Ukrainian Crisis: Russia Did Not Invade Ukraine

UkraineRussia did not invade Ukraine. Russians have not “invaded” Crimea, either. They were invited in by the Crimeans and that is a distinction with an important difference. If there is a crisis, it is a crisis of intelligence, which may be due to the convergence of the event rather than the event itself or the players involved. The Ukrainian crisis does not exist. If anything, it is a Crimean crisis.

Take a closer look at a map of Ukraine (image above). Crimea is a peninsula connected to Ukraine by a narrow isthmus and two 40 km (25 mile) roads running through an archipelago of tiny islands in the sea of Azov, which is basically a Soviet saltwater lake, and the Black Sea. Crimea is separated from Russia by seven-mile narrows between the Crimean peninsula and the Russian mainland. The Russians are already talking about building a bridge across those narrows.

The Russian occupation of Crimea was triggered when the Ukrainian parliament metaphorically kicked up its heels and pushed the former Russian-leaning Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych, out of office on corruption charges. By removing Yanukovych from office, the Ukrainian parliament “destabilized” Russia’s control over the Crimean military bases it occupies under long-term leases with the Ukrainian government which were negotiated during the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Having let that genie out of the bottle by demonstrating its independence from Russia, the Ukrainians sent a perhaps unintentional message that Russia’s former province was no longer “reliable.” That was the Ukrainian crisis, as far as Russian President Vladimir Putin is concerned, because it threw a shadow over Russia’s long-term occupancy rights.

When the Soviet Union broke up into 12 autonomous republics, Crimea was bundled with Ukraine for an obvious reason: geography. A separate, independent Crimea would have no choice but to route all ground shipments to and from Crimea through Ukraine, putting Crimeans at Ukraine’s mercy with respect to its commerce with the rest of Europe. So, instead, Crimea was set up as an “autonomous parliamentary republic” within Ukraine, essentially becoming an independent nation inside another independent nation.

Putin has no interest in becoming embroiled in a long, bloody guerrilla war with Ukraine. That would be a crisis Putin wants no part of, because there is nothing in Ukraine that Russia wants, except for the military bases in Crimea.  There are no roads between Russia and Crimea. The only ground routes between Russia and its military bases in Crimea run through Ukraine. That is the main reason Putin is interested in Ukraine at all, because a hostile regime in Kiev could effectively blockade land routes between Russia and its Crimean bases.

As an “autonomous parliamentary republic,” Crimea presumably has an absolute right to ask Ukrainian troops to leave. They also appear to have the right to seek a closer relationship with Russia, to the point of outright annexation, which could easily include inviting Russian troops to occupy the region. That appears to be happening right now.

Future Prospects For the Region

The United States has no military options in the Crimean situation. Since Crimea is officially an autonomous state, an invasion of Crimea by U.S. troops to support Ukrainian efforts to pacify the area would violate international law. The Russian presence, having been invited in by Crimeans, does not violate  either Ukrainian sovereignty or international law.

President Obama’s big mistake with respect to the Crimean situation was made when he became involved with the region in the first place. The knee-jerk reaction that, if the Russians are doing it, then it must be wrong, turns out to be wrong itself. So far, this is an internal matter involving Ukraine, Crimea and Russia. Until Russian troops occupy actual Ukrainian soil, it will remain that way.

It would be both a strategic blunder and a tactical nightmare to send U.S. troops to confront Russian forces in Crimea. But there is already unrest in Eastern Ukraine, where ethnic Russians appear to believe that the ouster of former president Yanukovych indicates a change in the sentiments of the Ukrainian majority to the Russian minority.

That unrest is probably being instigated by Russian agents provocateur, which is the usual practice in such situations, but that does not mean there is no genuine sentiment in Ukraine’s eastern provinces toward secession from the Ukraine and adoption of those largely Russian provinces by the motherland.

Nonexistent Options

The United States has few options available right now. There is no sentiment in Europe for a more aggressive posture than the threatened economic sanctions, but Russia is not Iran. Economic sanctions would not work quickly enough to affect the outcome of the situation.

Short of triggering a shooting war, there is little that President Obama, or any other president, can do under these circumstances. The best course of action would have been to say this is a local matter that the parties involved need to work out themselves, but that would have been politically unacceptable. Obama had to say something to stave off further criticism of his presidency. 

Ultimately, the United States has no dog in this fight. Ukraine is not an American ally. No treaty obligations require the United States to get involved in this no-win situation. The knee-jerk reaction that the United States has to get involved in the internal affairs of other nations, or referee between neighboring countries at odds with each other, has to be challenged because, sooner or later, push is going to come to shove and the United States will have to put up or shut up–again.

There is no Ukrainian crisis. Russia did not invade Ukraine. No one did. Russia did not even invade Crimea. They were invited in by a group of partisans who invaded the Crimean parliament, tossed the incumbents out, declared themselves the new government and invited their Russian friends to join the party.

Commentary by Alan M. Milner

Sources:

New York Times

Globe and Mail

Washington Post

6 Responses to "Ukrainian Crisis: Russia Did Not Invade Ukraine"

  1. Prof B from L.A. (@ProfB_from_LA)   March 7, 2014 at 1:22 pm

    Then the Soviet Union didn’t “invade” Afghanistan — they were invited in by the Afghan government on the basis of the December 1978 friendship treaty. So we’d better revise all the history books, eh?

    Reply
    • Alan Miner   March 7, 2014 at 2:36 pm

      And the American Revolution was supported by 35% of the population, making it an unpopular minority revolution….until it succeeded. Legitimacy comes through the barrel of a gun. Always has, and always will. Everything else is an illusion of arrogance, the belief that opinion about the rightness of a cause makes the cause right. All causes are ultimately destructive before the force amorphous reality into a fictional shape. As a second generation American of Ukrainian descent, the best hope I have is for the Russians to take their marbles and leave with Crimea in their teeth but without the Ukraine.

      Reply
  2. Alan Miner   March 6, 2014 at 8:44 pm

    This could become a very complicated discussion, but I will simply say that I am quite well aware of the geography and ethnology of the region, but if you consider Asia to be the part of the land mass in question above China, then three-quarters of what is now Russia would be in Asiatic time zones. I was very precise about saying Asiatic rather Oriental Three of my four grandparents were from Kiev and one of my grandfathers looked more like a Mongol than anything else. I think Russia has always been an Asiatic country with a desire to be European and that much of the very deep misunderstanding of Russia and Russians stems from not paying attention to that fact. But thank you for your comment. I appreciate your point of view.

    Reply
  3. yankovoy   March 6, 2014 at 7:47 pm

    russia is an asian country? so the dnieper river is an Asian river? Was not the Ukraine overrun by the Turkic and Mongol tribes and the slavs went north to avoid them ? so if anything, we slavs from the Ukraine have more Asian blood than the our brothers from the North. My grandparents considered themselves Russians – they were Kulaks from Vinnistya.

    Reply
  4. Alan Miner   March 4, 2014 at 5:26 am

    Here’s the link to that article on CNN:http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/03/opinion/stent-putin-ukraine-russia-endgame/index.html

    Reply
  5. Alan Miner   March 4, 2014 at 5:25 am

    A friend of mine sent me a link to a CNN article that made several of the same points I made here, which is comforting since the author of he article, Professor Angela Stent, is a former National Intelligence officer on the Russia desk, and is a recognized authority on Russia.

    I hadn’t read this article when I wrote mine, but it is nice to see my observations confirmed by someone with credentials. Buried in this story is an amazing point that no one ever seems to get.

    Russia is not a European country. It is an Asian country. Dos that matter? I think so, because there are ancient enmities between Asiatic Russia and the Slavic nations that were squeezed between Asia and Europe – Poland, Hungary, Yugoslavia and the Ukraine.

    Ethnic Ukrainians – and I am three-quarters Ukrainian myself with three of my four grandparents having been born there – are more Slavic than Asiatic and there is a line that runs through the Ukraine around a quarter of the way back from the border with Russia where the population is largely ethnic Russian, not Ukrainian.

    In the end, the map will be redrawn thus: Russia will establish a protectorate over Crimea. They will build a seven mile long bridge across the strait between Crimea and Russia to establish a direct link that does not pass through the Ukraine. They will extend their border rights to cover another 25% of the Ukraine….and no one is going to do anything about it.

    Putin is playing the Great Game, the Game the Russians have always played and since he can look forward to a another 10 or 15 years in power he doesn’t have to defeat Obama. He simply has to wait him out. The dynamic is that an operative democratic democracy cannot defeat an oligarchic dictatorship because presidents have to stand for election every four years and parties have to do battle for the office every eight. While Putin is making moves based on policy, American presidents have to make moves based upon their domestic political agendas.

    The last president to have that kind of discretion in his behavior was FDR and we slammed the door on multiple term presidents with a Constitutional amendment that mightr be the stupidest thing we have ever done in an amendment next to Prohibition.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.