Impact of Ukraine's crisis on Europe's reputation

After coming out of the first and second world wars, Europe has seen itself as immune to devastating civil wars, militancy, insurgence, terrorism and other ethnic clashes that characterise most of  African and middle eastern countries. It has touted this credential as the safest and most stable continent on earth.

With significantly less of its resources devoted to military defences like America, Russia and China, it sees a more economically strong society as superior to one built on military power. However, the 2008 financial crisis dealt a major blow to its economy and it's been struggling ever since to recover.

In view of its recovery efforts, Europe keeps “drafting” as many countries as it could get to into its fold with the promise of joining the European Union (EU). Ukraine, the closest and most strategic neighbour of Russia was not spared of this “conscription drive”. Various inducements were thrown at Ukraine via IMF deals but the then president, Viktor Yanukovych resisted the deals considering the harsh measures attached to them, he rather opted for a Russian deal which he considered the terms more lenient and more suitable for Ukraine.

The hawks in Brussels would not back down. They threw everything in to ensure Ukraine walked on the tight robe of making a delicate choice between Brussels or Kremlin. It is worthy of note here that the driving force in this brouhaha for Europe is simply economic-the need to revive its economy, one of which involves having a larger base for its free trade zones. However stupid it may sound, they didn't intend to poke the Siberian bear. To Russia, Ukraine remains a lifeline and a buffer against their foe, the NATO. 

Ukraine is a “red-line” which NATO is not permitted to cross, and hence Russia will do anything possible to ensure Ukraine is not lost to the west. In this tug of war between Brussels and Kremlin comes Washington. United States which secretly nurtures the idea of containing Russia saw an opportunity in the fiasco and decided to take the bull by the horn. All its forces were unleashed on Russia from sponsoring street protest to coercing the EU into tougher action and even reviving cold war rhetoric against Russia. The mainstream American media quickly swung into action by demonising Putin and Russia. 

Origin of crisis

Maidan protest

The origin of the crisis as portrayed by Brussels and Washington and supported by most MSM (Mainstream Media) was the annexation of Crimea in March 2014 following a referendum in which the overwhelming majority decided to re-unite with Russia. The referendum was immediately condemned and denounced by the west as a sham. However, to the Kremlin, the crisis started in February 2014 when the West backed violent street protest ousted the legitimate president, Viktor Yanukovych. Kremlin denounced this action as coup d’etat. The West simply described the scenario as peaceful protest of citizens against their “heavy handed” government.

Sit out at Maidan

Regardless of how one may view his ouster, what was evident was the process did not follow the two legitimate and recognised processes of changing a government in a democracy which are either by ballot or by long and tedious process of impeachment. If none of these process was followed in removing the president, then one may be right to ask if United States has found a new definition for Democracy and rule of law which it claims it’s spreading all over the world. In this case, the infamous Victoria Nuland’s US$5 billion democracy project in Ukraine clearly comes to mind.

Sanctions and diplomatic spats

After the annexation or rather, the reunification of Crimea to Russia in March 2014, United States opened a barrage of sanctions policy on Russia with the aim of forcing it to give back Crimea. The sanctions were mainly assets freezes and visa bans which in no way could deter Russia from changing course. Soon NATO swung into action alerting the world about imminent incursion of Russia into Ukraine which hasn’t happened till today. America kept prodding the EU for tougher action against Russia but considering the amount of trade between the two, EU became reluctant along the sanction line until the so called American named “game changer” of Malaysia flight MH17 on July 17 2014. 

Shortly after the downing of the commercial plane carrying 298 passengers, what seems like a choreographed response was being dished out from Ukraine and United States with the active support of the media. The fact that the plane was brought down in rebel controlled territory of East Ukraine was enough for them to indict Russia for complicity, if not direct involvement in the downing of the plane.

Caution was thrown into the wind by blaming Russia without a substantive proof that could stand the test of scrutiny. All the white house was willing to share in their briefings were facebook and youtube evidence which had already been discreditd by experts. However, America got what they wanted by getting the EU to impose tougher sectorial sanctions on Russia leaving out only the gas industry knowing full well that Gazprom (Russian gas company) is their saviour as winter approaches.

The take in this Ukraine crisis is, it exposes Europe weakness and their lack of independent foreign policy. A group of 28 so called powerful and prosperous nations still depend on the dictates of the United States to act. The decision taken by Brussels to impose tougher sanctions on Russia is clearly not convenient even in the face of lack of evidence of Russia or the separatist involvement. It will hurt their economy as much as it hurts Russia’s but they will rather take the pain than disregard Washington. 

The whole idea behind “drafting” Ukraine was to boost their economy, now it seems the economy will further shrink. IMF already sounded a warning and most European companies (Adidas for example) are cutting earning forecast.

Europe needs to find its feet on the international arena, restore its reputation and decides what its best for it without acting as Washington puppet.