WHY RUSSIA WILL NOT RETURN CRIMEA

Di Francesco Calzoni -


In 2014, Russia seized the Crimean peninsula and destabilized Ukraine’s Eastern provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk. In the Western world, scholars often interrogate themselves over the possibility to see Crimea returned to Ukraine. Many of them believe that Crimea might not be necessarily lost forever; however, several considerations suggest that the contrary is true. Instead, the case is different for the two provinces in Eastern Ukraine.
To begin with, Russia is installing new missile-defense systems in the peninsula. Back in the spring of 2017, Moscow deployed a division armed with S-400 “Triumph” missile-defense systems near Feodosia, in Crimea. This system is capable of hitting aircrafts and ICBMs flying within a range of 400 km and 60 km respectively. Recently, after the decision of the Trump administration to provide Ukraine with American weapons, Russia responded installing another division of S-400s near the city of Sevastopol. Tellingly, these devices can be turned into “offensive mode” in less than 5 minutes. The symbolic relevance of these moves and the strategic potential of the S-400 clearly indicate that Russia is in Crimea to stay. It is also worth to mention that the only logistic base of Russia’s Black Sea fleet is located in Sevastopol, which thus is an indispensable resource.
Secondly, the seizure of Crimea became a new building block of Russia's national identity. Historically, the political myth of Russia being a strong military power determined the foreign policy of the country and the collective identity of Russian citizens. After the traumatic experience of the fall of the USSR and the 30 years of economic, social and political strife that followed, Crimea represents for Russians the renewed strength of their motherland. This is why giving Crimea back to Ukraine would be a calamity from a Russian standpoint, and imply enormous electoral costs for Vladimir Putin. Also, giving back Crimea would legitimize Ukraine accession to NATO, the same issue that sparked the Crimean crisis.
Regarding the Luhansk and Donetsk provinces, the situation is different. Russia has everything to gain from freezing the status quo. Its aim would be maintaining an area of instability in Ukraine to prevent the country from joining NATO. Should Russia annex the two provinces like it did in Crimea, the remaining part of Ukraine would be free to join the North Atlantic Organization.   Instead, with the two districts under Ukraine's sovereignty but in a situation of frozen conflict, the country would not meet the requirements to join NATO. Moreover, leaving Donetsk and Luhansk under Ukraine’s sovereignty, Russia could still leverage the Russian-speaking population of the two provinces to influence Ukraine’s internal political processes.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

THE TAPERING OF THE QE: RISKS AND POSSIBLE FALLOUTS FOR ITALY (1st part)

Di -
Image
In light of tapering of the Quantitative Easing, this script intends to investigate whether and to what extent ECB’s unconventional monetary policy has affected Italy’s economy over the last 5 years . In doing so, the script aims at shedding light on the mechanisms and procedures that affect country risk assessment and consequently the measurement of sovereign risk premium incorporated by sovereign debt. Thus, this part will go over the last decade to present a clear picture of the ECB’s Asset Purchase Program. Then, the paper wants to enact the worst-case scenario for Italy , namely the likelihood of a default afterward the end of QE. Therefore, this work carefully presents the distortions and macroeconomic imbalances of Italy’s economy through which a major debt-crisis could break out. Above all high level of debt to GDP ratio and inability to meet debt obligations, infringement of Maastricht criteria in terms of deficit-to-GDP ratio, sluggish productivity and lethargic growth.
Read more

WHO DID (NOT) KILL KOSOVO SERB LEADER OLIVER IVANOVIC?

Di Francesco Calzoni -
Image
On Tuesday, January 16, Oliver Ivanovic was shot dead in Mitrovica, in the Northern part of Kosovo. It was the climax of a series of attacks directed against him and his family. His car was set on fire twice, in 2005 and then in July 2017. Serbian media also reported that in September 2013, ahead of the local elections, an unknown man entered Ivanovic’s apartment and attacked his wife. The same year, someone started a fire in his party headquarters. Ivanovic’s moderate political posture, advocating for dialogue between Serbia and Kosovo, encountered the opposition of the nationalist factions of the two countries. He was the head of a civil initiative called Freedom, Democracy, Justice, and acted as an opponent to the main Serb party in Kosovo, Srpska Lista, which is now part of the Kosovo government.  Ivanovic was also on probation for his supposed complicity in war crimes, committed in 1999 against ethnic Albanians. Indeed, he had a lot of enemies. Following his assas
Read more

AMAZON: WHEN A COMPANY BECOMES A PLATFORM

Di -
Image
What is Amazon? How would you define Jeff Bezos’ company that was founded in 1994? It is common view to define Amazon as an online retailer and cloud computing services' company which is heavily investing in increasing the effectiveness of its logistical processes. For Amazon, logistics has become the core of its business: it manages the supply chain from supplier out through a distribution system to the final user. In doing so, Amazon is able to establish a competitive advantage through a superior customer service that is eventually the outcome of flexibility, quickness of delivery and real-time implementation of its inventory system. Simply put, cloud-computing inventory and net-centric supply system helped Amazon to obtain the cost advantages typical of economies of scale: the physical logistics and the e-commerce platform get together to give Amazon full information dominance and situational awareness of the market, therefore minimizing overstocking, understocking and avo
Read more