Historical determinations generating geopolitical crisis in Ukraine
The different historical developments of the eastern and western parts of Ukraine demonstrate the existence of a territorial, political, social and cultural-religious division that manifests itself even after the disintegration of the U.R.S.S. and the declaration of independence of Ukraine on August 24, 1991. While the eastern part was under the suzerainty of the Russian Empire since 1654, when Hetman Khmelitsky swore allegiance to Russian Tsar Alexei, western Ukraine belonged to the Habsburg Empire and interwar Poland, which was then occupied by the USSR in 1939. From a religious point of view, the division is obvious in the sense that the western part of Ukraine is predominantly Catholic, and the eastern part belongs to the Orthodox religion.
Most Ukrainian territories were united into a unitary state in the 20th century, when the Ukrainian Nikita Khrushchev was in charge of the Ukrainian-Soviet, and then became the great leader of the U.R.S.S. It is about the period 1939–1945, when Ukraine included the western regions (1939), Transcarpathia (1945), northern Bukovina, southern Bessarabia (1940; 1944) and the Crimean Peninsula (1954). "With the exception of Russia, Ukraine is the largest country in Europe in terms of territory and the most populous. Due to its geographical position, it is considered a "buffer state" between the political, cultural, religious and linguistic confrontations between the Western European world and the eastern part of Europe. Despite its historical antiquity, its state borders were stabilized only at the end of World War II".
According to the 1990 census, Ukraine's population was 51.8 million. In addition to Ukrainians, with a percentage of 74%, several nationalities live in this country, including Russians (21%), Jews (1%), Belarusians (1%), Romanians etc. The population of Romanian origin in Ukraine is not considered among the main minorities, being separated into "Moldovans" (about 300,000) and "Romanians" (about 150,000), occupying the 5th and 9th places respectively in the national scale hierarchy. In reality, the number of Romanians in Ukraine is much higher, exceeding that of Belarusians, Jews and Russians.
The proclamation of Ukraine's state independence by the Verkhovna Rada on August 24, 1991, which is also the national holiday of the Ukrainian people, is considered by many analysts to be the main factor that demonstrated the failure of the U.R.S.S. and allowed the launch of the Commonwealth of Independent States (C.S.I.) project. After 1991, the Ukrainian people were unanimously encouraged by the idea of the nation-state, but in the evolution of its development, the population faced unforeseen difficulties that led to a decline in living standards and the spread of national euphoria. From a historical and geopolitical point of view, analysts consider that Ukraine, within its current borders, is a fragile state, the critical problem being given by the lack of elements of national unity. "Geopolitics is a theory, a research orientation that reveals the substantive link between the geographical position (n.n .: geo means land, territory) of a state and its policy. (…) Geopolitics looks at and analyzes policy from the perspective of the natural environment in which it takes place, aiming to explain political measures and orientations based on a state's natural data: geographical position, area, natural resources, population, etc. ". Thus, according to the object of study of geopolitics, instability in Ukraine is accompanied by the danger of disintegration, the threat coming from within and being determined by the economic crisis, the political situation, misunderstandings between political groups and conflicts between major regions. The western part of the country, represented by Ukrainian nationalists, opts for full independence from Moscow, a Westward orientation and integration into Euro-Atlantic structures, while Russian-speakers in the east and south (especially in the Crimea and the Donetsk Basin) want to develop close cooperation relations with the Russian Federation and Ukraine's integration into the CIS economic, political and security structures The latest specialized studies show that the disagreement between Ukrainians and the populations of various regions of the country seriously threatens the independence and integrity of Ukraine. Regional tensions have turned into insistent demands for autonomy, especially from Russian-speakers in the east of the country and Crimea. Political fragmentation has divided Ukraine into two parts, east and west, each region trying, more or less, to choose its own path for economic survival. Kiev is also concerned about Russia's attempt to maintain its influence in the C.S.I. and on the former socialist states, from this point of view Ukraine having a special strategic position, because it represents a "bridgehead" and a "buffer" between the Eurasian space and the Western world.
Starting from one of the definitions of the crisis which shows us that it "represents a radical change in the national or international situation, characterized by the existence of direct threats to security objectives, interests and fundamental values of the parties involved in a conflicting competition", it can be said that this has also happened in Ukraine, severely affecting its security objectives, interests and national values with consequences for isolating the country internationally. Ukraine's special problem is Crimea, a very important strategic position for defending Russia's southern borders and the C.S.I., and its pro-Russian secessionist movement has affected Ukraine's territorial integrity. In addition, there are close economic, military and cultural ties between Crimea and Russia, and the peninsula is Russian historical territory transferred to Ukraine in 1954. As a result, Crimean secession became real, generating violent conflict and continued economic decline in the region.
The 2014 Crimean crisis erupted after President Viktor Yanukovych stepped down as a result of the 2013-2014 anti-government protests. The trigger for this process was the repeal of the law on languages with regional status by which several languages used in Ukraine, including Romanian, were removed from official use. The actors of the tensions are, on the one hand, Russian-speaking groups that opposed the new political changes in Kiev and wanted Crimea to join Russia and, on the other hand, groups of Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars, who supported the Euromaidan movement.
On February 23, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine repealed the law on the basis of state language policy, which gave Russian the status of a regional language in 13 (out of 27) administrative regions of Ukraine, in which members of ethnic communities represented more than 10% of the population. Since 23 February, Russia has mobilized rapid intervention forces at Ukraine's borders and in Crimea. On February 25, pro-Russian militants gathered in front of the Parliament of the Autonomous Republic of Simferopol to demand a referendum, rejecting power in Kiev. On February 27, a group of pro-Russian gunmen occupied the headquarters of the Crimean Parliament and Government and hoisted the Russian flag. On the night of February 27-28, Crimean airports were occupied by Russian-speaking gunmen. On March 1, new Crimean Prime Minister Sergei Aksionov called on Russia, through Russian President Vladimir Putin, to "assist in ensuring peace and stability on the territory" of Crimea in order to "temporarily take control of security" in Crimea, with all authorities subject to his orders or resign. The United States' response came through the voice of President Barack Obama, who warned Russia of the consequences of armed intervention in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.
On March 1, Russian President Vladimir Putin unanimously requested and obtained the permission of the Upper House of the Parliament of the Russian Federation to use the armed forces on the territory of Ukraine: "Given that the extraordinary situation in Ukraine threatens the lives of Russian citizens and the fact that our armed troops are deployed in accordance with an international agreement on the territory of Ukraine (Autonomous Republic of Crimea), based on art. 102 para. (1) lit. g of the Constitution of the Russian Federation asks the Council of the Russian Federation for permission to use the armed forces of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine for the normalization of the socio-political situation in this country ”.
Members of the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea voted on March 6 to organize a referendum on the status of the region, but also to officially leave the composition of Ukraine and join the Russian Federation. The Crimean parliament adopted a declaration of independence from Ukraine on March 11th. The Duma (Lower House of the Russian Parliament) adopted a declaration of support for the Crimean people, promising to ensure the security of the peninsula's inhabitants regardless of their ethnic origin, language and religion. Vladimir Putin compared the Russian intervention in Crimea to the Western operation in Kosovo, only that not even a gunfire was fired.
In the context of national and regional security, the Crimean issue is gaining political, economic, ethnic and military value. Politically, the situation in Crimea comes down to a confrontation between pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian population groups. The pro-Russian group is backed by the Russian armed forces, which are headquartered in Sevastopol. The objective of the pro-Ukrainian group was to preserve the integrity of the territory, the inviolability of the borders and to maintain the current status of the Republic of Crimea, as an integral part of Ukraine. The Tatar-Ukrainian alliance is fragile because there are historical reminiscences, where the nationalists did not oppose the deportation of the Tartars and did not show interest in their self-determination.
The situation in Crimea is very complicated, primarily due to the severe economic problems facing Ukraine and the lack of effective economic reforms. Living standards in Crimea have been steadily deteriorating, causing dissatisfaction with the government and the central administration. The pro-Russian secessionist movement has attracted more and more followers due to Moscow's economic domination.
The issue of Crimea is aggravated by the ethnic composition of the population, but especially by the exploitation of this demographic situation by political groups directly interested in achieving their goals. At the 2001 Ukrainian census, the population of Crimea was 2,033,700, of which 58.32% were Russians, 24.32% were Ukrainians, 12.1% were Crimean Tatars, 1.44% were Belarusians. At the same time, 77% of the population declares Russian as their mother tongue, 11.4% Tatar and 10.1% Ukrainian. The Tartars represent the native population, many returning from the former Soviet space, where they were deported by Stalin in 1940.
However, the most burning issue is military, a situation in which administrative disputes over the Russian Federation's claims to the former Soviet Black Sea Fleet are increasingly controversial and have not yet ceased, with the withdrawal of Russian troops from Crimea being a hot issue, given that Russia considers that it has a strategic right to maintain its presence in this region.
Ukraine's priority problem is to stop the rapidly evolving economic decline. Against the background of the reforms of the transition to a market economy, industrial production fell substantially, inflation rose sharply, realities that led Ukraine to be among the countries that failed to successfully implement privatization programs after the fall of communism. The problem is not the lack of democracy, but the fact that the country still governs the old Soviet-style rules, with a negative impact on the development of Ukraine. The main obstacles to the reforms were the existence in the Ukrainian parliament of the bloc of former communist ideologues that rejected the economic reform program, Russian imports of crude oil and natural gas (about $ 1 billion annually), maintaining communist mentalities in the administration, organized crime and corruption.
The economic strategy approved by the Ukrainian Parliament in 1992, under the presidency of Leonid Kravchuk, based on the complete break with Russia, the exit from the ruble zone and the conduct of trade with Russia at world prices, proved to be completely wrong. This strategy has led to a complete collapse of the Ukrainian economy, accompanied by hyperinflation (about 50% per month), with disastrous social effects. Therefore, in the second half of 1993, this strategy was abandoned and the economic integration of Ukraine within the C.S.I. was opted for, a policy applied by President Leonid Kuchma, elected in the summer of 1994: financial stabilization; carrying out fiscal and monetary reform by putting into circulation a new national currency, the hryvnia; reducing budget expenditures and eliminating subsidies; application of a lower tax regime on income and exports; greater independence of the National Bank of Ukraine; price liberalization for all products; privatization of wholesale sales to increase competitiveness; accumulation of state and private capital in order to encourage investments.
The formation of new political systems in Ukraine was a complex and controversial process. Rising social tensions and the diversity of political strategies and platforms have negatively changed Ukraine's domestic and international image, especially in the first three years since independence. The old system of social relations and communist ideology still persist, their survival being partially supported by the continuous decline of living standards, causing a part of the population to reflect nostalgically on the past.
The formation of political parties began in 1990, but this did not mean the creation of a real multiparty system, as the mere existence of political formations and movements in Ukraine did not mean the establishment of a democratic political system. At the same time, it is difficult to establish their political objectives, many parties and organizations adapting their electoral tactics according to unilateral interests and current situations, without real programs and doctrines. The common feature of most Ukrainian political forces is that they have not clearly established their position on the country's foreign and security policy.
Currently, the existing political organizations in Ukraine can be differentiated according to their positions on the most important and current issues of the country: the independence status of Ukraine; considering Ukraine as part of the Russian Empire and the former U.R.S.S .; attitude towards the Russian Federation and the Commonwealth of Independent States (C.S.I.); the form of political regime adopted; forms, methods and purposes of free market economic reform. According to these criteria, the main political groups are: the National-Radical Bloc; National Democratic Bloc; left parties; center parties.
Under the leadership of former President Viktor Yushchenko, since January 2005, Ukraine has defined its internal development programs in a Western direction, but without neglecting the necessary assistance it can receive from the Russian Federation in maintaining geopolitical and geostrategic balance in this area. In this context, Ukraine faces two major difficulties: the first concerns its desire to secure its independence, the second aims to promote closer economic ties with Russia.
Looking ahead, Ukraine aims to become a "buffer zone" between Western and Russian security forces. At the same time, Ukraine is trying to strengthen its political independence by counterbalancing its economic dependence on Moscow with a priority politico-military relationship with the EU. and the N.A.T.O., relying on the guarantee of political independence and territorial integrity by the U.S.A.
The Declaration of Independence of Ukraine stipulates that this country will not possess, produce or deploy nuclear weapons on its territory. In reality, nuclear weapons have been used as a currency for political demands, primarily for Ukraine to be taken seriously abroad as a nuclear state, but Kiev's hesitation has led more to its political isolation. By the Agreement signed in Moscow on January 14, 1994 by Presidents William Clinton, Boris Yeltsin, and Leonid Kravchuk, Ukraine undertook to transfer all nuclear warheads to Russia in exchange for the cancellation of part of Ukraine's debt to Moscow and the guarantee of Ukraine's security and border inviolability.
In conclusion, starting from the geographical position, the territorial dimensions, the economic potential and the natural resources, Ukraine wants to be an important country of Europe, its ambitions to integrate in the European community based on the hope of ensuring a proper standard of living for the population, the western one. But the effects of domestic and foreign policy so far signal elements of territorial, political, social and cultural-religious division of Ukraine, the inability to restructure the economy, dependence on the Russian Federation and the C.S.I. in economic and nuclear issues, even if Kiev's European integration efforts are considerable.
The consequences of the geopolitical crisis in Ukraine internationally
The geopolitical crisis in Ukraine is in the attention of international organizations -U.N., O.S.C.E., E.U., N.A.T.O. -, of the U.S. administration, of the Russian Federation, of Romania as a neighboring country and of the countries of the C.S.I. who took a model of democratic resolution of internal development after the disintegration of the U.R.S.S. The coordinates of Western policy towards Ukraine consist in resolving the Russian-Ukrainian disputes politically, maintaining good neighborly relations between the two states and ensuring international control over nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory.
U.S. Ukraine's geopolitical crisis prevention and management measures, set out in the UN Charter, have been put in place in accordance with Article 34, where the Security Council is the body empowered to discuss any crisis situation in the world. Operational links between political and rapid alert bodies at the UN headquarters were carried out in a timely manner to monitor the situation created and the use of existing tools in crisis management, followed, if necessary, by sanctions.
The essential legal instruments of the U.N.. allow measures to be taken to manage the geopolitical crisis in Ukraine, included in the Charter of the United Nations, in particular Articles 1, 24, 25 and 40. Article 1 states that the purpose of the UN is: "To maintain international peace and security and, to this end, to take effective collective measures to prevent and eradicate threats to peace, and to facilitate, by peaceful means and in accordance with the principles of justice and international law, peaceful negotiations or regulation Article 24 specifies the functions and responsibilities of the Security Council, to which the Member States have given responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security. Article 25 provides that “UN member states I agree to carry out the decisions of the Security Council ”in accordance with the provisions of the Charter. Article 40 states that, in order to prevent a worsening of the situation, the Security Council may require the parties concerned to comply with certain temporary measures, which it considers necessary or desirable. territorial integrity of Ukraine. In this regard, 100 states voted "for", 11 states were against: Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, North Korea, Nicaragua, Sudan, Syria, Zimbabwe and Venezuela. 58 countries, including China, abstained.
In conclusion, the U.N. makes a significant contribution to the efforts to manage the geopolitical crisis in Ukraine, not only through the use of the mandate and decision-making procedures, but also through the crisis prevention devices and methods of managing them, which it has created in within the international security system.
O.S.C.E. is directly interested in ensuring political and military stability in Ukraine. Political stability means eliminating the motivation for an armed conflict, and military stability means abstaining from military structures in using force to resolve the geopolitical crisis. O.S.C.E. sent to Ukraine face administrative difficulties, limiting their ability to move around Ukraine, and are often arrested by the country's security forces.
O.S.C.E. advocates for the promotion of openness and transparency in official talks with the Ukrainian and Russian authorities. The main purpose of the O.S.C.E. In the geopolitical crisis in Ukraine is to negotiate with all the decision-makers for the peaceful resolution of the created crisis situation. As a security instrument through cooperation, its main function is to provide negotiation and understanding mechanisms in order to enable Ukraine to emerge from this difficult geopolitical and geostrategic crisis situation that could degenerate into regional conflict.
Through the European Union's mandate for conflict prevention and crisis management, the situation in Ukraine is not indifferent to this organization. Important EU leaders were sent to Kiev for information on the spot. dealing with security and defense policy at European level. According to this approach, the E.U. is interested in Ukraine in strengthening its democratic principles and institutions, respecting human and minority rights, promoting regional political stability, promoting and supporting good governance, and contributing to more effective international coordination to deal with emergencies.
The European Union does not have a single army, but makes policy about it, namely the Common Security and Defense Policy (P.S.A.C.), a component of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (P.E.S.C.). In the P.S.A.C., Member States play a decisive role in EU civilian and military operations, with the principle of national sovereignty a priority, and European defense is declarative, in line with the principles and rules contained in the Treaty of Lisbon. In the event of an attack by an EU member state, especially on the terrorist front, there is a mutual solidarity clause; In the matter of establishing European defense forces, it relies on permanent structured cooperation in which the most developed countries from a military point of view must form a basic nucleus in European military interventions with the application of the principle of "pooling and sharing". means and a redistribution of them according to missions). In addition, European defense benefits from European military technology running through the European Defense Agency's programs.
The Council of the European Union constantly monitors, through its specialized structures, in particular the Political and Security Council (PSC) and the military structures of the EU, the developments in the situation in Ukraine. The European Commission has proposed specific economic and financial measures to resolve the crisis situation in Ukraine, as it has a permanent infrastructure in this regard and has experience in this field. The European Parliament also discussed the case of Ukraine for the effective management of this type of geopolitical crisis.
In conclusion, the E.U. Supports the idea that the existence of a common concept of action by Member States on areas of potential conflict and the measures needed to manage conflicts call for a pro-European attitude throughout the community. Only in this case is it possible to eliminate the tensions that persist between states and the commissioning of E.U. capabilities. crisis management.
Over the years, the N.A.T.O. gained special experience in conflict prevention and crisis management and was not indifferent to the geopolitical crisis in Ukraine, a country that belonged to the Warsaw Pact, a totalitarian alliance where the Soviets dictated and controlled all political and military structures, based on the principle of centralism. absolute. The satellite countries had no say, and all military command posts were staffed with Russian generals and marshals, with no idea of multinationality, specific to the spirit of the N.A.T.O.
After 1990, the N.A.T.O. it has transformed from a Western European military defense bloc into a global politico-military organization. To this end, the N.A.T.O. changed its strategic vision in terms of its objectives and missions, moving from Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty ("the attack on a NATO member state involves joint military action by the Alliance"; the Musketeer rule: "all for one, one for all ”), to non-Article 5 (overcoming the classic area of responsibility and extending its actions globally: Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya).
The Alliance's fundamental statements on crisis prevention in the Washington Treaty are also valid in the case of the geopolitical crisis in Ukraine. Article IV sets out the commitment to conduct consultations when the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any N.A.T.O. Member State is threatened. or partner. Moreover, the N.A.T.O. fulfills its role and missions on the basis of a hierarchical organization and functioning, with civil and military structures led by councils, committees, departments and offices, established at strategic, operational and tactical level, which take decisions by consensus, based on consultations of all Alliance members. in any crisis situation that arises.
The issue of the geopolitical crisis in Ukraine was debated at the political and military level, more precisely at the N.A.T.O. Brussels and the Partnership for Peace Coordination Cell. At NATO Headquarters, the diplomatic and political headquarters of the Alliance, work all the permanent representations of the national delegations of NATO member states, the Secretary General, the International Secretariat, the national military representatives, the President of the Military Committee and the International Military Staff. interested in the situation in Ukraine, there are cooperation programs with this organization. Ukraine also has at the N.A.T.O. ambassador, assisted by a national delegation of advisers and officials, who represent their country in various committees and working committees.
The Secretary-General of NATO, responsible for organizing the consultation and decision-making process within the Alliance, is directly interested in the situation in Ukraine as President of the North Atlantic Council, the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and the Joint Permanent Council. NATO-Russia and Associate Chairman of the NATO-Ukraine Commission.
The issue of the geopolitical crisis in Ukraine was raised to resolve the situation created by political means and eliminate differences between the parties to the conflict. Thus, the Department of Political Affairs is interested in the situation in Ukraine, especially since its responsibilities relate to the study of political developments of the N.A.T.O. in member and partner countries, it is now a matter of N.A.T.O. with Russia and Ukraine. The N.A.T.O. Crisis Center is constantly monitoring the situation in Ukraine by exchanging and disseminating political and military information of interest to the N.A.T.O. and for its member countries.
The North Atlantic Council, the supreme political and decision-making authority in the N.A.T.O., composed of permanent representatives of all Member States, met in emergency working meetings to discuss the implications of the Ukrainian geopolitical crisis on the N.A.T.O. In this regard, the member states of the N.A.T.O. they openly expressed their views on the situation in Ukraine, and the decisions taken represented the collective will of the governments of the member states. Any decision in the N.A.T.O. on the geopolitical crisis in Ukraine was achieved by consensus, given its unanimity and common agreement, where Alliance members relied on the experience and individual conceptions of each country, while benefiting from mechanisms and procedures act together, quickly and decisively, in this crisis situation.
Within the Partnership for Peace (CCP) Cell, where Ukraine joined in May 1994, information was provided on the situation in the country, where national military authorities and partners learned about developments in military cooperation programs with Ukraine. From a military point of view, the situation in Ukraine was also discussed in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), where Ukraine has joined since its establishment in 1997.
In conclusion, the N.A.T.O. plays an active role in managing the geopolitical crisis in Ukraine, effectively coordinates its work with the UN, E.U. and the O.S.C.E., putting in place all the mechanisms and advisory structures in this matter.
U.S. positions compared to Ukraine have a strictly geopolitical and geostrategic character. On the one hand, Ukraine is considered by the US administration as a factor in diminishing Russia's influence in Central Europe and the Balkans and therefore supports Ukraine's policy of independence, and on the other hand the U.S.A. considers Russia another great power that can affect the security of the West and that is why it is necessary to support its democratic development and continue cooperation with Moscow in solving the problems of international life. In this context, the U.S. Government provides financial support to support economic reforms in both Russia and Ukraine.
The United States acts militarily at the European level, only through the N.A.T.O., only if its own geostrategic interests are affected. U.S. global military engagement reduces the chances of intervention in Europe, both in terms of the use of military forces and available resources. After nearly 70 years of U.S. rescue efforts. in Europe, when he acted only in difficult and complex situations - entering World War II, organizing the defense of Western Europe by setting up the N.A.T.O., European economic recovery through the Marshall Plan, carrying out the Cold War, arms race, stabilizing the Balkans, etc. - U.S.A. it may change its strategic calculations and may have a new approach in the case of Ukraine (especially in Crimea, the eastern part, the other kidnapped territories from neighboring countries such as Poland, Romania) in order to avoid a conflict with the Russian Federation. US it no longer wants to be Europe's troubleshooter for difficult situations due to the weakness of European leadership. The American military bases in Europe, including Romania, and the anti-missile shield are part of the logic of defending American interests in Europe and the Middle East (Israel, Iran, Syria, North African countries). Relations between the U.S. and the Russian Federation cannot lead to open conflict, because the international stability of the planet is taken into account.
But in U.S. politics. there is also a strategic reserve, in the event of escalating Ukraine's internal east-west conflicts, which could jeopardize the country's territorial integrity. US analysts say a Ukrainian state without Russian-speaking areas would be more politically homogeneous and, consequently, more stable. It is important for a possible split of Ukraine to take place peacefully, because a civil war on the territory of this state would take on international dimensions.
The Russian Federation considers "close foreignness" as the exclusive sphere of interest, being an element of continuity in Moscow's policy for the last two centuries. The inclusion of Ukraine in this area of interest is a fundamental pillar of maintaining Russia's capacity for influence in Central Europe and the Balkans. After the dismemberment of the U.R.S.S., Moscow used the economic, political, ethnic, and military levers to rebuild the relations of subordination of the newly independent republics that had emerged in the former Soviet space. The result of these efforts was the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States (C.S.I.) in the form of an economic, political and security community, encompassing the entire Soviet space, with the exception of the Baltic states.
According to the Russian Federation, the N.A.T.O. it is a remnant of the Cold War, an organization that was to be abolished with the Warsaw Pact, and is currently a contested international politico-military structure. In the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation, the N.A.T.O. is a potential "enemy", taken into account by Russian military strategies, implicitly the member countries of the N.A.T.O. are considered opposing forces to Russia. At the same time, the fundamental objective of this strategy is to protect the Russian citizen inside the country (terrorist attacks) and outside it.
The characteristic of Ukrainian-Russian relations is imprinted by ensuring national security, taking into account the fact that Ukraine is an independent state that emerged after the dismemberment of the U.R.S.S., but also its situation as a former colony of Russia. Under these conditions, Ukraine is economically dependent on energy resources (especially natural gas and oil) imported from Russia, the last remnants of the presence of the Russian army on the territory of the Republic of Moldova and the existence of a significant Russian-speaking minority, especially in the east and south. of Ukraine. Ukraine's attempts to look west are being thwarted by tensions with Russia and Moscow's nuclear arsenal and territorial claims. Russia's status as the largest country of the former U.R.S.S., a former colonial power that has lost its periphery, an exponent of the totalitarian communist regime, still does not consider Ukraine an independent state and hardly accepts that the other states in the C.S.I. not to be under the tutelage of Moscow. From this point of view, Kiev must show respect, if not fear, towards a Russia that has not yet abandoned its territorial claims on Ukraine. Against this background, Ukraine's relations with Russia are ambiguous: on the one hand, Kiev wants to solve its internal and external problems independently, but at the same time it accepts that Moscow will play an important role in the world and as a leader. in the CIS and Eastern Europe.
Romania's relations with independent Ukraine date back to 1919, when this state first appeared on the political map of modern Europe. These relations were affected from the very beginning by the problem of Bessarabia, the Ukrainian Verkhovna considering this Romanian territory as a component part of the territory of Ukraine.
As the Soviet power began fighting against independent Ukraine, Romania supported the Ukrainian "independents" (Petliura and Mahno), highlighting Bucharest's interest in the existence of an independent Ukrainian state as a "buffer" to Russia. The constitution of the U.R.S.S. (1922) put an end to the possibilities of developing relations between Bucharest and Kiev, Ukraine being incorporated into the Soviet Union. It should be noted that in 1924, at the disposal of Moscow, on the territory of Ukraine, the R.S.S. Moldovan, with its capital in Tiraspol, in the current eastern districts of the Republic of Moldova. This autonomous republic was created by Moscow as an assertion of its rights over Romanian Bessarabia, in Tiraspol militating for the "liberation of the Moldovan brothers from across the Dniester."
In 1940, following the annexation of Bessarabia and northern Bukovina, Moscow established the Republic of Moldova, and southern and northern Bessarabia, as well as northern Bukovina, were incorporated into Ukraine. The same administrative division was repeated in 1944, when the Romanian and German armies withdrew. Romania recognized the independence of Ukraine, proclaimed after the August 1991 coup in Moscow and confirmed by a national referendum on December 1, 1991. But, on the occasion of this referendum, the Romanian Parliament, by a unanimously adopted declaration, declared the fact null and void. and by law of the secret annex of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact and confirmed the Romanian rights over the national territories, abducted according to the secret annex of this pact. Preserving the cultural identity of Romanians living on the current territory of Ukraine is a fundamental national interest of Romania.
Romania and Ukraine have concluded the Basic Political Treaty, which is the legal basis for enhancing cooperation relations, although for a long time this treaty had been blocked by both parties. The main cause of the freezing of negotiations on the Basic Political Treaty between Romania and Ukraine was Ukraine's reluctance to insert in the treaty the explicit denunciation of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact by which, in 1940, northern Bukovina, southern Bessarabia and Snake Island were incorporated into the Soviet Union. territories included today in Ukraine. The possibility of Bucharest requesting the inclusion in the treaty of a clause on the expiration of the secret annex to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, as an act of moral reparation for the injustice done to Romania in 1939, led to a certain reluctance on the part of Ukraine in initiating the negotiation process of it. Ukraine refused this because, in its view, these territories were annexed to the U.R.S.S. through a secret protocol and, therefore, the respective territories belong to the Ukrainian state, and the Ukrainian side demands from the Bucharest authorities the recognition of the current borders. Another important issue of bilateral relations is the issue of national minorities, where we talk about the assimilation of Ukrainians in Romania and the situation of Romanians in Chernivtsi.
For the first time in the history of Romania, the great historical opportunity arose for three great international actors to have interests in our country: N.A.T.O., the European Union, the United States of America. The establishment in Romania of a Center for the coordination of the geostrategic interests of the three major international actors in one direction is necessary. At present, Romania's defense interests are centered on the N.A.T.O. with the increased support of the U.S. In the European Union, Romania participates only in international crisis management missions.
In the Republic of Moldova, the effects of the geopolitical crisis in Ukraine are obvious, in the sense that political and national disputes are strong between pro-European and pro-Russian groups, directly concerned with Transnistria. Currently, the current leadership in Chisinau benefits from the support of the European Union for the free movement of persons in the EU. and the geostrategic interests of the U.S. in Eastern Europe.
In conclusion, the geopolitical crisis in Ukraine represents the effects of transformations in the countries of the ex-Soviet space, the concretization of the content of the security and defense policy of the Russian Federation and the modalities of functioning of international bodies. Knowledge of the situation in the ex-Soviet space is a topical issue, the "geopolitical boiling" in this part of the world is not over yet, given that, on the one hand, the Russian Federation is making every effort to maintain its influence in countries that have belonged to the former USSR and, on the other hand, the new independent states in the ex-Soviet space militate for their own development strategy, at least declaratively, without Moscow's intervention, inspired by Western democracies, interested in achieving international and regional stability. For Romania, the geopolitical crisis in Ukraine is a clear signal for the assertion of stability and seriousness in its domestic and international policy and the defense of the rights of Romanians outside the country's borders. Because Ukraine is Romania's neighboring country, the N.A.T.O. and the E.U., the political and social processes and phenomena taking place in this country should be of concern to all political and administrative leaders in Romania, regardless of their political color. The current European geopolitical and geostrategic boom is stirring in the complex: N.A.T.O., E.U., Russian Federation, U.S. The express requirement for Romania is to choose the most suitable place in this hot torrent.
My successful faucets!
PipeFlare & Hive ZCash - ZEC with tier 4 referral program
FreeCryptos:
(DASH), (TRX), (ETH), (Cardano), (BNB), (LINK), (NEO), (LTC) & (BTC)
That was an intense reading 📚