Valentina Ocampo

Prof.Chadda
September 16, 2016
Ukraine-Russian Crisis over Crimea
To understand the rising political tension in Crimea, one must first take a
quick look at the history of the peninsula; this according to Adam Taylor,
writer and reporter of foreign affairs for the Washington Post ( To
understand Crimea, take a look back at its complicated history) , is the
most appropriate way in which one can form an educated opinion on the
current dire situation of Crimea. In the following I will try to sit and
establish my position in regards to the events that have influenced Crimea
to break away from Ukrainian control and joyfully join the Russian
federation ; these issues will be discuss in terms of sovereignty,
nationalism, separatism, and public opinion of those involved, mainly the
citizens of Crimea.
Like it was stated above and per suggestion of Taylor in his article, “ To
Understand Crimea, take a look back at its complicated history”, lets us
then examine Crimea’s past. The first thing we must consider about
Crimea, is its geographical location.Crimea is a peninsula situated on the
northern coast of the Black sea , much of is border is shared with the
Black Sea; this all translates into accessibility and substantial maritime
power in the southern region of Europe ,which means increased
commerce,flow of goods and services. Its strategic location gives Crimea
an advantage over sea transactions and businesses, and a booming
favorable partnership with neighboring countries seeking
passage,connections,and trade. In addition, Crimea also shares border to
the East with the Sea of Azov , a northern extension of the Black Sea
,predominately under Russian control. The Sea of Azov contributes as
well to Crimea’s global financial sustainability through the Sea. Crimea
is only separated from Russia through the Kerch Strait.

UKRAINE ,RUSSIA AND CRIMEA 1

The sole land connection that Crimea has, is through the isthmus of
Perekop , a strip of land about 5-7 km wide that connects the peninsula
with Kherson Oblast, a providence under Ukrainian sovereignty.
Crimea’s location , makes the peninsula a very profitable territory, not
only does Crimea have an incredible sea control that amplifies
commerce, as it was stated above; but it also possesses a very fertile soil
, which adds an agrarian gain to the land , and in the end more money for
Crimea. Recently authorities discovered natural gas 200 miles away from
the coast . It is due to these gains precisely that neither Russia nor the
Ukraine would want to seize partnership to the peninsula. Crimea’s
location of being neither fully connected nor separated from either
Russia or the Ukraine generates problems of ownership; till today, both
countries have naval stations on the peninsula,an arrangement they both
agreed on. To answer the question of who does it really belong to, we
need to proceed to examine is history.

According to Crimea’s BBC News profile and any history book for that
matter, Crimea was annexed to the Russian Empire during the reign of
Katherine the Great (1783) and it continue to be part of Russia until 1954,
after which Russia , the Soviet Union then, transferred sovereignty of
the peninsula to the Ukraine,a socialist state and member of the USSR
back in the day.
After the downfall of the Soviet Union, Crimea went on to be became a
permanent territory under Ukrainian control.As stated later on by the
BBC, this generated a lot of protests and tension within Crimea; mainly
because the Ukraine was not a well establish country and thus the
peninsula wouldn’t benefit from it . According to the profile, pro Russian
citizens in Crimea saw to increase ties with Russia but the Ukrainian

UKRAINE ,RUSSIA AND CRIMEA 2

government deem their efforts illegal, and in turn, saw to mediate a
peaceful agreement. They agreed to give Crimea “Autonomous Republic
Status”, where citizens of the peninsula could write their own legislations
and elect their own representatives ,all in accordance with the Ukrainian
constitution.

The author of the article, let us know that the Ukraine like Crimea ,is a
very ethnically diverse nation, with different dispositions; so we can all
say without any doubt that in the Ukraine there are those who support a
more pro american form of government, ( those to the West) and there are
others whom support a more pro Russian government( those closer to the
East and Russia). Even Today, this struggle still persists on .Recent
presidential elections saw a very pro Russian support and the agreed
arrangement that both countries have on regards to their shared naval
force on the peninsula was extended; however, in 2014 the pro Russian
president was overthrown in favor of a more pro American supporter.
According to the article, This fact did not sit well with Crimean citizens
and as a result, authorities in Crimea held a referendum in which the
citizens of the peninsula agreed to break away from Ukrainian sovereignty
and decided to join the Russian Federation.
It is from this point on that I will discuss my position on Russia’s
annexation of Crimea . First let me define what sovereignty means and
how issues of nationalism and separatism are involved in this discussion.
Sovereignty, according to our book, International Relations by Eric
B.Shiraev and Vladislav M. Zubok , is defined as “The supremacy of
authority exercised by a state over its population and its territory” , a State
in this sense is according to the book “A governed entity with a settle
population occupying a permanent area with recognized borders”, key

UKRAINE ,RUSSIA AND CRIMEA 3

words in these definitions are : recognized borders, supreme authority,
and a given population.
A state in this case the Ukraine or the Russian Federation, are both
political and legal entities, both with a clear define territory ,with a
permanent population that recognizes its authority and that serves its
obligations to the state ; they both have a central government with
distributed responsibilities.Most important of all, for a state to be a state,
it must by recognized by another state ( another autonomous piece of land
with people living in it and with rules governing the lives of those
subjected to that particular territory) ,in which case each agrees to respect
each other businesses; in other words, each recognized state is given free
reign of its territory , free from outside interference and a monopoly over
the use of force ( a force that can be exerted when any recognized state
interferes or violates the national security or interest of other) - that in
turn is what it means to be a sovereign entity.

In regards to whether Crimea is a sovereign state or not, it is clear to me

that by the application of the above definition, Crimea, is not a sovereign
state.Even if Crimea has an “Autonomous Republic status” it does not
have sovereignty over its own territory; for one because their so call status
was given and its only recognize by the Ukrainian state ,which is the legal
entity where they belong to ; furthermore, even with the power to exert
regional authority; their centralized governance body was always
subjected to go in accordance with the Ukrainian constitution. By
definition, Crimea didn’t meet the criteria to be independent, they might
have a clear territorial claim with borders and a population, but they
clearly didn’t have a well define central government,therefore, a lack of
militia force of their own,this all goes to mean that they fail to exert a

UKRAINE ,RUSSIA AND CRIMEA 4

monopoly on the use of force,making them unable to be sovereign and to
be recognize as such. lack of sovereignty leaves them vulnerable to
outside interference and so in this case both the Ukraine and Russia seek
to benefit from the many profitable things that the peninsula offers ( and
as it was discussed earlier, The control over sea power, fertile land , and
natural gas production are few examples of the things that the peninsula
can offer). Control over their resources is an opportunity that neither of
the two states involved want to loose and that is why when talking about
sovereignty in a land such as Crimea , one must take into consideration
why would anyone would want a piece of its territory; and for that we
need to examine its geographical local and its money making capacity
.This might be the main reason why both countries are at odds, once again
control of profitable resources; resources that the Ukraine does not want
to lose and resources that the Russians want to gain.

So to answer the first question, what was the basis of the Russian claim
and why the people of Crimea supported the Russian position? …Russia
as a sovereign state, one can conclude form the news , claims that the
Ukraine since the overthrow of the pro Russian president in 2014 , is
operating under a secret agenda that seeks to destroy Russia’s partnership
with Ukrainians(mainly people living to the East of the country) that
identify themselves closer to the ideals and type of government of Russia
.According to the article “Ukraine Crisis, does Russia have a Case ?” by
the BBC the reports concluded that Russians are justifying their actions
on grounds that they are defending and protecting the human rights of
Ukrainian citizens from its own government.
This seems to be the legal excuse to the annexation of Crimea and to
everything they have done thus far in that region.Their claim also carries

UKRAINE ,RUSSIA AND CRIMEA 5

a sense of national identity , which in most part represents a given reality
and crisis for the Ukraine. if we take in consideration Crimea’s history
as I previously mentioned, we might come up with the conclusion that
Crimea has a lot in common with Russia, it used to belong to Russia until
it was annexed to the Ukraine by Soviet Union leaders; as I wrote a few
pages back, back then the Ukraine was a socialist state, USSR leaders
could have never foresee what was to come. Ukraine loss of control over
Crimea comes at the hands of nationalism, which is according to our book,
pg 385 , “ Individual and collective identification with a country or a
nation .Nationalism also can became the belief that an ethnic group has
the right to form an independent state”. that is also the reason why many
people in Crimea supported the annexation of the peninsula to the Russian
Federation. Statistics shown in the BBC article, “ Ukraine crisis: does
Russia have a case?” indicate that 58% of the population of Crimea are
from Russian ancestry,24% Ukrainian and 12% Crimean Tatars, so there
comes in no surprise that the majority of citizens of Crimea would like to
support a pro Russian government; and since it was overthrown, they
would then want to go back to the place- in this case, the state that relates
most to them. a place they can identify with. This calls then for separatism
which according to our book “ it is the advocacy of or attempt to establish
a separate nation within another sovereign state” , which in the end, it was
what Crimea did by breaking away from the Ukraine and joining the
Russian Federation.
Another important issues to bring to light, is that even if Crimea is not a
sovereign state that can claim its own independence from the Ukraine, I
guess the question to be asked is, what is there to do when the subjects of
a state do not desire to belong to that particular state?; in other words,
what to do when the citizens do not accept their own form of government?
One of the main characteristics of a sovereign state is for it to not only

UKRAINE ,RUSSIA AND CRIMEA 6

have a centralized government but to also be recognize as such, and in
this point I find myself at odds. when talking about a ruling body, should
we give more importance to the recognition placed by an international
organization and the so call recognized sovereign states ,or should we
measure its recognition on basis of acknowledge authority within the
population that its trying to govern.Put it differently, if the people of a
given country do not recognize their own government, how can that even
be consider a ruling entity…I am not merely talking about Crimea, which
is relatively small compare to other places; and its crisis as complicated
as it might seem, the world has seen far worse.what I’m trying to point
out is that when a government fails to represent and answer to the
problems of its citizens ( not small groups but at a large scale) , then how
can their authority still be legitimate ; is it not true that in order for a state
to exist it must have a territory with a given population ,what then if its
populations revolts against their government and wins… for better or for
worse, for example, even if it becomes a communist country , does it
loose its status as a recognized sovereignty by the opposing international
union of recognized sovereign countries…just because it change from
ruling entity…these were just few of the questions one must have in mind
when considering issues of sovereignty.
In conclusion, Issues of sovereignty are constantly being violated by
sovereign states all the time, and the reason behind that is really simple ;
they do that simply because they can, and because by doing so, they
have something to gain ( like the control of profitable resources) … that
is one of the reason why Russia extended a hand to Crimea and sought to
annexed it to their federation. The other one, like I stated previously,
being a call to separatism by means of nationalism. I end this with
thoughts on the constitution which is the governing body that dictates the
laws through which this country and many others rule by ; no matter the

UKRAINE ,RUSSIA AND CRIMEA 7

ruling book it has , most constitutions are “written for the people by the
people” to bring order,security and stability…in many countries what
these words promise is far from their reality, nonetheless, is what
sovereignty stands for that we defend it and believe in it; we believe in its
promise of protection and opportunity to its citizens.

Bibliography:
1. BBC News, “Ukraine Crisis does Russia have a Case?”, March
5,2014,http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26415508,Accessed
September 16,2016.
2. BBC News “Crimea’s profile”,April
21,2016,http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-18287223, Accessed
September 16,2016.
3. Adam, Taylor,Washington Post, “ To understand Crimea take a look
at its complicated history”, February
27,2016,https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/0
2/27/to-understand-crimea-take-a-look-back-at-its-complicated-history/,
Accessed September 16,2016.
4.Shiraev B. Eric & ZubokM.Vladislav,International Relation,2nd
Edition, New York , OxFord, Oxford University Press, 2016.

UKRAINE ,RUSSIA AND CRIMEA 8