WASHINGTON — The U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP), the Ukrainian Embassy in America, and the Atlantic Council think tank, on March 19 hosted a discussion on Russia’s invasion and occupation of Crimea five years ago – events that have violated the world order that kept peace in Europe among major powers for 70 years.
The opening speaker was Ambassador Bill Taylor, USIP executive vice president and a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.
Ukraine’s Ambassador in D.C. Valeriy Chaly, noted that Crimea’s Kremlin puppet leader, a former gangster boss called Sergey Aksyonov, publicly admitted during commemorations of the fifth anniversary of the occupation that, contrary to previous Kremlin pronouncements, Putin himself planned the invasion of the peninsula long before it happened.
Chaly said that he believes that Russia already had or is prepared to deploy nuclear warheads in Crimea: “Russia uses military force as the final argument (in any dispute) and that’s not the right way to restore peace and how to work in the 21st century.”
The Crimea Declaration by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on July 24, 2018, stating that Crimea and other occupied areas must be returned to Kyiv’s control, is an example of strategic partnership between the two states, said Chaly.
Crimea litmus test
Emine Dzhaparova, Ukraine’s first deputy minister of information policy, is a Crimean Tatar who, as a journalist, witnessed Russia’s invasion and intimidation-riddled sham referendum which led to the annexation of the peninsula.
She called Crimea the “litmus test of the world’s helplessness to stop Russian aggression.” Dzhaparova lamented that despite a long list of Russia’s atrocious behavior – following its invasion of Crimea and igniting the conflict in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region, involvement in the Syrian war, the downing of the MH-17 civilian Malaysian Airlines plane in 2014, using military nerve agent in the British city of Salisbury – many still treat Moscow as if it’s a party to honest negotiation.
“We (the international community) are still dancing a tango with the aggressor… a U.N. Security Council permanent member acting as a terrorist state,” she said.
Dzhaparova described Crimean Tatars as the “bone in the throat of the occupation” who are being disproportionately repressed there.
That was not, she explained, just because the Tatars had been so vocal in their opposition to Moscow’s takeover, had boycotted the fake referendum and organized pro-Kyiv rallies. It was because they are a living rebuttal of the Kremlin’s false narrative about the peninsula having always been Russian.
American support
George Kent, deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, opened his talk by saying in both the Ukrainian and Tatar languages “Crimea is Ukraine.”
He told the audience that this was American policy, as repeatedly stated by his boss, Secretary of State Pompeo, which insisted that Moscow should return the peninsula to Kyiv’s control.
He said that as a young intern at the State Department in 1988, one of his jobs was to update the list of Soviet political prisoners, and that “it is sad commentary that 31 years later … Russian leaders show disdain and indifference and are adding additional names rather than meeting their international obligations and freeing prisoners of conscience.”
He said that the names of those imprisoned by the Kremlin should be uttered loudly in public forums and pressure maintained for their release and the end of Crimea’s occupation.
Kent talked about the many instances of Moscow’s aggressive behavior in other parts of Europe, and referred to fresh sanctions imposed by the U.S. and Canada last week on some of Putin’s close cronies.
“Our collective need to counter such Russian malign influence and to do so over the long haul should be clear. Over the last five years, the U.S. has been steadfast in our support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally-recognized borders, including territorial waters. We will not accept anything less than the full restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity.”
He said that Washington, together with its Canadian and EU allies, would continue to ratchet up sanctions and provide security assistance to Kyiv as long as Moscow fails to comply with demands to cease its occupation of Ukrainian territory.
Kent admitted sanctions had not had the desired effect as yet. “If we’re being honest with ourselves, the modest steps to date have not been enough to change Putin’s calculus – that is very clear,” he said.
But he said that the penalties for Moscow will increase and “regardless of the outcome of the upcoming elections, our commitment to Ukraine and its people will remain unwavering.”
West on the defensive
But some of the speakers at the event were gloomier about the effectiveness of Western sanctions.
Andrew Weiss, the vice president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said that despite sanctions and vigorous statements condemning Russian aggression in Ukraine and elsewhere, Moscow will likely continue to test the West, which has already been out-maneuvered and put on the defensive.
He believes American President Donald Trump, who has many times praised Putin, has negatively affected Western unified condemnation of Moscow.
“My concern is that we have seen that they mean business and they continue to be willing to use escalation, elements of surprise, and to conduct foreign policy which basically looks like one big covert action to throw us off balance, and those are very real tactics that are very dangerous,” he said.
Western policy-makers have to demonstrate to Moscow that they are not intimidated by Russia’s tactics, he said.
Missed warnings
Heather Conley, senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that the West had been caught off guard by Russian aggression because it had ignored the many warnings emanating from Eastern Europe about Kremlin intentions.
“If you look back, this (Russian behavior) has been a pattern that has been established since 1999 when Russian forces refused to meet Transnistria in Moldova,” she said. “And then it grew until 2008 with the Georgia-Russian crisis, and now we have the most acute phase, five years ago with the most devastating consequences for Ukraine.”
Conley believes that while Russia is willing to employ conflict to attain its goals, the West “is struggling with this asymmetry” because it does not want confrontation or conflict and wants to address the issues by peaceful negotiation.
However, she said, the Kremlin exploits the West’s desire to avoid confrontation by “placing us in diplomatic cul-de-sacs that can’t be resolved” until the annexations in Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine are accepted as impossible to reverse.
“We did hear voices but we did not pay sufficient attention to them,” she said.
Victoria Nuland, the former U.S. assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs during the administration of President Barack Obama, also said that some of the alarm bells about Russian intentions in Ukraine had been ignored until it was too late.
She applauded the increased sanctions announced by the present administration on March 15 but admitted they were not as tough as Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars wanted.
Nuland said that under Obama sanctions were joint efforts with the EU and that strengthened their deterrent effect on Moscow. However, she said, that appearance of Trans-Atlantic unity has diminished with the Trump presidency.
She believes that the west must react more quickly to any future aggression by Moscow and demonstrate willingness to escalate the political and economic penalties for continued Kremlin bad behavior.
John Herbst, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and senior Atlantic Council member, criticized the four-month time lag between Russia’s attack on Ukrainians in the Kerch Strait and the imposition of penalties, and said that sanctions have proved inadequate in changing Moscow’s behavior.
“We need more and painful sanctions on the Kremlin and we need more specific and helpful weaponry in Ukraine to deal with the threat from the sea and the threat from the air.
“We know that this is a war of the Kremlin against the Ukrainian people. The Russian people are not in this fight and we need to make clear that escalation by the Kremlin will lead to more casualties of Russian soldiers.”
