Privacy Policy

Why the western block refuses Crimea’s independence? An opinion

World’s news in these days are giving a strong accent to the Ukrainian crisis and the following secession of Crimea in favor of Russian Federation.

A question rises instinctively: why the Western block hurried in recognizing as legitimate the new Ukrainian government, born by means of the blood of who fought in Kiev’s squares and is still categorically refusing to recognize a region which, pacifically, through the highest democratic instrument, the referendum, had chosen to split up from a nation whose filo-europeist turn is not seen as a good choice, counting the huge majority of Russians living in Crimea?

I think that calling for the auto determination of a population in a case and tagging as illegal and illegitimate the contrasting with of another one is wrong. If the wish of Ukraine population is the one of becoming part of the EU and it is willing to fight in the squares for this, it is right that European leaders side in favor of this revolution and it is fair that the Ukrainian government, led by Janukovyc, no more an expression of the population’s will, is deposed. However, we are speaking about a nation which consists of more ethnic groups where, since 1991, when it become an autonomous nation, Ukraines, Russians, Tartars and other populations coexist. The absence of a common origin will bring about incomprehension and crashes forever, so why prevent a region where the majority of the population is Russian to reunify with what they consider as the closest nation to their ideals, in comparison with a filo-europeist Ukraine?

The big mistake was done by Russia in the moment when they invaded Crimea, which was still an Ukrainian territory. If this occupation had been avoided and the referendum announced anyway, probably the US and the EU would have had different reactions and the result, predictable, considering the huge amount of Russians in Crimea, would have been a clear signal of the will of the population. This result would not have been internationally recognized and that is why Russia invaded Crimea. A filo-europeist Ukraine could bring NATO soldiers to Russian borders, a fact which is not acceptable according to the Kremlin, as Putin underlined in the parliament speech he held on the 18th of march and that is why Muscovite leaders had chosen to take control of Crimean territory soon after the destitution of Ukraine’s previous government.

How is going to end this Crimean question? Probably even not recognized, it will pass lightly under Muscovite’s dominion. Europe has too many commercial interests, and moreover a almost total energetic dependence from Russia, it can not afford the hard line toward the Kremlin: even the adoption of “soft sanctions” to the exponents of Russian minor politics does confirm this: they want to send a signal without risking to crack the relations, a fact which would cause huge economical damages on both sides. The United States themselves, even though they condemned Russian action and consider illegal the secessionist referendum, won’t be able to go too far with the Kremlin: too many geopolitical interest are on the floor, they would not dare to recreate a Cold War climate.

Enrico Capra (Italy)

*

*

Top
%d bloggers like this: