More volatile than Georgia. To begin with, I would ask readers to forgive me for coming up with a few run of the mill thoughts. The dramatic events at the eastern borders of the EU (and beyond) are a typified legacy of the abrupt and somewhat improvised manner in which the former USSR was dissolved. The new Russia is seeking to restore its influence and its presence in this vast region from which it considers it was ousted in an excessive and over brutal manner - showing a brutality that the USSR had itself abusively used in the past, to an extent that can explain why the countries and peoples that had suffered such aggression continue to show distrust, bitterness and fear. This interpretation, which is generally admitted, should lead to a certain degree of objectivity when analysing the situation. The historic, ethnic and economic data are so intertwined that there cannot be an absolute truth. But all too often those causing the trouble, those who are the victims and most observers are convinced they hold the truth and demonize the other party - which makes it difficult and sometimes impossible to reflect on a reasonable compromise.
In my column last week, I tried to show the intermingling of historic and ethnic legitimacies in Georgia and the extent to which the recent events in themselves are presented in a different way depending on which side one finds oneself. The situation is just as complicated in Ukraine, ten times so in fact, as the scale is vaster and the ethnic and historic mixtures are even more complex, and the magnitude of the problem of the Crimea by far exceeds that of South Ossetia. The result of this is that risks are far greater. There is no point hiding them with biased or incomplete presentations of reality. Without any claim to being exact or complete, I shall sum up what I knew of the matter to begin with and what I have learnt.
The knot of the Crimea. Ukraine has two souls - one of essentially Russian history, language and culture (Kiev, the “mother of Russian towns”; Gogol, language purity), and the other essentially western and Polish. The Russian-Ukrainian treaty of friendship and cooperation, ratified in 1998, expires at the end of this year. Russia, however, affirms that it does not plan to extend it if, in the meantime, the procedure for Ukraine's accession to NATO is begun. And yet it is an essential text as it fixes and recognises current borders, including Ukraine's control of the Crimea, which is relatively recent. It was decided by Nikita Kruchchev in 1954. A majority of the population is Russian, however, and in the town of Sebastopol this majority is overwhelming. The Russian Black Sea fleet is stationed in Sebastopol, whose port and installations are leased to the Russians until 2017. The Ukrainian president has said that he will not extend the contract. At first sight, we have time. But, to begin with, the Ukrainian president has made it an obligation for Russian military authorities to give advance warning to local authorities of any movements by their warships. And what would the situation be like if, by 2017, Ukraine were to become a member of NATO? It is hard to imagine NATO (and therefore American) warships and Russian warships using the installations of the port of Sebastopol side by side. Vladimir Putin has warned that, if Ukraine were to become a member of NATO, Russia would point its missiles toward Ukrainian territory, as a precaution. And the historic past of the Crimea is still there in the background.
It is all too easy to speak of abominations caused by one or the other side but, when the situation is so complex, everyone has their reasons for acting as they do although political leaders and commentators only retain what suits them best. For some, it is offensive that Russian vessels should be in a Ukrainian port and use the installations there to impose Moscow's policy. Others wonder whether the presence of the American fleet in the Black Sea is not even more startling This was more or less the same debate as that held when US missiles were to be set up in Poland - for some, it was a legitimate precaution against the aggressive nature of the Russian Empire, which has revealed itself so often throughout history; while for others it was so that the Americans could surround Russia.
On the subject of Sebastopol, the “population” aspect cannot be neglected. Nearly 80% of the population is of Russian origin, and the Russian fleet is an essential element of the town's prosperity. On the other side, however, there is criticism of Moscow's practice of large-scale distribution of Russian passports at the request of those living in the Crimea, which gives Mr Putin the right to insist upon Russia's duty to defend its citizens living there, if circumstances should warrant.
On such grounds, anything and everything is possible. The search for balanced solutions is therefore essential, as is the role of the EU to identify them and make them acceptable. (F.R./transl.jl)