Students react to Crimean conflict

Hopkins students reacted this week to the occupation of the Crimean peninsula in Ukraine by Russian armed forces. Russia seized the region after Ukraine’s Russian-backed president fled the country following a violent crackdown on protesters demanding closer relations with the European Union. With the region now split between a Ukrainian-speaking west tilted towards Europe and a Russian-speaking east, the U.S. fears Moscow is trying reassert influence over parts of the former Soviet Union.

The relationship over the years between Ukraine and its neighbor Russia has been incredibly complicated. Ukraine declared independence from the Soviet Union in August of 1991, but things have not been easy in the years since. Russian-speakers and Russian-sympathizers have extended their influence throughout much of the country, especially in the east.

Russian-born sophomore Masha Ilina grew up just across the Black Sea from Ukraine. Ilina says she feels confident that Russians bear no prejudice against Ukrainians, despite the anti-Russian sentiment she has experienced from Ukrainians in her life.

“I think it’s a complicated situation and that it is hard to say who is right or wrong because there are a lot of different aspects involved in the situation. For me and my family in Russia, we believe that much is portrayed incorrectly, and I believe it’s so tragic that people lost their lives in this conflict. I also see it that Ukraine very much tries to differentiate itself from Russia. However, a lot of Russians see it completely differently and believe Ukraine and Ukrainians to be very similar to Russia and see the people as kin,” Ilina wrote in an email to The News-Letter.

In 2010, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was elected to office after a race that was criticized for electoral irregularities; Yanukovych tried to maintain close ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin economically while keeping the door open to Europe.

In November, Yanukovych abandoned the European Union trade agreement that had been in the works for months and would have yielded closer ties with Europe. Instead, he signed an agreement with Russia valued at $15 billion.

“Mind you, in Ukraine, the Yanukovych government embezzles $8 to $10 billion annually ... and this $15 billion was not going to go to the people at all; it was just going to fill the pockets of the government, because that was the trend that had been going on up to that point,” senior Paul Tershakovec said.

Tershakovec is a third generation American whose grandparents fled Ukraine a year prior to the Nazi invasion in World War II. He speaks Ukrainian at home and has visited relatives in western Ukraine several times.

As a result of the government backtracking on integration with Europe, protests began to break out, beginning in the capital city, Kiev. The protests, as a whole, were peaceful; Yanukovych, on the other hand, reportedly ordered police to use violence to break them up if necessary.

The protests continued, however, leading to the occupation of Kiev’s city hall on Dec. 8. That was the largest demonstration yet, with 800,000 attendees.

Beginning in January, the Ukrainian parliament started passing anti-protest laws. Incidentally, three protesters were reported dead three days later. The laws were quickly annulled after the resignation of Prime Minister Mykola Azarov, and parliament passed an amnesty bill agreeing to drop charges against protesters that had been arrested as long as current protesters abandoned their occupation of government buildings.

This was initially rejected by the protestors, but a few short weeks later, over 200 protesters were released and Kiev’s city hall was abandoned.

Days later, though, protests heated up again, culminating in one of the bloodiest days the nation had seen in almost a century, with over 80 dead. At that point, police forces had been told to shoot to kill.

Yanukovych denounced the protest movement, which he dubbed a coup d’etat, and fled the country. However, he attempted to retain a hold on his power by later making a television appearance from Russia in which he asserted the legitimacy of his presidency.

Yanukovych, his friends and his family have been receiving death threats for some time now.

“And I guess rightfully so,” Tershakovek said. “One man is threatening the freedom and livelihood of your entire family ... it seems unthinkable that something like that would happen to us in the U.S., but if that were to be the reality, what would you do? So he left.”

Yanukovych was replaced on Feb. 23 by Speaker Olexander Turchynov, who is currently serving as interim president. A warrant for the arrest of the ex-president was issued that same day.

Rival protests began in Crimea the next day.

March 1 marked the day when Russia, under Putin’s request and his parliament’s approval, first sent forces into Ukraine. Unmarked troops landed in Crimea in order to, according to Putin, protect the well-being of Russian-speakers in the area.

However, many argue that Russia has ulterior motives for their presence in Crimea. Co-Executive Director of the Foreign Affairs Symposium (FAS) Will Szymanski explained that Putin’s actions are not protectionary but rather political.

“[T]he core ambition for Russia with this conflict has several dimensions: Trying to keep Ukraine within a sphere of influence, a significant port land-grab at a time of chaos, and a threat to all Russian neighbors who have EU, NATO and western-minded ambitions (Baltic states, Caucasus states, and Central Asia). Putin has already said once before to former President of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili: the West will promise, but won’t deliver. Russia will not promise, but will certainly deliver — essentially a threat to neighboring nations that looking westward will achieve nothing but destruction,” Szymanski wrote in an email to The News-Letter.

Szymanski said that he thinks Putin is willing to make sacrifices to achieve political gain.

“When looking at this crisis as an American, I urge people to see this from a realist perspective,”  Szymanski wrote. “Trying to see Russia as anything but realist will simply frustrate viewers. Russia is committed to a zero-sum policy known as the Liberal Empire, and will incur short term losses — even economically — for long term political gain.”

Putin, however, maintains that Russia is not outright occupying Crimea, but rather that the troops are there to protect the interests of Russia, Russian citizens and Russian-speaking Ukrainians.

Tershakovec, along with many others, does not buy this idea.

“The Russian Federation started increasing their military exercises and their alert level at their military bases. There were reports prior to this increased alert of unmarked masked gunmen that looked like marines taking control of the Supreme Council and raising the Russian flag ... Those troops kept landing in Crimea, whether from the sea or in trucks, marked with Russian plates, armed with Russian weaponry. More of them came, more occupied Crimea and tr[ied] to force a referendum on the Supreme Council, because it’s an autonomous state,” Tershakovec said.

“However, this referendum needs to be approved; essentially it has to be constitutional, and it’s not. So the referendum hasn’t happened yet. But, in the meantime, this is what has happened: lots of media attention in Crimea, the Russian Federation’s government saying outright ‘we’re not occupying Crimea,’ military commanders in Crimea saying ‘yeah, we’re Russian,’ so, they are. There’s no doubt about that. They have started coming to Ukrainian military bases in Crimea with trucks full of soldiers armed to the teeth and invading the forts. They come to the doors and they demand to see the commanding officer, and the commanding officer comes out and they say ‘give up your weapons, we are occupying this area for the safety of Russian-speaking men,” he added.

In an hour-and-a-half long phone call, U.S. President Barack Obama asked Putin to withdraw his troops. Putin and his diplomats have instead adopted a strategy of radio silence, ignoring the requests of most of their neighbors.

“This has the possibility of upsetting the current balance of power. It could become a regional conflict if neighboring countries get involved,” International Studies major and freshman FAS member Alex Weisman said.

Thus far, Crimean troops have not used force against the Russians, and thus interactions have remained relatively nonviolent.

“Frankly, the Ukrainian troops have every right to shoot at the invading troops ... but, they’ve been ordered to stand down, and it’s been working thus far because the Russian troops aren’t ready to massacre a bunch of Ukrainian soldiers that are not fighting back,” Tershakovec said.

American fighter jets have arrived in Poland and Lithuania, and the aircraft carrier George H.W. Bush is making moves to enter the Black Sea. The United States and France have both issued statements warning Russia of “new measures” should it fail to withdraw its forces.

On March 6, the Crimean Parliament passed a motion to secede from Ukraine, asking to join Russia. This was, not surprisingly, met by Russian support. Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, however, was not so eager for this to be the case, promising not to cede a “single centimeter” of Ukrainian land to Russia.

That statement was supported by Obama, who extended an invitation to the White House to Yatsenyuk.

“The situation will also have a lasting impact for the Obama administration in that the way they handle this will ultimately determine his foreign policy legacy,” Weisman said.

Szymanski asserted that U.S. policy thus far has not gone far enough to address the underlying issues of the conflict.

“As for the main actors in this engagement, I see EU, Russia and the United States playing most of the cards. Though, America’s actions thus far have been certainly weak. Putin has assured his oligarchs, that in the face of economic sanctions, Russia will prevail in the long term. Rhetoric, time and time again, along will take hold on Russian support for this land-grab if the United States does not act decisively,” Szymanski wrote.

Szymanski urged resolute American action.

“The US should share intelligence with Ukraine and mobilize the NATO Special Response Force, at the very least to cool down Russian encroachment. Probably the best action in this conflict, though, actually lies in EU and United States aid to the people of Ukraine (amounted at $16 billion). Winning and keeping the hearts and minds of the Ukrainian people is the absolute victory for the Western nations in this engagement. Keeping the electricity going and providing for a family are the underlying necessities for Ukrainians during this conflict, so by keeping a healthy standard of living, Ukrainians are less likely to have their hearts and minds fall back into the hands of their aggressive neighbor,” Szymanski wrote.

Tershakovec firmly believes that any conflict that might arise will end quickly, mostly because Putin does not possess an army anywhere near as strong as the Soviet Union’s at the height of the Cold War. He fears, however, for the sake of the Crimean peninsula.

“I’m worried that Crimea will be the sacrifice that Ukraine has to make, which is very sad especially given the history that the Crimeans have with Russia; even under the tsars, they were persecuted ... The Ukrainian people do deserve a better future than they’ve had, because over the last 2000 years, Ukrainians have had about 370 years of independence,” he said.