Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Crimea

31. Policy and Legislative Challenges to Non-Discrimination, Minority Protection and Diversity Issues in Ukraine

Author:
Iryna Solonenko
Publication Date:
12-2017
Content Type:
Case Study
Institution:
European Centre for Minority Issues (ECMI)
Abstract:
Ukraine is a country populated by many national groups. As recorded in the 2001 census, the main national groups2 living in Ukraine (apart from Ukrainians, which constitute the majority) include: - Russians 8,334,100 (17.3%) - Belarusians 275,800 (0.6%) - Moldovans 258,600 (0.5%) - Crimean Tatars 248,200 (0.5%) - Bulgarians 204,600 (0.4%). Ukraine also has smaller populations of Polish, Jewish, Romanian, Armenian, Hungarian, and other groups; altogether 100 different national groups according to the census. In some territories of Ukraine national minorities live so compactly that in some settlements (towns or villages) they comprise the majority or over one-third of the population. This is the case in the Transcarpathian, Chernivtsi, and Odesa oblasts (regions), as well as in Crimean Autonomous Republic, which was annexed by Russia in March 2014. As in many countries, ethnic and linguistic borders do not necessarily align in Ukraine: many of those who think of themselves as belonging to certain national groups (as reported by 2001 census), speak another language. Thus, although 4.6% of the Ukrainian population reported they belonged to a national group other than Ukrainian or Russian, only 2.9% named a language other than Ukrainian or Russian as their native language. Only 0.1% of them considered Ukrainian to be their native language. Between 1% and 89% of them (depending on ethnicity) consider Russian to be their native language. For instance, among Hungarians this share is 1% and among Greeks it is up to 89%. While 17% of the Ukrainian population said they were of Russian ethnic affiliation, 26.6% named Russian as their native language, indicating that a share of people who consider themselves to be of non-Russian ethnic affiliation regard Russian as their native language.
Topic:
Nationalism, Minorities, Ethnicity, and Language
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Ukraine, and Crimea

32. Journal of Advanced Military Studies: Spring 2016

Author:
Colonel Glenn J. Voelz, Sarah Soliman, Mary Ellen Connell, Ryan Evans, David L.O. Hawyard, and John Baden
Publication Date:
01-2016
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Advanced Military Studies
Institution:
Marine Corps University Press, National Defense University
Abstract:
After five years of publishing the Marine Corps University Journal, MCU Press looks forward to an exciting future by redesigning and reformatting the journal to emphasize its role in supporting the national conversation. The new MCU Journal will focus on publishing established authors along with young, emerging scholars, combining the strengths of both on themes of international relations, national security, political science, and other disciplines. By engaging authors in a variety of fields, we can cross disciplines to bring new knowledge, constructs, and solutions to our readers. Moreover, by bridging the civilian and military divide, our audience can read about different perspectives on policy and contemporary issues. For the spring 2016 issue, we have done just that with articles on domestic and international topics as well as book reviews, all of which represent the ideas being broached by academic scholars, think tank analysts, and military leaders. Headlines so far for 2016 have highlighted the fact that the United States seems to be lagging on the cyberfront. Journalists, in such stories as “Federal Government Confirms That It Still Sucks at Cyber Security” and “New Military Outfit to Enhance China’s Cyber Security, Espionage Prowess,” point to a higher level of advances being made overseas as our own government struggles to safeguard what should be secure networks and the identities of millions. These recent issues might make the casual reader wonder how our military intends to counter cyberattacks from foreign soils when the government cannot seem to manage at home.
Topic:
National Security, Science and Technology, Hegemony, Armed Forces, Military Affairs, Cybersecurity, Refugees, Drones, History, and Hybrid Warfare
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Ukraine, Crimea, and United States of America

33. Making Sense of Hybrid Warfare

Author:
James K. Wither
Publication Date:
03-2016
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Connections
Institution:
Partnership for Peace Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes
Abstract:
The term hybrid warfare has been widely analyzed by scholars, policymakers and commentators since Russia occupied Crimea in March 2014. The topic has ceased to be a subject only studied by military strate-gists, but has entered the wider policy domain as a significant security challenge for the West. This article seeks to place the debate about hybrid warfare in a broader analytical and historical context and summarizes discussion to date on this and related strategic concepts. The Russian approach to hybrid warfare as demonstrated by operations in Ukraine is a particular focus for discussion.
Topic:
NATO, Military Strategy, Territorial Disputes, Collective Defense, and Hybrid Warfare
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, North Atlantic, Ukraine, North America, and Crimea

34. Eurasian Economic Union and the Difficulties of Integration: The Case of South Ossetia and Abkhazia

Author:
Ivan Babin and Elizaveta Egorova
Publication Date:
03-2015
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Connections
Institution:
Partnership for Peace Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes
Abstract:
The Ukrainian crisis of 2013, followed by the annexation of Crimea, has redistributed the balance of power among the political players of the world arena. Moreover, since Putin’s return to the presidency in 2012, the concept of a shared neighborhood between the Russian Federation and the European Union (EU) becomes a strategic challenge not only for both but foremost for those post-Soviet republics struggling between two strategic decisions: to accept Russian protection or to choose Western development. The aim of this paper is to shed light on the forthcoming 2015 Eurasian Economic Union’s (EEU) economic and political perspectives, on South Ossetia and Abkhazia’s economic attractiveness, the sentiment inside those breakaway regions of Georgia and the Russian Federation standpoint in resolving or maintaining the situation in the disputed territories.
Topic:
Security, Imperialism, European Union, and Annexation
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Ukraine, and Crimea

35. Kosovo 1999 and Crimea 2014: Similarities and Differences

Author:
Pál Dunay
Publication Date:
09-2015
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Connections
Institution:
Partnership for Peace Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes
Abstract:
Since the so-called Kosovo conflict of 1999 the views of states, including those of major players, have been divided as to whether it was a humanitarian intervention or the collective aggression of NATO member states. In 2014 the Russian Federation annexed Crimea and Sevastopol (formally separate entities) to its territory. Since then the argument has shifted and the current disagreement centers around how we should assess these two changes of territorial status quo (Kosovo and Crimea) in Europe. The situation is further complicated as states wish to present their actions as moral and legal (the general expectation is that they do so). This results in a situation where the dominant discourse is supposed to support the aspirations of states both in the east and in the west. The main effort of each party goes in countering the other’s position. It is difficult to get hold of a reliable set of facts, as these are presented selectively by the different parties. A further challenge arises in that different fields are not kept distinct from one another, and hence the legal and political analyses are often used interchangeably and with insufficient differentiation. This is aggravated by the fact that the so-called normative approach to international (and domestic) politics prevails in the analysis. Every state feels compelled to prove that it acts in full accordance with international norms, including legal rules and moral predicaments. However, any attempt to correctly analyze the change of the territorial status quo in the two cases mentioned above requires the contrary: keeping the different aspects strictly separate and only synthesizing the results in the conclusions. In this article I endeavor to keep the legal analysis separate from the political and moral assessment and wish to state in advance that they do not necessarily manifest in the same direction. Moreover, when the topic of analysis is as politically heavy-loaded as the change of territorial status quo in Europe, the international legal assessment must be disaggregated further. Namely, there is the positive international law as it exists, de lege lata, as adopted by the states or as it appears as jus cogens. There is also international law that does not exist, yet about which we speak as de lege ferenda with a view to its future evolution. Such differentiation will be particularly relevant in this case due to the swift evolution of norms in the area of humanitarian intervention relevant as point of reference in the case of Kosovo and the ambiguous content of the right to self-determination in the case of Crimea. International law has a further characteristic feature. Namely, its development cannot flexibly follow historical changes. This is particularly noticeable when major historical changes occur at a rapid pace. This was the case before and during World War II and more recently as the Cold War came to an end. The international system changed and international law in some areas did not follow. The gap between the international system and international law, where the latter forms part and parcel of the former, has widened. Furthermore, universal international law most often requires the consent of states in various regions of the world. This presents a challenge as states often profess different values and their value judgment serves different interests. It is the purpose of this article to present the legal situation that underlies the two cases, the position of the main actors, and attempt to draw separate conclusions as regards the assessment de lege lata and de lege ferenda.
Topic:
NATO, Imperialism, Conflict, and Armed Conflict
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Ukraine, Kosovo, and Crimea

36. Relations Between Russia and Europe: No Simple Solutions in Sight

Author:
S. Karaganov
Publication Date:
06-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
The Crisis between Russia and the West is associated with Crimea and Russia’s actions in Donbass and Ukraine; in fact, it has deeper roots while its long-term repercussions might prove to be much graver than expected. a large-scale armed clash cannot be excluded even if this possibility is gradually reducing; we should be ready to political confrontation and contracted economic ties. Today, Europe is facing an even greater threat: a civilizational divorce with Russia.
Topic:
Political Violence, Economics, Armed Struggle, and Geopolitics
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Ukraine, and Crimea

37. A Russian View on Landpower

Author:
Keir Giles and Major General Aleksandr V Rogovoy
Publication Date:
04-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College
Abstract:
Russia’s seizure of Crimea, and ongoing operations in eastern Ukraine, have refocused attention on the Russian military as a potential cause for concern in Europe. This Letort Paper, by an influential Russian general and military academic, lays out specifically Russian views on the essential nature of strong conventional land forces, and how they may be used. With an expert commentary providing essential context and interpretation, the Paper presents a valuable insight into Russian military thinking, at a potentially critical juncture for European security.
Topic:
Security, War, Military Strategy, and Military Affairs
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Ukraine, and Crimea

38. Project 1704: A U.S. Army War College Analysis of Russian Strategy in Eastern Europe, an Appropriate U.S. Response, and the Implications for U.S. Landpower

Author:
Col. Douglas Mastriano
Publication Date:
03-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College
Abstract:
The strategic calculus changed in Europe with the 2014 Russian seizure of Crimea and its ongoing war against Ukraine. Compounding the dilemma of an aggressive Russia, is the application of ambiguity to create a clock of uncertainty that prevents a decisive response to counter its destabilizing activities. However, this application of ambiguity is easily defeated, if nations are willing to take concerted efforts now to preempt and deter further Russian aggression. Project 1704 provides an honest assessment of the tenuous strategic environment that now envelopes Eastern Europe and offers specific recommendations on how to continue the 70 years of unparalleled peace that most of Europe has enjoyed.
Topic:
Politics, International Security, and International Affairs
Political Geography:
Russia, Ukraine, Eastern Europe, and Crimea

39. The Crimean conundrum: What has happened and what to expect in the future

Author:
Oleksandr Fisun
Publication Date:
05-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Arnold A. Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies
Abstract:
The Russian annexation of the Crimean peninsula represents a radical transformation of the system of international security on the European continent and in the wider context of the postwar “Yalta system” of interstate boundaries and their guarantees by major international players. The most important takeaway is that for the first time since World War II, one of the founders of the Yalta system of international boundaries has considered it within the realm of possibility to revisit its provisions by directly augmenting its own territory. This paper aims to analyze the outcomes of Russia’s annexation of Crimea, the features of the newly formed regional political regime in Crimea, the role of Crimea in contemporary Ukrainian politics, as well as to present scenarios for the development of the geopolitical situation surrounding the “Crimean issue” in the context of the possible actions that primary geopolitical players may take.
Topic:
International Relations, International Organization, International Security, and Geopolitics
Political Geography:
Russia, Ukraine, and Crimea

40. The Challenge of Crimea for Russia’s Domestic and Foreign Policy

Author:
Sergei Markedonov
Publication Date:
05-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Arnold A. Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies
Abstract:
Following a period of 22 years as a part of independent Ukraine, the Crimean peninsula entered into Russian custody in the form of two separate subjects of the Federation. This event constitutes a watershed in Russian domestic policy and relations between Russia and other countries and also poses a serious challenge to security throughout Europe. The Russian government would do well to forestall their emergence, not by exerting force, but rather by raising the quality of infrastructure and resolving other social problems. Thus the acquisition of Crimea, for Russia, is not the “end of history,” but the beginning of a complex process of integrating not merely the territory, but more importantly, the peninsula’s inhabitants.
Topic:
International Relations, International Security, and Peacekeeping
Political Geography:
Russia, Ukraine, and Crimea