When protests broke out in Kiev this past winter, hostility soon spread to the rest of the region. As a result, part of the Ukraine was annexed by Russia.

To better understand the issue, students and faculty met in Eggers Hall Monday afternoon in front of a roundtable discussion of the current crisis’ different perspectives. Ukrainian native Kateryna Pischikova led the discussion with two Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs faculty members to provide students with an informed account of things going on the region.

Pischikova began the discussion by providing insight on Ukraine’s politics before the incident. The unrest can be attributed to many factors but culminated when former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych went back on his promise of signing a joint deal between Ukraine and the European Union, she said.

In what was seen as Ukraine’s most democratic election to date, Yanukovych centralized much of the government’s power, resulting in the first wave of protest in Kiev, the nation’s capital. Pischikova, a visiting scholar at Cornell and author of “Promoting Democracy in Postcommunist Ukraine” provided further insight into the domestic policies that helped shape the current situation.

“Before leaving, Yanukovych signed an interim agreement with other political leaders, one of them being Russian, which has since been used as leverage for invasion,” she said.

However, Russian president Vladimir Putin and his supporters overlook the fact that the agreement was never signed and finalized, leading to condemnation from the West and its allies, she said. A big fear held by many Ukrainians is that Crimea will serve as a catalyst for Russian military to annex other areas, she said.

Brian Taylor, an associate professor of political science at SU, said that many Russian elites claim the annexation is long overdue. Crimea was a part of the Soviet Union and much of the general populace speak and identify as Russian, unlike the vast majority of Ukrainians who identify as Ukrainian.

After the discussion, sophomore international relations major Brendan Finlay outlined the complexity of the issue.

“By letter of law, it was illegal but there may have been support in Crimea and annexation,” Finlay said.

Taylor said Putin may have “won Crimea but lost Ukraine,” as the invasion could have a polarizing effect of the rest of the nation aligning itself with the West. He elaborated that democratization means a huge upheaval of the current system. Putin’s agenda is slowly but surely growing more authoritarian with access to free media and political participation very marginalized in Russia, he said.

“Growing interdependence is a check on aggressive behavior,” said James Steinberg, dean of Maxwell. “That being said, the more intertwined a nation is with Russia, the less likely it will be to act.”

Steinberg added that ultimately, the nations believe that Putin will cave to their demands once the fiscal realities take hold. This proves to be a double-edged sword, as many nations in the region are not getting involved in the crisis because their economies could face the repercussions as well, he said.

Countries in the Far East, namely China, have far too much invested in Russian markets to get involved, Steinberg said. Crimea also serves as a test for how powers like the U.S. will act when other areas of constant political realignment, he added.

What needs to be addressed, he said, is the fact that without enforcers in the international community to punish aggressors like Russia, they will be able to continue without concern for their actions.

Published on April 1, 2014 at 2:11 am