the implications of the ukrainian crisis in the ... web viewthe implications of the ukrainian crisis...

Dr. Constantinos Filis

Dimopoulos Dimosthenis,

Karagiannopoulos Petros-Damianos

Institute of International Relations Panteion

University

16/7/2014

2014The implications of the Ukrainian Crisis in the International System and the choices of the parties involved

The implications of the Ukrainian Crisis in the International System and the choices of the parties involved

2014

Copyright© 2014Institute of International RelationsCentre for Russia, Eurasia & South Eastern Europe

Hill 3-5,Athens, P.C. 105 58

Phone Number: 210 33.12.325/7Fax: 210 33.13.575

Email: [email protected]

Site: www.idis.gr and www.ceregreece.org

Academic Supervisor: Dr. Constantinos Filis

Authors: Dr. Constantinos FilisDimopoulos Dimosthenis Karagiannopoulos Petros-Damianos

Research Team: Chytiri Spyridoula Dimopoulos DimosthenisKaragiannopoulos Petros-DamianosXylia Sofia

Page | 1

http://www.ceregreece.org/

http://www.idis.gr/

mailto:[email protected]


2014

ContentsAbstract.....................................................................................................3

Key words:................................................................................................3

Introduction..............................................................................................4

Ukraine’s Orientation Choices.................................................................10

European Union orientation................................................................10

Eurasian Union orientation..................................................................12

The neutrality option...........................................................................14

The Chronicle of the Crisis.......................................................................16

Major external actors and their tools that can influence the crisis.........25

The United States of America..............................................................25

European Union...................................................................................28

North Atlantic Treaty Organization......................................................32

Russian Federation...............................................................................33

Resolving the crisis: Kiev’s options and choices......................................37

Closing Remarks......................................................................................42

References...............................................................................................44

Page | 2


2014

Abstract

The present research attempts to summarize the political events that resulted in the

outbreak of the almost 7 month-long Ukrainian crisis and the events of the crisis itself

until the current date. Additionally, it examines the three orientation choices of

Ukraine: the Western, the Eurasian and the neutral; the tools of the major regional and

global actors involved in the crisis and eventually attempts to analyze necessary steps

for the end of the conflict.

Key words: Ukraine, Russia, EU, USA, NATO, Putin, Ukrainian crisis.

Page | 3


2014

Introduction

First of all, it is of absolute necessity to examine the most important components of

the complicated Russo-Ukrainian relationship over the years and the geopolitical and

strategic factors which emerged by it. This effort, though described in a brief manner,

will be able to explain the reasons why the today’s Ukrainian crisis has not been

averted and will confirm the arguments of the following analysis, concerning the

strategies of the two opposing sides throughout the crisis and every possible outcome

this crisis might have.

The first factor we must focus is the high importance of Ukraine for Russia and

vice versa. To begin with we should mention geographically and strategically

important Crimean peninsula. The peninsula is of the highest value concerning the

control of the Black Sea, militarily and economically, whilst its control is crucial for

the natural gas and energy policy of Eastern and Southeastern Europe.

Crimea has been throughout history a field of bilateral and multilateral conflict.

The port of Sevastopol, founded at 1783 by Catherine the Great, has been all since the

naval base of the Russian “Black Sea Fleet”. Regarding the Russian history, the

presence of this fleet has been particularly important, offering moments of glory for

the Russian army in Crimean War (1853-1856) and 2nd World War (1939-1945).

Crimea had been a part of Russia since 1954, when Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev

transferred Crimea to Ukraine, as an act of friendship between the two soviet states.

[1]

The problematic relationship between the two countries during USSR era cannot

be ignored. Despite all Stalin’s actions, during the so called “decade of terror”,

Page | 4


2014

denying the very existence of Ukraine and eliminating anyone who opposed, the

borderlines became even more severe.

The referendum of the 1st December 1991 concerning Ukraine’s independence,

conducted by Boris Yeltsin, was in fact the Soviet Union’s headstone. This way, the

former Russian leader, founded the brand new Russian regime, relieved once and for

all from any imperial ideation, as he then thought. It was the time when Russia and

Ukraine should plainly transform into peaceful, western type, democracies. It was not

though a long before problems started reoccurring.

Economically viewed, right after the USSR dissolution, the winner states of the

Cold War, especially USA, offered their financial aid at most of the Eastern European

countries with combined state and private capitals and foreign direct investments.

Most notable examples have been the three Baltic States – Latvia, Lithuania and

Estonia. The economical and thus political stability occurred by those investments,

was not something that also happened neither in Ukraine, nor in Russia. Both

countries large size – especially Russia’s – could not allow their transforming

economies to by based on donations, while their acute socialistic – state-centered

economic and political past was keeping repelling most of the foreign investors, due

to high risk. This western economic policy during the first years after the USSR

dissolution in fact secluded the two countries, letting them preserve their high

economic interdependence they had established during the soviet era. This

interdependence, mostly preserved until now, made us clear that one side is weak

without the other. Both sides seem to have fully understood this complex relationship,

although Russia is the one that proved more diligent to the needs this egoistically

realistic view of international relations demands. [2]

One more very important factor is the issue of people’s identity; factor that we too

consider of utmost importance. Nowadays the reference to a highly divided Ukrainian

society has become a cliché. While some external viewer could spot many similarities

in both Ukrainians and Russians, we should take a glimpse view of the many existing

contradicting borderlines.

About 17% percent of the Ukrainian people, before the crisis had occurred, were

formally Russian nationals, part because of the Russia’s policy of providing

Page | 5


2014

citizenship to many Russian speaking citizens of Ukraine, along with financial aid,

counting up to a lot million dollars. [3] This Russian policy of the last 20 years was

the attempt of blocking or at least stalling the nation-building process in Ukraine and

proved to be an extremely useful leverage during the ongoing crisis, especially in the

Crimean case. Furthermore, in Ukraine there are at least 6 Christian doctrines, each

one supporting in general an opposing side in Ukrainian political life, leading

Ukraine’s social structure to further fragmentation. [4]

Cultural differences between Russians and Ukrainian can be rooted far back in

history; excluding the Kievan Rus, Russians owned their fully independent state at

least by 1480, while the first independent Ukrainian state happens only during the 20th

century – no way the period of the limited autonomy of the Cossacks could be

regarded as a period of Ukrainian independence. Also, while Ukraine’s territory was

divided and conquered by many different states, the same period Russia was

extending their dominion all the way from Baltic Sea to the North Sea and the Pacific

Ocean. As a result national identities differed since then: Russians became and

independent nation, while Ukrainians were trying to survive; Russians were rebelling,

while Ukrainians were trying to implement accommodation strategies to some of their

overlords. Even when they were allies, Russians had been always having the upper

hand and when they were at war, Russians had been usually victorious.

This complex relationship and common historical origins could only lead the two

people into two possible results; either in forming a closer collaboration-cooperation

or in forming a conflictual relationship, providing the option of climaxing a crisis far

an easier option than in other cases. Nationalistic readings in both countries had

always been blaming either the imperialistic Russian policy or foreign propaganda

that turns our brothers against us. Although not entirely unrealistic points of view,

they lack objectivity and have been proved that they alone sometimes become an

obstacle in improvement of bilateral relations.

Although many scholars and the most politicians were unable to predict the

climaxing of the today’s Ukrainian crisis, mostly based on the fact that the first years

of the USSR dissolution found both countries under great economic and political

instability and later because of many idealistic and liberal theories that seem to have

had a great impact in western political thought the years after the Cold War, the

Page | 6


2014

possibility of a Russo-Ukrainian conflict that could even lead to war between two

countries was described by John J. Mearsheimer back in 1994.

Because of the impending implementation of the Ukrainian nuclear disarmament

deal at the time, the known scholar thought that in order to preserve peace in Eastern

Europe, or at least prevent a future Russian intervention in Ukraine, their nuclear

weaponry should have not been dissoluted, according to the nuclear deterrence

theorem, especially since the Ukrainian conventional military capability could never

become able to oppose as a significant deterrent factor towards a by all means

superior Russia. [5]

Despite internal Ukrainian factors and Russo-Ukrainian complexities that were

constantly creating security dilemmas especially as far as concerning the Ukrainian

side – Ukrainian politicians were never willing to abandon the hardly won

independence of their country –, we should also focus on the western powers policy

towards Russia and the former Warsaw Pact countries in general.

After the end of the Cold War, western powers were now called to fulfill the power

gap created in Eastern Europe. Although the EU’s and USA’s decision to set in their

sphere of influence many of the Eastern European countries was the most realistic

decision, apparently western allies were not able to comprehend the size of Russia’s

growth the past few years of V. Putin’s administration and their ability and

willingness to react decisively against what the Russians think as attack on their vital

national interests and security problem.

The EU’s policy concerning the former Warsaw Pact countries until today can be

described as three interrelated stages. Although, those stages were surely not a

progressive process or a carefully designed long-term plan on the Union’s behalf, it

was more of a separated problem solving process, concerning specific subject matters

coming up every time.

The first stage of the EU’s policy covers the time period directly after the USSR

dissolution. At this very moment EU formed their future policy based on a technically

formed borderline separating the countries that were only members of the Warsaw

Pact and those countries that declared independence secluding from USSR.

Respecting the first group of states the policy formed would be an approaching, aiding

Page | 7


2014

and integrating one while for the second group integration would not be the aim but

only economic and political cooperation.

The second stage began at 1994. The newly formed power balance in Europe was

covered with a “cooperative” rhetoric towards Russia. Europe’s raising energy

dependence from Russia should be combined with stability in bilateral relationships.

As a result two new policies were formally founded: “The Partnership and Co-

operation Agreement” (1994) and “Joint Strategy” (1999), aiming to reinforce

coordinated EU’s policy towards Russia.

Although, from 2000 to date, begins the thirds stage, somewhat contradictory

towards the previous ones. The EU member-states went highly controversial; they

separated into two groups, the “older” and the “younger” member-states. The second

group, driven from their past experiences that caused hostility against Russia and

being influenced in a higher level than other EU’s member-states from the USA, were

highly concerned about more regulatory matters, such as human rights and

democratization, while “older” member-states policy kept being about forming

stronger economic and commercial relations with Russia.

The outcome of this internal EU’s conflict – mostly known as the phenomenon of

“Two Europes” – although it was real, it was in fact controversial for European values

and a setback for European federalism. In the meantime, as a result of the Ukrainian

“Orange Revolution” (2004), Ukraine’s main strategic target from now on would be

integration with EU, even if newly elected President Yushchenko was not willing or

able to exclude Russo-Ukrainian relationships as a factor that determines decisively

Ukraine’s future.

The situation in Europe since 2000 and the 2002 and 2003 decisions were the

reasons of initiating the new “European Neighboring Policy”. This policy’s main

purpose was, from now on, to approach every Eastern European country offering

bilateral political and economic reformer agreements, without being in first place

offered a full membership. Such an agreement has been the ”Ukrainian Action Plan”,

signed at 2005 and planned to be in force since WTO acceptance of Ukraine as a

member-state at 2008. The plan was aiming for a future implementation of a free

Page | 8


2014

trade zone between EU and Ukraine, a strengthening process of democratic

institutions and further reforms.

Furthermore, the Russian military intervention in Georgia at 2008 and the Russo-

Ukrainian natural gas crisis in 2009 provoked EU into upgrading their neighboring

policy; the new agreement was to be called “Eastern Partnership” and had been

specifically formed in order to stand against Russian aggressiveness. Its aim was the

political approach with Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Armenia and

conditionally Belarus. First steps towards that approach would be the establishment of

a visa-free regime and economic aid up to 600 million Euros. [6]

Additionally, another very important international actor implicated in Eastern

Europe’s balance of power is NATO. At the end of the Cold War NATO faced their

famous “identity” problem, since bipolarism was over and its main target – the USSR

containment – was successful. NATO found new meaning in their very existence by

expanding the alliance to the East. New members of the alliance were now becoming

ex-Warsaw Pact states, in contrast to what the first post-Soviet Russian leadership

believed that would happen. [7]

All those factors mentioned above, combined with the Russian pressuring policy

towards Ukraine in times of crisis and its, in fact, aggressive policy while Russia’s

strength was recovering, have caused today’s circumstances. Ukrainian security fears

combined with EU and NATO policies have caused a high level threat sense also in

Russia. Reaction against EU’s policies, especially “Eastern Partnership” was

immense; Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov immediately condemned the

action-plan by mentioning to every CIS state that this kind of agreements with EU

would be from now on contradictory to their obligations, asking them to choose

between EU and Russia.

NATO’s expansion in Eastern Europe was also perceived from Russia as an

immediate threat to its security. The inclusion in the alliance of every former Warsaw

Pact country and even some ex-USSR countries, like the Baltic states was something

Russia could not tolerate any longer, especially if this expansion was to be continued

aiming Ukraine and Georgia. Thus the risky choice of Crimean annexation on behalf

Page | 9


2014

of Russia is not something that should surprise anyone; Russia felt that was running

out of options.

Losing Ukraine was never an option for Russian President Vladimir Putin. Not

only because of any security threat or because of the social and economic interrelation

but also because of the fact that Russia’s Eurasia Union would be an exclusively

Asian project, lowering subsequently any power projection the Union might have in

due time towards Europe. [8]

Ukraine’s Orientation Choices

A country’s decision about political orientation can be considered at four levels:

Political economics, norms and institutions, values and political identity and the

ontological level. [9] Having taken into consideration all those factors leading to a

potential decision we are first of all going to write down what every Ukraine’s

possible orientation choice is offering to Ukraine and its people.

European Union orientation

Except than a response to Russian aggressive policy the past few years, EU’s

choice to approach Ukraine was also a decision made out of a long-term action plan

for the country. Ukraine’s economy might had been at best weak before the crisis –

even worse after the events of the previous months – although Europe firmly believed

and keeps believing that after a long-term period of reforms and probably financial

aid from international institutions, like IMF, Ukraine’s potential should get revealed.

The country will inevitably acquire completely new horizons in future, in all fields, if

only become attached into the EU’s sphere of influence, argue European officials and

pro-European Ukrainians.

Among all of the post-Soviet countries, with the exception of the Baltic countries,

Ukraine seemed the most promising candidate for a speedy integration into the

European community of nations. Instead, a transition proved a long and bumpy road.

The transition to a western type economy had been slow and the covert

criminalization of economy was the sad outcome of the first years after independence.

The oligarchic regime that has run the country since mid-nineties has ruined the

country’s economy, crippled its social structure and tarnished its international

Page | 10


2014

reputation. Additionally, Ukraine has been asking for EU membership since 1995, but

for years the European Union was too occupied with incorporating the 10 Central and

East European countries, which was completed in 2004 and 2007, respectively. All

these factors, combined with any geopolitical implications and Russian interventions

mentioned above hampered for years Ukraine’s European perspective. [10]

Nevertheless and as a result of the past few months’ rapid events, on 21 March

2014, European Union Heads of State and Government and Ukrainian Prime Minister

H.E. Mr. Arseny Yatsenyuk signed the political provisions of the “EU-Ukraine

Association Agreement”. At the same time and in order not to wait for the entry into

force of the Association Agreement’s provisions it was also signed a “Deep and

Comprehensive Free Trade Area”. This way was decided to start the unilateral

reduction or elimination of the EU’s customs duties on goods originating in Ukraine.

[11]

The Association Agreement is the first agreement based on political association

between the EU and any of the Eastern Partnership counties. The key parts of the

agreement focus on support to core reforms, economic recovery and growth, and

governance and sector cooperation in areas such as energy, transport an environment

protection, industrial cooperation, social development and protection, equal rights,

consumer protection, education, youth and cultural cooperation. It also emphasis on

values and principles: democracy, the rule of law, respect for human rights and

fundamental freedoms, good governance, a market economy and sustainable

development. [11] [12]

For the Ukrainian elite, in its vast majority, the only rational choice is the

European one, even when we are referring to the opulent businessmen of Eastern parts

of the country which recently declared their will of following the Crimean example of

joining the Russian Federation. Their “European choice” is an attempt to preserve

power in its hands inside the country. Many might call this choice an illusion, based

only on their fear of increasing antagonism with Russian oligarchs and the hope of a

more caring Europe, which will protect them against malicious attacks from Russia.

Although what must be made clear is that in every way, every final choice Ukraine

shall make, local elite’s exploitation of Ukrainian people and corruptive tactics always

Page | 11


2014

jeopardizing the economic and political future of Ukraine are close to an end. As far

as it concerns EU, the proposed reforms are to be done on the Ukrainian behalf might

be difficult for the Ukrainian people and cause a high increase of poverty levels,

though if any implementation of those reforms takes place, local elite would not be

able to influence any government’s decision making process the way it did before.

Even if it is difficult for the Ukrainian elite to give up its dirty political tricks, in the

end, it will happen. The implementation of changes and reforms will surely take place

sooner or later, because of the country’s horrendous economic situation and the EU is

the only international actor that could provide Ukraine with the necessary enforcing

measures of such an implementation.

As we can understand, at the very moment, EU provides Ukraine the possibility of

an associated membership. Although, the question to be made is whether Europe is

willing to transform this membership into a full membership one day, when all

necessary reforms take place and produce results. [9]

Furthermore, even if the EU road is followed – and EU remains true to their policy

– this is not going to deliver Ukraine from Russian pressure. As it will be explained

with details later, Russian pressure tactics above Ukraine is not something that can be

easily overcame neither by Ukraine itself, nor by any western allies the country might

have at the moment. That is for the same reasons a Russian deterrence was not

possible until now, even during the successful attempt of Crimean annexation.

In addition, if Ukraine finally follows the route of integration into the EU, it will

fall, beyond any doubt, into the category of the poor periphery, since there is a very

long way far from reaching any of the Copenhagen criteria. Thus, it is questionable

whether such a choice would be wise, since Europe high standards of reforms

combined with a continued self-comparison with other European people’s standard of

living, could cause further unrest in Ukrainian already divided society. Other

problems that may arise are the strengthening of the already significant migration of

Ukrainians to the EU, jeopardizing the very future of the country taking into

consideration the significant low birth-rates and an intensification of the process of

deindustrialization. [13] Furthermore, economists affiliated with the Eurasian

Development Bank present analytical scenarios and make negative assumptions about

Page | 12


2014

the possibility of Ukraine’s worsening the terms of trade in the post-Soviet area and

reductions of Ukrainian exports. [14]

Eurasian Union orientation

Russia unwilling to “lose” Ukraine to European Union, for all the reasons

mentioned above, launched a series of substantial trade sanctions against Ukraine in

July and August 2013. What Russia wants is Ukraine to reject the European bid and

join its Customs Union with Belarus and Kazakhstan.

In June 2009, Russian Prime Minister Putin surprised everybody by stating that

Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan would enter the WTO as a customs union. These

three countries agreed to unify their customs tariff s. In 2010, the Customs Union

came into existence, with the implementation of a common customs tariff and joint

Customs Code. In January 2012, border controls were abolished. A joint secretariat,

the Eurasian Economic Commission, was set up in Moscow with a staff of more than

1,000 people. The Eurasian Development Bank in Almaty, Kazakhstan, and an

arbitration court in Minsk were also established. [15]

The final step of the transformation of the customs union into a transnational

constitution was made when in 29.05.2014 was sealed the Eurasian Union's creation

by 1.1.2015 by the presidents of Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus in Kazakhstan's

capital, Astana. This timing is related to the current Ukraine crisis; Russian President

made it clear that Ukraine would not participate in the Eurasian Economic Union,

because of its signing of the Association Agreement. [16]

Although the signing of the agreement on the Ukrainian side has not completely

close the door to any future friendly Russo-Ukrainian relations, Putin’s choice to rush

on the creation of the Eurasian Union is puts additional pressure to Ukrainian

government. Russia is trying to capitalize any possibility of aggravated social unrest

because of the country’s economic instability; by showing Ukrainians that there is

another way that this crisis could be resolved: by abandoning the European

perspective in order to enter the Eurasian Union.

Except than the fact that Russia offers relief from the greatest part of current

Ukraine’s economic pressure Russia themselves are putting, ending their trade

Page | 13


2014

sanctions against Ukraine, the only clear option that provides to Ukrainian people is

the end of the armed conflict pro-Russians have started in eastern provinces. Even if

Ukraine cancels every agreement recently signed with the EU, Russia is not going to

let Crimea go.

Although it will take time in order Ukrainian people to forget Russia’s annexation

of Crimea, there is a high possibility than many of them could set their differences

aside for a while, and since Ukraine’s economic situation is continuously aggravating

and the only international actor could immensely relieve the Ukrainian economic

burden is Russia.

The possibility of a Russian orientation choice for Ukraine might not seem viable

for the time being. Although nobody could refuse that if the internal situation keeps

worsening, Ukraine’s policy could make a mid-term major swift towards this

direction. It does not look to be in Moscow’s interest the major political and

constitutional reforms in Ukraine, like the ones EU is proposing, although if Ukraine

applies to be a member of the Eurasian Union in lieu of the EU, Moscow would

surely seek the reduction of corruption in order the future viability of the country’s to

be preserved.

The neutrality option

While someone carefully considers EU’s policy about Ukraine and the current

situation in the country, could easily understand that if EU’s political agenda was in

fact selfless would prefer a neutral Ukraine, in order to de-climax the crisis and let

Russia relieve the pressure, by making Moscow feel less threatened by the West. In

contrary if the EU keeps pursuing solutions being interested firstly about their own

benefits, by absorbing Ukraine into the western system – EU and NATO – would

probably cause Russia to at least persist on the Ukrainian economy’s complete

destruction, as it would be more thoroughly explained later.

Then follows the question whether Ukraine has got a middle option; the option of

neutrality. Such an option could copy Finland’s example during the Cold War, when

both Russia and the West agreed to keep Finland out of the fight. The word

“Finlandisation” in this context refers to the agreement in the late 1940s between the

Page | 14


2014

US, the UK and the USSR to keep Finland out of the Cold War, which was gathering

in intensity at the time.

Rather than absorb Finland back into Mother Russia or convert it into a client,

communist state as in Poland, Stalin agreed to accept Finland’s neutrality status. This

status quo lasted for forty years. Finland could neither tilt to the Soviet Union nor to

the Western powers. [17]

The Finland status not only abated the possibility of an armed conflict in Europe or

but also helped the internal policy makers to construct a very well-functioning market

and an exemplary democratic regime. It is not clear if the majority of Ukrainian

people has taken this thought under consideration, but probably would be a very

tempting offer, because it could not even put an end to the current circle of violence

but could upgrade every economic and commercial capability of the country in short

notice. Despite all these, only Western allies and Russia together could make a final

decision towards this approach, in contrary with the two previously described options.

“Finlandisation” does not mean that the EU appeases Moscow. But they need to

realize that taking harsh actions against Russia could only make sense if its members

carry a collective big stick of European warfare capabilities, along with active

development of a more coherent energy policy that reduces massive overdependence

of Germany and its Eastern European neighbors on Russian sources, or even have

NATO provide them with a large military power projection.

On the other hand, Russia itself seems to need as well, a “Finland option” for

Ukraine. Despite having to reduce the potential capabilities of the newborn Eurasian

Union, it is probable that Ukrainian national self-assertion is already fortifying many

ex-Soviet countries of central Asia, notably Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, to stiffen

resistance to Moscow’s continuing effort to absorb them totally inside its sphere of

influence, depriving them of sovereignty. [18]

A “good will” shown from Russia could resolve many future crises before they are

even born. The Western powers, however, need to comprehend that threatening

Russia’s security is not a viable option and could only lead in more similar future

crises, especially when both EU and NATO have lost a great deal of credibility of

deterrence.

Page | 15


2014

Taking into consideration the fact that all three directly implicated sides, Europe,

Ukraine and Russia into today’s crisis all share part of the blame for creating the

current conflict it is, though, of their interest to defuse tensions and seek a way out

before it threatens the well-being of all involved.

The Chronicle of the Crisis

In the present chapter we will attempt to assess the latest developments that have

led to the fomentation of the current grave situation in Ukraine, starting by November

21 and the decree of the Ukrainian Government of suspending the procedures for

signing the European Association Agreement [19].

On November 21st Ukrainian Prime Minister Nicola Azarov on a published decree

ordered for the “halt of the process of preparing the association agreement between

Ukraine and the European Union", a decision which was encouraged by the harsh

conditions posed by the IMF for its financial aid package to Ukraine. [20]

Following the governmental decree, protests erupted in the Ukrainian capital the

very same night. The demonstrations were peaceful and in support of a pro-western

Ukraine and were calling the government to sign the treaty and strengthen Ukraine’s

relations with the EU.

After the Vilnius Summit on November 29, where Ukraine opted to not sign the

Association Agreement, the demonstration wave grew and more people went to the

streets all over Ukraine, mainly in Kiev and Lviv, to express their anger and

frustration towards their government. [21] The next day the police dispersed the

protestors violently, which provoked outrage in several other regions of the country.

[22]

Page | 16


2014

Sources: State Statistics Service of Ukraine, Ukraine's Central Election Commission

As demonstrations continued Viktor Yanukovych attended the planned sixth

Russian-Ukrainian interstate commission on 17 December in Moscow, which resulted

in the signing of the Ukrainian–Russian action plan by President Yanukovych and

President Putin, which consisted of major financial assistance from Russia, a

significant decrease in gas prices and commitments for closer economic cooperation

between Ukraine and Russia. [23]

The situation continued to deteriorate despite the efforts made by President

Yanukovych to deescalate the situation by proposing an extensive cabinet reshuffling

in order to include key opposition leaders. The rallies kept increasing in duration and

volume demanding the resignation of President Yanukovych and early elections.

On February 21st an evanescent peace deal was reached between President

Yanukovych and the opposition leaders, following a week of bloodshed and violence,

however the same day, as the President left Kiev for a trip to the Eastern Ukraine

regions, demonstrators overran governmental buildings in Kiev and the next day the

parliament voted to remove from office President Yanukovych and release Yulia

Tymoshenko from prison. [24]

Page | 17


2014

After the impeachment of President Yanukovych, an action which he called illegal

and a coup d’état, who fled the country, the Parliament appointed an interim

government and announced that the country will hold Presidential elections on May

25. Meanwhile, regional authorities in eastern provinces stated their concerns and

disapproval of the new developments. Regional authorities in Crimea threatened to

secede from Ukraine. [25]

On February 27 heavily armed pro-Russian militias seized Crimea’s Regional

Government and Parliament buildings, hours later Crimean Parliament voted in favor

of holding a referendum on the region’s status on May 25, the same day of the

Ukrainian Presidential elections. The next day similar militias started capturing

infrastructure and key buildings, including airports in Sevastopol and Simferopol.

Kiev and Western Governments claimed that the gunmen were Russian soldiers and

secret agents in disguise; however Russia adamantly denied the allegations. [26]

By Wednesday 5th of March, pro-Russian forces had complete control of the

Crimean peninsula and any military bases of the Ukrainian Army that were not

overran, were blockaded. Later on, Crimea’s regional government announced it

would hold a referendum on whether it should officially join Russia on 16 March.

Crimea’s Deputy Prime-Minister said the referendum was being held purely to ratify

the decision of the Crimean parliament to join the Russian Federation, and the

parliament had appealed to Russia for assistance. [27]

The USA and the EU imposed targeted sanctions against Russian officials and

individuals responsible for the Crimean occupation, the Russian Government

responded in kind as well. [27]

On March 11, Parliamentarians in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the

Ukrainian city of Sevastopol adopted declarations on the territories' independence.

[28]

Page | 18


2014

Sources: Tim Ripley, defense analyst; IHS Jane's; Nirav Nikunj Patel, WorldPop Project

The following days Russia started military exercises along its borders with

Ukraine, mobilizing numerous mechanized and armor divisions, special and air forces

that lasted for several days. [29] In response, the US deployed several F-16s in Poland

as a gesture to reaffirm its commitment and to show support for NATO's eastern

members after Russia's intervention in Ukraine.

On March 16, the Crimean Referendum took place and resulted in an

overwhelming vote in favor of joining the Russian Federation with over 95%. [30] On

March 17, the Government of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea officially asked to

join the Russian Federation. [31] The day after, on March 18, Russian President

Vladimir Putin and the Crimean leaders signed a bill under which the Crimean

Peninsula was incorporated in the Russian Federation. Western countries and Kiev

called the treaty invalid and the Crimean referendum unconstitutional, [32] however

quickly the Crimean issues was mulled since other regions in Eastern Ukraine began

demanding their independence and pro-Russian rallies starting taking place in several

cities, such as Kharkiv, Odessa, Luhansk, Donetsk etc. At the moment Crimea de

facto belongs to the Russian Federation, even if a part of the international community

does not recognize the annexation.

Page | 19


2014

Following the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation several pro-Russian

and pro-Putin demonstrations took place in numerous cities in Southeastern Ukraine

and Russia.

Meanwhile, Russian Armed Forces were holding several reoccurring military war

games along its western borders, which resulted in an amassing of over 30,000 troops;

armor, artillery and air assets. [33]

On March 24, the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense ordered its remaining forces in

Crimea to withdraw. The same day it was also announced that about 50% of the

Ukrainian Armed Forces in the peninsula had defected to Russia. [34] [35]

During the first weeks of April, Russia decides to end the gas discount agreement

and threatens to cut off gas supply if Ukraine fails to pay its gas bills. On April 6,

several governmental building in the cities of Kharkiv, Luhansk and Donetsk were

captured by pro-Russian activists, demanding the declaration of independence from

Ukraine for each region and the authorization of a referendum to decide the future of

the regions. Turmoil also took place in the city of Odessa. [36] On April 7, the

People's Republic of Donetsk proclaimed its independence and announced a

referendum to be held on May 11 on the question of becoming part of the Russian

Federation. [37] The following day the Ukrainian Government announces that the

Ukrainian forces will conduct antiterrorist operations in eastern Ukraine in order to

regain control of the government buildings in the region. Indeed, Ukrainian forces

manage to regain control of the city of Kharkiv [38], however they declare unable to

regain control in the Donetsk and Luhansk areas, where the pro-Russian separatists

manage to defeat the governmental forces and expand their control on other cities

including the major city of Slovyansk. [39] [40]

On April 17, in a conference held in Geneva in order to defuse the crisis and

arrange a truce; the USA, Russia, EU and Ukraine reached an agreement to de-

escalate the crisis and pave the road for an inclusive process of political reform in

Ukraine. [41] However the agreement was ephemeral, as clashes between pro-Russian

and pro-Ukrainian forces continued. [42] Fierce clashes between separatists and

governmental forces continued throughout April.

Page | 20


2014

On May 11, Donetsk and Luhansk declared independence after referendums were

held, which legitimacy was questioned by Kiev and the West despite the claimed

overwhelming majority of the votes in favor of secession. [43] Throughout the rest of

May, clashes intensify in the regions of Slovyansk, Donetsk and Luhansk with

hundreds of people dead. On May 25, Petro Poroshenko the “Chocolate King” wins

the Presidential elections with about 56%, however most polling stations in eastern

Ukraine were closed. [43]

Sources: Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe; Tim Ripley, defense analyst

After the elections and the victory of Petro Poroshenko, the Ukrainian authorities

intensified their efforts to regain control of the regions of Donetsk and Slovyansk,

while for the time being the pro-Russian forces seem to be retaining control, while

having managed to force Ukrainian border security forces, near Luhansk to abandon

Page | 21


2014

their control centers, thusly opening an unhindered corridor of supply with Russia.

[44] [45]

During the first days of June, pro-Russian rebel forces started a systematic

offensive targeting major border control stations near the Eastern Ukraine-Russian

borders, managing to capture the Border Guard Headquarters, establishing thusly an

unhindered supply corridor from Russia. [46] [47]

On June 7, Petro Poroshenko is sworn in as Ukraine’s fifth President. During his

inaugural address the new President called the pro-Russian separatists to lay down

arms and end the fighting, promising amnesty and showing a strong desire for

national reconciliation and normalization in the relations between Ukraine and Russia.

[48] Despite the president’s statements, the clashes intensified around the rebel

stronghold of Slovyansk and Luhansk and the airport of Kramatorsk, while the

Ukrainian Interior Minister Arsen Avakov ordered the immediate deployment of

police forces from all Ukraine to the Eastern Ukraine in order to assist the military

units operating in the area and restore order and stability. [49] [50] [51]

The pro-Russian separatists shot down a Ukrainian military transport plane,

leaving 49 dead on June 14. The downing of the military transport plane resulted in

violent protests outside Russia’s Embassy in Kiev, with embassy vehicles and

premises being attacked. [52]

On June 16, Russia announced that it has halted deliveries of natural gas to

Ukraine, after days of unsuccessful negotiations for the settlement of the Ukrainian

gas debt and a discounted price between the two countries. [53] On the same day,

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko proposed a ceasefire in the Eastern Ukraine,

which was eventually put in effect on June 20 in the form of a week-long unilateral

ceasefire on behalf of Kiev, calling the rebels to lay down arms and surrender. [54]

[55] [56] The following day Russian President Vladimir Putin gave his support to the

peace plan tabled by the President of Ukraine and the ceasefire, calling Kiev to start

productive dialogue with the separatists without preconditions in order to put an end

to the crisis. The Russian President underlined that the ceasefire should not be used as

an ultimatum. [57]

Page | 22


2014

During the first day of peace talks in Donetsk, pro-Russian rebels agreed to honor

the ceasefire, however that positive development was evanescent as the following day

clashes re-erupted as separatist forces shot down a military transport helicopter. [58]

[59]

On June 24, President Putin asked from the upper house of Parliament to rescind

the Authorization of Use of Force in Ukraine adopted on the 1st of March 2014. [60]

On July 1, President Poroshenko announced the end of the week-long fragile

ceasefire, reportedly violated numerous times by both sides. Simultaneously, the

Ukrainian Anti-Terrorist Operation (ATO) resumed its offensive on rebel positions,

employing air, artillery and infantry assets. It is believed, that Poroshenko’s decision

was influenced by numerous protests that took place in Kiev demanding the end of the

ceasefire. Moscow expressed its disappointment in the Ukrainian President’s decision,

stating that Poroshenko has taken on responsibility for the political and military crisis

in Ukraine. [61]

Subsequently on July 3, Valery Heletey was appointed as the new Defense

Minister of Ukraine. The newly appointed Defense Minister promised that the

Ukrainian Army will parade victorious in Sevastopol. [62] Following the appointment

of Colonel-General Heletey as Ukraine’s new Defense Minister, the Ukrainian Anti-

Terrorist Operation (ATO) achieved major success against the separatist forces,

recapturing the major rebel stronghold city of Slovyansk and several smaller cities,

towns and villages. [63] [64] Reportedly, the ATO has managed to capture roughly

half of the rebel territory. Currently, pro-Russian separatist forces have retreated to

their major stronghold areas – Donetsk and Luhansk – and are digging in in order to

repel the imminent attacks from the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Despite their retreat the

pro-Russians accomplished another deadly hit against the ATO forces, killing an

estimated number of 30 soldiers and injuring another 93, when rockets blasted a

Ukrainian Army barracks. [65] [66]

Page | 23


2014

Source: Ukrainian Council of National Security and Defense

Between 11 and 13 of July, reportedly the Ukrainian Army started artillery and air

strikes against the rebel strongholds of Donetsk and Luhansk, while rebels claim that

they have downed a number of Ukrainian air assets. Meanwhile, Russia claims that

Ukrainian Armed forces have repeatedly violated its territory, as artillery shells have

landed in Russian residential areas near the borders and border guard stations, while a

Ukrainian warplane violated its airspace. [67] [68] [69] [70] [71]

It appears that the Ukrainian crisis is entering a new round as it remains to be seen

whether impulsiveness and recklessness will triumph over forbearance and logic. [72]

[73] [74]

Page | 24


2014

Major external actors and their tools that can influence

the crisis

The United States of America

It could be argued that so far the US President Barack Obama and his

administration did not have to deal with a major crisis, so far during his 5½ years in

the White House. However, it appears that during the last six months, major or

potentially major crises are knocking on his doorstep. Those are the Ukrainian crisis

and the deteriorating situation in the Middle East. Until now, The US Government has

resorted to imposing sanctions, with a questionable level of success and impact on

Russia and providing minimalistic assistance the Ukrainian Government via limited

financial aid, symbolic gestures, verbal support and quite limited military assistance,

mainly meals-ready-to-eat (MREs), uniforms and communication equipment; at the

time when the Ukrainian Army desperately needed small arms and intelligence

support. [75]

However, this unwillingness on behalf of the US to get significantly involved in

the Ukrainian crisis has been apparent from the very beginning of the crisis, firstly by

letting the EU and Germany to manage the situation and subsequently, even when the

United States assumed a more active role, it was made adamantly clear that the US

were not going to commit in preventing Russia from exerting its influence over

Ukraine.

It appears that after the bellicosity of the George W. Bush years, the Obama

Administration is extremely reluctant to risk confrontation or even flex its muscles,

whether it is dealing with N. Korea, Assad’s Syria, China, the ISIL, Iran or Russia.

Certainly, the United States of America is capable of power projection around the

globe; however it is clear that America lacks the will to do so.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to examine the tools available to the US Government

and the actions it can take, the possible results of those actions and finally consider if

they are worth implementing or not.

Page | 25


2014

As stated before, the US has imposed mild economic sanctions on selective

Russian individuals, alongside the EU, however their results remain in doubt. Hence

wider and bolder sanctions targeting vital sectors of the Russian economy such as the

energy and defense sectors could be a viable option to really hurt Russia and its

economy. Evidently, such sanctions could harm the unstable Russian economy and

possibly force Putin to change his stance. The United States’ bilateral trade with

Russia is relatively small for the world’s largest economy; however such sanctions

could inflict significant collateral damage on the shaky European economy, which is

heavily interconnected with Russia’s.

Furthermore, the US could face retaliation measures from Russia in the form of

similar sanctions, like the already announced retaliation measures against the US

space and satellite programs and the future of the international Space Station beyond

2020. [76] Additionally, Russia could become less cooperating in other significant

issues, irrelevant from the Ukrainian crisis, like North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq

or the containment of China. [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82]

Another option for the United States would be to increase its military assistance to

Ukraine by providing intelligence, training, small arms, munitions and perhaps even

Page | 26


2014

more sophisticated weapon systems to the Ukrainian Army. Such measures taken by

the US would definitely tip the balance of power in favor of the Ukrainian Army in its

struggle against the pro-Russian separatists. Such change from the US Government

would definitely infuriate Moscow and probably would prompt them to increase its

support for the rebels resulting in a more violent and deadlier conflict between the two

factions. Moreover, such decision to provide additional non-lethal and lethal

assistance to Ukraine could create precedence for similar type of assistance towards

opposition fighters in Syria. Therefore, the provision of lethal military assistance is

considered highly impossible, but additional non-lethal aid could still impact the

balance of power in Ukraine by decreasing the war costs for the Ukrainian Armed

Forces, if we take under consideration the extremely worrisome financial situation of

the country’s economy. [83]

Another potential course of action for the US would be to increase its military

presence in the area, by transferring air, naval and land assets in neighboring NATO

member states. Such a move would reiterate its commitment to its allies and provide a

stronger deterrent against potential Moscow aggressiveness. Moscow would not

appreciate such a move by the US and probably would try to further destabilize the

region by commencing once more long military exercises along its borders with

Ukraine and further mobilize and transfer military assets to the region.

The US could put pressure on its NATO allies to finally decide to live up to their

commitments and increase their defense spending, making them more capable to

withstand and deter Moscow on their own. It is no secret that the US primacy, after

the end of the Cold War, allowed its allies to become freeloaders in international

security, relying on the military prowess of the US to act as the global policeman and

cover for their inadequacies. [84]

The US could opt to provide more financial aid to the troubled Ukrainian

Government, a course of action that could greatly benefit Kiev and potentially soften

the imminent austerity measures the IMF bailout is going to impose on Ukrainian

citizens. Most likely, such assistance will not provoke Moscow a lot.

Another option for the Obama Administration would be to actively pursue the

international isolation of the Russian Federation. It must be stated that the US did

Page | 27


2014

tried to accomplish that after the annexation of Crimea; however it can be argued that

the US failed to do so. In the Un General Assembly vote condemning the Annexation

of Crimea only half of the UN Member States voted in favor of the Draft Resolution,

while 82 countries abstained or were absent from the session, among them Brazil,

China, Egypt, India, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Kazakhstan and the United Arab Emirates. [85]

Even close US allies such as Israel have opted to maintain a neutral stance during the

crisis, while other countries have refused to impose sanction on Russia, as they do not

wish to imperil their normalized relations with Russia. [86] [87]

Another option for the United States is to influence the newly elected Ukrainian

President to put an end to the conflict and start genuine all-inclusive national

reconciliation in order to achieve a long-lasting peace, stability and security in

Ukraine. If Kiev continues this deadly conflict with its own citizens, the situation gets

more and more destabilized and irreparable. It is essential to outline that US vital

national interests were never at stake in Ukraine and the longer and deeper the US

gets involved in this crisis, the more difficult it will become for itself to disengage

when necessary.

As Stephen M. Walt argues it is necessary for the United States to relearn power

politics, a creed that it once excelled at. Strength and geography have always been

essential elements in the international system and in world politics, even if the US has

long forgotten it. [84]

European Union

It is essential to outline that the European Union and its actions so far, definitively

have helped to create and escalate the current crisis. Some argue that despite EU’s

honesty that Ukraine cannot be swimming in two different ponds at them same time –

both the European Union and the Eurasian Customs Union- it may have done a major

geopolitical mistake by trying to distance Ukraine from the exclusive Russian sphere

of influence. [88]

It is also of great importance to understand that the European Union with its

normative, administrative and technocratic approach to foreign policy makes it a

different kind of global actor. If that distinguishing fact makes the European Foreign

Page | 28


2014

Policy better than those with strategic and energetic foreign policies remains dubious.

[89] [90]

Europeans might truly believe that Ukraine has a European future if Ukraine does

want one and if Ukraine is ready to do all those reforms and sacrifices necessary for it

to adjust to the European social, economic, institutional and political standards.

However, European Union still has not offered Ukraine an explicit membership

perspective, as its eastern Member-States, like Poland, want a friendly neighboring

Ukraine, but western Member-States, like Spain and Portugal, believe that Ukraine is

too far away from their own interests. [89]

Alongside with the United States of America, the European Union has decided to

impose unilateral sanctions against Russia, rather hesitantly one may add. Imposing

tougher sanctions in cooperation with the US on the key sectors of the Russian

economy could indeed deal a major blow to Moscow’s fragile economy. The

European and Russia economies are deeply interconnected, therefore any harsh

sanctions on Russia would also deal a massive blow to the shaky European Union,

which is desperately trying to escape from the slumber of fiscal austerity.

Page | 29


2014

Given the great dependence of the European Union to Russian oil and natural gas,

one would certainly advise the European Union and its members to start immediately

efforts in order to diversify its energy suppliers. That could be done by pursuing the

exploitation of newly found oil and gas deposits in the eastern Mediterranean and by

seeking new suppliers that would be interested in acquiring a share of the vast

European Energy Market. Such new potential suppliers could be some of its

Mediterranean neighbors or possibly oil and natural gas rich African neighbors like

Nigeria. [91] If a diversification is achieved – although that might be in the medium

and long-term- European Union’s flexibility to negotiate with Russia in a vast number

of issues can be greatly increased. Even the decision and the commencement of its

systematic pursuit can yield positive results for Europe.

Another step the European Union can take in order to increase its assertiveness, not

only in the Ukrainian crisis but in the long-term as well, is to seriously consider

adopting a serious Common Defense Strategy, which can include even the creation of

a European Armed Force. It can easily be argued that the Union does not need an

Armed Force given its rather normative foreign policy and due to the existence of

NATO, however it is important to underline at this point that not all the Members of

Page | 30


2014

the EU are members of NATO, and in an ever-changing global landscape NATO has

taken and might take duties that might defer from the ones of the Union. As we have

seen in the past NATO has taken action in regions far away from Europe and the

potential rise of China might force it to get involved in areas far away from what

someone may call an extended neighborhood of Europe. Such course of action might

appear very provocative to Russia and raise suspicions and similar counteractions, but

it seems a necessary step forward if the European Union wishes to become a true

global actor in the new-old days of great power security competition that are coming

back. [84]

As long as the European Union remains closely attached to its style of being a

normative power its most pragmatic and efficient way of helping Ukraine is through

financial assistance, as the Ukrainian economy is practically collapsed. Additionally,

Europe can cooperate with the new Ukrainian Authorities in institution building, anti-

corruption efforts, economic and political reforms; areas that Kiev will need to tend to

if it genuinely wants to become truly independent, self-sustaining and in the long-term

a member of the European family. However, providing sufficient amounts of financial

aid to Ukraine could create a rift between austerity stricken countries of the European

South and might prove to be a great burden for the fragile European economy.

Similarly as the US did, attempting the international isolation of Russia could be

an option for the European Union as well. However, the economic interdependence

and the strategic importance of maintaining close relations with Moscow make this

course of action highly impossible, while its success would be at the very least

dubious as it has been stated previously.

It is certain that the European Union is not going to benefit from a prolonged and

continuously escalated crisis in Ukraine. The Eurozone crisis is not over yet and if

Europe wants to finally overcome it, it will need a stable, normalized and peaceful

environment, where it can build mutually prosperous relations with its existing

partners and find new ones. Therefore, it is essential for the European Union to seek

ways to de-escalate the crisis in Ukraine and pursue a solution that will involve and

satisfy all parties, as this is the only way to achieve lasting peace and stability.

Page | 31


2014

The European Union is one of the few actors in the crisis that can persuade the new

Ukrainian Government to pursue such goals and start an inclusive dialogue, through

which national reconciliation and stability can be achieved.

One positive development so far for the European Union remains the fact that

European Leaders have formulated a specific Foreign Policy towards an international

development. Hopefully, the Ukrainian crisis will help Europe’s Leaders to realize

that the European Union’s strength originates from its cooperation, unity and

solidarity.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

One could validly argue that the Ukrainian crisis is a product of the continuous

expansion of NATO, which following the dissolution of the USSR absorbed a great

number of former Warsaw Pact Member-States and slowly, but steadily started to

move its borders closer and closer towards Russia. Since the mid-1990s, when NATO

started its march eastwards Russia opposed its plans, but there was little it could do as

it was hampered by economic and political crises. However, today’s Russia is

stronger than it what it used to be in the 90’s, that was evident by their reaction in

2008 and by its actions in the Ukrainian crisis, if it was not apparent already by its

enhanced economic, military and political influence around the globe.

One of the key problems NATO has faced so far in the Ukrainian crisis, which led

it to be nothing more than an observer, is the reality that Ukraine is not a member of

NATO and has no legitimate reason to get involved, since there have been no direct

threats towards the security of its member-states.

Secondly, NATO being a military alliance does not have the appropriate tools to

deal with the covert and indirect aggression, which is the tactics Russia has used so

far; this is the reason why NATO and the West have been taken by surprise several

times during the crisis. [92]

So far NATO’s responses to the Ukrainian crisis has been to suspend almost all

cooperation with Moscow, decide the provision of military assistance to Ukraine by

providing training to the Ukrainian forces, hold a number of NATO exercises and

Joint exercises between NATO and Ukraine and the strategic redeployment of a

Page | 32


2014

handful of airplanes and warships at the eastern member-states. NATO has already

decided to increase presence in Europe with two main initiatives, the European

Reassurance Initiative and the Readiness Action Plan. These two initiatives are not

aiming to deter Russia, after all no one believes that Russia is interested in attacking

any member of the alliance, but rather to reassure nervous allies in Eastern Europe

and the Baltics. [93]

The most important things that NATO should do are: firstly to make sure that the

alliance is strengthened so it can hold together politically and convey the message it

cannot be picked apart; and secondly that it refrains from any further expansion

eastwards as such a move would definitely provoke Moscow and would cause

unpredictable reactions, that may as well destabilize not only Europe but seriously

impact global politics.

Russian Federation

So far the Russian Federation has been the leading actor in the Ukrainian crisis.

President Vladimir Putin has been calling the shots, while the EU and the US are

merely trying to react.

Before the tools at Russia’s disposal are discussed, it is imperative to understand

the reasoning behind Russia’s actions so far, as well as its objectives. European

Union’s attempts to lure Ukraine away from Russia’s sphere of influence was

perceived and is a direct threat to Russia’s core national interests, as Russia sees itself

as the unique dominant force in the post-soviet space. If Ukraine was to align from the

west and distance itself from Russia, firstly shattered any hopes for a successful and

viable Eurasian Union and secondly highly increased the danger of having NATO at

Russian borders in the mid-term future.

What Westerners failed to grasp was that President Putin considers Ukraine so

important to Russia, that he would be willing to wage overt war for its sake, if he had

to. Putin has been willing to pay a substantial price, because Russia’s vital interests

were at stake. Neither the European Union nor the US have any vital interests at stake

in Ukraine, which is the reason they have repeatedly stated that they are not going to

wage war against Russia for Ukraine’s sake. [8] A nation should never vehemently

Page | 33


2014

"vocally" oppose actions by another country when they are unwilling and or unable to

influence the outcome of a regional dispute.

President Putin believes that the Maidan and the ousting of former Ukrainian

President Yanukovych was a western plot, which aimed to weaken Moscow and

deprive a close partner from it. The danger of losing Ukraine, such an integral partner

for Russia, created certain objectives that had to be achieved and specific messaged

had to be communicated to the West and the rest of the international community.

Russia’s objectives so far have been the following: firstly to put an end to the

NATO and EU expansionism, particularly in the post-Soviet space by making it clear

that Russia will firmly oppose such plans; secondly Russia had to solidify the control

over its naval base in Sevastopol, which preserves its ability to project power in the

Mediterranean and beyond; and thirdly Russia had to remind Ukraine’s Leaders –

current and future – that Russia has several ways to seriously disrupt their country and

it is in their interest to remain Moscow’s good books. [8]

Russia has seemingly managed to achieve its goals, with a small cost and has tried

to de-escalate the crisis, by accepting the results of the Ukrainian Presidential

elections and by slowly and discreetly distancing himself from the separatists and

decreasing his assistance towards them. [8] Russia most likely will not attempt to

further escalate the crisis, unless it is seriously provoked or its gains become

endangered.

The message Russia needed to communicate to the world has been that it has

recovered from the post-Soviet meltdown, that it is seeking to play a more prominent

role in the new multipolar international system and that it had no longer to accept

whatever indignities anyone might decide to impose on it.

Russia is aware that Ukrainian economy is already collapsed, therefore has been

and is willing to use several economic measures in its efforts to coerce the Ukrainian

Government and influence the outcome of the crisis. Such economic measures are the

exports of natural gas to Ukraine, as well as the other bilateral trade relations, which

can be severed or severely disrupted, if Moscow wants to, as Russia is its biggest

trading partner. [94]

Page | 34


2014

Taking under consideration the imminent austerity measures and reforms that

Ukraine will have to adopt in order to receive its IMF bailout loan; one would expect

that the undisrupted continuation and further improvement of bilateral trade with

Russia is essential for the viability of the economic recovery of the country.

If Ukraine and Russia do not reach an agreement over the gas debt and prices and

the Russian natural gas does not start to flow towards Ukraine soon, the social and

economic consequences could be severe. Moscow realizes that austerity measures,

which most likely will include lower salaries and pensions, cuts in healthcare and

social security and increase gas prices, can turn public opinion very quickly against

Kiev, especially if the economy continues to deteriorate. A deteriorating Ukrainian

economy can not only alienate the people with its current government but also with its

current western patrons, who will have brought the IMF and its measures to their

country. So Moscow understands that unconventional warfare in the form of measures

targeting the Ukrainian economy can coerce and disrupt the current government and,

in the long term, possibly overthrow it as well.

Russia has conducted in great extent and effect a series of unconventional warfare

tactics. That has been the case in Crimea and currently in Eastern Ukraine. Russia

used pro-Russians, alongside Special Forces, mercenaries and secret agents in order to

achieve a swift and covert capture of Crimea, while at the moment uses similar tactics

with the aim of destabilizing Eastern Ukraine, by providing guidance, training,

supplies and other types of assistance to pro-Russian separatists. [95] [92]

A dismembered Ukraine is not something that the Kremlin wants. Moscow has a

genuine interest to have a weakened but stable Ukraine, if not docile to Moscow at

least cooperative. That is another reason Russia is not interested in annexing Eastern

Ukraine as it did with Crimea. Russia wants a decentralized Ukrainian Government

preoccupied with its internal rifts, so it can retain its control and influence over the

country.

The above makes overt actions, like a direct military intervention in Ukraine by

Russia rather impossible. However, the stakes at risk for Russia are great and if it is

left with no other option or it is seriously provoked to the stated that it feels ridiculed

Page | 35


2014

in front of the international community, a direct military intervention in Ukraine

would be considered as an option.

Russia has taken all the measures necessary to reassure both Kiev and the West of

its willingness to do so, as it has held a great number of surprise military drills along

its borders with Eastern Ukraine and the amassment of large number of troops and

other military assets along the borders for prolonged periods of time.

While the US has unsuccessfully attempted to isolate Russia, Moscow has been

carefully building before and during the crisis stronger ties with several countries.

President Putin recently has improved diplomatic and economic ties with countries

like Brazil, India, Israel, Japan, North Korea, Egypt, Iran, Afghanistan, Cuba, China

and currently is on a tour to Latin America. [78] [82] [87] [80] [96] [97] [98] [86] [99]

[100]

Nevertheless, Russia - despite its current advantageous position and the ample of

tools at its disposal- has nothing to benefit from if the situation in Ukraine escalates

further and ends up destabilizing the whole region.

Page | 36


2014

Resolving the crisis: Kiev’s options and choices

Ukraine has been the country affected the most by the ongoing crisis. What is quite

obvious since the crisis is going on inside its territory and already has lost control

over Crimea – most likely forever- and despite recent success in the Anti-Terrorist

Operation in Eastern Ukraine, the region is very unstable. The Ukrainian economy is

at a very weak state and the divisions among the populace are growing stronger. [101]

However, there is still hope for Ukraine and that hope and prospect for a swift

resolution of the crisis lies with the election of the new Ukrainian President Petro

Poroshenko.

Poroshenko, although one of the richest businessmen in Ukraine, has a long career

in Ukrainian Politics as he used to be Foreign Minister during the Presidency of

Viktor Yushchenko and later on he was named Minister of Trade and Economic

Development by former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

Poroshenko manage to win with a wide difference in the first round of the

Ukrainian Presidential elections and that gives him legitimacy and political leverage

to pursue a swift end of the crisis. Moscow’s recognition of his victory empowers

Poroshenko to work with Moscow in resolving the crisis. Despite, the economic war

that Russia raged against Ukraine in its efforts to dissuade Kiev from signing the

Association agreement with Brussels, that created tensions between the Ukrainian

oligarch and Russia in 2013, it appears that Poroshenko’s relations with Moscow are

not damaged beyond repair. [102]

Additionally, while Poroshenko has always been a supporter of a more Western

Ukraine and supported the Maidan movement, maintained his distance from the

political leaders of the Maidan and the crimes that are allegedly attributed by

Moscow, pro-Russians and others. Therefore, one could argue that he has little if none

responsibility for what occurred before his appointment, that he has no blood on his

hands. Although his ongoing offensive, alongside with the use of heavy weapons

against the separatists inside civilian areas in Eastern Ukraine, may soon change this

perception.

Page | 37


2014

Consequently, Poroshenko might be the man that can shape Ukraine’s future by

resolving the crisis by capitalizing on his merits. A successful businessman, a

moderate politician, with good relations with the West, the ability to accommodate

Russia’s concerns and compromise, and so far is relieved from the mistakes of his

predecessors, while having a recent and wide election victory that can provide him

with all the necessary legitimacy to take responsible decisions.

Unfortunately, it is not all well for Poroshenko. He might not share yet

responsibility for the actions and mistakes of his predecessors, but he is now called to

work with the realities and problems of the Ukraine, which he has inherited.

As stated before Ukraine’s economy is collapsing and any prolongation, let alone

escalation of the crisis, will definitely worsen the situation. Ukraine’s economy

instead of flourishing after the collapse of the Soviet Union, like the economy of other

former Soviet Republics did, has been decreasing steadily, marred by corruption and

energy inefficiency. [101] Russia has always been Ukraine’s biggest trade partner and

the prolonged disruption of relations between the two countries is taking its toll of

Ukraine’s economy. Indebted Ukraine, which is additionally in huge annual budget

deficit, has asked for a bailout from the International Monetary Fund.

IMF loans come alongside with the need for stringent reforms and fiscal austerity.

Kiev will have to cut governmental spending by eliminating gas subsidies, which will

lead in the increase of gas prices for consumers, by making decisive cuts to civil

service salaries, pensions and healthcare. Hryvnia, Ukraine’s national currency is

already plummeting and will most likely continue to do so as a result of the austerity

measures. Such austerity policies have a very negative effect on the living conditions

of a population and bear the possibility to alienate the populace not only with its

government, which will be carrying out these cutbacks and reforms, but also with the

pro-western sentiment and the Maidan movement that has led the country away from

Russia and its less cruelly conditioned financial aid.

Ukraine’s economy has remained a Soviet style economy and the reforms

necessary for its transition to a more western-like economy will also be rather difficult

at least at the early stages.

Page | 38


2014

The new Government will have to attract Foreign Direct Investments in order to

create a sustainable and prosperous economy. However, the longer the country

remains in crisis; it is unlikely for any foreign investors to take the huge risk to invest

in Ukraine. Moreover, the majority of Ukraine’s heavy industry, including the mining,

mineral and industrial sectors, is located in the unstable, embattled Eastern Ukraine. It

is evident that resolving the crisis permanently is of paramount importance for Kiev,

if it yearns for economic stability and growth.

As if economic uncertainty was not enough of a problem for the newly elect

President, Ukraine is a deeply socially troubled country. The fissures among the

Ukrainian population are perhaps the biggest cause of the crisis. Ukraine is split in

half between West and East, pro-westerners and pro-Russians, those who believe the

country they inhabit should have closer relations and belong to Europe and those who

favor closer relations with Russia. This is not solely an issue of orientation, but it also

has language and nationality extensions, as is the case in many former Soviet

Republics. North and West Ukraine speaks in majority Ukrainian and consider

themselves Ukrainians, while South and East Ukraine speaks mostly Russian as their

mother language and are or consider themselves as Russians.

Sources: State Statistics Service of Ukraine, Ukraine's Central Election Commission

Page | 39


2014

The Ukrainian society is deeply divided and as the crisis continues the enmity

between the two sides becomes more and more sizeable and reconciliation becomes

more and more farfetched. Pro-Ukrainians consider their opponents as traitors, rebels

and separatists, while pro-Russians consider the others traitors, usurpers and Nazis.

For the past several weeks, Kiev has begun an Anti-Terrorist Operation in eastern

Ukraine utilizing everything at its disposal, including air strikes, artillery, tanks and

infantry. During the attacks against the rebel-held areas, the Ukrainian military has

targeted its own civilian areas and has possibly damaged beyond repair the its image

and legitimacy for those living in these areas. This has probably resulted in bringing

local population and others around the country that have been neutral until now closer

to the rebels.

It is beyond questioning that the continuation of this internal conflict can alienate

the two factions completely and result in the eruption of a full blown civil war with

destructive results that will exceed any imagination.

President Poroshenko and his country stand at a crossroads. On the one hand, the

public demands that the Government adopts a firmer stance against the rebels and

continue its military operations with the sole goal of annihilating the separatists. On

the other hand, forbearance, prudence and logic dictate that President Poroshenko

pursues with all his power to end this strife, find a solution that will be a compromise

that will bridge the gaps, facilitate national reconciliation and guarantee the Ukraine’s

stability.

If Poroshenko chooses to continue this confrontation, Ukraine will be called to pay

a great price, which is certain; the results are not. Ukraine’s army is fairly weak and

its current operation burdens the exiguous Ukrainian economy and systematically

worsens its capabilities due to the increasing amount of losses in men and assets. Each

day this conflict continues several lives are lost and the damage done to the country’s

infrastructure and unity is unfathomable. The continuation of the conflict, alongside

with a possible deterioration of the situation on the ground for the pro-Russians might

draw Moscow’s ire, and provoke it to more overt actions. Such development would be

nothing short of catastrophic for Kiev.

Page | 40


2014

Alternatively, if Poroshenko opted for the path of dedicating all his resources in

resolving the crisis, by having an all-inclusive dialogue that would ensure that a viable

comprise, that would reassure all parties involved of their interests, then Ukraine

could find the much sought peace and stability it needs.

Before the beginning of the crisis, Ukraine had three orientation choices: the

European one, the Russian one and the Neutral one. As the situation remains thusly, it

is highly improbable that neither the European nor the Russian choices are viable.

Russia has shown that it will not tolerate an eastward expansion of the EU or NATO

and while showing that Moscow has managed to alienate a large portion of Ukraine’s

population, for the time being.

Neutrality is an option that will not please everyone, but it will create the necessary

stable environment, in which Ukraine can heal its wounds and move ahead. A

Ukraine outside of NATO and the EU is one of Russia’s primary goals and will most

likely be happy to cement that, while Ukraine will become more flexible with its

relations with Russia and the West.

Ukraine’s best option at the moment is to decide to remain neutral, normalize and

pursue closer ties with both Russia and the EU, making sure it uses this unfortunate

adventure as driving force for change, Change that will make it stronger as a nation.

Page | 41


2014

Closing Remarks

For almost seven months now, Ukraine has spiraled to a state of chaos, instability,

uncertainty and violence, being a prey to the geopolitical power plays between Russia

and the West.

The European Union overplayed its hand by supporting the Maidan protests and

the ousting of President Yanukovych, bringing to power a pro-European regime of

questionable legitimacy. Russia perceived that as a brazen violation of its sphere of

influence and a profound attack to its core national interests and requited with

adroitness and ruthlessness. Moscow within a few months has managed to consolidate

its control over the Crimean Peninsula, which bears paramount strategic importance

for its naval power projection in the Mediterranean and the world; and succeeded in

sowing chaos and destabilizing the Eastern Ukraine. Astoundingly, Russia managed

all that without having to use direct military force, thusly making it exceedingly

difficult for Europe and NATO to respond timely and effectively.

Subsequently, the United States of America, the European Union and NATO can

actually do little, unless they are willing to withstand greater collateral damage or

even risk a direct confrontation with Moscow.

One can contemplate that Russia has achieved its majors objectives in this crisis –

thwarting EU’s and NATO’s expansion eastwards for the foreseeable future, securing

the naval base of Sevastopol and reminding to Ukraine that one does not simply defy

Moscow- and is looking to de-escalate and resolve the crisis and return to the status

quo ante, with probably a few concessions.

Newly elected President Petro Poroshenko must ponder upon the very real

problems his country is facing in the economic and national unity sectors and make a

brave decision. He must either yield to the public demands and continue a destructive

and uncertain conflict against the pro-Russian separatists in the East or heed to

prudence and reason and pursue to resolve the crisis, bringing all parties on the

negotiation table, so that a comprise can be reached.

Day by day, the situation worsens and it is possible that if the crisis is not resolved

by the end of summer, it will be rather difficult for either side to make a step back and

Page | 42


2014

negotiate for a solution. Prolonging the conflict forces both sides to invest more and

more to the goal of total victory, leaving them very little to nothing to lose at the end.

As the economic crisis is not over yet, the European Union, Russia and the US

should not be interested in expending themselves in superfluous crises, but they

should rather utilize their resources and assets to more pressing and perilous

developments around the globe.

Alas, not all international actors habituate themselves in acting rationally or have

the courage to take a deep breath and make concessions and occasionally immure

themselves to courses of action that can only lead to a dead-end. Likewise, in the

Ukrainian crisis there is still time for all parties involved to make the right choices

and prevent Ukraine from becoming a black spot on Europe’s map. What they will

decide? Only time can tell…

References

Page | 43


2014

[1] T. Buba, "Russo-Ukrainian Relations: Sevastopol and the Black Sea Fleet," The Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University, Washington, D.C., 2010.

[2] M. A. Molchanov, "Bilateralism and security in Russian-Ukrainian relations interpreting political cultures," United Nations University, Institute of Advanced Studies, Tokyo, 1997.

[3] A. Blomfield, "Russia 'distributing passports in the Crimea'," The Telegraph, 17 August 2008. [Online]. Available: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/2575421/Russia-distributing-passports-in-the-Crimea.html. [Accessed 9 July 2014].

[4] K. Peisker, "Mapping Religion and Politics in Ukraine," Harvard University, 2011.

[5] J. F. Mearsheimer, "The Case for a Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent," in Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72, No. 3, Council on Foreign Relations, 1993, pp. 50-66.

[6] "Eastern Partnership," European union External Action Service, [Online]. Available: http://eeas.europa.eu/eastern/index_en.htm. [Accessed 9 July 2014].

[7] R. D. Asmus, R. L. Kugler and F. S. Larrabee, "Building A New NATO," Foreign Affairs, October 1993. [Online]. Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/49201/ronald-d-asmus-richard-l-kugler-f-stephen-larrabee/building-a-new-nato. [Accessed 9 July 2014].

[8] S. M. Walt, "No-Bluff Putin," Foreign Policy, 4 June 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/06/04/no_bluff_putin_russia_ukraine_obama_tom_friedman. [Accessed 9 July 2014].

[9] S. Datsyuk, "Ukraine’s European Illusions," Global Affairs, 27 December 2013. [Online]. Available: http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/number/Ukraines-European-Illusions-16289 . [Accessed 9 July 2014].

[10] M. A. Molchanov, "Ukraine's European Choice: Pitfalls and Prospects," NATO: Office of Information and Press, Brussels, 2003.

[11] "Association Agreement," European Union External Action Service, 21 March 2014. [Online]. Available: http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/ukraine/eu_ukraine/association_agreement/index_en.htm. [Accessed 9 July 2014].

Page | 44


2014

[12] D. Kuzmin and I. Maksymenko, "Analysis of the EU-Ukraine relations in the context of the Association Agreement and related documents and the EU 2014-2020 Financial Perspective," in Analyses of EU – Partner Countries' Relations: Reflections from Belarus, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine, Maribor, Institute for Ethnic and Regional Studies, 2012, pp. 448-561.

[13] A. Buzgalin, "Ukraine: Russia or the European Union? Reject a choice between ‘lesser evils’," Links, International Journal of Socialist Renewal, 24 December 2013. [Online]. Available: http://links.org.au/node/3645. [Accessed 9 July 2014].

[14] V. Ivanter, V. Geets, V. Yasinskiy and A. Shirov, "The Economic Effects of the Creation of the Single Economic Space and Potential Accession of Ukraine," in Eurasian Integration Yearbook 2012, Almaty, Eurasian Development Bank, 2012.

[15] V. Movchan, R. Giucci and K. Kutsenko, "Trade Policy in the Ukraine: Strategic Aspects and Next Steps to Be Taken," Institute for Economic Research and Policy Consulting, 2010.

[16] A. Gurkov, "Eurasian Union: Putin's answer to the EU," Deutsche Welle, 29 May 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.dw.de/eurasian-union-putins-answer-to-the-eu/a-17669138. [Accessed 9 July 2014].

[17] J. Story, "The Ukrainian Crisis: The Finland Option," INSEAD Knowledge, 2 April 2014. [Online]. Available: http://knowledge.insead.edu/blog/insead-blog/the-ukrainian-crisis-the-finland-option-3264. [Accessed 9 July 2014].

[18] Z. Brzezinski, "Russia needs a "Finland option" for Ukraine," Financial Times, 23 February 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/7f722496-9c86-11e3-b535-00144feab7de,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F7f722496-9c86-11e3-b535-00144feab7de.html%3Fsiteedition%3Dintl&siteedition=intl&_i_referer=#axzz37DXTB7hb. [Accessed 9 July 2014].

[19] A. Rettman, "Ukraine pulls the plug on EU treaty," euobserver.com, 21 November 2013. [Online]. Available: http://euobserver.com/foreign/122190. [Accessed 6 June 2014].

[20] D. M. Herszenhorn, "Ukraine Blames I.M.F. for Halt to Agreements With Europe," International New York Times, p. A4, 23 November 2013.

[21] Euronews, "Ukraine: tension in Kyiv as pro and anti government protesters hold rallies," www.euronews.com, 29 November 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.euronews.com/2013/11/29/ukraine-tension-in-kyiv-as-pro-and-anti-government-protesters-hold-rallies/. [Accessed 6 June 2014].

Page | 45


2014

[22] rt.com, "Ukrainian police violently eject pro-EU protesters from Kiev square," rt.com, 30 November 2013. [Online]. Available: http://rt.com/news/ukraine-police-disperse-protest-509/. [Accessed 6 June 2014].

[23] BBC News, "Russia offers Ukraine major economic assistance," www.bbc.com, 17 December 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-25411118. [Accessed 6 June 2014].

[24] A. E. Kramer and A. Higgins, "Ukraine’s Leader Flees the Capital; Elections Called.," New York Times, p. A1, 23 February 2014.

[25] S. Walker, "Ukraine's former PM rallies protesters after Yanukovych flees Kiev," The Guardian, 23 February 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/22/ukraine-president-yanukovych-flees-kiev. [Accessed 6 June 2014].

[26] H. Salem, S. Walker and L. Harding, "Conflict fears rise after pro-Russian gunmen seize Crimean parliament," The Guardian, 28 February 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/24/ukraine-crimea-russia-secession. [Accessed 6 June 2014].

[27] P. Lewis, D. Roberts, I. Traynor and S. Walker, "US imposes visa restrictions on Russian officials as Obama signs sanctions order," The Guardian, 6 March 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/06/us-visa-restrictions-officials-ukraine-russia. [Accessed 6 June 2014].

[28] "Crimea, Sevastopol pass declarations of independence," Voice of Russia, 11 March 2014. [Online]. Available: http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_03_11/Crimea-parliament-passes-independence-declaration-0493/. [Accessed 6 June 2014].

[29] S. Brown and T. Heritage, "Russia holds war games near Ukraine; Merkel warns of catastrophe," Reuters, 13 March 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/13/us-ukraine-crisis-idUSBREA1Q1E820140313. [Accessed 6 June 2014].

[30] The Associated Press, "Crimea votes to leave Ukraine in secession referendum and join Russia," CBC News, 16 March 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/crimea-votes-to-leave-ukraine-in-secession-referendum-and-join-russia-1.2574719. [Accessed 6 June 2014].

[31] T. Merz, J. Ensor and A. Merat, "Ukraine: Crimea 'to join Russia' after referendum: live," The Telegraph, 17 March 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10702323/Ukraine-Crimea-to-join-Russia-after-referendum-live.html. [Accessed 6 June 2014].

Page | 46


2014

[32] BBC News, "Ukraine crisis: Putin signs Russia-Crimea treaty," BBC, 18 March 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26630062. [Accessed 6 June 2014].

[33] M. Hosenball, "Western governments see continuing Russian buildup on Ukraine border," Reuters, 26 March 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/26/us-ukraine-crisis-usa-idUSBREA2P22120140326. [Accessed 6 june 2014].

[34] R. Oliphant, "Ukraine crisis: Kiev tells troops to withdraw from Crimea in face of 'Russian aggression'," The Telegraph, 24 March 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10718949/Ukraine-crisis-Kiev-tells-troops-to-withdraw-from-Crimea-in-face-of-Russian-aggression.html. [Accessed 6 June 2014].

[35] Ukrainian News Agency, "Defense Ministry: 50% Of Ukrainian Troops In Crimea Defect To Russia," Ukrainian News, 24 March 2014. [Online]. Available: http://un.ua/eng/article/500186.html. [Accessed 6 June 2014].

[36] "Pro-Russian Crowds Storm Government Buildings in eastern Ukraine," Center for Strategic and International Studies, 6 April 2014. [Online]. Available: http://csis.org/ukraine/index.htm. [Accessed 6 June 2014].

[37] ""People's Republic of Donetsk" Calls For Russia to Send "Peacekeepers"," Center for Strategic and International Studies, 7 April 2014. [Online]. Available: http://csis.org/ukraine/index.htm. [Accessed 6 June 2014].

[38] "Ukraine, Pro-Russian Protestors Square Off in East," Center for Strategic and International Studies, 8 April 2014. [Online]. Available: http://csis.org/ukraine/index.htm. [Accessed 6 June 2014].

[39] "Pro-Russian Forces Seize Additional Facilities," Center for Strategic and International Studies, 12 April 2014. [Online]. Available: http://csis.org/ukraine/index.htm. [Accessed 6 June 2014].

[40] "Protestors Seize Building in Tenth Eastern City," Center for Strategic and International Studies, 14 April 2014. [Online]. Available: http://csis.org/ukraine/index.htm. [Accessed 6 June 2014].

[41] "Geneva Talks Result in Commitments to De-Escalation, Political Reform Process," Center for Strategic and International Studies, 17 April 2014. [Online]. Available: http://csis.org/ukraine/index.htm. [Accessed 6 June 2014].

[42] "Shootout Near Slovyansk Imperils “Easter Truce”," Center for Strategic and International Studies, 20 April 2014. [Online]. Available: http://csis.org/ukraine/index.htm. [Accessed 6 June 2014].

Page | 47


2014

[43] BBC News, "Ukraine Crisis Timeline," BBC, 7 June 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26248275. [Accessed 7 June 2014].

[44] "Separatists Attack Border Guard Headquarters in Luhansk," Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2 June 2014. [Online]. Available: http://csis.org/ukraine/index.htm. [Accessed 7 June 2014].

[45] "Dueling Narratives from Russia, Ukraine on State of Border," Center for Strategic and International Studies, 5 June 2014. [Online]. Available: http://csis.org/ukraine/index.htm. [Accessed 7 June 2014].

[46] "Separatists Attack Border Guard Headquarters in Luhansk," Center for Strategic ad International Studies, 2 June 2014. [Online]. Available: http://csis.org/ukraine/index.htm. [Accessed 16 June 2014].

[47] A. Nemtsova, "Witness to a Ukraine Rebel Breakthrough," The Daily Beast, 4 June 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/04/witness-to-a-ukraine-rebel-breakthrough.html. [Accessed 14 June 2014].

[48] "Poroshenko Sworn in as Ukraine’s President," Center for Strategic and International Studies, 7 June 2014. [Online]. Available: http://csis.org/ukraine/index.htm. [Accessed 14 June 2014].

[49] "Poroshenko Calls for End to Violence as Slovyansk Clashes Continue," Center for Strategic and International Studies, 8 June 2014. [Online]. Available: http://csis.org/ukraine/index.htm. [Accessed 14 June 2014].

[50] "Ukraine Orders Police Mobilization as Fight for East Continues," Center for Strategic and International Studies, 9 June 2014. [Online]. Available: http://csis.org/ukraine/index.htm. [Accessed 14 June 2014].

[51] "Pro-Russian Forces, Military Clash Near Kramatorsk, Slovyansk, Luhansk," Center for Strategic and International Studies, 10 June 2014. [Online]. Available: http://csis.org/ukraine/index.htm. [Accessed 14 June 2014].

[52] "Violent Protests Outside Russian Embassy in Kiev," Center for Strategic and International Studies, 14 June 2014. [Online]. Available: http://csis.org/ukraine/index.htm. [Accessed 14 June 2014].

[53] "Russia Cuts Off Gas to Ukraine," Center for Strategic and International Studies, 16 June 2014. [Online]. Available: http://csis.org/ukraine/index.htm. [Accessed 16 june 2014].

[54] "Poroshenko Proposes Cease-Fire in East, Dependent on Border Security," Center for Strategic and International Studies, 16 June 2014. [Online]. Available: http://csis.org/ukraine/index.htm. [Accessed 16 June 2014].

Page | 48


2014

[55] "Poroshenko Announces Temporary Unilateral Ceasefire," Center for Strategic and International Studies, 18 June 2014. [Online]. Available: http://csis.org/ukraine/index.htm. [Accessed 18 June 2014].

[56] "Poroshenko Announces Week-Long Cease-Fire," Center for Strategic and International Studies, 20 June 2014. [Online]. Available: http://csis.org/ukraine/index.htm. [Accessed 20 June 2014].

[57] BBC News, "Ukraine crisis: Putin gives ceasefire qualified backing," BBC, 21 June 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27956555. [Accessed 21 June 2014].

[58] "Pro-Russian Groups Agree to Cease-Fire," Center for Strategic and International Studies, 23 June 2014. [Online]. Available: http://csis.org/ukraine/index.htm. [Accessed 23 June 2014].

[59] "Cease-Fire Violated as Rebels Shoot Down Military Helicopter," Center for Strategic and International Studies, 24 June 2014. [Online]. Available: http://csis.org/ukraine/index.htm. [Accessed 24 June 2014].

[60] "Putin: Rescind Authorization of Use of Force in Ukraine," Center for Strategic and International Studies, 24 June 2014. [Online]. Available: http://csis.org/ukraine/index.htm. [Accessed 24 June 2014].

[61] "Poroshenko Ends Ceasefire, Launches Military Operations Against Rebels," Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1 July 2014. [Online]. Available: http://csis.org/ukraine/index.htm. [Accessed 2 July 2014].

[62] "Poroshenko Names New Defense Minister," Center for Strategic and International Studies, 3 July 2014. [Online]. Available: http://csis.org/ukraine/index.htm. [Accessed 3 July 2014].

[63] "Ukraine’s Military Clears 17 Villages in Eastern Ukraine," Center for Strategic and International Studies, 4 July 2014. [Online]. Available: http://csis.org/ukraine/index.htm. [Accessed 5 July 2014].

[64] "Ukraine Routs Pro-Russian Insurgents, Rebel Forces Flee Slovyansk," Center for Strategic and International Studies, 5 July 2014. [Online]. Available: http://csis.org/ukraine/index.htm. [Accessed 5 July 2014].

[65] D. M. Herszenhorn, "Ukraine Rebels Are Retreating for Last Stand," New York Times, 7 July 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/08/world/europe/ukraine-rebels-are-retreating-for-last-stand.html?_r=0. [Accessed 7 July 2014].

[66] "Up to 30 Soldiers Killed in Insurgent Missile Strike," Center for Strategic and International Studies, 11 July 2014. [Online]. Available: http://csis.org/ukraine/index.htm. [Accessed 11 July 2014].

Page | 49


2014

[67] "Donetsk militia downs Ukraine’s Mi-24 chopper," ITAR-TASS, 13 July 2014. [Online]. Available: http://en.itar-tass.com/world/740288. [Accessed 13 July 2014].

[68] "Ukrainian warplane invades Russia airspace," ITAR-TASS, 13 July 2014. [Online]. Available: http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/740355. [Accessed 13 July 2014].

[69] "Ukrainian shell kills one, wounds two in house in Russia’s Donetsk," ITAR-TASS, 13 July 2014. [Online]. Available: http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/740317. [Accessed 13 July 2014].

[70] "Russian border guards come under fire on border between Russia, Ukraine," ITAR-TASS, 12 July 2014. [Online]. Available: http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/740247. [Accessed 12 July 2014].

[71] "Donetsk militia downs Ukraine’s Air Force aircraft," ITAR-TASS, 12 July 2014. [Online]. Available: http://en.itar-tass.com/world/740250. [Accessed 12 July 2014].

[72] "Poroshenko threatens to kill hundreds per each killed government soldier," ITAR-TASS, 11 July 2014. [Online]. Available: http://en.itar-tass.com/world/740156. [Accessed 11 July 2014].

[73] "Russia lodges resolute protest to Ukrainian charge d’affaires over territory shelling," ITAR-TASS, 13 July 2014. [Online]. Available: http://en.itar-tass.com/world/740344. [Accessed 13 July 2014].

[74] "Russia vows “tough response” to Ukraine’s military border shelling," ITAR-TASS, 13 July 2014. [Online]. Available: http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/740333. [Accessed 13 July 2014].

[75] J. Mankoff, "Assessing Washington's response to the Ukraine crisis," The Hill, 28 May 2014. [Online]. Available: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international-affairs/207350-assessing-washingtons-response-to-the-ukraine-crisis. [Accessed 12 June 2014].

[76] K. Hille and R. Wright, "Russia moves to oust US from International Space Station," The Financial Times, 13 May 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9338626e-dab7-11e3-8273-00144feabdc0.html#axzz37I6XmOMl. [Accessed 12 July 2014].

[77] A. Lankov, "N Korea and Russia: A step towards a worldwide anti-hegemonic front?," Al Jazeera, 22 June 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/06/n-korea-russia-step-toward-worl-201462253320470677.html. [Accessed 12 July 2014].

[78] Associated Press, "Why Russia is bolstering ties with North Korea," The Guardian, 4 June 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/04/russia-bolster-ties-north-korea.

Page | 50


2014

[Accessed 12 July 2014].

[79] R. Weitz, "Moscow’s Afghan Endgame," The Diplomat, 24 June 2014. [Online]. Available: http://thediplomat.com/2014/06/moscows-afghan-endgame/. [Accessed 12 July 2014].

[80] P. harris, "The Geopolitics of Sino-Russian Rapprochement," The Diplomat, 11 July 2014. [Online]. Available: http://thediplomat.com/2014/07/the-geopolitics-of-sino-russian-rapprochement/. [Accessed 12 July 2014].

[81] G. Jahn, "Analysis: Lavrov's Absence Clouds Iran Nuke Talks," abc News, 12 July 2014. [Online]. Available: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/analysis-lavrovs-absence-clouds-iran-nuke-talks-24533872. [Accessed 12 July 2014].

[82] "Iran’s talks on oil barter deal with Russia do not depend on Vienna dialogue," ITAR-TASS, 13 July 2014. [Online]. Available: http://en.itar-tass.com/world/740337. [Accessed 13 July 2014].

[83] M. Adomanis, "Ukraine's Economy Is Nearing Collapse," Forbes, 15 April 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2014/04/15/ukraines-economy-is-nearing-collapse/. [Accessed 12 July 2014].

[84] S. M. Walt, "The Bad Old Days Are Back," Foreign policy, 2 May 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/05/02/the_bad_old_days_are_back_china_us_russia_power_politics_realism. [Accessed 12 July 2014].

[85] "Voting Record on Draft Resolution A/68/L.39 Territorial Integrity of Ukraine," United Nations, New York, 2014.

[86] A. Asa-El, "Middle Israel: Can Israel be neutral on Ukraine?," Jerusalem Post, 19 April 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.jpost.com/Features/Front-Lines/Can-Israel-be-neutral-on-Ukraine-349814. [Accessed 12 July 2014].

[87] A. Pfeffer, "Putin can't count on the Jews of Ukraine - but he always has Israel," Haaretz, 7 March 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/.premium-1.578474. [Accessed 12 July 2014].

[88] S. Pifer, "Geopolitical Fight Between Russia and the West for Ukraine," Brookings Institute, 20 February 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2014/02/20-geopolitical-fight-between-russia-west-ukraine-pifer. [Accessed 12 July 2014].

[89] C. Adebahr, "Europe’s Decisive Role to Play in Ukraine," Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 7 May 2014. [Online]. Available: http://carnegieendowment.org/2014/05/07/europe-s-decisive-role-to-play-in-

Page | 51


2014

ukraine/ha3j. [Accessed 12 July 2014].

[90] G. Rachman, "Why Europe can't think strategically," Financial Times, 3 April 2014. [Online]. Available: http://blogs.ft.com/the-world/2014/04/why-europe-cant-think-strategically/?Authorised=false. [Accessed 12 July 2014].

[91] A. Tully, "Nigeria Offers To Step In If Russian Gas To EU Is Interrupted," Oilprice.com, 26 June 2014. [Online]. Available: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Nigeria-Offers-To-Step-In-If-Russian-Gas-To-EU-Is-Interrupted.html. [Accessed 13 July 2014].

[92] M. Galeotti, "Putin's Secret Weapon," Foreign Policy, 7 July 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/07/putins_secret_weapon_military_intelligence_gru_ukraine. [Accessed 13 July 2014].

[93] J. Marcus, "Nato weighs up new strategies - and costs," BBC News, 3 June 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27690684. [Accessed 13 July 2014].

[94] Bloomberg, "Ukraine's Biggest Trading Partners: Countries," Bloomberg, 24 March 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst/ukraines-biggest-trading-partners-countries. [Accessed 13 July 2014].

[95] D. S. Maxwell, "Taking a Spoon to a Gunfight," War on the Rocks, 2 April 2014. [Online]. Available: http://warontherocks.com/2014/04/taking-a-spoon-to-a-gunfight/#comment-10926. [Accessed 13 July 2014].

[96] "Russia’s Rosneft to help Cuba explore offshore oil reserves," Russia Today, 13 July 2014. [Online]. Available: http://rt.com/business/172204-russia-cuba-rosneft-cupet/. [Accessed 13 July 2014].

[97] "PF President Putin arriving in Brazilian capital for talks with President Dilma Rousseff," ITAR-TASS, 14 July 2014. [Online]. Available: http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/740395. [Accessed 14 July 2014].

[98] M. Dubovikova, "Egypt key to Russia’s resurgence in Middle East," Al Arabiya, 8 June 2014. [Online]. Available: http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2014/06/08/Egypt-key-to-Russia-s-resurgence-in-Middle-East.html. [Accessed 14 July 2014].

[99] S. Pourzitakis, "Japan and Russia: Arctic Friends," The Diplomat, 1 February 2014. [Online]. Available: http://thediplomat.com/2014/02/japan-and-russia-arctic-friends/. [Accessed 14 July 2014].

[100] "Brazil, China, India rally round Russia after G7 snub," euobserver, 25 March 2014. [Online]. Available: http://euobserver.com/foreign/123616. [Accessed 14 July 2014].

[101] T. Wood, "Ukraine's Sick Economy Needs Peace," The Moscow times, 6 July 2014.

Page | 52


2014

[Online]. Available: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/ukraines-sick-economy-needs-peace/503040.html. [Accessed 14 July 2014].

[102] "Ukraine Election: The Chocolate King Rises," Spiegel, 22 may 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/profile-of-petro-poroshenko-in-the-run-up-to-the-ukraine-elections-a-970325-2.html. [Accessed 14 July 2014].

Page | 53

the implications of the ukrainian crisis in the ... web viewthe implications of the ukrainian crisis...

Documents