Following political demonstrations and unrest that led to former President Viktor Yanukovych’s ouster, Ukraine experienced further turmoil when troops authorized by Russian President Vladimir Putin moved into its Crimea region.
An overwhelming number of Crimeans voted to secede from Ukraine in an illegitimate and falsified referendum held on Sunday. Just before the balloting, the Institute for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies in the Elliott School of International Affairs convened a panel of experts who discussed the roots of the conflict in Crimea, what may happen next and the actions the international community can take.
The panel was held last Wednesday and included Sergiy Kudelia, assistant professor of political science at Baylor University; Anders Aslund, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and adjunct professor at Georgetown University; and Matthew Rojansky, director at the Kennan Institute. Robert Orttung, assistant director of IERES, moderated the discussion.
Dr. Kudelia, who is Ukrainian, opened the conversation by explaining that Ukraine’s precarious political situation was partially a result of disintegrating state sovereignty, which began before Mr. Yanukovych’s demise. Government building seizures occurred in central and western parts of the country encouraging regional governments to withdraw their recognition of Ukraine’s central authority.
The situation was exacerbated by local political appointees, who failed to quell rising tensions. Crimeans did not support the new government, Dr. Kudelia said, giving Russia an opportunity to intervene in a region that has long sought greater autonomy from Kyiv.
Ukraine’s current constitution—adopted in 2004 and deeply flawed—poses another obstacle to stability. Dr. Kudelia said the country’s biggest challenge will be defining and implementing new state institutions at the national level. Dr. Kudelia also maintained that Kyiv decentralize additional power to local governments and disarm self-defense units to restore the state’s monopoly on violence.
The Ukrainian government negotiated an interim agreement on Feb. 21 with EU representatives that would have allowed Mr. Yanukovych to stay in power until December. However, he was preparing to flee even before signing the agreement, effectively nullifying it. Although Russia is demanding that the agreement be enforced, no one in Kyiv accepts that possibility as realistic.
The new government currently only includes representatives of two of the former opposition parties and has little representation from prominent members of the old regime. Dr. Kudelia stressed that the new government should address the concerns of all parts of Ukrainian society.
“The new leaders should have increased its legitimacy by reaching out to southern and eastern elites and creating a government of unity that would not necessarily include people from Mr. Yanukovych’s inner circle, but people who have authority in Ukraine,” he said.
According to Mr. Rojansky, Mr. Putin’s actions in Crimea underscore his belief that political protest is illegitimate.
“Putin, without explicitly saying so, is trying to say to Russians, ‘Should you pursue this course against me, the outcome will be the same—there will be a violent action against you, and I will be far more effective than Mr. Yanukovych,’” he said.
The situation now could unfold in several ways: Mr. Rojansky said Mr. Putin could risk isolating many Eurasian countries by annexing Crimea. Or the Kremlin could maintain a de facto state by keeping Russian troops in the region. The most troubling outcome, Mr. Rojansky said, is Mr. Putin could leverage Crimea for greater concessions from Kyiv and the western powers.
“My biggest concern is not the loss of Crimea to Ukraine; it’s what Crimea imposes that Ukraine then loses as a result—and that is the opportunity for reform,” Mr. Rojansky said.
The most important thing the U.S. can do is to reassure Ukrainians not to panic and start a dialogue about Ukrainian identity to ease tensions with Russian-Ukrainians. Mr. Rojansky agreed with Dr. Kudelia that the success of Ukraine’s future government will depend on whether or not it implements thorough political and economic reform.
Dr. Aslund spoke forcefully, explaining that Russia’s actions in Crimea reflect an authoritarian state violating international rules. He expressed his skepticism at the thought of negotiating with Mr. Putin, who he said has lied and misrepresented aspects of the Ukrainian conflict.
“He said it was an armed coup, but it was the other side who shot first, not the protesters. Why would you like to negotiate with a person who lies all the time about everything? That is not a meaningful conversation,” Dr. Aslund said.
Unlike some of the other panelists, Dr. Aslund believed Mr. Putin’s occupation of Crimea is a sign of desperation, which the U.S. could address only by employing severe, measured sanctions.
“Frontload and hit hard,” Dr. Aslund said, adding that the tactic has worked well in Iran.
His recommendations for the U.S. included working with the British government to implement financial sanctions to lock Russia out of markets and, if necessary, impose gas sanctions, too.
“We have to see the West come together, the U.S. take leadership in Europe again and NATO become a vibrant organization,” he said.