Our already stressed world did not need the emergence of a
new hotspot of tension, especially in Europe. In fact, trouble erupted before
the end of the centenary celebrations of World War I, which was largely a
European war.
The new hotspot, which developments reflected on the G20
Buenos Aires summit and forced US President Donald Trump to cancel his meeting
with Russian President Vladimir Putin, was in the Kerch Strait at the end of
Azov Sea between Russia, Ukraine and the Crimean peninsula.
Russian border guards shot at three Ukrainian ships and
detained 24 crew members. Russians have said that the ships had trespassed into
their territorial waters, a charge denied by the Ukrainians who showed relevant
maps in their defense and warned of Russia’s expansionist designs.
However, Russia’s volleys of accusations continued. It
blamed the Ukrainians for causing the crisis in order to allegedly revive
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko’s failing prospects in next year’s
elections. Thus, Russia accused Petro Poroshenko of whipping anti-Russian
sentiment in his bid to win the elections.
NATO warships
For their part, the Ukrainians have urged the NATO to send
in warships to the region and declared a state of emergency and took a set of
financial measures against Russians living in their country. Ukraine has also
stopped all Russian men, between the ages of 16 and 60 years, from entering the
country.
Meanwhile, Moscow has announced the deployment of S-400
surface-to-air missiles to northern Crimea, which it had annexed in 2014, and
said it plans to build a missile early warning radar station there. After
seizing control of the peninsula, Russia has built a 19-kilometer long bridge
linking to it.
Ukraine, which talks about economic siege and about Russian
expansionist intentions, had, after Crimea was annexed, begun building a wall
which has not been finished. It seems its high cost has prevented completing
it.
If it’s true that European military intervention is unlikely
as confirmed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, one cannot rule out the
possibility that the NATO would reinforce its military presence in the Black
Sea, especially after its Bulgarian and Romanian members in the aforementioned
region have expressed their concerns over Putin’s policies.
Pessimistic scenarios
What strengthens the most pessimistic scenarios is that the
agreement signed between Moscow and Kiev in 2003 over control of the Azov Sea
had left a lot of sensitive issues vague. After the 2014 Russian annexation of
Crimea, this ambiguity has turned into a direct source of danger, particularly
after Russia imposed its unilateral military presence in that region.
Why has this happened? Certainly, there are the complicated
historical relations between Russia and Ukraine and that witnessed some of
their most violent chapters during the Stalinist era.
Ukraine, the agriculturally rich country which was once
called “breadbasket of the Soviet Union” and whose peasants were traditionally
known for their independence and dedication to the land, suffered a major
famine because of Moscow’s policies in 1932 when they were asked to double the
quantity of wheat output. Some historians estimated the victims of this famine
to be as high as 5 million, leaving a very deep stain on Ukrainian memory
against Russians in general.
However, the historical background is a possibility but not the
only factor in play. Here we must look into the populist nationalism that is on
the rise across the globe today and which is threatening democracy on one hand
and destroying healthy international relations on another.
There is another factor that is just as important and it’s
the West’s weakness and passivity versus the obdurate policies of Russian
President Putin, who is acting like there is no impunity when it comes to his
intentions and concerns related to Russia’s military force.
Would “this war continue for as long as the current
Ukrainian authorities remain in power,” as Putin has stated? Are we going to
have a new flashpoint that could be triggered by a vested interest?