Registered user login:

Is Ukraine next?

Andrey Kurkov

Published 04 September 2008

With Georgia in pieces, Ukraine could be the next to fall to Russia's territorial ambition, separatist sentiment and economic realities. Andrey Kurkov reports

Ukraine's political summer season was cool and quiet, despite air temperatures in the high thirties (centigrade) and the war in Georgia, which the Ukrainian president, Viktor Yushchenko, tried hard to make a matter of personal significance for each Ukrainian.

The president's speeches in defence of Georgia's territorial integrity and against Russian aggression were published regularly in the papers. Television covered the Stop Russia Now! meeting of four presidents in Tbilisi, while the idea that Russia's next target would be the Crimea sparked discussion among Ukrainian politicians and political scientists. Yushchenko put on combat gear that made him look like Fidel Castro and it was announced that Ukraine would be the first to join any international "anti-Russian" alliance - although it remains unclear how such an alliance would act, and the idea now seems to have been put on the back burner.

The political battle cries over the conflict have gradually died down. Despite protests by many politicians, Ukraine's Independence Day on 24 August was celebrated in Soviet style with a military parade down Kiev's main street. Two days later, near the country's second-largest city, Kharkiv, a huge arsenal of ammunition caught fire and, for several days, bombs and mines were exploding, firework-style, over a five-kilometre radius. The minister of defence, Yuriy Yekhanurov, was forced to admit that the ammunition was to have been sold to the government of Chad. At the same time Yushchenko, in his combat suit, was bestowing the rank of general on 117 officers and government administrators.

Thus, Ukraine begins the autumn season of 2008. The start of parliament's first sitting will be dominated by a motion, tabled by the opposition, to recognise the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Parliament will not recognise them, just as Kosovan independence is not rec ognised or even discussed. But this only underlines how stable is Ukrainians' "many-sidedness" and how split the political sympathies of the country's eastern and western territories.

For many Ukrainians, the recent military conflict was yet another phase in the ongoing personal war between the Russian prime minister, Vladimir Putin, and the Georgian president, Mikhail Saak ashvili. The first phases of this war were purely economic. There was the ban on imports to Russia of Georgian wine (the wine war) and mineral water (the Borzhomi war, after a famous Georgian water). Then came the ban on imports of Georgian oranges and tangerines (the citrus war). After that began the countrywide campaign against Georgians residing - legally and illegally - in Russia, involving the deportation of illegal "guest workers" and the harassment of others, some of whom were very well known. One of Russia's best-known authors, Boris Akunin, whose real name is Grigory Chkhartishvili, suddenly found himself terrorised by the Russian tax authorities.

However, in response to the most recent Russo-Georgian conflict, Georgians living in Russia have banded togeth er against President Saakashvili. It is not a question of who did what and who is to blame. Georgian Russians simply want to get on with their lives in peace.

People in Ukraine also want a peaceful life, but Ukrainians have been more disturbed by the recent events in Georgia than western Europeans. Russia repeatedly declared that the Georgian army was using Ukrainian arms and that Ukrainian mercenaries were fighting on the side of Georgia in South Ossetia. Although neither charge has been proven, these repeated accusations serve to illustrate Russia's political antagonism towards Ukraine.

Moscow's politicians have repeatedly responded aggressively to Ukraine's demand that Russia prepare to remove her Black Sea fleet from Crimea in 2017, the year the contract under which Russia leases the Crimean naval base expires. The mayor of Moscow, Yuri Luzhkov, once called Sebastopol "a region of Moscow", and Moscow has been financing the construction of apartment buildings in the city. Luzhkov has also demanded the return of the Crimean peninsula to the Russian Federation. (Crimea was "gifted" to Ukraine by Nikita Khrushchev in 1954 to celebrate the 300th anniversary of Ukraine's voluntary integration into the Russian empire.) There are many in Russia who share Luzhkov's views, and few Ukrainians believe Putin's statement, made in an interview on CNN, that Russia has no territorial quarrel with Ukraine.

The perils of Russophobia

Ukrainians note that Russia seemed to have no territorial quarrel with Georgia until the beginning of last month. The suddenness of the Georgian crisis, and that Ukraine has approximately equal numbers of pro-Russian and pro-European politicians and regions, only underlines the complexity of the situation in which Ukraine finds itself. A referendum held in 2006 showed that a majority of South Ossetians did not wish their country to remain as part of Georgia; similarly, if a referendum were held in Crimea today, it would show that most people there do not want to live as part of Ukraine.

In an attempt to transform the south and east of the country, Yushchenko has tried to "Ukrainianise" secondary and tertiary education in the Russian-speaking regions. This has drawn protests from the local popu lation and politicians, and the policy has only increased pro-Russian sentiment in these regions. Yush chenko, called a "Russophobe" in the Russian press, has never been so unpopular. Ukrainian polls give him only 5 to 6 per cent support, the same as the Ukrainian Communists. His chances of winning a second term in office in the 2009 presidential elections are practically nil.

The presidential race is expected to be between Yulia Tymoshen ko and Viktor Yanukov ych. Both would be acceptable to Moscow. Both would be prepared to negotiate an extension of lease for the Crimean naval base and to postpone the question of Ukraine's Nato membership - unless Nato acts swiftly to make Ukraine a member while Yushchenko is still in power.

With regard to the European Union, most Ukrainians understand that they won't get in for at least another 20 years, leaving Ukraine economically dependent on Russia for the foreseeable future. Each anti-Russian move by the Ukrainian president has resulted in the sort of economic sanctions employed by Russia against Georgia, except that now it's Ukrainian meat and dairy products that Russia has banned. Thus, American chicken and Ukrainian dried milk have been the first victims of the current stand-off between the west and Russia.

Ukraine, an industrially developed country, could be seriously harmed by Russian sanctions. Most thinking Ukrainians appreciate that the country requires super-competent politicians if it is to maintain its political independence while being economically dependent on Russia - about which Ukraine has no choice. Unfortunately, the present level of political corruption puts Ukraine a long way from seeing the necessary calibre of politician in its corridors of power. Sadly, Yush chenko has not fulfilled his central election promise to overcome corruption.

But Saakashvili, his good friend and the godfather of one of his children, seems fully to intend to carry out his own election promises. Having been re-elected in January this year, Saakashvili sought to strengthen his position by reinforcing the territorial integrity of Georgia, a task made urgent by the obligation on all countries aspiring to join Nato not to have any unsettled territorial disputes. It is my belief that, in rekindling the South Ossetian conflict, Saakashvili planned to speed up the process of his country's entry into Nato. Perhaps he hoped Nato would join in the conflict on Georgia's side. Surely he could not have imagined that Russia would not respond to artillery fire over a town where a battalion of Russian peacekeepers was stationed, or that the Georgian army could win the ensuing battle on its own. Nato remained outside this conflict, as I believe it would in the case of any military confrontation with Russia, because doing otherwise could take the world to the brink of disaster.

A Pandora's box

The Ukrainian president, like the Georgian leader, wants Ukraine to join Nato as soon as possible, and though Ukrainians themselves are less enthusiastic, right-wing politicians maintain that if Georgia had been a member of Nato, Russia would not have dared to protect South Ossetia or march into Georgian cities and ports.

However, most Ukrainians doubt that the west will put any significant pressure on Russia, and expect that any protests will be confined to hard-hitting rhetoric, along the lines of David Miliband's recent speech in Kiev. On returning to London, he admitted that Europe needs Russian gas and also noted that Gazprom needs European clients and investors.

Meanwhile, untouched by western opinion, Russia has boosted its image as a country prepared for brutal confrontation with neighbours. As Putin put it on 29 August, the west started the business of redrawing the map of Europe when it recognised the independence of Kosovo, thus "opening a Pandora's box". South Ossetia and Abkhazia are only the second and third "evils" to have flown out of that box since Kosovo. Might there be others?

For 17 years, the "independent" state of Transdnestria has existed on the boarder of Ukraine and Moldova. It is populated by Russians, Ukrainians and now well-rooted settlers from the 14th army of the USSR, which was stationed there when the Soviet Union broke up. There are other unrecognised "independent" territories, the leaders of which are now looking hopefully towards Moscow, which is ready to expand its political territory under the banner of the CIS (Confederation of Independent States), a friendly enough sounding union.

All that will be required, from Moscow's point of view, will be the recognition of these states by each other and by Russia - and, in the end, eastern Europe, the Caucasus and central Asia will be firmly within the Russian sphere of influence. The western border of this sphere could very well be drawn through the middle of Ukraine, slicing the country in two.

Andrey Kurkov is the author of "The President's Last Love" (Harvill Secker, £12.99)

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

16 comments from readers

stonehenge
04 September 2008 at 18:06

You talk about Russia's territorial ambitions!, I don't see Russia anywhere near the West or America, do you?. However I do see America busy digging roots around Russia's bordering countries halfway round the globe. What an outcry there would be if Russia put a military base in Alabama!.

A history lesson for you sir. When Georgia became Independent, the two states in question voted by well over 90% to remain Russian, and indeed they hold Russian passports. The Georgian president mindful of joining the EU and NATO thought he'd be 'brave' and rattle Russias cage by entering these states and killing Russians and forcing them to become Georgian.

Russia did the right thing by supporting their citizens from an occupying army.

The bigger picture if you have missed it, is America's aggresion and Europes agression towards Russia which is to goad them into a war which America must feel they can win.

How many more wars around the globe are America going to drag us into thus giving more people to hate and terrorise Britain?.

I for one do not want to be involved in any war against Russia and the possible Nuclear holocaust that may result.

Yours

Jerry Owen.

aflatoon
04 September 2008 at 18:47

as the old adage goes the pot calling the pan black,so the only superpower is playing its blame game.when russia under putin implanted bombs in a moscow aoartment to invade chechnya n finish it,there was just a subdued reaction.dadaef was killed by arussian missile.what did the west do.in the g 8 meeting mr bush n his poodle shook hands with the killer putin.now russia is asserting its might.if it invades ukarine it will be a folly..;et it commit this crime n see theresult.after all the killimg game is continuing in afghanistan n iraq.trhe latter has been divided into 3 zones by the allied forces.now the killimg has spread to pakistan.who knows thenext target.is it iran.?mr bush is continuing his crusaade.has any sane opposition the power to stop this madness. aflatoon india

writeon
04 September 2008 at 19:26

If NATO can move East, why shouldn't Russia move West? The Russians have to react to the encirclement strategy being employed by the United States. Any Russian government that just passively watched, as the Americans moved their bases and rockets closer and closer, would be incredibly irresponsible and derelict in their paramount duty, to defend the sovereignty and security of their country.

But their are those that argue that the Russians are being paranoid and over-reacting, after all they can trust a great democracy like the United States not enter into a conflict with Russia or attack them. This would be very foolish indeed. There seems to be a 'law' that when a powerful country, like the United States, sees a weaker country, it just moves in.

The problem is, seen from a Russian perspective, that one cannot trust the United States to keep its word and not seek to exploit and take advantage of any sign of Russia weakness. The last twenty years, since the break-up of the old Soviet state, has 'proven' that the US has precisely these aims in mind. The West has, by its actions, undermined 'democracy' in Russia and provided ammuniton for those who were sceptical about the West's motives and opposed to Russia dropping its guard and disarming.

The Russians had a negotiated a deal with NATO. We will withdraw from Eastern Europe and allow German reunification and substantially reduce our armed forces, if NATO promisses not to move into the vacuum. These assurances were given to the Russians. And what happened? NATO advanced to the East! Potentially a threat to Russian security.

Then one piles on the attack on Serbia from NATO, the American organized psuedo-revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine, installing pro-Western regimes, and now the attack on South Ossetia, and everything seems to show how dangerous and agressive NATO really is in relation to Russia.

Observed from a neutral perspective, the Russians would be insane to let Ukraine become a member of NATO, an organization aimed at Russia, without resisting forcefully. It is a vital Russian security imperative to stop NATO's expansion Eastwards, here and now.

Douglas Chalmers
04 September 2008 at 20:39

# "Ukraine's demand that Russia prepare to remove her Black Sea fleet from Crimea in 2017, the year the contract under which Russia leases the Crimean naval base expires..."

This is NOT like the Americans being asked to close their bases in the Philippines some time back. Amazing how the timing coincides precisely with the USA's financial crisis and global markets meltdown. The war mongers are stirring..... ever greedy for profits from spilling other peoples' blood, uhh.

But put it another way, though, if you like - "Obliterate Iran and Ukraine will be wiped off the map!" - even if in name only as with S.Ossetia's excision from Georgia. Better to trade peacefully in future if you want your oil and gas supplied through winter.

Nickola
04 September 2008 at 20:55

Comment to the Editor:'

In my view you owe it to the readers to provide some info about the author, Andrey Kurkov, and his qualifications. He demonstrates rather unbalanced views about the so-called Russophobia in Ukraine largely echoing a propaganda stream emanating from certain well known Russian politicians with Moscow's Mayor Luzkov as a prominent spokesperson. Now that Russia’s president signed a decree on the recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, he sent a clear signal to the world about Russia's intentions to revise its spheres of influence and, where possible, its borders. The two separatist regions' conflicts with the authorities in Tbilisi triggered three wars inside Georgia during the last 18 years. There was nothing even remotely comparable in Ukraine. The world knows how brutally Russia dealt with Chechnia over the same time frame denying its rights for self-determination. Dmitry Medvedev's speedy decision to grant formal recognition to the two regions was seen as a complete farce when even Russia's nominal allies in Asia failed to follow suit. If South Ossetia deserves recognition why not the the whole Ossetia, including the northern part now within the Russian Federation (RF) ? There are more then a dozen ethnic regions within the present RF that are ripe for self-determination. A 1994 referendum inTatarstan, for example, was declared "inconclusive". In the 1990s resource rich Yakutia has been vocal in expressing its desire for maximum self-government. Natives of Tuva have not forgotten their pre-1944 status as a Tuvan Peoples Republic. In total, autonomous regions of various degrees constitute close to 50% of the Russian Federation's territory. Would it not be more timely to ask " IS RUSSIA NEXT ?

Nickola Swit

alexander
05 September 2008 at 05:13

Nikola, you have a good point, however, do consider that there are hundreds of nationalities living in Russia, many of the regions they occupy were artificially created by Stalin, and the overwhelming majority of these nations are happy with the Russians.

Most of the times when there are conflicts within these regions they have an external catalyst. In the case of Georgia, it's two fold. To gain the energy corridor and to weaken Russia. Russia is the only nation that stands in the way of USA/NATO complete economic domination of the globe, as well as their long term economic survival. For the past 20 years we have lived in a unipolar world, the Nato nations have been the primary beneficiaries of this Unipolar world. For that purpose these economic and military blocks need energy (oil) and no competition (Russia). If one can see the events that are unfolding, then one can see that there is an undeniable pattern and a lot of logic in what I am saying.

Chechnya has a critical Russian pipeline, the Russians will not let it go at any cost. Who were the external agitators in Chechnya, one thing for sure the Chechens were extremely well equipped and extremely well informed to put up the kind of fight that they did.

Ukraine is the birthplace of Russia, Kiev is the first Russian capital. There were Rus, the and Slav's occupying that land before it was called Russia. Russians consider the birth of their nation, the massive baptism on the banks of the Dniepr river in 988, and to have that land fall into Nato control would be unacceptable to most Russians. The borders we currently see are are truly artificial, and if the West continues to push Ukraine away from Russia, they do it knowing that the Russians will not give up Ukraine without a fight, they will consider it an attack on their soil, and will stop it nothing to get it back, and if they can't they will scorch the earth, poison the water and make sure that their enemies will not enjoy the fruits of their conquest, as they have historically done for over 1000 years. and as Europeans who have had hundreds of wars with Russia know all too well. Ukraine is better off with Russia, not the West, because more than half of Ukraine has a lot less in common culturally with Western Europe, and most are Russian at their core. Western meddling in Ukraine will not be a good thing for Europe, although when the dust settles USA may in deed come out on top.

ektope
05 September 2008 at 12:18

The Ukranian people are not stupid like their president. They dont want NATO and they want to be friends with their cousins the Russians. I am married to an ukranian and she feels like all her family strongly about the Russians.

an-tin
05 September 2008 at 17:47

Half of my family lives in Ukraine, half in Russia. The same situation by 70% of Ukrainian families.

The border between Ukraine and Russia is our "Berlin wall". And one day it will be definitely destroyed!

Carl Jones
06 September 2008 at 22:29

More MI6 propaganda.lol

philo
07 September 2008 at 22:17

Why not tell the Americans to go home?I am a European,I live in Europe.I would prefer to talk to my own neighbour be they,Russian,or German or any other creed.Of recent times,Bush and his European crony Blair are responsible for at least a million Iraquis,and their legacy is only in the making.

The American politicians would better employed were to sort out American poverty,and not have decent people paying for the losses of Freddie and Fannie.

Could someone tell me of a politicians child in any of those far-flung wars.

cici
08 September 2008 at 05:35

I don't know what's wrong with your people. Have you not seen how many people, civilians were killed?

First of all, the US military was not responsible for all the deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are terrorists organizations that target everybody, even fellow Muslims and the US invaded these countries because of the events of 9/11.

Saddam Hussein tortured his people and ruled over as a dictator. I have heard stories of how desperate the people were and the conditions of the country before the US invaded. It is a shame that the country is torn in a potential civil war.

Second, the Russians (during their "reign") treat Ukrainians badly. The conditions during the USSR were so bad that there was starvation, etc and the people felt that the Russia did not care about them. They took away their property to instate Russian officials and sent political enemies to Siberia where they were killed from the freezing tempters.

Don't forget about the Bay of Pigs where Russia, I believe, instated missiles on Cuba, a neighbor to the US. The economy is declining because of corporations that are moving to 3rd countries seeking cheap labor, the price of gas, and loans given blindly to potential home owners. Know your history and facts before judging others.

Additionally, if Ukraine and Georgia join NATO then they would be granted military protection if Russia invades along with other benefits. Don't get me wrong I don't like President Bush, but the only thing that we can hope for is the next US President will clean the "mess" of the Bush Administration.

writeon
08 September 2008 at 06:43

Cutting past the simplistic nationalist rhetoric; the relationship between the Ukraine and Russia can be compared to the relationship between Scotland and England over the centuries, for better or worse.

When I visited Ukraine I found that most people didn't want to be part of NATO, because NATO is a military alliance aimed at Russia and joining would put Ukraine on the frontline, any conflict would probably be fought here. Why make yourself a target for no obvious benefit?

But large sections of the Ukrainia ruling elite want to join NATO and the EU simply because they believe it will make them even richer. It's like two rival mafia clans are struggling over who is going to rule a peice of territory in Chicago in the 20's, and two even bigger mafia families outside, are watching and backing their proxies.

The Ukraine is split down the middle, economically, culturally, religiously and ethnically. Outside forces and internal forces want to make the differences wider in order to control Ukraine for their own purposes and interests, most of which have virtually nothing to do with the welfare of ordinary Ukrainians, after all, the colour of the hand that's robbing you isn't that important is it?

nawawimohamad
08 September 2008 at 11:11

Ukraine should be non-alliance or at least pro-Russia. Russia is just next door while the US is at the other end of the globe! Europeans on the other hand have been taken for a ride by their leaders who are now dancing to the US music and not the citizens of Europe or at least the majority of the voters. If war broke out, Europe will be devastated while the USA will remain intact. The Europeans must wake up now to make sure that the US is not going to use Europe to fight their wars before it is too late! Come on open your eyes, Geogia is the living example!

Ari Rusila
09 September 2008 at 08:47

War on Pipes: Transport corridors as core of US-Russia confrontation

When speaking about interests of West I would like to make a difference between US – or Anglo-American -interests and EU interests. After “Cold War” US has all the while expanded its influence post-Soviet territory with aim to guide those region’s natural resources under US companies. GUUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldova) Group was founded 1999 with help of US to foster favorable conditions conducive to economic growth through development of an Europe-Caucasus-Asia transport corridor.

As pointed out by Michel Chossudovsky in his book America’s ‘War on Terrorism,’ (presentation of Anglo-American war policy from the 1990s Balkans to the present), GUUAM has been “dominated by Anglo-American oil interests, ultimately purports to exclude Russia from oil and gas deposits in the Caspian area, as well as isolating Moscow politically.”

More specifically, the US-led military invasion - in close liaison with Britain-responds to the interests of the Anglo - American oil giants, in alliance with weapons producers, private security organizations and service providers (like Halliburton). One could say that the “Anglo-American axis” in defense, foreign policy and especially corporate capital is the driving force behind the military operations in Balkans, Central Asia and Middle East.

Just five days before the bombing of Yugoslavia (19 March 1999), the US Congress adopted the Silk Road Strategy Act, which defined America’s broad economic and strategic interests in a region extending from the Mediterranean to Central Asia. The Silk Road Strategy (SRS) outlines a framework for the development of America’s business empire through development of an Europe-Caucasus-Asia transport corridor.

The stakes involved with the current conflict are identical to those of the previous war: control over the oil of the Caspian Sea/Black Sea/Caucasus basin, and the control of multiple key oil pipelines criss-crossing the region. The most critical pipeline, the infamous Baku-Ceyhan pipeline supported by the US government and a consortium of US-allied transnational oil interests (including Royal Dutch Shell, Unocal, and BP) takes oil from the Caspian Sea across Azerbaijan (another US-supported regime), whereby it crosses Georgia (bypassing Iran and Russia), then on to the Black Sea, where the oil is carried to Western Europe, and the rest of the world.

The Baku-Ceyhan pipeline has been viewed by the Bush/Cheney administration as one of its brightest geostrategic successes. All of the Anglo-American empire’s pipelines and oil facilities, including Baku-Ceyhan, are threatened, if the conflict escalates. Same time the successful implementation of the SRS requires the concurrent “militarization” of the Eurasian corridor as a means to securing control over extensive oil and gas reserves, as well as “protecting” the pipeline routes on behalf of the Anglo-American oil companies.

The effect of Nato enlargement is to swing the Iron Curtain to the east. Russia''s opposition to NATO expansion has only increased in recent years. On economical field Russia’s “South Stream” looks more successful so far than Nabucco while the leverage of the United States government over Russian foreign policy has decreased dramatically during last years. US policy is turning into a zero-sum competition with Russia for influence in the post-Soviet regions.

For EU the situation brings few questions such as

* Is there a difference between EU and Anglo-American interests related to SRS?

* How to balance aims of energy and security (military) strategies?

* Is there a difference between EU’s energy policy and interests of corporate capital?

I am not sure if EU would like to answer to these questions, however my point is that this background may have some influence – more than official concern about human rights, rule & law etc. - to EU policy in Balkans and Caucasus.

More about Balkan and Caucasus conflicts and Transnistria in my BalkanBlog http://arirusila.wordpress.com

writeon
09 September 2008 at 21:46

Why can't NATO and the EU make it conditional if Georgia wants to join these organizations, that Georgia renouces the option of using military force against the two 'breakaway' regions?

While we're at it, how about inviting Russia to join NATO and the EU as well? Integrate Russia into Europe and Europe into Russia. This would of course, potentially, create an immensely powerful new mega-state, a veritable empire. Combining Europe's modern industries with Russia's energy reserves and storehouse of raw materials.

Unfortunately the United States would never allow this to happen and would do everything in their power to thwart such an historic development, as they've done for close to the last one hundred years.

Carl Jones
13 September 2008 at 14:56

I thought this my be of interest to readers.

http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=269

http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=270

Don`t be blinkered by the NWO controlled MSM.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

You may enter up to 2000 characters (about 300-350 words)

Characters left:

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Read More

Vote!

Should the third runway at Heathrow go ahead?