Original Spanish Version Posted: Oct 30, 2014

A year ago, Ukraine showed no strong signs of being an area on the edge of partition or fragmentation; and it was not perceived in the international arena as a country with a severe underlying ethnic conflict. Yet, today this country, on the European border, has been destabilized almost to the point of civil war; the Ukrainian economy has collapsed; the Russian Federation has been expelled from the G-8; a civilian aircraft was brought down inside the European airspace; and thousands of people have lost their lives. In a short period of time, the situation has escalated to a very tense and extremely delicate confrontation in the «most developed area» of the world.

In geopolitical terms, in the post-Cold War period, Ukraine has been a solid European player mainly due to its strategic position between Europe and Central Asia (the Slavic and Russian part) and its role as a vital energy link in the region. As a matter of fact, the energy pipelines that cross its territory are very important for the supply of Russian gas and oil to Europe.  Moreover, for many decades of the Cold War as part of the former USSR, Ukraine constituted a vital point in the Soviet sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. Still nowadays, its loss during the disintegration of the Soviet bloc continues to generate disappointment among some Russian groups.

In fact, Ukraine strategic importance in Russia’s geopolitics, has largely conditioned the evolution and deepening of the Ukrainian crisis. Although at the beginning of the pro-European demonstrations a considerable part of the population demanded the removal of President Yanukovych and advocated a rapprochement with the European Union, there was not a general perception among the population regarding a divided state or a state at the edge of secession. However, the pro-European tendencies of the new Ukrainian government were not compatible with Russia’s plans to develop an Eurasian Union that envisaged Ukraine as an essential element in the expansion of the new Russian sphere of influence in the European continent.

Therefore, when Ukraine began to try to move away from the Russian sphere, the policy of destabilization was triggered by Russia, even to the point of stimulating the dismemberment of the Ukrainian territory. As part of this strategy of destabilization, Russians authorities promised economic and political incentives to regions with significant presence of Russian minorities, while at the same time they mobilized their forces to the Crimean border with the aim of causing its incorporation into the Russian Federation.

The development of the events that would lead to the annexation of Crimea and to subsequent separation attempts of eastern provinces of the country, were also favored by the late implementation of an effective counterweight system by the European Union and the United States to ensure that peripheral states like Ukraine, which were still susceptible to Russian influence, were not that vulnerable to Moscow’s expansionism.

On occasions, Western democracies forget that governments with authoritarian tendencies or authoritarian features do not necessarily have the same respect for norms and international laws. Countries like Russia and China are more likely to subordinate the international legal sphere to their vision of national interest or to their country’s geopolitical strategy.

In recent years, Western countries have focused on strong and complex intra-regional problems related to the economic and financial crisis and to the political transitions within its borders.  As a consequence, even with the backgrounds of Russian foreign policy actions during the Syrian civil war, the West underestimated the Russian presence and its power of action in the border territories that Russians see as a vital interest area.

The West should not forget or underestimate the fact that Russia has historically been a country with a “great power” soul, characterized by the consolidation of areas of influence both globally and in the areas adjacent to its borders. The fall of the Soviet bloc and the end of the Cold War weakened the country and left it with heavy internal structural problems that forced it to reduce his international leadership to focus on national reconstruction.

However, two decades after the disintegration of the USSR, Russia has gradually strengthen its economy throughout its energy industry; it has also developed a strong international political agenda by actively participating in global crises (such as the Arab Spring and Syria), and by singing political, economic and military agreements with others regions, especially with Latin America and Asia. Not to mention that in recent decades the Russian government has increased its military spending, in contrast to the reductionist tendency in the Western countries.

These elements must be taken as a reminder that a power in crisis, a power in decline or a almost defeated power should never be underestimated; because there is always the possibility that given the necessary conditions or incentives, it could try somehow to return to exercise the power or the influence it had in the past. The Russians never left, they were simply on rehabilitation.

On the hand, with the Russian annexation of Crimea, important principles of international law were violated, such as the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention in internal affairs of others States. These violations resulted in a territorial cession induced by external forces; the holding of a referendum without the approval of the Ukrainian government; the presence of foreign troops on their Ukraine soil without consent of the State; and the latent threat of use of force by a third state, in this case Russia.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the annexation of Crimea violated a post-soviet political agreement in which Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons under the condition that its state sovereignty would always be respected. After the fall of the Soviet bloc, Ukraine owned the third arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world; in fact, it inherited about 5,000 nuclear weapons from the USSR. In 1994, the United States, Russia, the UK and Ukraine signed the «Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances»; through this document Ukraine transferred the weapons and joined the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, in exchange of the guarantee that sovereignty and independence would be respected within its borders, and that countries would restrain from threatening o using force against Ukraine or applying economic pressure to influence the nation.

In recent years, with the development of a doctrine of collective security, Western countries had reduced the weight of its presence in strategic geopolitical issues, merely reacting or responding to unforeseen events that could substantially affect their interests.

Ukraine’s crisis has been a wake-up call to the Western Hemisphere, reminding that even in a multipolar world like today; spheres of influence remain a key element in foreign affairs. Historically, countries with different ideologies and systems have expanded their regional and global sphere of influence through a variety of mechanisms of cooperation and collaboration. However, the problem arises when coercion or the use of force are opted to achieve those objectives.

Therefore, from the experiences in Georgia and Ukraine, European members who share borders with Russia, especially those of Slavic origin who belonged to the former USSR, are calling for the strengthening of the agreements signed with the European Union and the United States on economic and energy areas as well as in security and defense, in order to avoid future Russian attempts of destabilization in the area, such as cuts in power supply or agitation with Russian ethnic minorities.

On the other hand, the United States, Germany, France and the UK have been propelled to leave their initial passivity in order to play a more active role in the conflict. Westerns have realized that crisis like the one in Ukraine can be dangerous to the stability of the continent; to their image as guardians of the security agreements signed with their eastern allies; and to the world balance. As a result, NATO has increased its presence in the Baltic region; economics sanctions against Russian had been made; and economic assistance had been offered to Ukraine to reestablish its economy.

The Ukraine crisis has unraveled old fears from the Cold World period which are still vivid in the collective memory of the international community. The democracies will have to reinforce their role as world leader to avoid that expansionist policies from underlying great powers, such as Russia and China, compromise the international order and the respect of international law. However, it is not clear what will happen in the winter, when the European Union needs for a stable oil supply from Russia increases and the effects of the sanctions begin to permeate the economies of both sides.