The West Needs To Stay Out Of Crimea

There are two main reasons Western governments should not involve themselves in the Crimean dispute. The first is practical: there is nothing they can or will do to prevent Crimea rejoining Russia. The second is moral: Crimea really is Russian territory and the overwhelming majority of the population want to rejoin Russia.

Although the political situation in Ukraine is complex, no complex or lengthy argument is required to understand Western countries’ only sensible course of action: unless Russian troops begin pouring into any region other than Crimea, stay out of it.

Crimea is only part of Ukraine by a recent historical accident. Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine had not been independent for nearly 700 years. In 1654, the uprising which saw the region break away from Polish rule effectively made Ukraine a territory of Russia through the Treaty of Pereyaslav. In 1954, to celebrate the treaty’s 300th anniversary, Nikita Khrushchev transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, presumably believing that it would only ever be a symbolic gesture as both territories would continue to be controlled by the USSR. This move was said to have surprised many in Russia at the time and it certainly did not have unequivocal support.

So, from the time Russia reconquered the Crimean Khanate until Crimea was given to Ukraine by Khrushchev as a political act of a discredited, defunct system of government, it has been Russian territory. It is therefore absurd for Western countries, particularly the United States, to suggest that Crimea should remain part of Ukraine, despite the wishes of the majority of its population.

Crimea will almost certainly rejoin Russia, soon. There is nothing practical that the United States, Europe or anyone else can do about it. Even the new Ukrainian government openly admits there is nothing it can do.

Crimea is overwhelmingly ethnically Russian. The electorate and state parliament are dominated by Russian speakers who want to rejoin Russia. The Crimean parliament has an openly stated goal of unification and a referendum on the matter is due to be held on March 16. The boycott of the referendum by many ethnic Ukrainians and other minoroties such as Crimean Tartars will make no material difference to the result.

Nor will the fact that remaining part of Ukraine is not one of the referendum options (the only two are independence or joining Russia). Having this third choice would have been more sensible political strategy and lent more legitimacy to the referendum. So would have allowing a longer period for debate and free campaigning for all options. From a Liberal perspective, this demonstrates the lack of acumen of Crimea's pro-Russian politicians, since the "join Russia" option would have almost certainly won regardless. An alternative reading is that it demonstrates that Russia doesn't feel it needs to care about Western political values. Russian Crimeans are essentially stating that the result is a foregone conclusion and anyone wanting to waste time and money on Western political niceties can go fuck themselves.

The political situation has come to a head now due to the overthrow of the corrupt and repressive, but pro-Russian government of Viktor Yanukovich. Its replacement is largely ethnic Ukrainian and many of its members bear some hostile sentiment toward Russia. Despite the exaggerations and propaganda of the Russian media, the new Ukrainian political power blocs do contain some far right, nationalist elements. It's not wholly surprising that a Russian region which never consented to becoming part of an independent Ukraine now decides it's time to rejoin Russia.

If an overwhelming majority of the population of Crimea vote to rejoin Russia, as they almost certainly will, what can the West do? Warn Russia not to “annex Crimea”? It’s hardly an annexation if the majority of the population votes in favour of it. This is not a case of Russia using its military to impose a pro-Russian government on the unwilling populace of a neighbour, as they did in Eastern Europe after the Second World War.

Just as important is the question of why the West would support Crimea remaining part of Ukraine. Apart from opposing a genuine, democratic choice, the position is poor political strategy. It is the western part of Ukraine which is ethnically Ukrainian and pro-Europe. Crimea and the south eastern part around Donetsk are majority ethnically Russian and hence pro-Moscow. This has been a source of division in Ukrainian politics long before Ukraine gained independence in 1991.

Wouldn’t it be a better political strategy to not oppose Crimea reuniting with Russia, thereby removing a significant proportion of the pro-Russian population? The condition would be a Russian guarantee that it would not seek to further redraw the border. Instead of picking a fight with Russia which they can't win, the United States and Europe could then concentrate on bringing Ukraine (minus Crimea) into the European fold, which would be easier with an increased proportion of ethnic Ukrainians and almost certainly involve less violence.

Update: British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, a man every bit as insipid as he looks, has labellled the Crimean referendum "a mockery of proper democratic practice". Apparently the UK "does not recognise the referendum or its outcome" and Russia will now "face economic and political consequences" ... from a heavily indebted country which has lost most of its manufacturing base and struggles to assert its political and cultural values domestically, let alone globally.

The Crimean referendum was certainly not best diplomatic practice, but let's concentrate on matters where a) there is a genuinely unjust outcome and b) we can actually do something practical to reverse, or at least ameliorate it.