I was recently approached by a journalist of Radio Free Europe, concerning loopholes within sanctions against Russia in connection with the annexation of Crimea. I always supported targeted sanctions against Russia, especially after Russia‘s military intervention in Ukraine because the EU had and has to react to this clearly illegal occupation and annexation of Ukrainian territory. I did also want to underline the necessity to think about a solution which would respect the willingness of many Crimean citizens to stay with Russia and the desire of many Ukrainians, who were forced to leave, to return to their land of origin - from time to time or permanently. With Russia intervening in Eastern Ukraine and annexing Crimea, Peace in Europe suffered a major setback. There is no doubt about that. One needs to ask, is it realistic to fight for a return of the Crimean territory to Ukraine? Let’s take a look at the greater picture.
Border issues in greater Europe
Politically, I can understand that Ukraine and all those who are supporting an independent Ukraine are fighting to re-establish the pre Ukrainian-war borders. Changes in boarders should principally only happen with the consent of its people and not be forced with violence. These are the lessons we should have learned from World War II and the centuries of territorial conflicts in Europe.
Difficult questions arise when we consider the Kosovo conflict. Often, the Kosovo case is compared with the Crimean issue by setting the two cases equal. But any comparison must note the differences. In the Kosovo case, we have had inhuman and violent treatment of Kosovo Albanians by the Serb authorities. This also strengthened the claim to self-determination, which in other cases can also be reached via autonomy or other forms of limited sovereignty which can be granted. I could personally witness the tragic situation while visiting Kosovo in 1996. Another major difference is that it didn`t include a foreign actor – which was the case at the Crimean Peninsula. Additionally, Crimea was annexed to Russia whereas Kosovo became independent. Furthermore, in the Kosovo case an international process by the UN, with the aim of finding a just solution, was initiated. The former Finnish President Ahtisaari, who was nominated Special Representative by the UN Secretary General proposed an internationally supervised transition towards independence. The fact that Serbia and some other countries - including Russia, but also five EU member countries - have not yet recognized the sovereignty of Kosovo as an independent state, did not prevent many other states from recognizing Kosovo as an independent state. Contrary to that, there is very limited recognition of Crimea as part of Russia worldwide.
The Kosovo – Serbia-Ukraine - Russia borders, are not the only contested borders in wider Europe. It is interesting that the majority of cases are related to Russia. When we think of the two cases of conflict with Georgia (South Ossetia and Abchasia) and the indirect case of the conflict with Moldova (Transnistria) and the conflict with Ukraine concerning Donbass and Crimea, Russian involvement is the case.
There is also dissatisfaction, and fragile situations concerning Scotland and Northern Ireland. A relatively hot conflict “between” Catalonia and Spain exists as well. The conflict in the Basque region, for the moment, maintains low frequencies.
Most of the crises after World War II have been solved in a peaceful way via negotiations. This was the case of South Tyrol - by granting strong autonomy to the German speaking, Austrian population of that region inside Italy. The Czech and Slovak part of Czechoslovakia separated peacefully.
Hungarian politicians deplore again and again the loss of greater parts of its territory in the treaty of Trianon, but there is no sincere attempt to change the borders with its neighbors.
On the Balkans we find besides the Kosovo issue a relatively fragile situation in Bosnia Hercegovina with some politicians of the Republika Srpska and some also from the Croatian part arguing and advocating for separation. Europe is overall characterized by bringing countries together, not by separating and dividing countries. Some setbacks in the unification process of the EU do not change this trend.
Even negotiated land swaps, as were envisaged by some Kosovo and Serb politicians, are seen with skepticism, and are not favored by the majority of EU politicians. How could we argue for policies which respect and honor minorities, when parallel to these, the EU would support and allow ethnic purity as a principle on which to settle territorial conflicts by.
The major guidelines and principles of the European Union, which she would also advise other countries to follow, are negotiations and peaceful cooperation. Such an approach is difficult to manage with present day Russia. There is a reason for that “stubborn” reaction of President Putin. For President Putin the European Union’s attitude may appear as weakness.
An extended West and Russia’s reaction
The Western World, in the form of NATO and the EU, was extending its sphere of influence and membership after the breakdown of the Soviet Union. This extension was based on each country’s voluntary decision to join and was done without force and pressure – therefore acknowledging their right to be sovereign in their decisions It is true, that there is pressure coming from Russia - not to join these organizations. It is primarily a reaction to “Western” expansion. Russia did not really develop an alternative strategy, it tried to block further expansion of Western influence. Personally, I think after the breakdown of the USSR a chance to establish common European institutions has been missed. The West did rely too much on the principal: the winner takes it all. But Russia moved away from considering “Western” values as a guideline for its own development.
Evaluating the developments after the breakdown of the Soviet Union, we see President Putin’s Russia lost interest to cooperate with EU and NATO. How should the „West“ react in this context? I think the West needs to regroup and to reconsider its strategy.
There is no justification for preventing countries from making their own decisions concerning international alliances. They should not be forced to follow outside pressure. But Europe needs a phase where it must try to start specific forms of cooperation with Russia to reduce tensions - in the interest of countries like Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, etc. From energy to climate change, from health issues to science, from disarmament to fighting terrorism - possibilities exist for fruitful dialogue. In all these aspects NATO and the EU start with different approaches to Russia’s. We can find some sectors of cooperation across many fields; those could create a new basis for understanding and cooperation. However, neither will we reach an agreement on a new Common Europe, nor will all border conflicts be solved immediately.
The case of the Crimea
Coming back to the relation between Ukraine and Russia, Crimea is certainly the trickiest issue. As mentioned above, the annexation of Crimea was illegal and violated several agreements. Yet we do also have also to recognize, that the history of Crimea is one of different occupations and wars. It always was a widely contested region. The question is how the international community could help in finding a solution. Historically Turks could also say Crimea was taken away from them - when it was annexed by Russia, specifically by Catherine, II, the Great. But that would lead nowhere.
One could organize an internationally observed and controlled referendum and ask the citizens. But which citizens should have the right to participate? A long dispute would result about that question, as we saw in the Western Sahara example. Such a dispute would never lead to an agreement on who would be eligible to vote. Furthermore, internationalization is not an answer. It was always simply a prophylactic “solution”. Returning Crimea to Ukraine would be the perfect legal solution but who really thinks it will take place, and would today’s citizens living in Crimea be happy and agree? New conflicts would arise.
Today it is unthinkable, that Russia would agree to strong autonomy and an invitation for former inhabitants to return - while keeping Ukrainian citizenship. For the stability of the Black Sea Region, close cooperation with Ukraine and also other neighboring states to the Black Sea - Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria- would have to develop. And this could also be a solution for other disputed areas at the border or near to Russia. For the moment Russia loves to have conflicts at its “near abroad”. For President Putin such conflicts are demonstrations of imperial power, the imperial power inherited from the Soviet Union. Its destruction was not on accident called “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century” by Putin.
The Black Sea Region clearly shows the present stalemate. The EU and NATO can it extend its area of influence and Russia cannot create a new “Soviet Union”. The two will also not unite into a common organization. New forms of cooperation based on trust and mutual respect - also of the many differences - will be necessary.
The West, especially the EU must plan for a different future
Time may come - with Putin or after him - where Russia will need a more modern and constructive approach to satisfy Russia’s citizens aspirations. External conflicts can for some time overshadow democratic, economic, demographic, and social deficiencies. These are not sustainable. Russia will have to recognize, that with present foreign policies they could prevent and block certain developments form happening, but they cannot build a new regional or international order. Neither NATO nor the EU, both organizations which have been growing in the past have an equivalent on the „Eastern“ side - with the exception of the Eurasian Economic Union which is a far looser organization in comparison to the EU. This, however, should not mislead the West into arrogance and the inability to recognize specific successes Russia has achieved. The West should be prepared for the time after and have channels open to today’s Russia as well as the Eurasian Economic Union.
I am not pleading for naivety and blindness. Targeted sanctions may be still necessary to signal dissatisfaction. Military and security preparations for the defense of Europe and its citizens against Russian interference, like hybrid wars or interference in electoral processes, are absolutely necessary. Those should be combined and accompanied by designs for a future, where Europe should rely its policies on cooperation and trust.
There will not be a Big Bang achieving a common Europe from Lisbon to Wladiwostok. A step-by-step process could give life to a new policy which would lead to a comprehensive peace structure in Europe. For the moment not only the dialogue at the political level is disturbed; it also suffers among civil society and intellectuals. Europe should not leave an active Russian policy to those - mostly right-wing forces - who do not see any ideological obstacles in dealing with Putin’s Russia. The EU should never blur the difference between democracy and authoritarianism a la Putin. A fruitful dialogue must recognize and underline the ideological differences and contradictions and try to find pragmatic solutions to common challenges. Sanctions and especially sanctions alone can never achieve this! We should not destroy the last bridges but try to build new ones - as difficult as it may be and hold as much patience as will be necessary.
Dr. Hannes Swoboda, President of the International Institute for Peace (IP), started his career in urban politics in Vienna and was elected member of the European Parliament in 1996. He was Vice President of the Social Democrat Group until 2012 und then President until 2014. He was particularly engaged in foreign, enlargement, and neighborhood policies. Swoboda is also President of the Vienna Institute for International Economics, the Centre of Architecture, the University for Applied Science - Campus Vienna, and the Sir Peter Ustinov Institute.