THE "BATTLE FOR UKRAINE" CONTINUES

The Ukrainian crisis is deepening. In the meantime, Russia and the West, facing each other in the "battle" for the Eastern European country, in fact decide the geopolitical fate of the entire post-Soviet space. In this context, Kiev's Euromaidan is going to have crucial repercussions, and not only for Ukraine.

The adoption of the declaration of independence by the Supreme Council of Crimea, followed by a referendum held on the peninsula and Moscow's decision to incorporate Crimea and Sevastopol into Russia as subjects of the federation, have clearly become momentous events in the post-Soviet and world geopolitics. Virtually playing double or quits, the Kremlin has sacrificed the "friendship and brotherhood" with Ukraine and established its control over the most pro-Russian part of the country.

The Western powers patronising Kiev have been unable to actually defend the territorial integrity of Ukraine and allowed it to suffer the fate of Georgia which de-facto lost Abkhazia and South Ossetia more than five years ago. The United States and the European Union respond to Russia's military activity only by the imposition of sanctions against a number of Russian officials and the adoption of specific measures aimed at curtailing the strategic cooperation between Moscow and the West. For the latter, the main thing is to prevent the implementation of the Eurasian integration promoted by the Kremlin and to secure the interests of Euro-Atlanticism on the territory of the former USSR. In this respect, it is strategically important for the US and the EU to gain a foothold on the major part, if not the whole of Ukraine. No wonder that the new Ukrainian authorities guided by the will of the West agreed to sign the political part of the Association Agreement with the EU without waiting for the presidential elections scheduled for 25 May and at least relative stabilisation of the political and economic situation in the country.

The "Battle for Ukraine" - which is crucial in the context of the struggle between the global centres of power for dominance in the post-Soviet space - introduces the international community to the second version of the "Cold War." It is already difficult to imagine how the United States and Russia will be able, at least in the near future, to return their bilateral relations to the level of strategic partnership. Yet, just a few years ago such relations were ostensibly not threatened by any U-turn. But times change and now US President Barack Obama, despite the recently proclaimed course towards "resetting" relations with Russia, has decided to suspend military and trade cooperation with it.

The West's position on the issue of future relations with Russia was clearly demonstrated at a meeting of the leaders of the seven leading countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States) and the European Union which took place in The Hague, on the sidelines of the summit on nuclear security. Having refused to cooperate with Moscow in G-8 format, they condemned the "illegal referendum held in Crimea in violation of Ukraine's Constitution" and "Russia's illegal attempt to annex Crimea in contravention of international law." In addition, the Western leaders declared their readiness to "intensify actions including coordinated sectoral sanctions that will have an increasingly significant impact on the Russian economy, if Russia continues to escalate this situation."

In the context of the Ukraine crisis, a meeting between Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ukrainian Acting Foreign Minister Andriy Deschytsya was perhaps the only encouraging event at the Hague summit. However, the meeting failed to bring about any real positive results. The Russian side insisted that the "reforms in Ukraine should take into account the specifics of its various regions" and had not shown any desire to change its position on Crimea. Meanwhile, Deschytsya was displeased with the fact that "nothing new" was said during the meeting and he only heard "old rhetoric" from Lavrov.

The attitude of the great powers to the situation in Ukraine and to the separation of Crimea and its subsequent incorporation into Russia confirms that all of the external forces involved in the Ukraine crisis to various degrees only pursue their own interests. For example, in caring for the rights of ethnic Russians in Ukraine, Russia actually acted as an instigator of the Crimean referendum and continues to use separatist sentiments in the south-east of the country as a factor in maintaining its influence.

The West has no less passion for double standards. The US and EU verbally defend the territorial integrity of Ukraine with zeal and condemn the Kremlin's attempts to violate its sovereignty. The White House has categorically opposed the Crimean referendum which violates the Constitution of Ukraine and international law. "We believe that Crimea is part of Ukraine. And we support the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Any referendum should be held in accordance with Ukrainian legislation, which requires that all Ukrainians, the entire territory of Ukraine, all parts of the country should participate in a referendum of this kind," US Secretary of State John Kerry said.

In this regard, it is surprising that the United States, which defends the territorial integrity of Ukraine, does not exhibit a similar principled approach to resolve the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. For more than 20 years Azerbaijan has been the target of aggression by neighbouring Armenia, which captured a fifth of the Azerbaijani territory. However, the great powers - including the United States, Russia and others - do not even think about demanding the immediate withdrawal of Armenian armed forces from the internationally recognised territory of Azerbaijan and do not put pressure on Yerevan through various sanctions and isolation on the international scene. As soon as Russia has just conceded the possibility of a military invasion of the south-eastern part of Ukrainian, the entire West immediately declared it an aggressor. However, Armenia which has committed real aggression against Azerbaijan has for some reasons not been subjected to equally strong condemnation from the United States and the European Union.

The US leadership recognises that the holding of a referendum on the status of a particular region of the country only within that region rather than throughout the country is completely contrary to international law. Therefore, the United States as well as the entire West has not accepted the results of the referendum in Crimea, which is part of the internationally recognised territory of Ukraine, and noted the legitimacy of the expression of popular will on Ukraine's future throughout the state. Then why do the cochairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, including the US and France, lack resolve in suppressing the requirements of the Armenian side to hold a referendum on the status of [Azerbaijan's breakaway region of] Nagornyy Karabakh on the territory of NK alone, which undermines the peaceful process of the Karabakh settlement? After all, international law and the Constitution of Azerbaijan (similar to the Basic Law of Ukraine, as well as any other country) provide for such a referendum to be held exclusively throughout the country.

All these inconsistencies only indicate the need to put an end to double standards and to solve urgent problems of modern world order in strict accordance with international law because any other way is associated with never-ending instability, ethnic wars and strife.