The Cold War might have been officially over after the collapse of the Soviet Union; however, as the palaver over Russia’s annexation of Crimea following the unrest in Ukraine shows, it is easy to fall into the trap of “us” versus “them” mentality.
The Russians, since Crimea’s population has overwhelmingly decided to be with Russia in a referendum (no doubt the presence of Russian army helped the Crimeans to speedily make up their minds), are behaving as if they are at a loss to understand what all the fuss in the West is about. Apparently more than 90% (or some such overwhelmingly high proportion) voted to cede from Ukraine and stay with Russia. Russians form almost 60% of Crimea’s population (the percentage rises to more than 70% in the city of Sevastopol) while Ukrainians are 25%, the remaining 15% being formed by the Crimean Tatars, the Turkish ethnic group, who formed the majority ethnic group in Crimea for more than three centuries, from its emergence as an Ottoman vassal state in the fifteenth century to almost the middle of the twentieth century, when Jo Stalin deported them en mass to far flung corners of Soviet Union, in particular Uzbekistan and Siberia. The Tatar population fell victim to Stalin’s policy which combined psychotic paranoia, susceptible to detecting threats to the state and ideology when (probably) none existed, and zeal for vicious collective punishment that served as a lesson to the population in general. During the Second World War, when Germans occupied Crimea, some Tatar religious and political leaders did cooperate with the Nazis; there was even a Tatar legion in the German army. That was enough for Stalin, after the defeat of the Nazis, to view the whole Tatar population (who was Muslim) as Fifth Element, iniquitous to the existence of Soviet Union (never mind that a vast number of Tatar men served in the Red army and fought the Nazis) which needed to be disabled. (Stalin did the same with the Chechens whom he believed to have collaborated with the Germans during the Second World War, and ordered Lavrentiy Beria to deport them to distant corners of Soviet Union, although, with the Chechans, Stalin inexplicably and uncharacteristically changed his mind, and asked Beria—much to Beria’s disgust—to halt the operation half-way through, just when Beria was looking forward to uproot the whole of the ethnic Chechens from the country where they had lived for centuries. Before you hasten to conclude that Stalin persecuted these ethnic groups because of their religion (Islam), bear in mind that he also deported almost half a million Ukrainian Germans, almost 20% of Ukrainians, and of course Russians, not to forget the Jews, all of whom he believed to be disloyal to the Communist ideology.) It was only during Gorbachev’s Perestroika that the Crimean Tatars were allowed to return to the land of their ancestors, although they were not officially given possession of the land they had been made to forcibly vacate.
Those who are telling the world that Crimea was always “Russian” are either oblivious of the history of the region or are wilfully distorting it. True, it was won by the Russians during the long Russo-Turkish war of the late eighteenth century during which the Russians inflicted heavy defeats on the Ottoman Empire and Crimea—nominally independent—became part of the Russian Empire; true, Catherine the Great, tired of keeping up the facade of the Crimean independence, annexed the peninsula in 1783; true, the second Russo-Turkish war (of the 1790s), which was disastrous for the Ottomans, legitimized Russian control of Crimea via the Treaty of Jassy; true, Crimea was a member of the Russian SFSR (Soviet Federative Socialist Republic) between the two World Wars and, after the Second World War, until Stalin’s death; but it was not always so. And the Russians were not always in majority in Crimea. It has been a Russian majority region only for the last seventy years, for which the Russians have to thank a psychopathic Soviet era dictator.
There is little doubt, though, that Crimea, as it exists, is a Russian majority region. Indeed Russian speaking people form substantial proportion of not just Crimea but also Eastern Ukraine. Ukraine itself, over the centuries, has been controlled by and / or aligned to different Eastern European and Baltic states and empires. Indeed, during the reign of Catherin the Great, the whole of present day South Ukraine was incorporated into the Russian Empire. Russians can also legitimately take credit for founding several cities in Ukraine including Odessa. Crimea, which Ukraine and the West are beating their chests about, under its powerful Tatar Khans, at the height of their powers in the sixteenth century, repeatedly invaded and pillaged Ukraine, and vast armies were required to protect against the annual Tatar invasion. Ukraine during this period, aligned itself with the Russian empire. After the end of the First World War of the twentieth century, for a period, several different Ukrainian states emerged before what is now Western Ukraine was incorporated into Poland while Eastern Ukraine went to the Bolsheviks. It wasn’t until 1939 when Poland was invaded and defeated by the Soviets and Nazis (who were bedfellows at the time) that Western Ukraine was united with the rest of Ukraine. The unification of Ukraine, which many Ukrainian nationalists in the nineteenth and early twentieth century had dreamed of, thus, came into fruition (albeit as a republic of Soviet Union) because of the combined efforts of two brutal dictators. It is also worth remembering that Stalin made Rumania cede part of what was its territory at the time (Bessarabia) which became part of Ukraine.
It was Stalin’s successor, Nikita Khrushchev, who had intimate knowledge of the region (Khrushchev was Russian but he was born and bred in Ukrainian border state), who “gifted” Crimea to Ukraine in the 1950s. It has to be said, though, that the transfer had little meaning, as both Ukraine and Crimea were part of Soviet Union. It was a bit like moving your furniture from the lounge to the spare bedroom in your house.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union Russia agreed that Crimea was part of Ukraine in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, signed by the then Russian president Boris Yeltsin. It is possible that Yeltsin, by then in the middle phase of alcoholic dementia, did not know the day from night, leave alone the piece of paper he was putting his signature on; but Russia did agree that Crimea was an integral part of Ukraine. Ukraine gave up its arsenal of nuclear weapons in return of Russia promising to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity. (I bet they are regretting it now. Would Putin have dared to invade / annex Crimea if Ukraine still had nuclear weapons?). Russia was nevertheless allowed to have its troops, artillery, and military planes in Crimea; and its Black Sea fleet was allowed to have a base in Sevastopol until 2042. (Moscow, in return, wrote off millions of dollars of Ukrainian debt annually.)
The trouble with looking back too much into history (to justify one’s deeds and strategy in the present) is that almost any international act of aggression can be justified on historical grounds. When Saddam Hussein (who was, unsurprisingly, a great admirer of Stalin) invaded Kuwait and tried to justify it by citing historical evidence that went back to the Ottomans, he was not wrong (at least he was not quoting history wrongly), but the invasion of Kuwait was still deemed illegal by the international community and triggered the First Gulf War. But then Saddam was small beer for the West (or so they thought), which meant that America and its cronies in Europe could invade Iraq to “liberate” Kuwait. I do not think invasion of Russia is on the agenda of Obama. Russia entered (invaded, if you prefer a harsher term) Crimea; held a referendum; and Crimea has once again, after a short hiatus of twenty years (or seventy if one goes back to Khrushchev era), become part of Russia, as it was for the hundred and fifty years before that. The referendum carried out in Crimea, under Russian guns, is no doubt illegal in the eyes of the current international law. Crimea, before the Russians invaded and annexed it, was Ukrainian territory, no two ways about it, never mind that the majority population in Crimea was Russian and probably had allegiance to Russia. In the eyes of international law, people living in a geographical area cannot simply decide that they no longer want to stay within the country and become either independent or join another country. If that were the case Kurds would get their homeland; Basques would secede from Spain; and Bradford might become an Islamic Republic. Obama became cantankerous when the Russians drew parallels with the referendum engineered by NATO and America in Kosovo, which was bitterly opposed by Serbia. The Kosovo referendum was carried out with the heavy presence of NATO army. The Russians do have a point. NATO and the Americans would argue (they are already doing it) that the Crimean referendum can no way be compared to the Kosovo referendum, because there was no evidence that ethnic Russians in Crimea were discriminated in Ukraine whereas the Serbs (so NATO and America allege) were carrying out ethnic cleansing in Kosovo (as also in Bosnia and Herzegovina). What was going on in the 1990s, in the former Yugoslavia, was civil war; and the situation arose because various groups of people, Kosovo included, living for centuries in certain geographical areas, decided that they no longer wanted to be part of Yugoslavia, which they saw essentially as Serbian domination. Their wish to secede from Yugoslavia, it might be argued, was no more legal than the wish of the ethnic Russians to secede from Ukraine (if one believes the Russian engineered referendum). The civil war situation in the Balkans arose, in the most simplistic terms, because Serbia would not give up control of these regions. And, lest we forget, the Americans illegally smuggled in arms and weapons into Bosnia and Herzegovina at the start of the civil war, in spite of an explicit UN ban. It is also worth noting that there are still scores of countries which do not recognise Kosovo as an independent, sovereign country, no matter what Obama says; which means that in the eyes of many countries in the world the referendum in Kosovo was illegal; as illegal as the referendum in Crimea, the Americans and NATO say, is.
Therein lies the rub for America and its sidekicks like the UK. In large parts of the world America has absolutely no moral credibility, she is held in utter contempt, and is viewed as a bully. It is the recidivist duplicitous American foreign policy, and its proclivity to go around the world meddling, interfering, and invading that has made America probably the most hated nation in many parts of the world. When large swathes of the world dislike you there is probably a good reason: you have not conducted yourself correctly. George W Bush, the mentally unprivileged former president of America, was a war criminal, as was Toni Blair, the most mendacious and dishonest man who disgraced British politics.
Obama described Russia as a regional power (as opposed to America, which he fondly believes to be a world power). Russia might be a regional power, but it is a big regional power. Also, you don’t become a world power just because you go round poking your nose into businesses that don’t concern you. David Cameron, the pompous windbag (who perpetually wears the look of a man defeated by his bowels), no doubt believes that the UK is a world power. The chubby dictator of North Korea (who perpetually wears the look of a man a couple of hundred bowel movements behind the game) probably believes his country is a world power.