful to the U.S. and Europe for solidarity and political support to the people of Ukraine during its fight with Yanukovych’s camarilla. This assistance was very important, because on the EuroMaidanthe Ukrainians defended European values, which politics in Brussels, Rome and other European capitals like to talk about. Ordinary Italians have been in this struggle on the side of Ukrainians. In Kiev, the people with words of gratitude to Italians watched reports from Milan, Rome and other Italian cities, when the actions in the support of EuroMaidan were held there. Now when the Ukrainians won Yanukovych dictatorship, they faced the Russian aggression. Ukraine needs economic, financial and military assistance. Forces are unequal. And the question is not only in our Ukrainian problems. Putin's policy became a challenge for all Europe, regarding violations of the fundamental principles of the Helsinki Final Act on Security in Europe 1975. One country violates the territorial integrity of the other, trying to annex part of its territory, to change its boundaries. If Europe does not stopthis Russian rally, it comes down to the La Manche, realizing the dream of the Soviet marshals of 1945. If the international community close eye on Russia's actions, it may introduce troops to the EU Member States and NATO under the pretext of protecting ethnic Russians, for example, in Estonia and Latvia. Now it is still possible to counteract Russia with non-military force, but time is running out for a few days. The EU has a unique opportunity to use the increased Russian dependence on the European market as part of the pressure on Moscow in response to its actions. The EU, together with the United States must accomplish a special operation of enforcing the Kremlin to the rules of civilized behavior. As you can see by the example of Iran, it can exert influence. The EU should not ignore anddisregard the aggressive actions of Russia. Politics of the West in Chamberlain and Daladier style of 1938 can only lead to bloodshed and further war in Europe.
The Ukraine economy seems to be in a very bad state. In what form and where from could a possible aid come?
Yes, Yanukovich’s camarilla has left an heritage of plundered state. Not only financial assistance of the EU is necessary, which some member states are already inclined to provide, but also the real not imitative reforms. In addition, the government relies upon the restart of cooperation with the IFM. However, no one will do reforms except the Ukrainians themselves.
A big deal of the Russian gas arrives to Europe through the lines crossing Ukraine, the other lot is coming directly from Russia to Germany through the Nord Stream. Is this an obstacle to a sharp counteraction by the EU and particularly by Germany? What are the countries you are more relying upon for support?
Undoubtedly, the Russian gas is a lever of Moscow’s influence on the leading EU countries, especially on Germany. Its key role in the EU is obvious. Germany's role in the events around Ukraine is rather ambiguous. On the one hand, Berlin supports the territorial integrity of Ukraine and acts against the Russian invasion of the Crimea. On the other hand,it wants at all costs to maintain relations with Russia as if nothing had happened.This is the fundamental contradiction of German politics that is decisive for Berlin: European values or commercial interests of German companies in the East. Moreover, certainly first we are talking about the gas business. Once Europe will be terrified when it finds out what a corrupt gas octopus from the East has embraced it. So now comes a decisive moment for Europe – whether it can overcome gas dependence on Russia using Russian financial dependence on Europe? One can use the fact that over 70% of Russian gas exports is bound to the EU. The reserves of gas in underground storage facilities are on the territory of the EU, so the first massive large study “A week in the EU without Russian gas” can be carried out to verify the security of gas supply and warn the Kremlin about shift to the policy of minimizing gas purchases in Russia.87% of Russian oil exports is bound to Europe. The EU has a 90-days reserve of oil. Therefore, we can deliver training "A month in the EU without Russian oil."Europe should give up the politically motivated and economically dubious megaprojects of "South Stream" pipeline and the 3rd and 4th branches of "Nord Stream". Russian companies have brought to the epicenter of the study their activity in the EU market for compliance with the EU legislation.
EU must act outside the box, it must learn to do it. Otherwise, it is in for a dissolution as formation, which was not able to withstand the challenges of the present and the aggressive policies of the neighboring Eastern tyranny that arose in Europe in the cost of payments for Russian hydrocarbons.
Original: Ilsussidiario
Mykhailo Gonchar
Expert with 27 years of combined experience in fields of national and international security, energy policy and hydrocarbons.
Actual positions: President of the Centre for Global Studies “Strategy XXI” (Kiev), Director on Energy Programs of the NOMOS Center (Sevastopol).
Previous positions were Deputy Chairman of the Board of national pipelines operator “UkrTransNafta”, Advisor to the Secretary of National Security and Defense Council, Senior Fellow of the National Institute for Strategic Studies.
M.Gonchar is author of number of monographs and articles, whichhave been published in Ukraine, Poland, Slovakia, UK, Germany, Finland, Azerbaijan, Turkey and others.
