The Western intelligence proxy revolution in Ukraine, which has been compared to that of the 2004 Orange revolution, has resulted in the ousting of its president, the installation of an interim government, and the amassing of Russian troops in the Crimean,resulting in an East versus West stand off and the heightening of the spectre of a civil war.
Russia’ foreign ministry justified the incursions by claiming that the Prime Minister of Crimea asked for the Kremlin’s assistance in bringing public order to the region.
Crimea is a peninsula of Ukraine located on the Northern Coast of the Black Sea, having a predominant ethnic- Russian population comprising of 59% out of the standing 2.2 million totals, in addition to having a pro- Russian parliament. It also has a 24 percent Ukrainian populace.
The Russian parliament has approved the use of its military in the Ukraine, after their troops seized facilities such as key buildings, airports, airfields as well as securing their military base at Sevastopol.
Importantly, Russian lawmakers have rejected a 1994 agreement under which the Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for a guarantee from the U.S., U.K. and Russia to protect its independence and territorial integrity. So where does this leave the West in respect of international law. Bound to intervene militarily against the Russians in defence of Ukrainian Sovereignty?
Or have recent developments rendered this agreement null and void.
Of course strategic Russian interests are also at play, its hold on the Black Sea port of Sevastopol, which it is leasing from Ukraine until 2042.
Of major concern is that Pro-Russian protests in the Crimea may spread to the Eastern and Southern parts of Ukraine, whose populations remain in favour of closer ties with Russia, sharing strong cultural identities, as opposed to Western Ukraine which favours an alliance with Europe via the European Union.
Crimea’s pro-Russian Prime Minister has called for a referendum on 30 March to allow voters to decide their future, i.e. remain part of Ukraine, join Russia or form an independent state.
Fears of these pro-Russian protests spreading seem justified as reports point to unrest in Kharkiv, Donetsk and other eastern cities.
Meanwhile, Turchynov, Ukraine’s acting head of State has appealed for assistance from Western powers citing the 1994 Budapest Memorandum as proof of their obligation to his country.
Turkey’s Foreign Minister has stressed that Crimea is of great importance to Turkey, in addition to the Tatars, who are a Turkish ethnic Muslim group and comprise of 12 percent of the Crimean population total. Of course the interim Ukrainian Government is in desperate need of financial aid and is hoping to secure an IMF loan, and predictably, the organisation is only to keen to oblige, seeing another independent country becoming indebted to the fiat monetary system, and having its resources at their disposal, as well as expanding the European Union through the newest member’s inclusion.
And what of Russia, will it expand its reach further into Ukraine and annex the entire region, or just part of it, and what are the implications of this, civil/ regional /global war.
The question is, as the interim government is the product of a revolution, not an elected entity, does it have any legal authority to partake in any initiative committed to negotiating the future of Ukraine.
Also, the mixed identities and alliances within the country will have to be taken into account to secure a peaceful future. Even though Ukraine is an independent nation maybe it will have to examine the viability of partitioning the country into Western and Eastern blocs, which may involve cession of land or authority to Russia.
Are there too many vested interests in the region to ensure a fair deal for Ukrainians, and will their interests prevail, or will they end up being another pawn on the geopolitical stage.
Only time will tell.