ATLANTIC TREATY ASSOCIATION Atlantic Voices, Volume 5, Issue 3 1 - Flora Pidoux Putin’s recent eleven -day disappearance raised a lot of speculation about his health and the future of Russia. The Russian President reappeared and everything went back to ‘normal’. However, ‘normal’ has dramatically changed over the past year. The new normal is characterized by a high degree of tension between Russia and the West, epitomized by the economic sanctions Russia is faced with, but above all by the fact that territorial sovereignty has been violated. On March 18th, the Ukrainian separatists and Moscow celebrated the first anniversary of Crimea’s ‘return’ into the Russian Federation. The past year has reinforced Russia’s grasp on the separatist region and highlighted the West’s powerlessness in face of the situation. It has also increased the fear of Ukraine’s neighboring countries’, namely the Baltic countries and Poland, as some fear they are next in line for a Russian invasion. This issue aims to analyze how and why we have found ourselves in a situation where the gap between Russia and the West is growing everyday. The Growing Gap Between Russia And The West Volume 5 - Issue 3 March 2015 Contents: Is The Kremlin Heading For Cold War II? Mr. Ofer Fridman analyzes Russia’s unique perception on war, which has been shaped by the country’s unique geographical and historical characteristics. The Gap Between Russia And The West Mr. Tommy Alexander Lund gives recommendations from Georgia’s South-Ossetia issue that could be applied to Ukraine when facing the current crisis. From Europe To Eurasia: Russia’s Shifting Economic And Political Focus Ms. Catherine Lefèvre’s article focuses on each parties’ policies that keep pushing them away from each other, namely the West’s sanctions against Russia and the latter’s effort to build a strong Eurasian Economic Union to counteract the EU. Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, Russian President Vladimir Putin, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Francois Hollande, and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, during peace talks in Minsk, Belarus, in February 2015 (Photo: Reuters)
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
ATLANTIC TREATY ASSOCIATION
Atlantic Voices, Volume 5, Issue 3 1
- Flora Pidoux
P u t i n ’ s r e c e n t e l e v e n - d a y
disappearance raised a lot of speculation
about his health and the future of Russia.
The Russian President reappeared and
everything went back to ‘normal’.
However, ‘normal’ has dramatically
changed over the past year. The new
normal is characterized by a high degree
of tension between Russia and the West,
epitomized by the economic sanctions
Russia is faced with, but above all by the
fact that territorial sovereignty has been
violated.
On March 18th, the Ukrainian
separatists and Moscow celebrated the
first anniversary of Crimea’s ‘return’ into
the Russian Federation. The past year has
reinforced Russia’s grasp on the separatist
region and highlighted the West’s
powerlessness in face of the situation. It
has also increased the fear of Ukraine’s
neighboring countries’, namely the Baltic
countries and Poland, as some fear they
are next in line for a Russian invasion.
This issue aims to analyze how and
why we have found ourselves in a
situation where the gap between Russia
and the West is growing everyday.
The Growing Gap Between Russia
And The West
Volume 5 - Issue 3 March 2015
Contents:
Is The Kremlin Heading For Cold War II?
Mr. Ofer Fridman analyzes Russia’s unique perception on war, which has been shaped
by the country’s unique geographical and historical characteristics.
The Gap Between Russia And The West
Mr. Tommy Alexander Lund gives recommendations from Georgia’s South-Ossetia
issue that could be applied to Ukraine when facing the current crisis.
From Europe To Eurasia: Russia’s Shifting Economic And
Political Focus
Ms. Catherine Lefèvre’s article focuses on each parties’ policies that keep pushing
them away from each other, namely the West’s sanctions against Russia and the latter’s
effort to build a strong Eurasian Economic Union to counteract the EU.
Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, Russian President Vladimir Putin, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Francois Hollande, and
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, during peace talks in Minsk, Belarus, in February 2015 (Photo: Reuters)
Atlantic Voices, Volume 5, Issue 3 2
first time in Russian history that an agreement, which was
signed with another state, defined Russian domestic re-
forms, and, from the Russian perspective, where Moscow
accepted the US as an external referee for its internal re-
forms.
This policy started to change during the mid-1990s for
two main reasons. The first one was domestic. Internal
pro-Western decentralisation policies, formulated in an
attempt to be appreciated by the West, created economic
chaos, notions of separatism and the potential danger of
additional secessions. The second reason stemmed from
the Western reaction, or lack thereof, to the Russian at-
tempt to Westernise itself. According to Russian analysts,
the West showed little appreciation for Russia’s willing-
ness to conform to western principles and did not show
any desire for integration with an economically strug-
gling, politically unstable state that had been, until re-
cently, its number one enemy.
While the course of Russian foreign policy generally
preserved its pro-Western narratives, the main emphasis
of Moscow’s new doctrine changed in the second half of
the 1990s, from an unequivocal agreement, to political
bargaining. Utilising the political advantages of being the
only successor of the USSR, i.e., the biggest nuclear
power and a permanent member of the UN Security
Council, Moscow started to replace the ‘romanticism’ of
the early 1990s with a more pragmatic approach. The
Kremlin carefully began to demonstrate and defend its
interests. The best example of this transformation is Mos-
cow’s reaction to the Kosovo crisis. The Kremlin’s sup-
port of the NATO-led peacekeeping operations in 1995
and 1996 (mainly due to the fact that Russia was a part of
the solution) was replaced by a firm opposition to the
NATO intervention in 1999.
By Ofer Fridman
T he past year has probably been the most
challenging period in NATO-Russian rela-
tions since the end of the Cold War. The
escalation of the Ukrainian crisis and the following con-
frontation between the Kremlin and the West has trig-
gered many speculations about the possibility of a Sec-
ond Cold War. Western experts are puzzled by Russian
policy decision-makers, the Kremlin’s real intentions in
Ukraine and how far Moscow is willing to go in its rela-
tions with the West. This article discusses the evolution
of Russian foreign policy in the past twenty-five years
and some predispositions of Russian culture in an at-
tempt to establish a more constructive view of the real
motives behind the decisions taken by the Kremlin.
The Evolution Of Russian Foreign Policy And
The Ukrainian Crisis
The Cold War ended, similarly to other big wars of
the 20th century, with a clear winner and a clear loser.
While there were many countries and nations that con-
sidered themselves victors, Russia was the only nation
that was not only defeated in the Cold War, but also felt
defeated. Although NATO's tanks did not parade on the
Red Square – there was no need for it – the Russian
economy was destroyed, political instability and corrup-
tion tore the country apart, and most importantly the
Russian people felt deeply defeated, an entirely new
feeling for a nation that had never really lost a war.
In the early 1990s, this feeling led Russian political
decision-makers to believe that Russian domestic and
international success would result by becoming a part of
the West. The best example of Russian attempts to be
integrated with the West was the 1992 Charter for
American-Russian Partnership and Friendship. It was the
Is the Kremlin Heading for Cold War II?
Atlantic Voices, Volume 5, Issue 3 3
Meanwhile, the Russian economy started to recover.
Building on rising oil and gas revenues, the Russian eco-
nomic growth of the first part of 2000s was unprecedent-
edly high and fast. This success had an immediate influence
on domestic public opinion that considered Putin as the
‘savior of the nation’, ‘restorer of order’, and ‘distributor of
wealth.’ Consequently, it was not surprising that on this
wave of economic success and domestic support, the Krem-
lin started to re-evaluate its position in global affairs.
Building on its economic success, the Kremlin was finally
able to reconsider its position regarding the West. The com-
bination of economic growth and the Soviet legacy in for-
eign policy transformed Russia back into one of the most
significant international players. It was the beginning of a
new period in Russian foreign affairs – a period of “Russian
Revitalisation” based on segregation from the West.
In 2008, Putin left the presidential office and was re-
placed by Medvedev. While the West naively interpreted
this move as a change of leadership, Russian political ana-
lysts had no doubt that Putin, formally the prime minister,
was in fact Russia’s top leader. Putin gave Medvedev a man-
date to pursue a more liberal foreign policy in an attempt to
improve the Kremlin’s relationships with the West – a sort
of scouting mission, to try to determine what was possible
to achieve with the United States and Europe.
Four years later, after understanding that Medvedev’s
liberal approach did not show any signs of success, Putin
decided to come back to office as President in 2012. Since
then, Putin has paid special attention to the implementation
of the “Russian Revitalisation” concept in foreign policy. It
was not an aggressive change but an amplification of several
major narratives that had underlain Russian foreign policy
since the mid-2000s.
The culmination of this aggressive approach is the crisis
in Ukraine and the Kremlin’s intervention in the conflict.
On the one hand, Russia’s support to the Ukrainian separa-
tists was a direct continuation of the Kremlin’s foreign pol-
icy course that has been undoubtedly designed by President
Putin. On the other hand, many Russian analysts claim
that Russian intervention clearly reflects the rising power
of Russian nationalism. In analysing the different trends in
Russian public opinion, it seems right to claim that the
Russian people support their government and their Presi-
dent, and are ready to pay the price of a Western reac-
tion. To understand this, it is important to focus on Rus-
sia’s cultural perspective on war, or, in other words, on
when the Russian people are ready to defend their inter-
ests and ultimately pay the price for them.
Russian Cultural Perspective On War And The
Ukrainian Crisis
Russia has always enjoyed the advantages of having
access to a massive territory. However the lack of natural
geographical borders left this enormous flatland unpro-
tected and exposed to invasions. This geographical vul-
nerability has had throughout history one the most signifi-
cant influences on the composition of the Russian charac-
ter. Geographically unprotected and placed between the
centres of two different civilisations (the Western and the
Asian) Russia had suffered repetitive invasions through its
history. In 1236, the Mongol Empire (the Golden Horde)
conquered most of Kievan Rus’ and established more
than 200 years of the Tatar-Mongol Yoke; in 1571,
the Crimean Khan Devlet I Giray raided the Tsardom of
Russia and set Moscow on fire; in 1610 the Polish
King Sigismund III occupied most of the western part of
the Tsardom, putting his son Wladyslaw IV Vasa on the
Russian throne (although the son never actually ruled); in
1812, Napoleon invaded Russia, defeating the Russian
army and conquering Moscow; and finally, in 1942, Ger-
man forces occupied most of the European part of the
USSR, besieging Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad. This
ruthless military experience predetermined the Russian
mind to a defence without support, to rely only on their
own forces, distrust all allies and to eternally wait for the
danger of a new invasion or attack that can materialise at
any time.
Atlantic Voices, Volume 5, Issue 3 4
the historical southern part of Russia and 74% see Crimea
as Russian land. Building on their aforementioned histori-
cal and cultural predispositions, Russians are ready to
suffer the consequences of Western reactions, or at least
as long as they feel righteousness and trust their leader-
ship to lead them to victory regardless of the costs. They
are ready to endure reducing their spending and their
needs, but they are not ready to change their attitude to-
ward what they perceive as a just battle.
The Ukrainian Crisis – Implications For NATO
Some western experts see President Putin as pri-
marily responsible for the course of the Russian foreign
policy and the Russian intervention in Ukraine. The big
picture, however, is much more complicated. “Bringing
Crimea back home” was barely an act of pure Russian
imperialism or an attempt to rehabilitate Soviet influence
on a rebelling country.
On the one hand, it is easy to argue that Russia seeks
equality with the West, and as the West (especially the
U.S.) is not ready to give up its leading positions, the
Kremlin expedites confrontation. Based on the Russian
and Soviet Imperial legacy it is also easy to interpret Mos-
cow’s position as an attempt for a dramatic comeback to
the global arena. On the other hand, however, it is im-
portant to understand that in the Russian context, foreign
policy pursued by the Kremlin and the attempts of the
Russian leaders (Tsars, General Secretaries of the Com-
munist Party, or Presidents) to get the domestic support
required to stay in power, have always been intercon-
nected. History has shown that whenever the political
leadership executed foreign policy against the will of the
people, it always ended in a coup.
Russian people have always been ready to defend
their Fatherland facing a foreign enemy. From the 13th
century’s Tatar-Mongol Yoke, and through to Napoleon’s
and Hitler’s campaigns, the Russians demonstrated in-
credible levels of patriotism and readiness to fight against
In the Russian mind, Russian history is the history of
defence; accessible from all flanks, Russia was a kind of
a ‘sweet booty’ for the nomadic East, as well as for the
settled West. This territorial vulnerability has always
been an incentive that drove Russians to expand their
territory by conquest (Russian Empire or the USSR) or
by economic or political pressure (the Commonwealth
of Independent States or the Eurasian Custom Union),
thus protecting Central Russia – the historical heart of
the Russian state.
All the major wars that designed the Russian charac-
ter occurred on Russian territory, extensively involving
the Russian civilian population and encoding within the
Russian mind that war is a choice between fighting and
being destroyed. Obviously, the general Russian reac-
tion to war involves more universal merits, such as pro-
tection of the nation, of the home, religion, state, etc.;
but as a result of the historically established belief that
war is a people’s affair rather than a state’s – the most
fundamental reason for war in the Russian mentality is
the protection of one’s life and one’s family. While the
West fights to make the world better, Russia fights to
survive.
The notion of war is sunken deep within the Russian
character and its modern interpretation is not far from
the Russian traditional explanation of war, as described
above. The Russian historical narrative of war – protect-
ing one’s life and one’s family, fighting to survive rather
than to better the world – seems to be as concrete as
ever before at the beginning of the 21st century.
In the eyes of the Russian people, the Kremlin’s
intervention in Ukraine is considered to be a fully justi-
fied struggle, as it protects the Russian people and their
land. Different surveys, done by a Russian non-
governmental research organization, the “Levada Cen-
ter” (famous for its criticism of the Kremlin leadership),
show that 46% of Russians believe that Novorossiya is
Atlantic Voices, Volume 5, Issue 3 5
power was overestimated for so long.
It seems, however, that this lesson has been forgot-
ten, as the main discourse between Western experts is
about the Kremlin’s political domestic weaknesses rather
than masterful political system that skilfully manipulates
the public opinion on the one hand, and knows to comply
with the emerging cultural trends on the other. While
the very relevant question in the title of this article is
whether the Kremlin is heading for a Cold War II, the
answer seems to be irrelevant. History proves that in the
wave of nationalism and patriotism, the Russian people,
led by a strong leader, demonstrate levels of endurance
and sacrifice that cannot be grasped by the Western mind
that has entirely different cultural predispositions and
interpretation of conflict.
From many perspectives, Russia is still an enigma.
Learning from history, however, it seems wise to prepare
for the worst, that is to say to overestimate Russia and
assume that the Kremlin is heading for a new Cold War,
rather than to base the decision-making process on the
assumption that Putin is weak. Too many times, during
the history, Russia surprised countries that were not pre-
pared for worst-case scenario, and NATO should learn
this lesson.
Ofer Fridman is a PhD Candidate and Sessional Lec-
ture at the University of Reading, UK.
D. Trenin, Russia’s Breakout from the Post-Cold War System: The Drivers of Putin’s Course, (Moscow: Carnegie Moscow Center, 2014)
Bogaturov, ‘The three generations of the Russian Foreign Policy Doctrines’, Mezhdunarodnyye Protsessy, Volume 5, No. 1(3), January-February 2007, (Russian)
Levada Analytical Center (Levada Center), ‘The acces-sion of Crimea and the involvement of Russian volun-teers in the East-Ukrainian conflict’, 10.11.2014
the adversary and were ready to suffer the consequences of
protecting their country. While some western experts
claim that the intervention in Ukraine was explicitly used to
generate domestic political support, the opposite might be
true. As some Russian analysts claim, the Kremlin’s deci-
sion to take Crimea back was, in fact, an act intended to
avoid public unrest and redirect Russian rising nationalism.
As previously discussed, historical-cultural predisposi-
tions have led Russians to believe that the lives of their peo-
ple have to be protected at any cost. Putin knows that de-
spite any reservations about their national leaders, Russian
people will rally around their leaders for the duration of a
just struggle, and in exchange, they expect their leaders to
stand firm and lead them to victory. Putin has little choice
but to show himself as the straightest nationalist in Russia
(as he proudly proclaimed himself at the 2014 Valdai Dis-
cussion Club) and lead his people into the conflict that they
are ready to be a part of.
While many western experts interpret Putin’s interven-
tion in Ukraine as an attempt to recruit the masses in times
of domestic political vulnerability, the West, in general and
NATO in particular, should not underestimate neither
Putin’s grip on power, nor the credit and support that the
Russian people give him. Putin did not reinvent Russian
nationalism but he turned himself into its leader. Undoubt-
edly, one of the real reasons behind Russian intervention in
Ukraine is Putin’s personal ambitions, but the cultural and
historical based willpower of the Russian people is the en-
gine that empowered Putin to act - willpower that even
Putin has to comply with.
NATO decision makers who assess Russia in light of the
Ukrainian crisis, should remember that the Cold War was
won only due to a 40 year-long military and political over-
estimation of the USSR power, especially Russian domestic
politics. The fall of the USSR was a complete surprise for
the West that could not grasp the weakness of the Soviet
leadership in the late 1990s – leadership, whose grip on
About the author
Bibliography
Atlantic Voices, Volume 5, Issue 3 6
By Tommy Alexander Lund
T here was a sign of relief in the corri-
dors of the European Commission
when the results from the Moldovan
parliamentary election were announced in Novem-
ber last year. The pro-European bloc managed to get
a majority in the parliament, which ensured that the
Association Agreement they had signed in June 2014
with the European Union would be pushed further.
For Russia, it was another reminder that the
countries that were once in the geo-political sphere
of the Kremlin were getting further and further away
from its influence. It also emphasized that the only
country to the West of Russia that had not signed an
Association Agreement was Ukraine. From Putin’s
perspective, if Kiev signed such an agreement with
the EU, it would definitely put an end to his dream
of holding the same influence in world politics as the
Soviet Union once did, but more importantly, it por-
trayed Russia as a weak regional power.
This paper argues that the best solution for
Ukraine lies neither with NATO nor Russia. The EU
and NATO must continue their efforts to build up
economic and political relationships with Ukraine
without fully incorporating them into their organiza-
tions. This paper tries to understand Russian motiva-
tions from the perspective of the last 10 years and
focuses on Georgia’s experience in regards to Rus-
sian aggression.
A Need To Understand Russia
When the Soviet Union was dissolved, Russia was
on the brink of an economic collapse. The transition
to market economy created a hyperinflation that
wiped out personal savings and led to the financial crisis
of 1998. The scars from this period still seem to influ-
ence the ambition of Russia today. Until the economic
sanctions imposed by the western world started in
March 2014, Russia experienced an average 7% GDP
growth from 2000-2008, and poverty decreased from
30% of the population to 14% in the same period.
Putin managed to use economic resources to force
countries like Armenia and Kazakhstan away from the
negotiation table with the EU to direct them towards
the Kremlin-controlled Eurasian Economic Union
(EEU). Putin himself saw the Eurasian Economic Un-
ion as a direct opponent to the European Union. How-
ever, the future of the EEU is unsure now that the eco-
nomic incentives Moscow offered have shrunk due to
the financial sanctions imposed by the West following
the annexation of Crimea and the collapse of oil prices.
The illusion of democracy is vital for Russia, as the
country wants to be seen as a modern country that re-
spect international principles, and therefore be consid-
ered as a global leader. The western world has accepted
Moscow’s undemocratic practices as the only alterna-
tive to the chaos of the unregulated and corrupted Rus-
sia of the 90´s. Despite the clear anti-democratic ten-
dencies that Russia has gone under with Putin, his popu-
larity is still on the high end of the chart, without any
indication that this will change anytime soon. It hit its
peak in August and has only shown a slight downfall
even though the economic structure and stability is de-
scribed as “second to only Venezuela” on the negative end
of the CNBC chart on potential for long-term economic
growth. Some of the reason for the President’s popular-
ity can be attributed to the stability he established in the
The Gap between Russia and the West
Atlantic Voices, Volume 5, Issue 3 7
short time after he ascended to the presidency. Combined
with the drastically increased standards of living for the
average Russian citizen in the years after Yeltsin, Putin is
seen as the man who could lead the country back to the
world stage as a noticeable actor. Although Russia is now
facing an economic downturn, the situation is still far from
what it was right after the Cold War, and many Russians
are grateful for that.
The Russian President was also successful as an interna-
tional diplomat. When the US was on the brink of a new
armed conflict with Syria following the use of chemical
weapons by Bashar al-Assad’s regime, it was Putin who
offered a solution to the conflict. The events and Russia’s
implication in finding a
“solution” forced the interna-
tional community to accept
that Russia was a global actor
to reckon with. According to
Time, it was “the first time in a
generation that Russia managed to
pull such a diplomatic maneuver.”
Putin made his country
stronger and more influential
as time went by. Before the crisis in Ukraine, there was no
sign that could suggest that Russia would not expand its
role as a global and influential actor. So why did Putin
gamble away his political prestige and a strong economic
growth to destabilize Ukraine?
Russian Expansion
The annexation of Crimea was, for Russia, a demon-
stration of power which also acted as a test to see how the
West would react. As a result, the relationship with both
the US and the EU sunk to a new low, and the Western
governments imposed sanctions that badly hurt the Rus-
sian economy. In response, Russia increased the nationalis-
tic and anti-Western rhetoric to unite the country under
the leadership of Vladimir Putin. The annexation of
Crimea led many observers to believe that a funda-
mental paradigm shift was happening, from politics
based on a state driven foreign policy to one based on
ethno-nationalist ideas. However, the relationship
between Russia and Ukraine was on the edge long
before the Maidan revolts, as illustrated by the years
of political tensions following the Orange Revolution
in Ukraine in 2004. The appeasement of the situation
under the Ukrainian president Yanukovych led the
international community to hope for regional stabil-
ity.
The signing of the controversial Kharkiv Pact be-
tween Kiev and Moscow in 2010 gave Russia a lease
on the Black Sea bases in
Crimea until 2042. In re-
turn, Ukraine got a heavily
discounted price on Rus-
sian natural gas from Gaz-
prom. Despite the im-
provement in relationships
between the former two
Soviet countries following
the election of a pro-Russian government, underlying
tensions remained. While the Kremlin had the ambi-
tion to include Ukraine in the Eurasian Customs Un-
ion, Yanukovych said no, knowing it would close the
door for a future membership in both NATO and the
EU. In the events that led to the Maidan protests,
Russia offered further discounts on energy prices and
much larger financial aid than the EU could offer. As a
result, Yanukovych announced his decision to post-
pone a further cooperation agreement with the EU.
The situation escalated and Yanukovych fled in the
midst of the protest. The Kremlin blamed the West
for illegally deposing a democratically elected govern-
ment and refused to recognize the new government.
Former Presidents Dimitry Medvedev and Viktor Yanukovych
signing the Kharkiv Pact 21 April 2010 (Photo: Kremlin.ru)
Atlantic Voices, Volume 5, Issue 3 8
Since 1991 each government that has led Ukraine
has stated that the country is a part of the European
continent and that the country’s future identity is
European. However, the implementation of this pol-
icy has been delayed by factors such as corruption,
irrational decision-making and international meddling
from outside actors. The economic situation of
Ukraine in 2013 gave Yanukovych no choice than to
accept the economic and political terms demanded by
Putin. Before Maidan protests started, the situation in
Ukraine was dire. Foreign debt had reached 77% of
GDP and foreign reserves had fallen by 30%. Mykola
Azarov, the Former Ukrainian Prime Minister, called
the IMF’s demands for an EU
financial package was “the
straw that broke the camel´s
back”. A look from a financial
and economic perspective tell
us that Ukraine was backed
into a corner, and did not want
to go through the same eco-
nomical slimming diet that
Greece endured. Lubomyr
Hadja, a history professor at Harvard, explained the
following events as a different view on what the trade
agreement stood for. While the politicians saw it as an
economic agreement that would take sovereignty
away from Ukraine, the demonstrators of Maidan
Square saw it as a political agreement that committed
Ukraine to adhere to certain European values and
principles, an opportunity for them to fight corrup-
tion.
For Russia, the Maidan riots was not just loss of
control of Ukraine, it was a diplomatic humiliation
that could not go unnoticed. While Russia just pas-
sively grumbled under the Orange Revolution, they
now saw the Maidan events as direct provocation. For
Russia, the expansion of western influence into Rus-
sia’s traditional sphere of influence had gone too far.
As they did in 2008 in South Ossetia, Russia felt that
they had justification to invade another country.
The Lesson From South-Ossetia
The cases of the war in Georgia in 2008 and
Ukraine in 2014 are noticeably similar. First, both
Georgia and Ukraine have pushed forward with mem-
bership in both NATO and the EU. In 2013, Mikheil
Saakashvili stated in a meeting with US Secretary of
State John Kerry that Georgia´s survival was depend-
ent on further integration within Western institu-
tions. Both countries were denied membership at the
NATO summit in Bucharest
in 2008, just five months
before the start of the South
Ossetia war. Second, in both
instances Russia justified its
aggression with the reason of
protecting Russian speakers
and citizens.
Even though the similarities
and parallels to the South Ossetia war are numerous,
there are some important differences. While Georgia
was in direct military confrontation with Russia,
Ukraine is still officially in a state of civil conflict
where Russian denies direct involvement with mili-
tary forces. In addition attention on Ukraine is much
higher because of its direct borders with NATO and
EU member states.
The South-Ossetia war also showed that even
though Russia could claim a victory, their ability to
meddle in Georgia has been less than expected. Geor-
gia did not join EEU and now has closer ties to the EU
than ever before. As of the third quarter of 2014,
their economic growth was 5, 6%. Georgia has shown
A referendum poster in Crimea
(Photo: Zurab Kurtsikidze/EPA)
Atlantic Voices, Volume 5, Issue 3 9
that making a deal with Russia is not synonymous with
giving the Kremlin control of the country. An example
Ukraine can learn from in the future.
Balancing The Diplomacy
The lack of commitment from the Ukrainian govern-
ment to reform did not go without consequences. Crimea
is now under Russian control and populated by a majority
of pro-Russian inhabitants; the industrial stronghold in
the South-East is under control by separatists and the re-
sources Ukraine sits on are used to wage a war against
separatists. For many other European countries, the situa-
tion is worrying. The dilemma of having Russia as an ally
and having access to Russian gas and energy is vital for
countries like Poland and Ger-
many, however putting the secu-
rity of the EU and NATO’s closest
members at risk is not acceptable.
Ukraine has become the main
reason for the gap between the
West and Russia over the past
year. As previously discussed,
Ukraine is an independent country
that does not desire to be subjected to Russian interests.
Even the pro-Russian former President Victor
Yanukovitch declined to engage his country into the Eura-
sian Custom Union, and it was only when his back was
against the wall that he agreed to discontinue the partner-
ship with the EU.
Ukraine is however still not ready for a fully commit-
ted relationship with the EU, in any shape or form. The
future road for the country is to take advice from the
West and take the time to build up the social and cultural
infrastructure needed to reach European standards, a
strategy proven successful in many cases.
The relationship between Russia, the EU and Ukraine
is very complicated. Looking from the rise of anti-
Western sentiment and nationalism in Russia, it is rea-
sonable to believe that a normalization of diplomatic
relations between the West and the heir of the USSR is
over. There will still be Russian flights over the Baltic
and submarines down the Norwegian coast. The nor-
malization period of the 90´s and early 2000’s is over.
Now is the time to admit that Russia and the West are
competing for the same international market. This
does not mean that there should be a new Iron Curtain
in Europe. The factories in the east of Ukraine are still
of vital importance to Russia since it produces goods
that are vital for its military, and the majority of East-
ern Ukrainians identify themselves as Russian.
The situation in Ukraine forms only part of a larger
picture. However it can be ex-
pected that there will be no going
back to normal political relations
between Russia, Ukraine and the
West. Neither Ukraine nor the
EU can afford to let Russia take
more Ukrainian territory and
incorporate it into the federation.
The fear that it will promote a
pro-Russia uprising in the pro-Russian regions of the
Baltics and Moldova is real. Ukraine has signaled that it
is willing to cede a good deal of autonomy to its east-
ern regions, but not give away the sovereignty to Rus-
sia. Ukraine is not a healthy country. Corruption and
heavy bureaucratic red tape is still affecting the effi-
ciency of the country. To survive they will need heavy
economic help from either the West or Russia. This is
difficult since especially Germany is hesitant to put
Ukraine on the same economic restrictions as Greece
as it could destabilize Ukraine further. Russia on the
other hand is losing money on maintaining control over
Crimea. A solution is desirable for both sides economi-
cally, but the terms must meet the high expectations of
Vladimir Putin and Petro Poroshenko at the Peace
talks in Minsk in September 2014. (Photo: Roland Oliphant. The Telegraph.)
Atlantic Voices, Volume 5, Issue 3 10
each side of the negotiation table.
Conclusion
Shall Ukraine prosper, a middle ground should be
found somewhere between the EU and Russia. It is in
the West’s interest to recognize that Russia’s fears of
NATO are real; a simple look at the map will tell that
including Ukraine into NATO would change the
power balance. When the inclusion of Ukraine into
the EU would defeat Russia politically, an inclusion
into NATO would be seen as a direct threat against
their territorial integrity. With NATO off the table,
Europe will have a stronger hand for Ukraine in fu-
ture negotiations with Russia.
The best path Ukraine can take is to learn from
Georgia. The latter has shown that close relations
with the European Union are still possible even after a
direct conflict with Russia. The biggest problem with
Ukraine is it internal governmental structure. The
focus on long term planning and institution building is
vital for the future of Ukraine. As long as resources go
to military build-up, Ukraine will be deadlocked in a
vacuum between East and West. Ukraine has no other
choices than to find the middle-road.
Tommy Alexander Lund recently concluded a
Master’s Degree in Social Science with specialization
in Political marketing at Copenhagen Business School.
Mr. Lund has previously worked as military officer in
the Norwegian Navy and written several articles
about political and diplomatic culture in Europe.
Vladimir Putin statement viewed on 25.02.2015 http://www.russianmission.eu/en/news/article-prime-minister-vladimir-putin-new-integration-project-eurasia-future-making-izvestia-3- US department of State: Status on Russia. Viewed on
26.02.2015: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/160474.pdf The Atlantic: Russian Ruble crashes. Viewed on 25.02.2015 http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/12/putin-man-year-russia-ruble/383809/ Friedrich ebert stiftung. The future of EU-Ukraine Rela-tions. Viewed 25.02.2015 http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id-moe/10608.pdf Harvard. The conflict in Ukraine: a Historical Perspective. Viewed 19.02.2015 http://www.summer.harvard.edu/blog-news-events/conflict-ukraine-historical-perspective Time Magazine: Russia celebrates a Triumph for Putin after clinching Syria deal. Viewed on 21.02.2015 http://world.time.com/2013/09/16/russia-celebrates-a-triumph-for-putin-after-clinching-syria-deal/ Stratfor: Baltic concerned about large Russian minority. Viewed on 21.02.2015 https://www.stratfor.com/image/baltic-states-concerned-about-large-russian-minority Tsygankov Andrei: Vladimir Putin´s last stand: the sources of Russia´s Ukraine policy. 12 December 2014. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/1060586X.2015.1005903 The Guardian: Let Georgia be a lesson for what will hap-pen to Ukraine. Viewed on 28.February 2015. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/14/georgia-lesson-for-ukraine-crimea-referendum-trick Forbes: The invasion of Crimea is hurting Russias other exclave. Viewed on 27.02.2015 http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/06/06/the-invasion-of-crimea-is-hurting-russias-other-exclave/ London School of economics and political science: EU-Russian relations have been further strained by Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine’s decision to sign agreements with the EU. Viewed on 22.02.2015 http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2014/07/03/eu-russian-relations-have-been-further-strained-by-georgia-moldova-and-ukraines-decision-to-sign-agreements-with-the-eu/ Oxford institute for Energy Studies: The Impact of the Russia–Ukraine Gas Crisis in South Eastern Europe.March 2009. http://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/NG29-TheImpactoftheRussiaUkrainianCrisisinSouthEasternEurope-AleksandarKovacevic-2009.pdf H Haukkala. 2014. From cooperative to contested Europe? The conflict in Ukraine as a culimination of a long-term crisis in EU-Russia relations http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14782804.2014.1001822#.VPcm-2MsE9U
A Łoskot-Strachota, G Zachmann. 2014. Rebalancing the EU-Russia-Ukraine gas relationship http://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/106321 Korosteleva, Elena (2014) Moldova’s Values Survey: Widening a European Dialogue in Moldova. Project report. https://kar.kent.ac.uk/39201/
This publication is coThis publication is coThis publication is co---sponsored by the sponsored by the sponsored by the
North Atlantic Treaty OrganizationNorth Atlantic Treaty OrganizationNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization
Atlantic Voices is always seeking new material. If you are a young
researcher, subject expert or professional and feel you have a valuable
contribution to make to the debate, then please get in touch.
We are looking for papers, essays, and book reviews on issues of
importance to the NATO Alliance. For details of how to submit your
work please see our website. Further enquiries can also be directed to the
ATA Secretariat at the address listed below.
Editor: Flora Pidoux
ATA Programs
GLOBSEC Bratislava Global Security
Forum 2015 will again this year gather
over 800 key stakeholders from more than 60 countries. GLOBSEC has
acquired a stable position among the elite club of major conferences in
Europe and North America. In parallel, the Youth Leaders’ Forum will
gather young people (25 to 30 years old) from June 18th to 21st). More
information here:
http://globsec.org/globsec2015/application
The YATA Executive Board is preparing special events from 30th
of March to 5th of April under the title “YATA NATO WEEK” to cele-
brate the signature of The North Atlantic Treaty and the establishment of
the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Association (April, 4th 1949).
During YATA NATO WEEK, YATA national chapters will organize
events on related topics.
During the events participants will have the chance to learn more
information about the Atlantic Treaty Association (ATA) and the Youth
Atlantic Treaty Association (YATA). An Essay Contest, a Photograph
Competition, an Online Quiz and many more events with surprise prizes
will be waiting for you!
Images should not be reproduced without permission from sources listed, and remain the sole property of those sources. Unless otherwise stated, all images are the property of NATO.
Atlantic Voices is the monthly publication of the Atlantic Treaty Associa-
tion. It aims to inform the debate on key issues that affect the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization, its goals and its future. The work published in Atlantic
Voices is written by young professionals and researchers.
The Atlantic Treaty Association (ATA) is an international non-
governmental organization based in Brussels working to facilitate global
networks and the sharing of knowledge on transatlantic cooperation and
security. By convening political, diplomatic and military leaders with
academics, media representatives and young professionals, the ATA promotes
the values set forth in the North Atlantic Treaty: Democracy, Freedom,
Liberty, Peace, Security and Rule of Law. The ATA membership extends to 37
countries from North America to the Caucasus throughout Europe. In 1996,
the Youth Atlantic Treaty Association (YATA) was created to specifially
include to the successor generation in our work.
Since 1954, the ATA has advanced the public’s knowledge and
understanding of the importance of joint efforts to transatlantic security
through its international programs, such as the Central and South Eastern
European Security Forum, the Ukraine Dialogue and its Educational Platform.
In 2011, the ATA adopted a new set of strategic goals that reflects the
constantly evolving dynamics of international cooperation. These goals include:
the establishment of new and competitive programs on international
security issues.
the development of research initiatives and security-related events for
its members.
the expansion of ATA’s international network of experts to countries in
Northern Africa and Asia.
The ATA is realizing these goals through new programs, more policy
activism and greater emphasis on joint research initiatives.
These programs will also aid in the establishment of a network of
international policy experts and professionals engaged in a dialogue with
NATO.
The views expressed in this article are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the Atlantic Treaty Association, its members, affiliates or staff.