The annexation of Crimea by Russia was not originally a purely Ukrainian problem. The Kremlin uses the peninsula as a springboard for military blackmail of the mainland Ukraine and NATO. Judging by the statements of Ukrainian diplomats, the Alliance does not yet know how to react to the militarization of the Crimea. NATO is still "eyeing" the peninsula, - writes Sergei Stelmakh in the column on "Crimea. Realities ".
"The organization of the stay of NATO forces in the south is a response to the growing aggression of Russia. The issue of the Crimea is certainly still being studied. In principle, NATO has not approached this (to the active militarization of the Crimea by Russia) with such intensity and elaboration of a specific policy, as, for example, in the east of Ukraine, "said Ukraine's representative to NATO Vadim Pristaiko. According to him, NATO will deploy an additional force contingent on the south. "On the basis of the Romanian multi-purpose training center, groups of NATO ships are constantly entering the Black Sea. Perhaps, in the future, the Alliance will strengthen the southern direction by military units. How it will be and when - depends on the actions of Russia, "the diplomat explained..
At first glance, a strange situation arose. Soon it will be exactly four years since the Kremlin seized the Crimea. Then Moscow tried to kindle a "popular uprising" in the southeast of Ukraine. It has been proven many times that the goal of Russians was not the Ukrainian territories in themselves. The Kremlin, annexing the Crimea, tried to impose new conditions for the Americans and Europeans, the essence of which was to divide the world into "spheres of influence". President Vladimir Putin and his inner circle tried to revive the Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations, which collapsed along with the collapse of the USSR. In the first months after the annexation of the Crimea it became obvious that Moscow would use the peninsula for military blackmail (possibly nuclear) of NATO and Ukraine.
Against this background, there are unexpected statements that the Alliance has not yet formed a policy towards the Crimea. Why is that? The main reasons are three. The first is the failure of Ukrainian diplomacy and the authorities in general, which (including for objective reasons) has not yet formulated a coherent strategy for the de-occupation of the Crimea. Such documents are secret, but some of the information, which, for example, concerns the rights and freedoms of citizens, can be published.
Ukrainian parliamentarians and experts admit that while the country does not have a clear vision of how to liberate the peninsula, and most importantly, what to do the next day, when the Crimea will return to Ukraine, what policy to conduct against collaborators, how to divide the population into "good" and "bad". Questions for four years accumulated very much. NATO countries (especially the United States) have provided and are helping Ukraine, but they will not do our work for us.
The leadership of the Alliance on the initiative of the United States adheres to a clear line: Moscow has violated international law, seized other people's property - and now it must answer for it. The essence of this policy clearly formulated former Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland in the spring of 2016. The main lever of influence on Russia, Washington chose sanctions, a ban on any investment and trade with the Crimea. "Our approach to the situation is this: if you bite off a piece of foreign territory, then this piece will get stuck in your throat," Nuland bluntly stated. For two years, the approaches of the Americans have not changed. Now the ball is on the side of Ukrainian diplomats, who must inform the leadership of the Alliance, as Kiev intends to fight for the Crimea. This is precisely the work of Ukraine's representation in NATO.
The next reason - the desire of individual European politicians and experts to shift part of the responsibility to Kiev. If Americans are more straightforward in the Crimea issue, the EU often tries to blame Ukraine for not trying to "win the hearts" of Crimeans or Donetsk people, does nothing to please them. The EU is very popular with the thesis that a successful democratic Ukraine will become so attractive that residents of the occupied territories themselves will want to "return".
Ukrainian experts have repeatedly pointed out to European counterparts the failure of such arguments. But such statements still sound on different international venues. Critics of Ukraine do not understand or pretend that Moscow considers any pro-Ukrainian manifestations in the Crimea as a crime. On the peninsula, there are enough supporters of Ukraine, as well as those who are disappointed in the Russian order: general nepotism and corruption. Openly criticize the authorities and the more so publicly support Ukraine they will not become because of fear of reprisals.
The third reason is the use of the topic of the war between Russia and Ukraine in the economic bargaining between the Kremlin and the EU countries. The most obvious example is the inconsistent policy of the leadership of Hungary. The country is included in NATO and the EU, which imposes obligations on it on non-recognition of the annexation of the peninsula. At the same time, it was Budapest that saddled the anti-Ukrainian wave, accusing Kiev, allegedly, of violating the rights of ethnic Hungarians. The Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has repeatedly stated that it intends to block Ukraine's progress in NATO.
The puzzle came together very quickly. Budapest, bargaining with Moscow on gas, launched a violent anti-Ukrainian campaign. The government of Viktor Orban tried to immediately kill two birds with one stone: to cover problems inside the country with patriotic rhetoric and to submit a "friendly signal" to Moscow. Russian propagandists actively used the conflict between Kiev and Budapest. Soon it became obvious that Moscow would not throw off the price of gas, because Russians needed money to corrupt the holes in the budget, and the Hungarians immediately turned their backs. One of these days Victor Orban declared that the country has finished with "an era of gas monopoly" of Russia. The Hungarian government intends to block the shortage of fuel due to supplies from Romania.
The current "Crimean uncertainty" of NATO is the result of delaying the adoption of important decisions at the Ukraine-US-EU level in the first months after the annexation of the peninsula. In the course of all of 2014, the Crimea remained behind the brackets of the negotiation process. The problem of the Donbass was of prime importance, since in Brussels a great war in Europe was feared. When it became obvious that the Kremlin would not dare to launch a broad offensive, the West began systematically "kicking" Russia because of the annexation of the peninsula. But this is not enough. The further the parties drag out the "final solution" of the question, the more Moscow hopes that the topic of the Crimea is completely "blundered".
Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty Join also the TSN group. Blogs on facebook and follow the updates of the section!.