ANOTHER CRIMEAN WAR?

On the first day of spring newscasts exploded with breaking news that Russian President Vladimir Putin submitted a proposal to the Federation Council [the upper house of parliament] on the use of armed forces of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine until the normalisation of the political situation in that country, and the upper house, of course, unanimously granted that request. Earlier, Crimean Prime Minister Sergei Aksenov, appointed by the Supreme Council of Crimea, addressed the head of the Kremlin with the same request.

Just a few days before that, the main events in Ukraine have shifted, quite predictably, from Kiev to Crimea. The developments on the peninsula, where ethnic Russians constitute more than a half of its population and the naval base in Sevastopol is leased out by Russia until 2042, have brought the Ukrainian revolution to a new level.

On the morning of 27 February, the administrative buildings in Crimea were seized by armed representatives of "self-defence forces of Russian-speaking citizens of Crimea" and the Russian flags were raised above the parliament and the government buildings. In Simferopol, representatives of the Tatar community tried to storm the building of the Supreme Council of Crimea, but the police and supporters of the peninsula's integration into Russia did not allow them to come to the building.

The Presidium of the Crimean Parliament declared that the "power in the country was unconstitutionally seized by radical nationalists supported by armed gangs," and in the circumstances where "Ukraine is sliding into total chaos, anarchy and economic disaster," the "Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea ... assumes the full responsibility for the fate of Crimea." It was suggested that an all-Crimean referendum on the status of the region be held. During all this time, Russian troops carried out a full-scale exercise near the border with Ukraine.

Moscow has repeatedly stressed that the authorisation to deploy troops granted by the Federation Council does not mean the immediate realisation of this right; however, the reaction of the West to Russia's intentions was quite serious, as should have been expected. The North Atlantic Alliance spoke of the threat to peace in the whole of Europe. US President Barack Obama warned that Russia could expect economic and political isolation, even a greater crash of the rouble, and the ban on travel to the United States, even for ordinary Russians. The G7 countries - the USA, Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Canada, and Japan - have frozen preparations for the G8 summit to be held in Sochi and condemned Russia's actions. Earlier, the Russian side accused the West at different levels of aggravation of the crisis, encouragement of extremism and illegal change of the regime.

Against this background, it is interesting to observe the behaviour of another major international player, China. People's Daily, a leading newspaper of the "Celestial Empire," said that Washington was stuck in the "ideology of the Cold War." One should not forget that China has economic interests in Ukraine: China is one of the four states that have bought up Ukraine's Eurobonds (the majority of which is held by the United States), and earlier Beijing provided a loan of 3bn dollars for the supply of grain from Ukraine.

What is Russia after? What does Vladimir Putin, who has finally broken his "reserved silence" that had surprised Viktor Yanukovych so much, want to say by his decision? According to Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Karasin, "Russia does not question the sovereignty of Ukraine and does not want to wage a war." Furthermore, in a telephone conversation with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the Russian President reportedly agreed to establish a group under the auspices of the OSCE to investigate the situation in Crimea. On the other hand, at the time of preparing this material for printing, reports were coming in which indirectly indicated that a military scenario of development of the situation in Ukraine was still possible.

At this point, unfortunately, only one thing can be said for sure - nobody would have heart these days to call Ukraine an independent state which is in full control of the domestic situation.

First, it should be acknowledged that Ukraine is not on the verge of economic and financial disaster any more - the country has gone beyond it a long time ago. The exact amount of the external debt is difficult to estimate, but it is clear that the figure is in the range of tens of billions of dollars. In such a situation, Ukraine would have to seek the assistance of the IMF, which, in exchange for a "lifeline," usually sets very stringent requirements that completely reshape the entire "social sphere" - from pensions to prices for public transport tickets. Newly appointed Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk has already stated that the government is ready to adopt unpopular measures in order to obtain a loan and called the Cabinet members a "team of kamikaze" in advance. However, neither the IMF nor the EU nor anyone else have so far decided on the amount of aid and its conditions, whereas the United States pledged 1bn dollars and sent a group of experts for consultations. Thus, being head over ears in debt, Ukraine is going to borrow on enslaving terms a few tens of billions of dollars more. Of course, the country can hardly survive without outside assistance, but the notorious saying "he who pays the piper calls the tune" acquires a very nasty meaning in this context.

As a result, it begs the question: what has the revolution been organised for in Ukraine - for the people to live better or for somebody's music to play?

This raises another question: who have actually been rallying on the Maidan [Independence Square]? According to the current Ukrainian leaders, these were, and still are, mostly young people. However, where and in what capacity do these people work or study that they can afford to live in the centre of Kiev for a few weeks and, consequently, be absent from their workplace or place of study? Another interesting question, were there miners on the Maidan? How many teachers or, say, drivers of heavy vehicles, bakers, electricians were on the Maidan? How many dairy women and agronomists, i.e. representatives of the peasantry, were on the Maidan? It seems that we have witnessed a truly historic event - sort of a new form of popular revolution, when a certain number of people are delegated to the barricades, while others continue to engage in daily routine and do their job.

It may be that this process is not yet over though. At times, the developments in Ukraine strongly remind of the events in Russia in 1917. Likewise, the revolution took place in February, the Provisional Government does look short-lived, and the Treasury is empty too... It is difficult to predict how long would it take in such circumstances for people to begin expressing their dissatisfaction with the current situation and, in the worst case, would there be a military intervention led by Russia or NATO? Following the clashes in downtown Kiev that left about 100 people dead and several hundreds injured, one starts to consider any scenario.

Now the power in Ukraine is completely decentralised and the country has plunged into anarchy, when the city councils in many municipalities, especially in the south-eastern regions, live their own lives - now taking the side of the new government sitting in Kiev, now swearing allegiance to the unknown "New Ukraine" or "Crimea," now appealing to Russia for help, and now advocating the independence of certain regions from Kiev.

Indeed, to say that there is duality of power in Ukraine is to flatter Viktor Yanukovych, who "materialised" in [the Russian city of] Rostov-on-Don, and whose press conference caused nothing but laughter through tears. The ousted president, of course, made every effort to demonstrate his legitimacy. However, it did not look like nobody believed him; rather, it looked like he could not draw anybody's attention. What looks certain though is that hardly anyone would risk creating "appropriate conditions" for him to return to Kiev. According to Prime Minister of Russia Dmitry Medvedev, the authority of Viktor Yanukovych is "virtually worthless." In the opinion of Medvedev, if Yanukovych is guilty before Ukraine, then the impeachment procedure should be invoked and legal proceedings should be held, as provided by the Ukrainian legislation. Thus, it looks like Yanukovych will not be moving from Rostov-on-Don to The Hague any soon.

At the moment, the Batkivshchyna [Fatherland] party and the Right Sector have become the leading political forces in Ukraine. Oleksandr Turchynov, the closest ally of Tymoshenko, has been appointed the Acting President and Speaker of Parliament; party leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk is now the Prime Minister; Arsen Avakov, her closest ally, is in charge of the Interior Ministry. It is clear that Tymoshenko as a "gray cardinal" does not want to be in the epicentre of political events. Her initial plan likely consisted in waiting until the "team of kamikaze" would perish in the waves of popular anger, at which point she would emerge in all glory with the first signs of recovery. According to expert Edward Lucas of The Daily Mail, Tymoshenko, who believes in horoscopes and psychics, "considers herself the reincarnation of Evita Peron" and envies the laurels of Margaret Thatcher as she badly wants to try on the role of the "Iron Lady" and "saviour of the nation."

Will the "Lady with a Scythe" be able to implement such a scenario? In their statement posted on the social networks, Right Sector representatives said they were standing on the Maidan not in support of Tymoshenko and "not in support of Turchynov, Yatsenyuk or Klitschko," and advised the former Prime Minister to recuperate her health somewhere in Carlsbad, staying away from politics for the next five years. What about the Udar [Punch] party led by Vitali Klitschko? The most ardent challenger of Viktor Yanukovych's regime has noticeably lost his vigour at some point. It seems that Udar members are intentionally being kept clear of the "team of kamikaze" in the capacity of Maidan heroes with ostensibly clean reputation. According to other reports, Klitschko is going to run for presidency on 25 May.

What is most disturbing in this situation is the fact that it is not clear whose orders the Ukrainian armed forces are prepared to carry out, as instances of desertion and resignation have apparently become widespread in some regions. It is reported that military units without insignia operate in certain parts of the country, which are called now "self-defence forces" and now Russian paratroopers that had allegedly been deployed on the territory of Ukraine. These units are blocking various facilities on the peninsula, both civilian and military. While acting Foreign Minister of Ukraine Andriy Deshchytsia has admitted the possibility of withdrawal of Russia's Black Sea Fleet from Crimea, there are rumours "about the establishment of the Crimean Navy."

Kiev declared a general mobilization and acting President Oleksandr Turchynov put the Ukrainian armed forces on full combat alert. The disarray in the current leadership of Ukraine is evidenced by the fact that, on the one hand, there are calls to keep the situation peaceful by all means or appeal to the NATO forces for help, and on the other, for example, Dmitry Jaros, one of the leaders of Ukrainian nationalists, asked for help from international terrorist [leader of the Caucasus jihadists] Doku Umarov.

The intensity of emotions is reflected in the calls for the restoration of Ukraine's nuclear status, which Kiev can supposedly accomplish within three to six months. It should be noted that the memorandum on non-nuclear status of Ukraine was signed between Ukraine, the United States, Russia and Great Britain in Budapest in 1994. The parties pledged to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine as well as to refrain from economic pressure.

One thing is clear: whatever the situation in Ukraine, the world will never be the same after this crisis. In 70 years after the creation of the United Nations and in 25 years after the end of the Cold War, it has become clear more than ever that the international security system needs urgent revision.

After all, whatever documents, international guarantees and conventions are in place, double standards are still thriving in the world, methods of economic pressure are still being used, resolutions are often not carried out, agreements are violated, while such processes as globalisation and multiculturalism sometimes leave a bitter taste and involve the revival of radical sentiments to such an extent that the positions of the prosperous middle class and disadvantaged migrants from poor countries begin to converge against all odds. Unfortunately, we cannot but acknowledge that the Machiavellian formulas of power and the ideas of hard realism to the effect that each state only ensures its own interests still apply. Meanwhile, the powers of the state are mainly ensured by strong control over the economy, a viable ideology and a strong army. If the political and business elite lose the ability to control the economy, ideology, and the army, the country turns into a bargaining chip.

It is a pity that another act of sobering of the mankind should have befallen Ukraine - a peaceful, beautiful and multi-ethnic country with a rich culture and history, which has already experienced such a terrible catastrophe as the Chernobyl accident. Now Ukraine and all of us are experiencing peculiar geopolitical Chernobyl. The world is changing and, as always happens in such moments, it is fascinatingly scary. Almost as much as a nuclear explosion.