The Black Sea Fleet's presence has been condemned by a number of political forces. I think it's fair to say that the current government, which is taking a very different vector from the previous government and committed to European association to the fullest degree possible--everyone in that government, starting with the prime minister, is on record as wanting to tear up and renegotiate the Black Sea Fleet accords so that, in effect, there is no more Russian presence in Crimea.
DAVID SPEEDIE: In other words, renegotiate would mean eliminate the Black Sea Fleet, which presumably would be a severe nostalgia for Russia. There is no other warm-water port at this point for the Russian Navy to go, is there?
NICOLAI PETRO: Not in the south, right. Well, that would be Russia's problem then, sort of like, "Well, if you want to have a fleet, go build it somewhere else, in Rostov-na-Donu or somewhere else in Russian territory." That's not Ukraine's problem. Russia, for many reasons, which are emotional, historical, and just prideful, and economical obviously, doesn't want to do that.
DAVID SPEEDIE: Well, yes. On the other hand, it is a negotiated agreement. The Russians could, I think legitimately, say that the government that negotiated that agreement, or at least the government that has recently adhered to that agreement, was overthrown in what the Russians, I think, would call a putsch. And, more practically, you just don't go out and build another naval base in Novorossiysk. So one would hope that the accommodation or the renegotiation might be indeed a kicking the can down the road, which in times of great tension is not the worst thing always to do.
NICOLAI PETRO: Right. But the problem is essentially a political one, not so much a legal one. In other words, there has to be the will and the desire.
One of the ways that one could interpret the significance of Russia's move in Crimea, one of the corollary benefits for Russia that it might be aiming for, is the ability to have a government in place in the peninsula that would essentially be friendly and that, if it were granted significant enough autonomy, could actually be the competent authority to extend that lease indefinitely, because, de facto, Russia pays for that fleet and it's now paying that money for the lease of the fleet into the coffers of Kiev, where it is a small drop in the bucket of a very large bucket; whereas, in the context of Crimea, it would be a much more significant, and presumably stable, contribution to the local economy.
DAVID SPEEDIE: And we're not going into history here, but this isn't so ancient history. Of course, Crimea for 200 years belonged to Russia, and then there was a sort of internal shuffling in 1954, when Khrushchev essentially transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic from Russia. But of course that, as I said, was an internal move, as it were, because the Soviet Union existed.
NICOLAI PETRO: Right.
DAVID SPEEDIE: The fact is that Crimea does have a very close historic tie to Russia and, as I think you have pointed out, there are at least 100,000 military personnel, retirees, and families living there. So this is not an insignificant business for Russia just to sort of give up on Crimea, so to speak.
NICOLAI PETRO: Exactly. But I can't help but point out its extraterritoriality is an anomaly in international relations, and in the context of any difficulty in the relationship between the countries, it is always going to be a sore spot. In general, diplomats want to avoid creating and basically remove these sorts of sore spots before they become excessively irritated.
DAVID SPEEDIE: Well, speaking of diplomats and creating sore spots, Secretary Kerry is in Kiev, or has recently been in Kiev, and apparently came bearing $1 billion in long-term loans to Ukraine. I'm no economist and I'm certainly no expert in the Ukrainian economy, but I don't think $1 billion quite does a long-term deal for Ukraine, as far as I know. What do you hear or what's your perception of the Kerry visit?
NICOLAI PETRO: Well, there was not that much on it on the 7 o'clock Ukrainian news. They promised a more extensive coverage right now, at 10 o'clock. But so far the information that they're providing, and that the Ukrainian news tends to accentuate, is that money is coming, money is in the pipeline, and this has been the promise of the prime minister, that "our friends in the West will not abandon us." Now, no one is naming figures, but he is assuring and trying to reassure the banking sector and the financial sector that there will be money forthcoming.
It is to date a very unimpressive amount, $1 billion. The minimum that the cabinet of ministers is asking for is $15 billion. The more frequently used number that they cite is $35 billion or more. They have a total external debt of $140 billion. So there's a lot to be done.
But any economic assistance that will be provided under the terms agreed to with the IMF [International Monetary Fund] will undoubtedly be tied to significant structural and economic reforms, which Ukraine in the past has not been able to fulfill. Now, they, and I think we all, should hope for the fact that the new government will be more successful than past governments in fulfilling those so that the IMF will be willing to release whatever money it pledges.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).