A Political Solution to the Crimea Dispute With Russia

While there is much to be argued against Russia’s behavior, in particular how the Russian government treats its own citizens, and the recent revelation that a Russian intelligence agency paid bounties to the Taliban to kill U.S. and British soldiers, the overall world political security issues call for an understanding to be reached between the West and Russia.  With Vladimir Putin strengthening his control over Russian political life, it would be futile to believe that President Putin will be relinquishing control of Russia anytime soon.  While the West universally condemned the seizure of the Crimea, which began this standoff, it was the West's behavior that pushed Russia to assert political control over the Crimea in her national security interests and give Putin the leverage to solidify his control of Russian political life.

Russia shares a large land border with China, in particular Siberia, and China has already proclaimed that China intends to recover land taken from China by Russia by the Treaty of Nerchinsk in 1689.  Given Russia's history with the Oriental culture, it is hard to imagine that Russia does not have apprehensions about China's rise, both economically and militarily.  Given the West's menacing moves against Russia, it is no wonder that Russia has moved closer to China, rationalizing that Russia's more immediate threat was from Europe.

Before Case Blue could begin, the 1942 German offensive in southern Russia, the Russian naval base at Sevastopol had to be reduced, and the Crimea denied to the Russian air force.  The Russian military airfields were within easy striking range of the oil fields of Romania, which German depended upon for her oil supplies for the German war machine.  The fight for Sevastopol was long and costly for the German 11^th Army.  The 11^th had been scheduled to accompany the German 6^th Army in the drive to the Volga, and the capture of Stalingrad.  However, the 11^th Army was so depleted after the fight that it was not able to accompany the 6^th Army.  So, when the moment of truth arrived in the rubble filled streets of Stalingrad, the 6^th Army did not have the strength to evict the Russian Army from the west bank of the Volga, and this led to the defeat and total destruction of the German 6^th Army in February of 1943.

With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and prior to the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the West approached Russia and struck an agreement that would gain Russia agreement to allow East and West Germany to reunite, as well as allowing Germany to remain a part of NATO.  In return for the reluctant acquiescence of the Russian government, the U.S. and NATO promised Russia that NATO would not advance any further into Middle Europe and threaten the borders of Russia.  Yet less than two weeks after this gentleman's agreement was reached, the United States reneged on its promise and laid plans to expand NATO up to the frontier of Russia.  By 2009, NATO had advanced right up to the Russian political borders.  It should be noted here that in the last 220 years, the West has invaded Russia four times if one includes the Crimean War in the 1800s.  Three of those times, the invasions were of an existential threat to Russia.  Russia has not invaded Western Europe except during WW2, where Russia moved west to defeat Germany, who had attacked her in 1941.

In 2014, Ukraine's legally elected government was overthrown by protesters in Kiev, the capital of Ukraine.  This was done at the urging of the West.  Indeed, western diplomats discussed with the protestors the advantage of being aligned with the West internationally.  Regardless of who would have been in power at the time, Russia had to see that as a threat against her polity and took the steps necessary to protect the vulnerable soft underbelly of Russia. 

Absent a military campaign by the West to force Russia out of the Crimea, it should be clear to all parties that Russia will not willingly quit her position in the Crimea.  It should be abundantly clear by now as well, that the eastern provinces of Ukraine object to the overthrow of a democratically elected government and feel that their destiny lies with Russia rather than with Ukraine.

Unless there is a dramatic change in the willingness of the West to force a military decision, then a political solution must be sought to lower tensions between the West, in particular, Western Europe and the E.U., and come to an accommodation with Russia.  By coming to an accommodation with Russia, China would be forced to consider her security issues to the North with Russia and would need to become less aggressive in other parts of the world.

For any type of a settlement to be made, the West will need to acknowledge that the Crimea will remain in Russian hands.

If one makes a careful study of history, they will find that historically, since 1768, when Russia annexed it during the Russo-Turkish War, Ukraine has been a political and territorial part of Russia.  The ethnic population of the Crimea is over 65% Russian.

This agreement could be brokered under the auspices of the current Minsk Agreement.

These proposals only reflect the current political and military situation in Ukraine.  The West is not going to use military force to retrieve the Crimea or force the breakaway provinces to return to Ukrainian federal control.  Since there is not going to be a change in leadership in Russia, the situation as it stands will not change.  It is time for the West to accept, however much it grates on the West, that the Crimea now belongs to Russia, and that the eastern Donbass region will not be returning to the government in Kiev.  This is simply realpolitik.  The West needs to woo Russia away from her de facto alliance with China and apply strategic pressure upon the northern Chinese border to modify China's behavior.

Triangular Diplomacy was used before in the 1970s by the Nixon Administration, though it was China that the U.S. used as a trump card against Russia.  This was when Russia was viewed as the primary threat to the United States' national security interests and world peace.

Richard E. Caroll is a retired economist and a retired soldier. His degrees are in Economics and Liberal Arts. He has traveled extensively in South East Asia and in Latin America, and is currently living in South East Asia.