Back to Brussels Blog homepage
Wanted: A Plan for Ukraine
August 25, 2008
Among the lessons to be drawn from the Russian-Georgian war is that the next flashpoint between the European Union and Russia may turn out to be Ukraine. There is a particular risk of trouble over Crimea, the Ukrainian peninsula where ethnic Russians are in the majority and where Russia’s Black Sea fleet has a 20-year lease on bases that is due to expire in 2017.
To help avert a crisis in Ukraine, the EU badly needs to come up with a convincing strategy for rescuing the country from the geopolitical no man’s land in which it has languished since the Soviet Union’s demise in 1991. Russia’s military intervention in Georgia underscores the Kremlin’s determination to rebuild its influence in former Soviet republics on its western and southern borders. Ukraine - with 46m people and a culture and history intimately connected to that of Russia - is the biggest prize of them all.
Unfortunately, the EU’s plans for Ukraine are at present anything but convincing. At an EU foreign ministers’ meeting in Brussels last month, the 27-nation bloc even found itself debating whether to state the obvious and call Ukraine a European country. The snag is that to do so would imply that Ukraine has the right to eventual EU membership, a prospect that some EU member-states can’t stomach.
EU and Ukrainian leaders are due to meet in the French town of Evian on September 9 and sign an association agreement on closer relations. But this accord will be deliberately ambiguous about whether or not it puts Ukraine on a track leading one day to EU accession.
A new report by the European Council on Foreign Relations think-tank argues that the EU cannot afford any more delays in defining and deepening its ties with Ukraine. It proposes giving Ukraine access to the EU’s four freedoms (freedom of movement of goods, people, services and capital) and a roadmap for visa-free travel. It advises the EU to commit itself to consulting and assisting Ukraine in the event of a challenge to the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. It recommends support for Ukraine’s efforts to secure the peaceful withdrawal of the Russian Black Sea fleet from Crimea.
Above all, the report advocates that the Ukraine should be offered a “clearer perspective” towards a Nato membership action plan, and states that the EU should recognise Ukraine’s right to join the EU. None of these steps would be intended as a provocation to Russia, whose sheer size and regional weight leave the EU with no choice but to pursue a policy of long-term diplomatic and commercial engagement with Moscow.
The report’s recommendations make a lot of sense. However, they may overstate the EU’s ability to apply its famed “soft power” in a country that is right on Russia’s doorstep and permeated with Russian influence. Equally, they may underestimate Russia’s probable response to any hint that Ukraine is drawing close to Nato.
All in all, one has to fear that a crisis in Ukraine, like this month’s fighting in Georgia, will flare up long before the EU’s member-states have forged a consensus on what they want to do.
NATO is already building air force base infrastructure in E. Ukraine. There will be more surprises for moscow - but continued humiliation of the mockal federation is guaranteed. THIS will never end… Much like putin, the kremlin is nothing more than a commune of monkeys with a temporary roof over their heads.
Posted by: Hryhoriy | August 25th, 2008 at 8:24 pm | Report this commentYitzhak:
the notion that Ukraine is essentially Russia is rather misleading.
1) Those whom you call “Russian Orthodox” are simply Orthodox. Out of three orthodox churches in Ukraine one is indeed related to Moscow Patrirchat.
An by the way, who told you that 100% of Ukrianians are religious at all?
2) All major political parties in Ukraine are advocating EU membership. The difference between “pro-Westyern” and “pro-Russian” parties is much more subtle than usually assumed. The fact is, “pro russian” politician would not actually mind joining NATO but more worried about economic retaliation from Russia. Same situation is with population.
Posted by: Alexei | August 26th, 2008 at 9:41 am | Report this comment3) In a better world, it probably would make mo sense for Ukraine to EU membership without NATO, and keep neutrality a la Finland or Ireland. Which pretty much is national consensus. But given the circumstances, and obvious empire building drive from Russia, this becomes less of an option.
Yitzhak: you comments are severely flawed. You are either tremendously misinformed or was paid to write this opus. As a native Ukranian I state that your claims are the farest from truth as possible. And also very much paranoid. Look, what you are talking about? Nuclear war, annihilation of Europe, you even consider the use of biological weapon? Nobody in the modern World now use this agressive remarks except Russia and bunch of terrorist countries aka Sudan, Siria etc. It is a bad taste! It seems like russian do not want to live in peace with the rest of the World, no, they want to fight and conquer…Look who are your allies are? Siria, Cuba, Iran, Sudan…Is it your friends? Is it the states you wish whole World to become like? If it is a real wish I would say you russians are mental to say the least…Or are infected with the same virus the germans had carried 60 years ago..which is all the same, frankly.
Posted by: Sea-gull | August 26th, 2008 at 10:25 am | Report this commentFar from allienating Russians admitting Ukraine to EY will give hope to those of them who want to see their country truly free and democratic member of the world community in general and of EU in particular. How much different Ukraine and Russia are is a matter of debate which in itself witneses they must be somewhat similar (one cannot imagine a similar debate about, say, Congo and Viet Nam). So, addmiting Ukraine will prove EU is not a closed club for lucky rich countries but rather a living and groving institution ready to fulfill its purpose: to Unite all European democracies.
Posted by: Yuri | August 26th, 2008 at 1:29 pm | Report this commentThe Ukraine should be told to adopt a lower profile. Don’t they know that GWB will be out of (the) office in a few months?
Posted by: J.J. | August 26th, 2008 at 4:05 pm | Report this commentWriting in the FT, a few days ago Anatol Lieven
had this to say about the current conflict in Georgia:
quote
The latest conflict is humiliating for the US, but it may have saved us from a far more catastrophic future: namely an offer of Nato membership to Georgia and Ukraine provoking conflicts with Russia in which the west would be legally committed to come to these countries’ aid – and would yet again fail to do so. There must be no question of this being allowed to happen – above all because the expansion of Nato would make such conflicts much more likely
end quote
I find comments like this eminenently sensible and realistic.
The attempt to force NATO down the throats of the Ukrainians when 70% of them are against it is calling for trouble.
I do not relish the idea of seeing Ukraine go thru’ a very bloody civil war.
Posted by: Cassandra | August 27th, 2008 at 3:20 am | Report this commentrealistic
Corretion: Obviously the last word “realistic” does not belong to the last sentence.
Posted by: Cassandra | August 27th, 2008 at 3:28 am | Report this commentAren’t the Russians in Crimea (where they are the majority) entitled to self-determination? Or is that right available only to Kosovars? www.winnowed.blogspot.com
Posted by: Vinod Joseph | August 27th, 2008 at 5:41 am | Report this commentIn GB the Scots already have their own parliament in Edinburgh and the SNP (Scottish Nationalist Party) wants full independence for Scotland within the EU. I hope that happens.
In Switzerland the Swiss-French living in the canton of Bern (a Swiss-German canton) formed a strong separatist movement to get their region
legally formed into a “new” canton.
After several years and a lot of civil disobedience (riots and bombs in Zürich included) they got their independence from canton Bern in 1978 and the canton of Jura
is the result.
As a Swiss citizen, living in a direct democracy, I support 100% the right of minorities to hold referendums and to secede from any sovereign state - Abchasia from Georgia and South Ossetia from Georgia, included.
Posted by: J.J. | August 27th, 2008 at 7:23 am | Report this commentIn response to Vinod Joesph - as well as Russians in the Crimea you have Ukrainians to! Oh and let’s not forget the Crimean Tartars who were forcibly expelled once under Stalin.
The territory of Crimea was conquered and controlled many times throughout its history. The Cimmerians, Greeks, Iranians, Goths, Huns, Bulgars, Khazars, the state of Kievan Rus’, Byzantine Greeks, Kipchaks, and the Mongols all controlled Crimea in its early history.
In the 13th century it was partly controlled by the Venetians and by the Genoese; these were followed by the Crimean Khanate and Ottoman Empire in the 15th–18th centuries, the Russian Empire in the 18th–20th centuries, the Russian SFSR and later Ukrainian SSR since 1954, in the rest of 20th century, Germany in World War II, and now, the independent Ukrainian state since 1991.
Mr. Medvedev should also be informed there is a Ukrainian constitution and he is not a guarantor of Ukraine’s national security. The Russian Federation has only been independent since 1991!
Posted by: David Stevens | August 27th, 2008 at 9:26 am | Report this commentOne should not be surprised that Russia is nervous about the EU and Nato “making plans” for Ukraine. We would be nervous if they were making plans to reintegrate Ukraine into their military and economic structures.
Ukraine is a complex country with strong European and Russian currents flowing. Perhaps it would be more sensible for all sides to stop rattling sabres and move to an agreed position with Russia in which Ukrainian independence and neutrality is guaranteed by all sides. They would then be free to make economic and trade alliances with whomever they choose.
Posted by: Chris J | August 27th, 2008 at 9:56 am | Report this commentWhat EU can do as an answer to Russians in Georgia (Gruzia)?
Nothing in Georgia! But make a pressure on Russian interest elsewhere.
For example, they can make economic pressure on Russian investments in energy in Bosnia, as well as speedy NATO acceptance.
They can with light speed accept Ukraine and other former Soviet Republics in NATO.
EU can press Serbia to comply with Hague decision on war in Bosnia.
In other words, Georgia is probably to close to Russia and it is too late to make major changes, but a lot can be done elsewhere where Russia does not have influence.
I think as new cold war is booming, this will be the situation.
Posted by: Fuad, Sarajevo | August 27th, 2008 at 11:00 am | Report this comment_Vinod Joseph
Posted by: Yuri | August 27th, 2008 at 12:47 pm | Report this commentThe answer to your question is: of course they do! And it is exactly what ethnic Russians, together with the rest of Ukraine, did in 1991 when majority of citizens of every singe Ukrainian region (including Crimea and Sevastopol) voted for Ukrainian independence.
Please, bear in mind that while ethnic Russians are indeed a majority in Crimea there is significant (about 200 000) Tatar minority. Relations between the two groups are, to put it mildly, tense. Any change of sovereignity over Crimea will ruin present fragile equilibria. To be hornest with you, I trule believe there will be a full-scale civil war in Crimea is it were ever to fall back under Russian control.
NEW KIDS ON THE BLOC!
The Russian Federation has only been in existance for 17 years (prior to that the Russia empire was incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1917 and a Soviet constitution binded all former Soviet Republics, i.e Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia etc. The current Russian constitution has only existed since 1991, when new territorial boundaries were formed.)
Just because you speak Russian doesn’t mean to say you’re Russian either - ask any Irishman who speaks English? Russian spoken in Ukraine is also spoken with Ukrainian accents (imagine Irish accents) so please let’s not be mistaken on the issue of language!
The Russian Black Sea fleet based in Sevastapol was leased by the Ukrainian government to the Russian Federation in 1991 (and the Crimea is constitutionally and territoriially recognised by both Ukrainian and Russian governments and all governments of the world as belonging to Ukraine.)
Russia only pay Ukraine a meagre $98 million a year for it’s rental of Sevastapol. It’s about time that Ukraine increased the rent i.e. $2.5 US billion a year… The Russians took no time whatsover in increasing the cost of Ukraine’s gas… so lets see if the Russians put up or shut up!?
Posted by: David Stevens | August 27th, 2008 at 1:02 pm | Report this commentYuri,
Although Ukrainians voted for independence in 1991
it doesn’t mean that the majority of ukrainians want to make ukraine a missile base or a part of states trying to choke off russia. D Milliband wants ukraine to “join the widest possible coalition against russian agression” David Milliband is the foreign minister of Britain. This is an incendiary declaration. Who in Ukraine would join an army that
is going to invade russia?
You have to look at the geography of election voting to know how ukrainians would react if an attempt were made to turn them against russia a la poland. Half of ukraine — the industrial half and Crimea would resist violently. Yushenko is now politically isolated. Timoshenko and Yannukovich are against his policies. He wants to have the security services investigate Timoshenko
for treason because she did not support him on the georgia story. This is juvenile. He will lose the coming presidential elactions for sure to Timoshenko.
Ukraine and Russia form a unified cultural space. To try to pull them asunder will turn brother against brother in the Ukraine and russia would be obliged to intervene in the end.
We have to respect human life and not attempt
Posted by: Cassandra | August 27th, 2008 at 2:39 pm | Report this commenthastily thought out schemes which serve other peoples’ interests.
I appreciate the historical notes re: the Crimea, by David Stevens, but the proposal to raise the rent for the Russian naval base at Sevastopol I hope is tongue in cheek, at least a little.
With its wonderful climate and great historical sites, the Crimea can grow rich with tourism, property development, etc.
Georgia blew it with Abkhazia and South Ossetia by not trying more “killing them with kindness” (though a good exercise in that arena was carried out in coastal Abkhazia near the Georgian border).
Posted by: James Canning | August 27th, 2008 at 6:50 pm | Report this commentDear Cassandra,
The answer to your question is: I would! As a reservist officer of Ukrainian Army I will have to show up at a draft station if so called.
But your question is moot. The whole reason for collective defence sistems is that they decrease the chances for war. It may seem paradoxical but by showing our willingness to fight we actually consolidate peace. You may want to consult a brilliant book Strategy of Conflict by Vobel Price winner Robert Shelling for details.
Ukraine is culturally distinct from Russia. The previous French ambassador to Kyiv, himself a phililogist, told me it is his opinion Ukrainian and Russian are more diverse that Italian and Spanish. But this is a moot point again. The true point is that Ukraine and Russia are light years away politicallu. In sharp contrast to Russia Ukraine is a democracy, albeit, as you correctly mentioned, a juvenile one. So what? Is it no longer a moral imperative to protect youngsters?
Posted by: Yuri | August 28th, 2008 at 10:30 am | Report this commentThe balance for the West is clear: either to undewrite Ukraine, facing what I, and Robert Shelling, judge as a very minor chance of military confrontation with Russia, or to try and avoid even this small risk of having to show up at a draft station at the cost of renouncing its highest ethical standards.
James,
In reference to the Black Sea fleet rent… I gave you a very conservative estimate regarding the rent! I have recently come across some stats which indicate that Russias defense budget for 2007 almost quadrupled to $31 billion since the previous six years. In 2005 Russian defense spending rose 22 percent, 27 percent in 2006 and analysts estimate that in 2007 it increased by an additional 30 percent. In 2007 the Russian Government approved a re-armament program through the year 2015 with a $240 billion budget.
I think the cost of Ukrainian occupation should reflect the increase of Russian paranoia I mean their defense spending, so I have revised it to at least $4.5 Billion. Give or take half billion. Hey security doesn’t come cheap when you’re occupying someone elses territory!
Posted by: David Stevens | August 28th, 2008 at 12:53 pm | Report this commentWhy is there this massive push for Ukraine to join the EU and NATO?
Why does one have to be associated with the other?
Why can’t economic unity be achieved without placing missles in numerous countries to pressure others?
It still remains to be seen which direction Ukraine will go with the next presidential election. As the current president is nose diving in polls due to his support for Bush and NATO membership, even thoa it is against the wishes of his electorate!
Personally I hope he will be ousted from parliment and a president who has the will of the people is elected.
Posted by: A.A. | August 28th, 2008 at 4:36 pm | Report this commentRE: “I think the cost of Ukrainian occupation should reflect the increase of Russian paranoia I mean their defense spending”
Posted by: David Stevens
Thats funny considering U.S. military spending was $583.28 billion (2008), more than entire EU spending at $311 billion
Next are as follows:
2 France 74.69 billion
3 United Kingdom 68.9 billion
4 China 59 billion
5 Japan 48.8 billion
6 Germany 45.9 billion
7 Italy 40 billion
before you get to Russia’s $40 spending
By the way, note that the $583.28 billion spent for 2008 does not include funding for Iraq and Afghanistan wars which are classed as extra expenses in the budget!
So what does that say about, your statement of “paranoia”?
The $40 billion spent on Russian defense is even smaller when you consider the vast territory, coastline and borders of Russia. Including the extensive cost associated with maintaince of nuclear arsenal bigger then that of the U.S. and British combined
Even Australia (where i am from) spends $20 billion per year on military, to put it in perspective, our population is only 20 million!
So please consider all the facts without selectively focusing on just one. Else you might get mistaken for a BBC reporter.
Posted by: A.A. | August 28th, 2008 at 5:17 pm | Report this commentDear Sir,
Six months ago I watched “Pat” Buchanan speaking to Fox News concerning Georgia. He was lambasting the establishment in Washington for making security promises to the Georgians which, he believed, would never be kept if push came to shove with Russia.
He alluded to British security promises to Poland, before Poland was crushed by Germany and Russia, prior to WW2 as an historical example of the mistake America was making today. He said America would never wage war with Russia for the sake of Georgian friendship. He asked, “So why are we offering them Nato membership”?
Alas, the Russians listened but Pats reflective attitude and practical concern were little heeded in Tblisi or the apathetic masses of America and the slick lobbiests that dictate their relations with the world.
Mr. Buchanan ran for President on several occasions, but Americans didn’t care for his honesty and indifference for perception management. They wanted to be happy.
As a European, I’d like to ses all classicly liberal societies in the E.U., if they so wish and hope to see an age where military alliances are no longer needed. I find the idea that one must be armed to the teeth in order to “feel safe” repulsive and demeaning of humanity and reason.
Be Happy,
Posted by: Just Browsing | August 28th, 2008 at 7:57 pm | Report this commentTymoshenko makes the most sense to me with her support for European Union membership but not NATO. The Euroepan Union isn’t a purely security-related issue–eastern industrialists, as I recall, would welcome Ukraine’s EU memberhship.
Not so NATO. NATO is an organization that has included dictatorships like those of Turkey and Portugal for decades at a time, and would have included a renvanchist Georgia, at best a transatlanticized antechamber to the EU.
Posted by: Randy McDonald | August 29th, 2008 at 5:55 am | Report this commentPat Buchanan was right than and he is right now…no one is listening to smart people.
Posted by: Ted | September 2nd, 2008 at 8:21 pm | Report this commentRussia cannot and should not be trusted…ever!