Has Russia begun the Crimea annexation campaign?

I wish I were mistaken, but the events that unfold in and far outside Ukraine more and more resemble a jigsaw puzzle that is gradually turning into a scenario of the Crimean Peninsula breaking away from Ukraine. The global crisis, domestic political instability, and ineptitude of Ukrainian politicians have laid the groundwork for this kind of scenario.

It is an open secret that the Russian top leadership considers the Crimea its own territory that temporarily became part of Ukraine due to a historical mistake. To tell the truth, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin confirmed in August 2008 that “the Crimea is not a contested territory… And Russia recognized long ago the border’s of today’s Ukraine.” But that was the time when the active phase of the Georgian conflict had just come to an end, and Russia’s silence over the Crimea would have been too eloquent. On the other hand, smaller-caliber Russian politicians make from time to time unambiguous statements on the Crimea’s future. Should Ukrainians continue to disregard threats? For some events show that the preparatory stage is in full swing.

RUSSIA: POLAND BEARS THE BLAME FOR WORLD WAR TWO BECAUSE IT REFUSED TO CEDE TERRITORY TO GERMANY

The mass media reported in early June that the Russian Defense Ministry’s website had posted an article that puts the blame on Poland for unleashing World War Two. The Poles allegedly refused to meet the “rather moderate” demands of Germany, including the ceding of Danzig (Gdansk) to the latter. The article notes that most of Danzig residents were ethnic Germans who wished to reunite with their historical homeland and, hence, Germany’s demands were quite well founded.

Does this mean that the presence of a large number of residents of a different ethnicity in a region can be quite a well-founded reason for demanding that this territory be ceded to the state where this ethnicity is titular?

The Ministry of Defense soon removed this article from the site. This may seem as a misunderstanding. But what really matters is not the information itself but its consequences, i.e., public reaction to these claims. This article must have been primarily designed for domestic consumption in order to gauge the degree of public support for such “grounds.”

THE GAS NOOSE

In January the Russian Gazprom and Naftohaz Ukrainy signed a contract, extremely onerous for the latter, that is valid until 2019. Ukraine is bound over to import 40 billion cu. m. of gas in 2009 and 52 billion cu. m. in each of the subsequent years.

After signing the contract, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko said it was a victory for Ukraine. But as soon as in April she announced that the two countries had agreed that Russia would not impose sanctions on Ukraine in 2009 for importing a smaller amount of gas than the agreement stipulated.

According to President Victor Yushchenko’s information, which he made public on June 11, the potential penalty for failure to import the contracted gas in the first six months may reach 40 billion hryvnias. Gazprom assures us that it will not apply penal sanctions. But, in the words of Oleksandr Shlapak, First Deputy Chairman of the Presidential Secretariat, Russia does not wish, for some reason, to record the absence of complaints in writing and, in general, it is impossible to fulfill the gas contracts. Naftohaz has paid for the gas consumed in June only thanks to a 3.8-billion-hryvnia Saving Bank credit.

A glaring example of what such a financial dependency may lead to is the Russian-Belarusian “milk war” in June. Russia banned importing Belarusian milk and, after some dilly-dallying, the economic advisor at Russia’s embassy in Belarus announced that Gazprom had urged Beltransgaz to pay off a $230-million gas import shortfall debt. The conflict was settled within a few days.

Incidentally, on June 14 President Aleksandr Lukashenko of Belarus refused to attend the Collective Security Treaty Organization summit due to “obvious damage to economic security.” The summit approved the formation of the Rapid-Reaction Collective Forces (KSOR), which can be seen as a key event in the context of the Crimea question. For if KSOR is to be deployed in the Crimea, Russia will water down its own image of aggressor and apportion the responsibility for annexation to all the member states.

THE URANIUM CRISIS

A crisis in the supplies of nuclear fuel to Ukraine is inevitable.

All the 15 operating Ukrainian nuclear power plant units consume Russian nuclear fuel. The government claims that Ukraine is capable of doubling the output of its own uranium concentrate, but not before 2012. The contract between Enerhoatom and the Russian corporation TVEL expires in 2010. No details of the agreement, including prices, are known. Can the contract suddenly come up in early 2010?

Last February Pres. Yushchenko instructed the Cabinet to submit for his approval, before March 1, a draft directive for negotiating with Russia a long-term nuclear fuel supply agreement. It is not known at the moment if the directive was approved. On June 5 Yushchenko said that the nuclear fuel situation aroused concern because “our traditional partners in this matter are taking drastic measures today to monopolize the isotope uranium enrichment market, while Ukrainian officials remain sluggish.”

Yushchenko emphasized that while national strategy requires that the Cabinet provide for at least three sources of nuclear power supplies, it is holding secret talks to orientate this market to one source only.

CHERNOMYRDIN’S DISMISSAL

Russia’s Ambassador Viktor Chernomyrdin has been dismissed. Why at this moment? He has worked in Ukraine for eight years and committed a glaring misdeed – he “allowed” Yushchenko to be elected president in 2004. Firstly, Chernomyrdin is already 71. Secondly, a more level-headed diplomat is needed during a war. Russia is hardly interested in a hysteria being whipped up by the ambassador’s emotional speeches. There are other instruments for this, such as “Ukrainian” political parties and civic associations. The ambassador should only effectively support pro-Russian actions.

War is an exact science, and a successful campaign requires a proper informational support. When two countries come to destroy one another on a dividing line, a proper articulation of positions is of great importance. Even a tiny error may cause the conflict to further escalate. And Russia would obviously like to avoid this: you will hardly want to ruin the land you are going to seize.

SBU DEMANDS THAT RUSSIA WITHDRAW FSB FROM BLACK SEA FLEET

On June 1 Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), told Radio Liberty that Ukraine was going very soon to raise the question of withdrawing Federal Security Service (FSB) units from the Russian Black Sea Fleet. Nalyvaichenko assured the Russians that the SBU was quite capable of ensuring the fleet’s security in the Crimea.

On June 15 Nalyvaichenko confirmed these SBU intentions in a lengthy interview with the Russian Nezavisimaya gazeta. The very fact of an interview given by the Ukrainian secret service chief to a Russian publication is a novelty. We have not seen this for a long time. Naturally, the scenario of destabilizing the Crimea will not be as simple as follows: there is a crisis around, you owe us money, give us back the peninsula. A more serious pretext is needed. An incident with the Russian fleet would serve the purpose.

Thanks to Nalyvaichenko, Ukraine is now in a no-win situation. Should the FSB leave the Crimea, Russia will say: Ukraine guarantees the fleet’s safety and we believe them. But if the SBU changes its mind, the Russian media will paint the picture of an inflammable situation on the peninsula: the SBU is in doubt and begs us to stay behind…

Nalyvaichenko added later that it is about 19 FSB officers who are to leave the territory of Ukraine before December 13. The SBU has chosen a very nice date – exactly when Ukraine will be especially calm…

Moscow responded to this with a comment by the Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko. He noted that all the fleet units complied with bilateral agreements and no questions related to FSB missions in the Black Sea Fleet had been discussed during the Ukrainian-Russian negotiations on June 10.

AN INCIDENT AS A PRECEDENT?

An incident is serious grounds for making claims – for example, if the rights of Russian citizens have allegedly been infringed in the Crimea or if the fleet is facing a threat. Suppose, “Ukrainian soldiers” have shot some Russian ones or a minor Russian ship has sunk together with its crew due to an explosion.

History knows a lot of instances when the state resorted to killing its citizens in order to achieve its foreign-policy goals. At present, there is no minister of defense in Ukraine, the army is catastrophically underfinanced, all the branches of power are steeped in corruption, and most of the bureaucrats are morally and intellectually inadequate. Besides, the two countries’ military units are stationed in the same place. It is hardly difficult in this case to bribe somebody, smuggle military equipment into a Ukrainian unit, and target a missile at some Black Sea Fleet property.

Russia will agree, “after all,” to withdraw FSB units from the Crimea. But in case of an incident allegedly provoked by Ukrainian nationalists or even governmental officials (our clueless bureaucrats are just a plaything) the Russian media will serve all this on a platter full of a very spicy sauce of fascism.

UKRAINE’S INSTABILITY IS THE MAIN PRECONDITION FOR ENCROACHMENTS ON THE CRIMEA

Imagine you are Vladimir Putin. What do you have? An unstable country, whose politicians are unable to think in strategic terms. You have a political and public “fifth column” here in the topmost branches of power and in the provinces. Your word is enough to throw the domestic situation into disarray.

You have a military base in that country, far stronger than the one next to it. Almost no anti-crisis measures have been taken here. Much to your delight, that country’s most influential politician, who is in charge of public money distribution and economic management, concentrates power in his/her hands and tries to fire ministers. Of course, not without support from the political forces which always kowtow to you. There are no more key ministers of defense, foreign affairs, and finance. Politicians see no danger: they are just swaggering in live TV shows and bending over backwards to prove that they are the best. People willingly believe them. And you benefit from this.

You know that there will be no other chance to cut a luscious morsel off this country. Once the crisis is over and money flows again into Ukraine, the latter will be stronger. And the year 2017 is coming on. And you do not want to withdraw your fleet because your citizens will see this as ignominy. Your stabilization fund is shrinking day by day and the economy is getting more and more unbalanced. So grabbing a chunk of land is your only chance to rally your society in the face of a social explosion. Besides, you have put this country on a gas needle and it will soon end up insolvent. And you will tell your citizens that we have already begun to ride out the crisis, but they have failed to pay, and we are again in dire straits. And people will believe you, which you know very well.

So if you were Putin, would you not take advantage of this situation? It may seem to many that the world will stand up for us and that Ukraine is not Georgia. But Russia has a major trump card.

THE CRIMEA IN EXCHANGE FOR THE KURIL ISLANDS?

On May 12 Putin visited Japan to promote economic cooperation. Japanese Premier Taro Aso again broached the problem of the Kuril Islands status at the final press conference. As is known, Russia and Japan have not yet signed a peace treaty after World War Two because of differences over the status of these islands. The head of the Japanese government said later in a press interview that, in his opinion, Putin is out to solve this problem.

Naturally, it may just be a discussion of territorial disputes. After all, Japan is constantly raising this question. But as soon as a month later, the Japanese parliament’s lower chamber passed a law that proclaims the disputed islands an integral part of Japan. Word has it that the upper house will approve this law in July, well before the session is over.

What are these disputed territories? These are three islands and a small archipelago. They became part of the Soviet Union as a result of World War Two. Their area is almost 5,000 sq. km. and the population is about 20,000. The largest island, Iturup (3,000 sq. km.), has an uneven terrain, which makes it difficult to move across it.

On the other cup of the scales is the Crimea with an area of 26,000 sq. km, a well-developed infrastructure, and a population of almost 2 million. It has a strong Black Sea Fleet base. The Crimea is strategically important, for it is situated in the European part. Obviously, the might and population of China are rising fast and, sooner or later, this will raise the question of territorial claims to Russia itself. So the best way out for the latter is to establish stable control over the post-Soviet space, also by swallowing up Ukraine, well before the “Chinese problem” comes up.

Russia already has some experience of territorial transfers: it handed over a part of the Amur islands to China in 2008. Now Russia may also benefit economically from implementing the Kuril Islands — Crimea — Japanese investments scenario. This makes the settlement of territorial disputes and the flow of Japanese money and state-of-the-art technologies into Russia a mutually dependent process.

Russia and Japan are planning to discuss the Kuril Islands status at the G8 summit in July.

VULNERABILITY OF UKRAINE

I wonder how the Crimean elite, and especially the separatist organizations, will behave during the annexation campaign. One thing is to work off the money paid, another is to help dismember your own country when it has really come to that. And what about the response of local elites in other parts of Ukraine? Will the local councils, especially those of eastern and southern regions, be able to pass a resolution condemning the annexation of the Crimea?

And on whose side is Yulia Tymoshenko playing? It will be recalled that when the Georgian conflict broke out, the BYuT expressed no support for Georgia. When the 2009 budget was in the making, [the then minister of defense] Yurii Yekhanurov said the army needed 32.4 billion hryvnias for its development or at least 17.5 billion for performing its routine functions. The Cabinet set aside 11.6 billion budgetary hryvnias for this purpose. To make things worse, Yekhanurov believes the armed forces in fact received a mere 8.4 billion hryvnias.

When Russia cut off gas supplies to Ukraine on January 1, Tymoshenko suddenly vanished from the informational field. It was not until January 9 (!) that she appeared at a briefing. Before that date, it was Yushchenko who defended the honor of Ukraine.

I wonder how the Party of Regions will behave. It would be na ve to think that people will be bursting to side with Rinat Akhmetov. If the scenario succeeds, Russia will invest considerable funds in the Crimea and boost social standards. The peninsula will become an economic oasis, and the local elites of Ukraine will thus be shown the advantages of being part of the neighbor. This may change attitudes. And when it comes to the east and south question, who will the pro-Russian politicians be appealing to – to the people who had the slogan “Russia above all” being hammered into them for years on end? Now, too, politicians exercise caution when speaking about Russia and related things in order not to worry their electorate.

If necessary, the dissident rich will quickly turn into enemies of the ordinary man. Factory workers will be told that “they are fleecing you because they do not invest in your safety: look at your shabby overalls, poor conditions, the polluted environment, and corruption…” And the people will believe it.

This may not be a Russian-Japanese scenario. Maybe, Japan is becoming the aggressor’s accomplice even without wishing this, but in this case the image it got rid of after World War Two is sure to painfully boomerang. Or this may be a multiple worldwide combination, when strong countries have forgiven each other’s future sins in good time: some will be annexing territories, some will be just “teaching” defiant countries “a lesson,” but in reality they will be cashing in on the war.

So let us wait for momentous messages and events.

Oleksandr Terliuk is a production editor at the Ukrainski novyny news agency