BREAK-UP OF RUSSIA OR DECLINE OF USA?

The situation in Crimea remains extremely alarming. And, perhaps, not so much for the Crimeans themselves who can see everything with their own eyes, as for those who have to rely on controversial media reports and "sensational" materials in social networks and blogs. Tensions have multiplied since the Crimean parliament's fundamental decision became known for the autonomous republic to join Russia as its federal entity. This decision is to be endorsed by a referendum on 16 March. 

Russian officials said they would support the results of a Crimean referendum. All factions of the Russian State Duma also backed the referendum. 

The USA has refused in advance to recognize the legitimacy of the Crimean population's expression of will. Officials in Washington and a number of European capitals are convinced that the military servicemen without insignia who are now in Crimea are Russian soldiers and thus part of Ukraine has been occupied by a foreign state. The USA accuses Russia of "encroachment" on Ukraine's sovereignty. According to the White House, Moscow is on "the wrong side of history". 

Kiev also refuses to recognize Crimea's referendum. 

"The Crimean parliament's decision to joint Russia is entirely at variance with the Ukrainian constitution and therefore has no legal force from the point of view of Ukrainian legislation. First the Crimean parliament illegitimately appointed head of its council of ministers and then likewise passed the anti-constitutional decision to hold a referendum on 30 March, then rescheduled it to 16 March and now they have declared accession to the Russian Federation. There are no instruments in Ukrainian legislation for adopting this kind of decisions. It is quite clear that after the UN Security Council received the real information on the processes going on in Crimea, after a special UN representative was kidnapped and later released in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, this international organization will not side with Russia. The USA and the United Kingdom have voiced readiness to provide Ukraine with political protection and economic support. After OSCE representatives were not allowed to enter Crimea, this organization will also take a tough stance against the Russian president. China was allegedly Putin's ally but, speaking at a UN session, China's representative said that Beijing supports territorial integrity and non-interference in Ukraine's affairs. In fact, Moscow has been left alone," political scientist Dmytro Tymchuk said explaining Kiev's point of view in an interview with R+. 

To make its case, Russia is referring to requests for interference from Crimeans themselves.  

It is clear that the Russians will not wage war against the Ukrainians. There may be some local skirmishes but there will be no war the way it is perceived by many people. At least because it is an impossible task in some cases to tell a Ukrainian from a Russian. Many military servicemen have relatives and friends on both sides of the border and they do not think that "abroad" really means abroad. Meanwhile bringing NATO troops to Ukraine is also regarded by most politicians and experts as an unrealistic scenario. Yet no-one is ruling out the possibility of escalation as "certain provocations" are permanently being discussed as possible although without evidence to specify the side to blame. 

In the meantime, active discussions are under way on how far the West is ready to go in the issue of sanctions, how effectively Russia can respond and who will be hit worst of all as the result of all that. One can hear absolutely discrepant opinions and it is unclear whether the world is witnessing the start of the collapse of Russia or the decline of the US power… NATO is revising the "entire spectrum" of its cooperation with Russia. It is not even about suspending their joint mission to destroy Syria's chemical weapons. The alliance's Secretary General Rasmussen has announced NATO intensifying its interaction with Ukraine's new authorities both civilian and military, planning to expand cooperation with Poland and the Baltic states. Pentagon is going to increase the number of its fighters involved in NATO's mission to protect the Baltic states' air space. Judging by a series of media reports, at least two US warships have entered the Black Sea water area. Incidentally, on 5 March, the Motherland party's lawmakers in the Supreme Council of Ukraine came up with a draft law supporting Ukraine's accession to NATO. The Russian Foreign Ministry described the decisions as a "biased and tendentious approach in analysing the causes and consequences of the events in Ukraine".

A second front of this struggle is in a more realistic and sensitive sphere - that of economics and finance. Russian indices are reeling against the background of the developments in Crimea. The real effective rate of the rouble declined by 3.5 per cent in February thus losing more in one month than throughout last year. Obama ordered freezing the assets of Russian and Ukrainian citizens who, in Washington's opinion, have a hand in destabilizing the situation in Ukraine and in particular in Crimea. In response, the Council of Federation is drafting a law for confiscating the property, assets and bank accounts of European and US companies in case sanctions are applied to Russia. As regards Kiev, gas prices will be raised as from April. Meanwhile Ukraine's debt to Russia is already 2bn dollars. In this context, John Boehner, the speaker of the House of Representatives, suggests in his article published in The Wall Street Journal that the USA should "counter Putin by liberating US natural gas". According to the Guardian, "The only measures Mr Putin is likely to view seriously will target Russia's economy and its energy exports, which are the source of much of the Russian leader's political credibility".

Meanwhile there is no definite answer to the question about Russia's real goals. Everyone can see how past actions by the West in the Middle East (mainly US actions bypassing the UN Security Council) have turned against Washington and the European capitals today, at least through the Russian president's words. Is Russia not exposing itself to the same risks? Is Russia driven by the desire to protect the Russian population of Crimea or to right the historic "wrong" of 1954? If Moscow, as it became clear from Vladimir Putin's words, does support the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, how can it simultaneously back Crimea's referendum which may endorse the separation of the peninsula? 

Is Russia ready to take on the care of one more subsidised region, especially in view of the country's current economic situation? Or maybe Russia would gain more from having Crimea under its control but as a constituent part of Ukraine? It is clear enough that after Kiev's rapprochement with the EU, the issue could well arise of the Black Sea Fleet's further stay in Crimea or even the appearance of NATO bases in Ukraine. This is a much more serious thing than the issue of US missile defence in eastern Europe over which so many lances were once broken. Moscow rightly considers these steps as a threat to its national security. Meanwhile the situation in Crimea may well be procrastinated while, according to the charters of NATO and the EU, states having territorial conflicts in their portfolio may not join these organizations. 

The western states' stance on Ukraine is not so monolithic as it might seem at first glance. Not all of them agree that tough measures are needed. There are differences both between the USA and Europe and within the European Union itself. Perhaps this is due to the absence of a coordinated European policy which has become especially evident right now. Especially interesting in this respect is the behaviour of the EU's most influential and richest country - Germany. Angela Merkel complained about Vladimir Putin being "out of touch with reality", nonetheless Berlin's position is not all that clear. Some comments in the German press are of a nature almost loyal to Russia's position. The latest report of the European Commission and earlier criticism of the USA say that German exports to EU countries is the cause why there is no economic growth in Europe. It would be an unaffordable luxury for Germany now to lose the Russian market as well. To be precise, not just for Germany but for the entire EU. 

Against this background, the haunting question is: how much does the West need Ukraine? Marine Le Pen, the France's far-right leader who came third at the latest presidential polls, has blamed what is going on in Ukraine on Brussels which "made part of Ukraine believe that Ukraine may join the European Union which is absolutely untrue". On the other hand, the crisis in Ukraine has once again demonstrated it to the Europeans that even the strongest of them are now militarily dependent on NATO and therefore on the USA. Meanwhile some Republicans in the USA "envy Putin" and blame Obama for failures with the Russians. 

Meanwhile Ukraine continues to teeter on the brink of economic collapse. The EU has announced readiness to allocate 11bn euros in financial aid for Ukraine over the next two years although earlier the Ukrainian Finance Ministry estimated the volume of macro-financial aid needed for the country at 35bn dollars in the next two years. 

It is already known that a set of measures is to be taken that will badly hit the social sphere and the living standards of the population. It is not clear why common people's living standards should be sliding even lower than under Yanukovych now that so-called oligarchs have again landed in gubernatorial posts. Are they ready to invest their multi-billion fortunes in the development of their respective regions? 

"In my opinion, the fact that Ukraine's current leadership is supported by the West does not make it more efficient than the previous one. Problems of economic development and corruption that triggered off the clashes in Ukraine have not been removed from the agenda," said Moldovan political scientist Nikolay Tsvetkov. In Tsvetkov's opinion that he shared with R+, the situation is complicated by the fact that a rupture has occurred in the legitimacy of authority. 

In addition, the current Ukrainian government has been badly discredited by an intercepted phone call between EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Catherine Ashton and Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet that transpired on 5 March. During the conversation between the two diplomats, the version was voiced that some representatives of the "new coalition" could have been involved in the killings in Kiev. Apropos, the new Interior Minister of Ukraine Arsen Avakov earlier said that some "third force" had been involved in the armed confrontation in Kiev. 

There is still no outcome in sight in the Ukraine situation. But the approach of Crimea's referendum will bring into sight the next stage of this crisis. In any event, its decision will be a crucial point after which replies will become clear at least to some of the question voiced above.