Invasion of Crimea: Is Russia Doing What Others Have Done?



Missiles mounted on Russian tank

Russian invasion of Crimean, Ukraine, has been one of the topical issues around the world for a number of weeks now. Both the west and United Nations have been very critical of this military adventure and asking Russia to pull out its troops from Crimea. The west is going further by threatening a number of punitive sanctions against Russia if it does not pull out its troops from Ukrainian soil. In light of these, does Russia have any justification for its destabilising acts in Ukraine?

Russia can draw a parallel between its military action on Ukraine now and the military strikes against the Former Yugoslavia by NATO in 1999. NATO conducted a number of military strikes against the former Yugoslavia in 1999 to stop the killings of Kosovar Albanians. Although the United Nations did not authorise it as demonstrated by the United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1199, NATO justified this military action on the ground that over 1,500 Kosovar Albanians had been killed, and another 400,000 had been displaced prior to the Military action. In other words, NATO felt that doing nothing could result in another Rwandan genocide in which over half a million Tutsis were killed within 2 weeks by Hutus.

Russia cannot compare its present military adventure in Crimea, Ukraine, to the NATO humanitarian intervention in the Former Yugoslavia in 1999. This is because NATO’s action was reactive to the former Yugoslavian case. In other words, the organisation conducted the military strikes against Yugoslavia to stop the killings and displacement of ethnic Kosovars Albanians rather than to prevent these incidents from occurring.

In contrast, Russia incursion into Crimea is proactive. There were no killings going on in Ukraine when Russian troops were deployed into Crimean region. This can be supported by Russian statements such as Russian forces have been deployed in Crimea to prevent attacks against ethnic Russians. To put it differently, Russian forces are in Ukraine in anticipation of a conflict between Ukrainians rather to stop an on-going conflict between them.

Although it cannot justify its military deployment in Crimea on the basis of NATO strikes against the Former Yugoslavia, Russian can support its current military manoeuvres in Ukraine using the British invasion of Falklands. Falklands is an island in the South Atlantic Ocean, thousands of miles away from the United Kingdom but very close to Argentine. The language spoken by 2,500 people on this Island is English rather than Spanish spoken by neighbouring countries.

Both the United Kingdom and Argentine tend to lay claim to the ownership of the Falklands. In 1982 this dispute between these distant neighbours resulted in a full blown out war, leading to the death of a number of soldiers on both sides. The United Nations did not support Britain over the military action but Britain claimed it was defending the Falklanders who had identified themselves with the United Kingdom. It can be said that if the United Kingdom can justify its military action against Argentine in the Falklands on this basis, Russia too can do the same in Ukraine.

After all, Russia has stronger points to support its case in respect of Russian siege of Crimea than Britain can make in relation to its defence of the Falklands. Crimea, for example, was part of Russia until 1954 when the region was given to Ukraine by the then Russian president, Khrushchev. The same cannot be said of Falklands which got into British control through colonisation.

In addition, just as the Falklanders tend to identify themselves with the United Kingdom on the basis of English Language so does the majority of Crimean tend to identify themselves with Russia on the basis of Russian language. Furthermore, Russia and Crimea share a common boundary. Crimeans do not have to travel far to reach Russia. In contrast, there is a great distance between the United Kingdom and Falkland’s, and Falklanders have to travel several thousands of miles to reach the United Kingdom.

The proposed referendum on Crimean which is due tomorrow Sunday 16 March, may also be a replica of the referendum conducted on the status of the Falklands last year. The Falklanders held a referendum last year regarding whether to remain as part of British overseas territory. The question put forward before the islanders was “Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom? Yes or No”. The outcome was an overwhelming Yes vote, and a big blow to Argentina which was putting pressure on the United Kingdom to hand-over the Falklands to Argentine’s control.

Like Britain, Russia is trying to diffuse the pressure it is getting from both within and outside of Ukraine by organizing for the referendum on the future of Crimean tomorrow. It must be said, however, that there is a major difference between tomorrow’s referendum on Crimean and the referendum held last year by the Falklanders. Comes tomorrow, Crimenans will be casting their vote under the barrel of the gun. In contrast, the atmosphere in which the Falklanders conducted their vote last year was calm and peaceful.

All of these tend to show that Russia is repeating history. While the Falklanders are pretty certain of their future by maintaining their allegiance to the United Kingdom, Crimeans do not know what is in store for them after joining Russia. Judging by Russian history, the future of Crimean within Russia does not look bright. Crimeans will be better off under Ukraine.