A Geopolitical Assessment of the Situation in Ukraine (Part II)

This is Part II of my editorial on the geopolitical implications of the crisis in Ukraine. Please read Part I before proceeding.

Military Aspects

Implications of Romania becoming direct neighbors with Russia

Bordering the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine to the north and northeast, Romania has one of the most interesting and peculiar geopolitic positions in this entire conflict. Located at the three-way intersection between Europe, western Asia, and Russia, my country is also a member of the European Union and NATO and, as such, benefits from a wide variety of security guarantees.

The fact that Romania entered the EU and NATO never sat well with Russia. Part of the reason why I think Russian Presidents have left elements of the 14th Army in Transnistria was to prevent the EU block from advancing further east. This may also explain the immediate reaction that Russia had to the prospect of Ukraine doing the same. You could say that Russians are very fond of their former sphere of influence, which largely dissipated following the end of the Cold War.

But the implications of Romania becoming direct neighbors with Russia are more complex than simply its inclusion in international security structures. Romania, alongside Poland and Bulgaria, will soon feature elements of the American/NATO missile defense shield. These are rocket installations capable of shooting down ballistic missiles headed towards Europe from any direction.

Russia has always voiced its opposition to this shield being installed in eastern Europe, especially in Poland and Romania, since this installation negates the Russian land-based nuclear arsenal, leaving the country exposed to potential nuclear attacks from the US, Europe, or NATO. This is a very legitimate concern, since the Cold War remained cold due to the threat of mutually-assured destruction.

When the missile shield is completed, as early as 2015 by some estimates of Romanian authorities, the threat I've mentioned above will be thrown off-balance. Russia perceives this as a highly aggressive move by the Western World against it, and I would probably do the same. When the prospect of Ukraine joining with the West arose, Putin reacted aggressively to protect Russian interests.

Implications of a Russian Transnistria for the European Union and regional security

If the plan I anticipate comes to fruition and Russia annexes parts of southern and southwestern Ukraine plus Transnistria, then the entire security paradigm in eastern Europe would shift, as the European Union would border Russia directly. This would give the latter additional leverage in negotiations related to gas prices, as well as a significant military advantage.

As it so happens, Russian borders will come within a few hundred kilometers from the Romanian segment of the American anti-missile shield, making a ground-based attack more feasible in case of an all-out war. A similar situation exists for the Polish element of the shield, as Russia could attack it through Belarus, an ancient ally. Only the Bulgarian shield would remain relatively safe.

The end result would be a significant vulnerability of a critical NATO security asset in eastern Europe, a prospect the international organization is not overly fond of. This is why NATO and the United States have already redeployed troops through countries in the region, including Romania and Estonia, which neighbors Poland to the east. The Polish have also massed troops at the Ukrainian borders.

How NATO, the EU, and the US will respond to this scenario and to the perceived Russian aggression in Ukraine remains to be seen. Thus far, what worries me are signs of weakness, not in the sense that Republicans in Congress peddle, but in the sense that the EU is too dependent on Russian gas and money to actually take any meaningful and drastic measures to sanction the country.

Interestingly, a side aspect of Russia annexing additional regions in Ukraine to its land would be a certain stability in the area. Once the status of these provinces is regulated, despite what will probably be fierce opposition from the Western World, the EU and NATO will be free to cooperate with western Ukraine in the future. The chances of Putin allowing this to happen are slim to none.

I would like to again stress that it's highly unlikely Russia will ever allow Ukraine to enter NATO or the EU. A direct border between the two blocks would most likely increase tensions in the area by several orders of magnitude, particularly if military assets are repositioned in the latter country. I think it is more likely that an open, armed confrontation will develop long before that happens.

Putin basically issued a stern warning with Crimea, and the destabilization of eastern Ukraine is meant to further get that point across. He is basically saying that the West can have the western parts of the country, but that there will always be a buffer zone (in this case, eastern Ukraine) between it and the Russian Federation.

Direct Confrontation

As someone living dangerously close to this situation, I hope the situation does not degenerate into war. You might be tempted to believe that this is unlikely to happen, but remember that historically major wars have been started for smaller stakes. However, if an open confrontation does develop, it is difficult to predict what will happen.

Already, controlled media in Moscow is pushing an extreme type of propaganda meant to incite people to war, similar to what the United States did before invading Iraq in 2003. Both events are equally unsupported by evidence. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and the US attacked a member state of the UN without the approval of the Security Council. Similarly, there are no fascists in Ukraine, as Putin's media puts it, but the Russian people are not told otherwise.

Both Putin and Russian Prime-Minister Dmitry Medvedev are peddling a rhetoric where Ukraine is on the brink of civil war between the east and west, and Russian ethnics in the east are in grave danger. The Russian massing of troops on the Ukrainian border is therefore a way of ensuring that ethnics are not harmed in any way.

What the Kremlin forgets to mention to its people, or admit to the West, is that the current situation in Ukraine is largely its doing. Without the tireless work of the GRU and FSB, there would have been no separatist movements in Luhansk, Donetsk, and Kharkov, or Crimea before them. Taking things one step further, Putin has called on the UN to condemn Ukraine's efforts to quelling dissent in the east.

The next steps that the Russian president will take remain a mystery. Until just a few days ago, the main Russian involvement in its neighbor was to destabilize the country ahead of the presidential elections scheduled on May 25. Russia still sees Yanukovych as the legitimate president of Ukraine, and so it has an interest that no other president is elected democratically.

However, the recent deployment of the Ukrainian military and elements from related national security services and organizations in the eastern provinces of the country is likely to fan the flames even further. Already, several pro-Russian separatists and Ukrainian soldiers have died in direct confrontations, and the situation may easily escalate from an hour to the next.

Financial Aspects

The current crisis is not just a result of geopolitical games, military threats, and political talks. One key element here is the flow of money through and from Russia, an element compounded by the reliance countries in the European Union have on Russian oil. Most of the Old Continent, including economic and military powerhouses such as Germany, is reliant on Russian gas and oil for their energy needs.

Putin announced at the beginning of this crisis that the pipelines passing through the Ukraine might be shut down in case of unrest. The situation would then become very dire for Europe, but particularly for countries such as Bulgaria, which relies on Russian resources to meet more than 80 percent of its energy needs.

Natural gas has been one of the reasons why a unified response from countries in the European Union has been lacking in the Ukrainian crisis. These nations fear, and rightfully so, that Russia will cease all of its exports if the situation degenerates. I sort of understand the position of the Russian Federation on this, since it would make no sense for it to take sanctions from the EU and the US and still continue to deliver resources to these countries.

Europe has long since sought to construct additional pipelines through the eastern and southeastern parts of the continent, in order to reduce its reliance on Russian gas, but those projects have failed to materialize to date. As such, the crisis has caught all Member States on the wrong foot. On the bright side of things, at least it's not winter anymore, so this gives the EU a few months of respite.

Another thing I would like to draw your attention to is that the United Kingdom did not participate in the economic sanctions the EU imposed on Russia following its operations in Crimea. This is because numerous Russian billionaires and oligarchs keep their money in the UK and have serious business going on in this country. In short, it is not in the country's interest to upset Russia.

Regardless, the political isolation Russia has entered following its annexation of parts of Ukraine has led to a sharp decrease in stock exchanges, spelling trouble for a number of companies. While Europe stands to lose from being forbidden access to Russian oil, companies in the Federation are equally affected by any potential ban of this nature.

GazProm, the largest extractor of natural gas and one of the biggest companies in the world, plays an important role in this crisis. While Yanukovych was in power, Ukraine benefited from reduced prices on Russian gas. Following the ousting of the former president, prices have increased 80 percent in just a couple of weeks. The Russian company is now calling on Ukraine to pay up those reductions, spanning back at least 4 years (that's a few billion dollars’ worth of debt).

These discounted prices were offered to Ukraine as part of a treaty to house Russian troops in Crimea, in the port of Sevastopol. Now, the Federation is arguing that Crimea is Russian land, and therefore the terms of the treaty are void. This is obviously just a ruse, but Putin has just fashioned a new factor that he can use to control the neighboring country.

Some commentators argue that undermining the national economy of Ukraine may in the future constitute an excuse to intervene militarily. Russia might argue that the economic collapse of the country is putting its ethnics at peril and may intervene to “protect” their interests. Whether or not this will actually happen is difficult to say right now.

Conclusion