Galery

1

Anastasia Balezdrova

Hours after more than 95% of the voters in the referendum in Crimea have supported its accession to Russia an avalanche of developments at the political and diplomatic level is taking place in world capitals. While the lower house of Russia’s parliament has announced that it will adopt the necessary laws for the accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation as soon as possible, the European Union and the United States have imposed sanctions on senior officials from Russia and Ukraine, including visa bans and asset freezes.
 
Meanwhile, according to Agence France-Presse, which refers to a European source, the European Union and Ukraine will sign the political section of the Association Agreement this Friday.

GRReporter turned to Theoharis Grigoriadis, Ph.D., researcher at the Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy and an associate professor at the Free University of Berlin Ph.D. to comment on the goals of the two opposing sides and the subsequent developments.

Mr. Grigoriadis, how would you comment on the outcome of the referendum in Crimea?

I think it was expected. Of course, I have reservations about how it reflects the real will of the citizens of Crimea. In all cases, however, it is very strong. Even assuming that there was a forgery, the will of the people in favour of the unification with Russia had been expressed.

What can provoke this development of things?

I think this result gives Russia an open order to join the area, entitling it to use this as a bargaining tool in terms of Kiev as well as of Brussels, Berlin and Washington.

How would you define Moscow's actions in terms of international law?

In practice, the West had also violated international law in the case of Kosovo. The war in Iraq was also a violation of international law. So, Russia is using this precedent. Kosovo is an important argument for its actions.

What is the position of Greece in this situation?

It is split. On the one hand, Athens is not interested in recognizing the separation of territories of sovereign states. Greek foreign policy has always adhered to preserving border integrity. This relates to both the Cyprus issue and Kosovo.

On the other hand, it is necessary to follow the facts - the Greek minority in Crimea and Ukraine in general is of pro-Russian set; most of them live in regions where a Russian-speaking population is concentrated. This fact alone presents a more complex reality of Greek politics.

How would you comment on the pro-Russian attitudes in Greece itself?

I think they are expressed more as a counter-reaction to Germany and the United States rather than as a support for Russia. I do not think that the policy of the Greek government is pro-Russian. It is balanced. If I had to compare it with the policy of another country, I would say that it is parallel in course to that of Germany. I.e. it does not support the imposition of direct and strict sanctions that are supported by Britain and the United States but, at the same time, it does not support Russia's actions either.

I would explain the pro-Russian attitude of society with the fact that Moscow is strengthening its position as a pole in the international community, which is able to impose the results of its actions. For the public opinion in Greece, which has been particularly sensitive to Germany in recent years and which has always been the same to the United States, this is a positive response.

Do you think that the referendum in Crimea is only the beginning of a longer process? Would Moscow gain courage to continue the accession of other regions and where are they?

This depends on the level of negotiations between the West (the European Union and the United States) on the one hand, and Russia on the other, the difference being the fact that it is now holding one additional card in its hands. It believes that it needs it after the change of government in Kiev and will use it precisely to cancel the changes brought by the revolution in Maidan Square.

Russia wants to increase the cost of the support of the West for the interim government as if it is a permanent government. Actually, it is telling the western states that if the government in Kiev is not friendly to Moscow, Ukraine will lose Crimea and possibly other regions. However, if the Ukrainian government intends to work with Russia, Ukraine's state sovereignty is not threatened.

How would the West react?

The economic relations between Russia and the United States have never been especially developed and even less so after the rise of Vladimir Putin. They had some dynamics during the tenure of Boris Yeltsin but it no longer exists, especially over the past 15 years. I think that the accession of Crimea benefits neither the Russian, nor the European economy. No one will gain from this, neither Russia, nor Ukraine, nor Europe, nor the United States.