CRIMEa?

“When the Crimean crisis started, some of the people I know were saying that the West will allow this to happen as Ukraine was not important enough to quarrel with Russia over it. I didn’t believe it, but it seems like truth after all. Putin just bit off a piece of our territory, and no one cared to stop him.”

These words, from Kiev resident Ivan Kovalchuk, sum up the sentiment of many of those observing the Ukrainian Crisis. But is this merely a misunderstanding among the world’s superpowers? What right does the US or Europe have to interfere in historical issues between Ukraine and Russia? And are Russian President Vladimir Putin’s actions truly criminal? Indeed, there is a fine line to be drawn between the right of Russian-speaking Crimeans to self-determination as against the interference of one country to cut a portion of the territory of another sovereign. The justification of recent events (e.g., the toppling of the pro-Moscow Ukrainian President, the sending of Russian troops to Ukraine, the Crimean referendum, and the Russian Parliament’s move to declare Crimea as part of Russia) will constantly remain open to debate. Perhaps the determinative factor in deciding whether Putin’s actions were justified will be from which side of the Isthmus of Perekop one is from.

The Isthmus is a narrow, 5- to 7-km wide strip of land that connects the Crimean Peninsula to mainland Ukraine. It both connects and divides, serving as a border for the people of Ukraine and Russia. Although this geographical division was brought out by nature, the almost surgical incision in language, belief, and political ideologies dividing east from west within Ukraine is man-made. Digging a little deeper, it appears that the sharp division in Ukraine was the result of ruthless ethnic cleansing. In 1932, a famine engineered by Joseph Stalin killed up to approximately 10 million people, mostly in eastern Ukraine. This tragedy —which recently marked its 81st anniversary — became known as Holodomor or “death by hunger.” It is believed that Stalin sent soldiers from Russia to seize and control the agricultural industry in Ukraine. By setting impossible production quotas and confiscating food with the help of armed soldiers, Stalin managed to starve the citizens. Then, beginning in 1933, Stalin encouraged the immigration of millions of deported Russians. The genocide of Ukrainians and subsequent re-population with Russians was so successful that the division remains up to this day. As one pundit put it, “for Ukrainians, EU membership means more than economic opportunities and mobility. It is about distancing themselves from Putin, who is said to revere Stalin, the very dictator who tried to erase Ukraine and managed to partition it, at least politically.”

Be that as it may, there are those who wonder what the practical harm would be in allowing Crimea to become a part of Russia. If the reality in Ukraine is that the land is divided anyway, and that the majority of the citizens living in Crimea are Russian-speaking loyalists who are in favor of Putin’s occupation, then by what right does the international community have to dictate to whom Crimea should belong? On the other hand, many feel this is simply bullying on an international scale. As I mentioned in an earlier column, Crimea was given to Ukraine 60 years ago by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, but the act was merely meant to be symbolic. At that time, Russian and Ukraine were both part of the Soviet Union and so Khrushchev believed it didn’t make a difference who “owned” Crimea. However, the gesture backfired in 1991 when Ukraine gained its independence and Crimea became a part of it. These days, Putin talks of how “in our hearts, we know Crimea has always been an inalienable part of Russia.” Yet is this not a case of “Indian giving”? They made a mistake of giving property in the past and now want it back. In either case, regardless of the sentiments of Russia and even the residents of Crimea, proper diplomatic channels should be the venue for deciding the future of Crimea and not unilateral belligerent military action on the part of a world superpower.

*   *   *   *

Hype:  My four centavos convinced me to try the new NBA Cafe at SM Aura. The entrance was impressive. Interesting basketball paraphernalia adorn the place including the numbered jerseys of the top players of each team (my five year old tried to identify who the players were).  There were so many television monitors that one could easily think you were inside an appliance store. The menu was substantial with typical American comfort food being the main fare. But as were trying to place orders, we were informed many were not yet available since they were still in soft opening mode. The waiter tried to be helpful by suggesting alternatives but one could sense he was still a greenhorn. When I asked for the bill, I was presented with what the waiter termed as the “final score.”  The price of the drinks were easily double that of similar joints and the portions were not the usual generous American size. Given what we ordered, I thought that the results were somewhat lopsided in favor of the establishment. Economically speaking, it may make more practical sense to pay an additional P100 monthly subscription fee for the NBA premium cable channel and order take out food. So my own final tally:  It was more NBA than a Cafe.

*      *      *      *

Greetings:  Birth anniversary best wishes to Aquiles Gaborro, Mario Jonas de Castro, Melody Lardizabal and legendary news anchor Tina Monzon-Palma. By way of an exception, special birth anniversary greetings to Heidi Perez who marked her milestone yesterday. Her positive attitude amidst life’s current challenges should be emulated and celebrated.     

*      *      *      *

“Never to suffer would never to have been blessed.” 
                                                         – Edgar Allan Poe

*      *      *      *

Email: [email protected]