The Political Relations Between Ukraine And Russia

In analyzing the challenges posed to Ukraine in their continuing transition to a liberal democracy, it is important to start in 1990, when Ukraine officially declared independence. This declaration included principles of self-determination, democracy, and the priority of Ukrainian law over Soviet law.

In so called “Crimean” speech in March 2014 Russian President V. Putin used such terms as “divided nation”, “national-traitors”, “Russian world”, justifying and legitimizing Russia taking over Crimean peninsula. President V. Putin applied mostly to the Russian people concerned by “protection of compatriots” abroad from discrimination or even repressions and historical “injustice” needed to be repaired. But does Kremlin really believe in this or it uses this rhetoric just to explain Russian involvement to the neighbor’s inner situation? The right answer on this question will make us to understand true Russian foreign policy motivation in Ukraine and Baltic states. Knowing what is Russian Foreign Policy driven by, the recommendations to those

Although it might appear as if Russia’s annexation of Crimea was malicious and aggressive behavior on behalf of President Putin, it was in fact a symptom of an anarchic international order and a reaction to NATO’s eastward expansion into Europe. In this case, it was Putin’s uncertainty of NATO’s intended expansion and the fear that it would encroach on Russia’s sphere of influence that prompted the incursion into eastern Ukraine. Viewing Russia’s foray into Ukraine from this perspective aligns with John

A dead teacher here, dead kids there and dead civilians everywhere are scattered throughout Ukraine’s Eastern border. Ukraine is facing a dire situation on its Eastern border, a fight against Russia too. The Ukrainians are moving back, while the Russians move forward throughout the country. The Ukrainians are resenting a remake of the Soviet Union split which can be eliminated by removing Russia from Ukraine.

Although it has been more than two decades since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Soviet values still linger in Russia. While the totalitarianism, socialism and oppression instilled by the USSR has subsided, many believe that the attitudes it established have not. As Richard Arnold puts it, “Ethnic Russian nationalism has been growing since the fall of the Soviet Union, along with attempts by the regime to commandeer it.” Considering this longstanding nationalist attitude, this argument suggests that the invasion of Crimea was an imperialistic action that was part of Russia’s greater plan to reclaim former Soviet territories. However, some believe this historical framework did not instigate the annexation of Crimea, and that Russia was primarily motivated to invade because of the potential threat that NATO’s expansion posed. This argument proposes that Russia viewed the fall of ‘Russian-friendly’ Viktor Yanukovych as an opportunity for NATO to expand, and subsequently contain Russia. NATO’s official testimony on the matter states that “NATO and Russia have profound and persistent disagreements; however, the Alliance does not seek confrontation and poses no threat to Russia.” Conversely, this argument deems that the confrontational actions of Russia in

During late 2013 in Ukraine the leading government decided against an agreement with the EU that would place Ukraine in the union of nations, instead opting to support and side with their Russian neighbours. Following this decision large protests began sprouting up in the more west favouring regions of the country, primarily Kiev and its surrounding area; these protests then sparked unrest in the opposing areas of the nation (Crimea and the southeast) where the raining government run by Viktor Yanukovych garnered much of its support. The rising instability of the country is what eventually led to the armed conflicts between supporters of the two opposing ideologies and eventually Russians involvement both politically and in the form of military. Due to this involvement other international organizations and their affiliated members have become involved in the conflict through mostly economic and political means, however questions have been raised to whether these relatively non-combative measures have had a large enough effect onto their intended targets (in this case Russia and/or Ukraine) to be a legitimate course of action in dire situations, as seen in the Minsk protocol the Russian government and separatist forces they are willing to do whatever is needed to accomplish their goals. Then the legitimacy of the key players is brought into question on a moral standpoint, has Russia overstepped their bounds, is Ukraine at fault in any way and are any of their decisions

It has been argued that the Ukraine conflict can be attributed almost completely on Russian hostility. It is argued that, the Russian president Putin, assaulted Crimea because of the long desire to protect the soviet terrain, and from the prevailing situation, he may possibly pursue the entire Ukraine, as well as other nations in Eastern Europe. In this perception the dismissal of Ukraine president Viktor simply provided an excuse for Putin`s decision to order Russian militaries to take hold of part of Ukraine (Baker, et al 2014, p.1). The United States takes a big responsibility in this conflict despite the idea that it is anticipated to answer back to the skirmish between Ukraine and Russia.

This article starts by introducing the historical path of Crimea, then analyzes the impact of Ukraine revolution on Russia, and further illustrates the influence of Crimea Crisis on the relationship between Russia and the Western World. The study ends with policy suggestions for the United States and the West.

To better understand the context of Russia’s intervention in the Ukrainian crisis, one has understand that Ukraine and Russia share a very complex historical relation with one another. Dating back to the formation of Kievan Rus in the 9th century, Ukraine has shared a varying relationship with Russia ranging from a region of the Russian empire to one of the 15 states comprising the Soviet Union. This historical relationship, however has to the leading cause of the Ukrainian civil war. For much of Russia’s history, Russia had enacted domestic policies favoring the teaching of Russian customs and the Russian language collectively known as Russification as well as relocation of native populations. As a result, modern Ukraine has become a heterogeneous country. According the CIA’s ‘World Fact Book’, ethnic Ukrainians currently compose 77.8% of the population with ethnic Russians making up the largest minority at 17.3% while language wise,

In 1954, Russia gave the Crimean peninsula to Ukraine to celebrate the 300th anniversary of the Treaty of Pereyaslav, a military and political alliance with Russia, formed in 1654 (Kuzio, & Wilson, 1994). In 1991 the USSR started breaking apart with countries leaving and Ukraine voted to leave on August 24, 1991 when the Ukrainian parliament declared Ukraine as an independent democratic state with the adoption of the Act of Independence. To finalize this process on July 16, 1991, over 90% of the population voted for independence from the USSR in a national referendum (“Ukraine History”, 2009). With Ukraine’s independence from Russia, Crimea voted to stay part of the Ukraine.

However, today “these relations can at best be described as bleak, and at worst headed for outright confrontation.” From Russian point of view, two factors could be critical for worsening of the relationship, especially if considered together. The first is decision to build NATO Ballistic Missile Defense System in Eastern Europe and second is “color revolution” as well as Ukraine wish to join the NATO and European Union. Two additional historical facts shape the West and Russia relationships. The first is “Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine’s Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons” signed in 1994 thru which Ukraine lost all nuclear weapons. The second is “Partition Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet” signed 1997 for period of 20 years thru which Russia and Ukraine partitioned Soviet Black Sea Fleet, and regulated the stationing of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation on the Territory of Ukraine. In 2008, Ukrainian leadership announced the termination of agreements from the year 2017.

To understand the conflict, which is being dubbed as the biggest crisis between Russia and the West since the Cold War, one must first grasp the political and historical background present in the Crimea region. While the Crimean region has a long history spanning back to 6th century B.C., only the events since medieval times is relevant to current issues, furthermore the most recent histories pose most significance. Two years ago, Russia began its annexation of Crimea, which belonged to Ukraine, after the pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, was ousted from the Ukrainian presidential office. The people of Crimea were outraged; they had voted heavily in favor of him and following his removal they thought Yanukovych had been made a victim of a coup. In response, president

people became divided, was when the Novgorod-Rus was created and forged to resist the Mongols. Since then the Ukraine’s and Russia’s relationship has been on a downfall. Russia has become very insecure since the diffusion of the USSR. The pursuit of economic stability and wealth, triggered the whole Russo-Ukrainian conflict, as a result Russia regards Ukraine as a must have asset to assert its feeling of superiority in the world. Ukraine as a nation has some of the world 's richest soil. And has a large amount of shales reserves. Not to mention a 1,500 km border right on the underbelly of the the Russian mainland.

Historically speaking, the 2013 EU talks echoed a pattern of recent Western encroachment threatening Russia 's security in Eastern Europe. In the early 2000s, NATO’s expansion to include Poland and The Baltic states made Russia uncomfortable, and in 2008 an attempt at Georgian membership ended with a regional war (Trenin, 2014). The most recent clash began in November when former President Yanukovych 's government was scheduled to sign an association agreement with the EU (BBC, 2014). Largely supported by young voters, primarily in Western Ukraine, the agreement would have pushed Ukraine away from the Russian-dominated Eurasian Economic Union (Trenin, 2014).

For my essay I’ve chosen the topic: ‘Ukraine as a ‘bridge’ between Russia and EU’. I found it really interesting, especially in current situation, after the Presidential elections. And, of course, the topic is very important to me, as I’m Ukrainian and studying in the country, which belongs to EU. In this paper it would be considered: reasons of forming of current situation in Ukraine; relationships and perspective of development of them with Russia; relationships and perspective of development of them with EU; current situation after Presidential elections and outcomes of influences it could have on further position of Ukraine on the international arena.