BATTLEFIELD UKRAINE

The main geopolitical events of the past year occurred in Ukraine where, back at the end of the previous year, the Eastern Partnership summit, at which Kiev failed to sign an Association Agreement with the EU, and the subsequent EuroMaidan predetermined the next 12 months not only in Ukraine itself but also in the international arena in general.

Irreversible changes

Now, the events of a year ago in Kiev remind one of scenes from a horror film. When the protests in Independence Square grew into fierce battles with the police and security forces and there was bloodshed, it became clear that Ukraine could once again expect irreversible changes. At the end of February President Viktor Yanukovych fled the country and power was transferred to the provisional government which, on 21 March, signed the political part of the Association Agreement with the EU. The new head of state was elected on 25 May - a figure who suited everyone, Petro Poroshenko. However, the main events at the time were no longer developing in Kiev.

Following a referendum organized with Russia's support the Crimean Peninsula transferred from Ukraine to the Russian Federation, causing a wave of condemnation in the West. The map of Europe was again redrawn contrary to international law. However, generally speaking, for an event of such nature everything passed relatively calmly, which could mean one of two things - either the West was prepared for such a turn of events, or Crimea had to be "sacrificed" for the sake of other objectives. Whichever way it was, the US and the European Union intervened on behalf of Ukraine's territorial integrity only by imposing sanctions against Russia. It is true that in the course of the year punitive economic measures against Moscow escalated as a real war began to develop in south-east Ukraine. Fighting with the use of heavy weapons and aircraft began after separatist moods strengthened in these regions and the breakaway Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics were created.

According to the UN, by mid-December as a result of the conflict in eastern Ukraine, 4,700 people had been killed and 10,300 injured, with many civilians among the casualties, including women and children. Much of the infrastructure and many houses were destroyed and the humanitarian situation was a complex one. The plan for a peace settlement agreed by the contact group during their meeting in Minsk in September was violated so often that it ended with more victims and destruction.

In July the tension around Ukraine increased following the crash of the Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 which was flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur. The plane came down 50 km from Donetsk, killing 298 people. The airliner was apparently shot down by a missile but who was responsible remains a mystery. The Western countries, suspecting that it was the military on the side of the DPR and the LPR who shot down the plane, stepped up their sanctions against Russia. Moscow and the breakaway republics, on the other hand, blamed official Kiev.

As a result of numerous measures of restraint, as well as the crumbling oil prices in September, the Russian economy found itself in an extremely difficult position by the end of 2014.  Russian companies and banks came under Western sanctions and military cooperation was halted, as was the exchange of technology in the oil-and-gas, space and other spheres. The first month of winter was a really "black" one for the Russian rouble which halved in value in that time. Prices hiked straightaway in the country, there was consumer panic among the population, unemployment increased and there were delays in paying wages. Besides this, Russia found itself in political isolation - it was excluded from the G8 format and Russian President Vladimir Putin was given a frosty reception at the G20 summit in Australia. All this virtually reduced to zero the positive image on which Russia had spent such huge sums of money when organizing the 2014 Olympics in Sochi. The economic crisis is also having an adverse impact on the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), which comes into effect on 1 January 2015. The fall in the rouble seriously worried even one of the Kremlin's most loyal supporters - Belarus - and doubts were also heard from Kyrgyzstan, which is preparing to join the EAEU. Nor could the Russian crisis fail to affect the millions of guest workers who mainly come to Russia from Central Asia.

By way of a retaliatory measure to the actions of the West, the Russian government imposed a ban in August on the import of meat and fruit and vegetables from many European countries, rejected the South Stream gas pipeline project and demonstrably turned east, concluding major contracts worth billions of dollars on supplies of hydrocarbons to China and India, as well as Turkey. Whether mutual economic interests will overcome geopolitical differences in this instance remains one of the key aspects of the coming year. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian crisis is a long way from a solution, and the negotiators gathering in Minsk look like characters from a puppet theatre because it is still by no means clear who the parties in the conflict are and what caused it. 

The parties in the conflict

So, having said all that, whom do we regard as the parties in the conflict? Is it the Ukrainian population in the central and western regions, on the one hand, and those living in the south-east? Are the civilians really so hostile towards one another? Many people in Kiev have been living a normal life all summer and have not even noticed the fighting. So the parties in the conflict must be, on the one hand, the Ukrainian military, and on the other, the "separatist rebels"? Or would it be more honest to say the parties in the conflict are Russia, on the one hand, and the USA and Europe on the other?  Or maybe just Russia and the US? Or, perhaps, it's a game of all against all? Considering the problems within Europe and between Brussels and Washington, and also how "neighbourly" the statements by Moscow and Minsk can be, one gets precisely that feeling. Not to mention the fact that according to a number of expert opinions, the Arab oil-and-gas monarchies, who are not exactly over the moon about the full-scale development of the shale fields of oil and gas in the US, have decided to take advantage of the geopolitical struggle between Russia and the US.

The fact that the western sanctions against Russia, of course, seriously weaken Moscow but do not help Kiev also shows that the Ukrainian crisis is a classic case of "taking the rap for someone else". Ukraine embarked on the New Year not just with a new parliament, in which the pro-West majority consolidated its positions, and with a fairly unique cabinet of ministers where three foreigners found themselves a job, but also with a heap of growing problems which no-one has yet been able to resolve.

As far as Russia is concerned, the western media was suddenly full of opinions that Russia should no longer be confused with the once completely isolated USSR, and its economic disaster could create a lot of problems, even in the EU (National Interest: "A geopolitical nightmare. No happy endings if Russia melts down"; The Financial Times: "From inside Putin's parallel universe, the crisis looks bright").

Causes of the conflict

As we can see, an analysis of the Ukrainian crisis in terms of internal causes does not stand up to criticism, and so it should be looked at in much broader terms, i.e. a conflict between Russia and the West. And then all the internal causes (the Ukrainians' grievances against the authorities, and so on) seem artificial and actually provoked, and the country itself, unfortunately, is seen as a battlefield for a sphere of influence. Russia regards this region as a kind of strategic extension of its own territory which is extremely important if Moscow is to recover its global muscle and restrain the West. Otherwise, it advances right up to the borders of Russia which has protested at the deployment of elements of the American ABM system in Poland and the Czech Republic, and now risks having them much closer - in Ukraine.

To the US Ukraine is an ideal bridgehead for maintaining a healthy climate in neighbouring Moldova, for remaining good partners with the Baltic countries and Georgia and for "westernizing" Belarus. At the end of December Ukraine cancelled its non-aligned status which, in the opinion of Russian Prime Minister Dmitriy Medvedev, is essentially an application to join NATO and is turning the country into a potential military enemy of Russia. However, in order to become a full-fledged member of the North Atlantic alliance Kiev will have to solve its territorial problems, which was stressed by the alliance's secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg in an interview for Norwegian television. And from this side the conflict in south-east Ukraine looks like a pretty good bargaining chip for Moscow. Therefore, the conflict area of the "DPR" and the "LPR" will remain officially a part of Ukraine, but actually under Russian administration, something like Ukraine's Dniester Region - an imaginary "neutral zone" which at any moment could again turn into a "hot" zone, a convenient lever of pressure on the situation.

It is hardly necessary to explain Ukraine's economic importance for Russia, but it is also of immense interest to the EU economies, especially as a sales market. Besides, Ukraine possesses vast arable land, important industrial and infrastructure facilities and minerals, including Donbass coal and, apparently, considerable supplies of shale gas (right in the rebel-held territories). So it is not surprising that Russia and the US are playing for their own geopolitical aims in Ukraine, as both their leaders have reaffirmed. For example, in an interview to CNN in December, US President Barack Obama said that the Russian president "is faced with the collapse of the Russian currency, a major financial crisis and a huge economic contraction and doesn't look like somebody who has rolled me or the United States of America". For his part, Putin, during a long press conference, made it clear that he regards the anti-Russian sanctions as an attempt to displace the regime in Russia and to "tear out the fangs and teeth" from the Russian bear "to tame it".

However, there is another view on these events, which says that the stand-off between Russia and the West is of a broader nature and that says that Ukraine is not the cause but just one of the elements which could also include Georgia, Iran, the events of the "Arab spring" and Syria. There is a popular opinion that it is only thanks to Russia's support that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is still the only ruler whose country was fully affected by the "Arab spring", but which is still in power and did not share the fate of Hosni Mubarak or Muammar Gaddafi. At least indirect proof of this is the indisputable fact that as soon as the events in Ukraine reached their highest point Syria virtually disappeared from the headlines of the world news - because of it no-one any longer wanted to hold peace conferences in Geneva and ceased convening extraordinary sessions of the UN Security Council. This shows that the world's players are finding it very difficult to play on two fronts which, of course, is a positive thing.

Consequently, one of the main causes of the Ukrainian crisis is the redistribution of spheres of influence in the world, "disputes" over what kind of world it is - multi-polar or with one Euro-Atlantic centre of power. The US wants to remove any hints at multi-polarity in the region. Russia, which cannot become a full-fledged counterbalance to Washington, is still actively making a stand and is feverishly seeking allies, using all available means, clearly guided by the principle that all means are fair in war. To this end the sanctions against Russia may be regarded not only as a means which could weaken Moscow militarily, but mainly as an opportunity to make it clear that if nothing can be changed by nuclear weapons then there will be no other means of financial coercion than the petrodollar. It is already in this context that China, India and Brazil who are not concerned about what happens around Ukraine but who have economic, and that means political influence (in this region) to fight for, are playing along with Russia against the interests of the West. As we can see, the war is being fought not just with the old traditional means of "hot" weapons, but also in the information sphere and, particularly, with the aid of economic instruments. And it is in the latter sphere that the Kremlin is in its weakest position.

However, there is one other theory, which is that the US needs the conflict in Ukraine to prevent further economic engagement between Russia and Europe, especially in the energy sense. After all, the stronger they are bound together the less room Washington has to manoeuvre and push its interests in the region. The US needs to contain a slipping Europe - in terms of energy (with the aid of shale gas) and economically in general. This is possibly why Washington is striving so hard to conclude an agreement with the EU on a trans-Atlantic free trade area called "economic NATO". Not to mention the fact that in Europe itself not everything is simple with regard to sanctions against Russia. This was clear back in May after the elections to the European Parliament when the ultra-right forces performed so well. The Europeans are not even confident of a joint future with one another, but the need to respond to the Ukrainian crisis has, of course, brought them together. And in this sense, it is also beneficial, but only for the West.