Explaining international legal security architecture

through the implications of the annexation of

Crimea to the Russian Federation

By Sheillyn Pingol
 Table of Contents

Introduction
3-4

Guide questions
4

Historical background
5-6

Implications
7-9

A. Economic
7-8

B. Political
8-9

Introduction

2
There have been many speculations regarding Russias annexation of Crimea;

explaining why Vladimir Putin decided to pursue such a decision; determining what

underlying factors led to the referendum in the spring of 2014. The most prominent of

such speculations stem from the spread of influence of the North Atlantic Treaty

Organization within the expansion of Russian dominated areas. Russia may have been

trying to curb the association of Ukraine with NATO. However, most imply that Putin

may have been aggressive on Russias stance on the Crimean peninsula due to the

conjecture that Putin may have been slowly manipulating the expansion of Russia

through reclamation of territories that were formerly under the Soviet Union. Similarly,

this may have been a ruse to maintain or pursue Russian hegemony.

The security architecture of Ukraine may have been a factor that motivated Russia to

pursue the annexation in question. As a former Soviet Union territory, Ukraine has

experienced struggle in unifying its national identity. Russia has capitalized on the fact

that there has been intrastate instability within Ukraine such as the Orange Revolution

of 2004-2005. This is rooted from the fact that states that have been former territories

by the Soviet Union have a tendency to refuse to undertake bilateral engagements with

other states to strengthen its economic and political institutions. Such refusal has

contributed to weak financial and political institutions that have deteriorated, making it

more susceptible for Russia to pursue its national interests in the region.

This paper aims to establish what distinguishes a cohesive legal security architecture of

a state and how it relates to the annexation in question. Moreover, the discussion will

focus on whether or not the annexation has a legal basis in international law,

3
considering the referendum in March 2014 and Crimeas status as a former territory of

the Soviet Union. Furthermore, the role that the United States of America and the

European Union will play in the aforementioned Russo-Ukrainian conflict will be

discussed, considering the national interests of each state as a factor as to why the

annexation had happened or continues to happen. The role of non-state actors as well

as the importance of civil society in the Ukraine crisis will serve as another level of

analysis to international and state levels of analysis that will be utilized in this paper.

Guide questions

1. What are the military implications of the Annexation of Crimea on the international

community?

2. Seeing as Russia is not a part of the European Union, what are the effects of the

sanctions from the EU and how does it affect Russias relations with EU countries?

3. What international relation theories can be applied to why Russia annexed Crimea?

4. What is the basis of legality of the annexation?

5. What are the economic implications of the Annexation of Crimea?

4
 Historical background

Russo-Ukrainian relations before annexation

In a constructivist perspective, Crimea has established its tendency for separatism

within Ukraine during its separation from the Soviet Union. Despite the fact that Crimea

has generally refrained from violence as opposed to other former territories of the Soviet

Union such as Nagorno Karabakh in Azerbaijan and Chechnya in Russia, separatism

within Crimea started as Mikhail Gorbachev proposed the concepts of perestroika and

glasnost towards political liberalization.

Despite the 1991 referendum to liberate Ukraine from the Soviet Union, specifically as

the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, Crimea garnered a mere 54% as a

part of Ukraine as opposed to the national average of 91%.

Moreover, within Ukraine, the population within Crimea constitutes mostly of ethnically

Russian constituents; noting that 58% of the population are ethnic Russians; most of

which prefer the structure of the Russian government that led to the annexation in

question. In contrast, the influence of previous failures within the autonomous Crimea

such as Kuchmas temporary abolition of the constitution as well as the Orange

Revolution contribute to the result of the referendum, regardless of the use of force by

the Russian Federation.

Moreover, as previously stated, Russia has expressed deep concern regarding

Ukraines membership to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Putin, during the NATO

5
summit in 2008, has stated that Ukraines membership to the North Atlantic Treaty

Organization will threaten Russias security architecture. Ukraine, according to Putin,

was instilled geographically as a Russian regions included due to its history as a former

Soviet Union territory. To the Russian Federation, such act will exclude Ukraine along

the regional lines surrounding the borders of Russia.

Russia first started to express its interest in the annexation of Crimea during the

disintegration of the Yanukovych government; which was deemed to be held

responsible for the massacre of Maidan protesters in early 2014.

As indicated, Russia has controlled the conflict narrative concerning the massacre of

the Maidan protesters in 2014; expressing sentiments that will allegedly protect the

Russians within Crimea and, ultimately, absorb the entirety of Crimea within the Russian

Federation. The Russian Federation claims to merely protect such ethnic Russians as

well as to ensure control of the Black Naval Sea base in Sevastopol, which would result

in the fragmentation of the Russian national security interest if Crimea had continued to

be a part of Ukraine.

However, there is still use of violence from Russia in the said annexation, having

utilized military forces and self-defense formations to destabilize the Crimean

parliament building as well as explosions within the Russia-Crimean border. Such use of

military force has, eventually, led to Russia being voted out of the United Nations

Human Rights council in 2016.

I. Implications

6
 A. Economic

Various economic sanction had crippled the Russian economy since the annexation of

Crimea. Western powers such as the United States and the European Union utilize

economic statecraft to quell Russian aggression regarding the Crimean peninsula such

as abolition of preferential treatment towards Russia regarding economic development

loans from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, an arms trade

embargo as well as a ban on loans to major Russian state-owned banks such as

Sberbank, Gazprom bank, and, Vneshekonombank. Russia has retaliated to the

aforementioned sanction using an embargo on dairy products, fruits and vegetables

from states within the European Union, United States of America, Japan, and Australia.

The economic capacity of a state can also be utilized as a tool to strengthen the security

architecture of a state.

Moreover, the annexation itself would amount to approximately 82 billion US dollars for

the Russian Federation, noting the take over of expenses such as electricity from

Ukraine as well as construction of infrastructures to ease a hypothetical annexation.

This is apart from administrative costs that Russia will have to finance such border

infrastructures and defense mechanisms. However, such annexation would pose

economic benefits that will weigh against such costs such as the aforementioned Black

Sea Fleet in Sevastopol; though Ukraine have been paying Russia to station the fleet

within Crimea, Russia will hold the freedom to stabilize the capacity of the Black Sea

7
Fleet without the limitations set forth by Ukraine. Russia would no longer have to pay

Ukraine for passage of ships using the Kerch-Yenikal Canal.

B. Political

Undoubtedly, the annexation has generated mass support for Vladimir Putin; recreating

conflict narrative within Russia to the heyday of the Soviet Union. According to the

chairman of the Duma, this exemplifies the concept pf the Russian world (a concept

similar to Chinas One China) because since the disintegration of the Union of Soviet

Socialist Republics, it was the first time in years for Russia to gain a territory instead of

losing a territory.

However, considering the aforementioned economic impacts of the annexations, Putins

decision may prove to lose the support of the public seeing as the National Welfare

Fund of the Russian Federation will be financing Crimea. With the Russian Pension

fund already suffering through deficits, Putins constituents will now have to share such

resources with Crimea.

Through the Russian perspective, the annexation of Crimea sends a clear message to

the international community establishing Russias dedication to defend its national

interests within the international community and maintains its stand regarding the issue

despite the costs of the annexation.

This act will further concretize how the West views Russia as a major player in the

international arena. As established in the Syrian conflict, Russia has been regarded as

8
an unpredictable force in the attempts at the resolution of the threat of the Islamic State.

The annexation of the Crimean peninsula can be a geostrategic mechanism in

establishing the stance of the Kremlin.

The annexation may be considered as an attempt to strengthen regional security within

the region and strengthen the ties between Russia and its bordering countries.

Although, it can be regarded as a start of restructuring the glory of the former Soviet

Union.

The role of the United States of America and the states within the European Union must

play a key role in settling the Ukraine crisis. Yet, national interests of such states such

as the resolution of the crisis in Syria prevent the United States and others from taking

aggressive action against Russia. As previously stated, Russia is against Ukraine

joining NATO; however, such expansionism established in the annexation of Crimea

may prevent the integration of Russia within Eurasia and ultimately affect the integration

of Eurasia as a region as well as the ties within Eurasian Economic Union.