Historical and real legal situation. Blaming Russia for the current world crisis is simplistic, unfair and ultimately damaging for everyone. A possible interruption in Russian natural gas supplies would be a disaster for Ukraine and would lead to serious difficulties for the EU. The image of a Russia that was in search of armed conflict to impose its views does not correspond to the reality on the ground at all. It has to be asked what the situation would be if the current Ukraine became an EU country. The European Union would thus extend as far as Crimea - which is defined as an “autonomous republic” but which in reality is a part of Ukraine. Geopolitical mysteries… And at the same time Crimea is a Russian naval base, separated from the Ukrainian state by a simple border which is barely six kilometres long! The EU would therefore extend as far as there! The 2 million inhabitants of Crimea who are legally part of Ukraine are 60% ethnic Russian. Putting the ethnic aspect to one side, the naval base of Crimea has a politically crucial importance for Russia - it is across the Black Sea that Russia reaches the Mediterranean, starting from the strategic naval base of Sebastopol and going on through the of Bosphorous Strait.
Crucial aspects of the Russian economy and policies depend on this area. It is understandable that Moscow is raising its voice. And dialogue with Moscow is indispensable.
It must not be forgotten that the history of the link between Russia and Crimea has nothing to do with the USSR or with Stalin. It was in 1784 that Catherine the Great, the empress of Russia, conquered Crimea, which was then gradually to become the main military base of the Russian empire. And in 1954, Nikita Khrushchev gave the peninsula to Ukraine as celebratory gift for the 300th anniversary of the union between Russia and Ukraine. The Russia-Ukraine agreement on the regime of Crimea was then concluded, valid until 2017 and recently extended for another 25 years. It's a complex legal and historical situation, but it's in force.
The energy agreement must not disappear. Of course, the energy aspect - which I mentioned in yesterday's edition of EUROPE - can't be lost from sight. The situation is complex. Until 2012, 80% of the Russian gas destined for Europe transited Ukraine. This percentage decreased after the North Stream pipeline entered into service, which passes through the Baltic Sea, while the South Stream pipeline, which crosses Bulgaria and Hungary, will become operational in a few years' time. Despite these developments, the gas route through Ukraine will remain essential - both for Russia, as the supplier country, and for the EU destination countries, and still more for the transit countries. The Ukrainian economic situation is so disastrous that Kiev can't run the risk of losing this resource.
Uncertainties continue for Ukraine. Apart from the pipeline aspect, it should never be forgotten that the separation between the two parts of Ukraine is not purely linguistic. In the western part, the citizens are in favour of strengthening their anchoring to Europe. In the eastern part, it is not only the language that brings the inhabitants close to Russia. Is the outright refusal to separate the country reasonable? EU representative of public opinion, and especially the European Parliament, should take account of the reality on the ground. In my opinion, the European Parliament should analyse the situation carefully - instead of asserting that the territorial unity and politics of Ukraine, as they currently stand, are untouchable.
A further urgent complication can be found in Ukraine's budgetary and financial disaster. The country's authorities insist on the need for swift and considerable aid as Ukraine is no longer able to meet its operating expenditure.
The EU must act cautiously. In the face of this situation, the European Parliament has called for the EU to act cautiously and with reflection, without forgetting that the EU-Ukraine association agreement was turned down by Ukraine - proof that the country as a single whole is subject to unpredictable turns. The European Parliament took a position of openness at the end of February - but a cautious and firm position at the same time. It has called for measures to stop the flows of corrupt money to the EU from Ukraine and for the return of stolen assets, asking the government of Kiev to fight against generalised and endemic corruption (see EUROPE 11028). During the debate that preceded the vote, some MEPs specifically called for transparency on what the funds become that are paid by the EU (see EUROPE 11027). The Parliament also reiterated that the arrangements for EU accession are applicable to Ukraine, if it respects the conditions. Everything is possible but much ought to change in this Ukraine as we continue to wonder if it really is one country or if it can remain so.
(FR)