Crimea 'chill' in Russian-Western relations will be short-lived Russias UN envoy

Published time: April 06, 2014 18:09 RT News Ukraine turmoil

Tags
Conflict, Crimea, EU, Politics, Russia,USA, Ukraine

The chill in relations between Russia and the West over the accession of Crimea will not last long, historically speaking, Russia's envoy to the UN said. He added that there is no risk of a new Cold War situation developing. Cold War of course not, Vitaly Churkin told NTV news channel when asked whether relations between Russia and the US could deteriorate to the point of a new Russia-West Cold War. However, there is probably a certain chill in our relations with the West. At least to me, it looks like it from New York, from the United Nations building, the diplomat said. I dont think this chill will be long, historically speaking. According to the UN envoy, the anti-Russian rhetoric that Moscows Western partners are practicing hides their confusion, their disappointment, to put it mildly, at what has happened as a result of their rash actions in Ukraine. At the same time, Churkin stressed that recognition of Crimeas new status by the international community is just a matter of time and requires no additional efforts from Moscow. This is a new geopolitical fact, Churkin said. Some are energetically protesting it, but its that kind of a situation when more time is required. I think it should be treated calmly and we must continue explaining what has happened. This is already resultative.

Churkin slammed the Wests routine practice of exerting pressure while addressing some countries ahead of voting at the United Nations General Assembly. For instance, when the General Assembly was voting on the notorious draft resolution [on the situation in Crimea], he said. We know that our Western partners used their routine practice when they addressed countries, say, African or Asian. They put it quite straight: We are providing economic aid to you. You enjoy these or those preferences in relations with us, so you must vote in favor of this resolution.' We never use such methods, Churkin stressed. Relations between Russia and Western countries, in particular the US, have significantly deteriorated over the political crisis in Ukraine. Following an armed coup in the Ukrainian capital, experts began pointing out that relations between the two states had hit their lowest point since the end of the Cold War. Crimea's March 16 referendum, in which the majority of residents voted to join Russia, further strained the relationship between Washington and Moscow. The US and Russia have exchanged sanctions, targeting officials from both sides. Washington's sanctions include travel bans and foreign asset freezes of Russian politicians and businessmen who the US consider to be part of President Putins inner circle. Russia imposed retaliatory sanctions against 10 US officials. Canada and the EU joined the US in introducing sanctions against Russian and Ukrainian officials over the referendum. After two rounds of sanctions, the EUs official list includes 33 people. The West is threatening even more sanctions against Russia if the situation in Ukraine deteriorates. NASA also suspended the majority of its ongoing engagements with the Russian Federation, except operations at the International Space Station (ISS). Earlier, the US Office of National Drug Control Policy also halted its cooperation with the Federal Drug Control Service of the Russian

Federation (FSKN), citing the continued violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.

APRIL 7, 2014 4:00 AM

Western Policy, Post-Crimea

What can the U.S. and Europe do to deter more of the same from Putin?

By Ilan Berman National Review

By all accounts, Vladimir Putin appears to be winning.

Over the past month, Russias wily president has managed to orchestrate the asymmetric invasion of a neighboring state (Ukraine) and annex a new territory into the Russian Federation (Crimea). In the process, he has presented the first serious challenge to the postCold War political order in Europe since the collapse of the Soviet Union more than two decades ago. The real question now,say defense analysts such as Pavel Baev of the Peace Research Institute in Oslo, is whether the Kremlin has the guns and the guts to keep pursuing his neo-imperial ambitions. On the first score, the answer is unclear. Moscow has already forward deployed considerable forces along its common border with Ukraine perhaps as many as 100,000 troops, if Ukrainian estimates are to be believed. Even so, Ukraine is far larger in size than is Crimea, and a Russian incursion into the latter could prove difficult because of topography, as well as the shortcomings of the Russian military itself. That may be why Russian officials have begun calling for a federalization of Ukraine as a way to forestall further military action. If accepted, such a proposal would give the Kremlin what it wants a lasting erosion of Ukrainian sovereignty without further shots being fired.

On the second, however, the record is more obvious and ominous. For years, Russian president Vladimir Putin has nurtured the idea that Russia must reclaim lands lost in the catastrophe that was the collapse of the USSR. He has done so, moreover, with broad support from the Russian electorate, among which the idea of derzhavnost Russias destiny as a great power continues to predominate. The direction of Russian policy, therefore, should not have come as a surprise, although the rapidity with which Russia succeeded in coopting Crimea undoubtedly was. Russia, moreover, has done so mostly cost-free. Divided and irresolute, the United States and European powers havent marshaled the requisite political will to push back. And because they have not, the conversation over Russias aggression has changed fundamentally. Crimeas disposition is now no longer in question; it is difficult to conceive of a scenario in which Russia relinquishes control over the region, or one in which the West forces it to do so. Rather, the question now is what exactly the United States and Europe can do to deter more of the same. Both Europe and the United States have already levied preliminary sanctionsagainst select Russian decisionmakers. But much more can still be done to turn the economic screws on the Kremlin, from broad asset freezes to Russias systematic exclusion from international financial institutions. Theres good reason to think such pressure would have a real effect; Russias initial incursion into Crimea prompted a massive

downturn in the countrys financial markets and a significant acceleration of capital flight. Things have stabilized somewhat since, but additional pressure from the West is bound to have a real and pronounced impact on Russias economic fortunes and, hopefully, on its foreign adventurism as well. But sanctions alone are not enough. Western economic pressure must be matched by U.S. and European assistance to Ukraines military (something now being debated by the U.S. Congress), and by stronger security guarantees to the Baltic states, who see themselves squarely in Russias crosshairs. Washington likewise would do well to revisit its now-moribund plans for missile defenses in Europe but this time do so not just as a counter to Irans strategic arsenal but as a hedge against Russian aggression as well. Whatever the particulars, the approach adopted by the U.S. and Europe must be informed by the realization that they are playing a long game, one in which the key is not simply deterring further Russian aggression in the near term, but convincing the Kremlin that its neo-imperial moves will leave it worse off in the long run. Otherwise, Russias annexation of Crimea wont be the end of the story, but just the opening salvo of a new period of strife in Europe. Ilan Berman is vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington, D.C.