Carnegie Moscow Center
The crisis in Ukraine may lead to unpredictable consequences inside Russia—from another perestroika to complete collapse.
After the May 25 poll, a new president of Ukraine will hardly inaugurate stability. One can only hope that Ukraine decides its future before it turns into a burnt-out case.
There are many Ukrainians, even in the southeast, who have grown accustomed to Ukrainian independence and would resist efforts to fragment Ukraine and force the annexation or creation of quasi-independent republics.
The new Russian legislation allowing regions of another country to seek to join the Russian Federation gives Moscow leverage over a number of regions. Georgians are worrying that South Ossetia could be one of these regions.
After the end of the Cold War, the West neglected the task of solving the “Russia problem” through integration. Trying to solve it now through economic warfare is not going to work.
It would be better for Russia to reach an agreement with the West on the territorial integrity of Ukraine, coupled with an assurance of its permanent neutrality and a simultaneous accession by Ukraine to the Association Agreement with the EU and to the Russia-led Customs Union.
Putin’s rhetorical shift toward calm and congeniality shows that now Putin is presenting himself as a victor who has formulated and applied the new rules of the game.
The current situation in Ukraine has intensified the long-simmering debate in Finland about joining NATO.
Strong Japanese-Russian relations are economically beneficial and a strategic counterbalance against China’s influence. But the Ukraine crisis and Japan’s U.S. loyalties could have damaging effects.
The European Union continues to be in the back seat of a process that threatens Ukraine and which fundamentally affects the EU’s relations with Moscow.