Review

The Reaction of US and EU to the Russian Federation’s Intervention in Crimea

Volume: 18 Number: 40 August 1, 2021
EN TR

The Reaction of US and EU to the Russian Federation’s Intervention in Crimea

Abstract

While Ukraine was taking willing steps to integrate with the West in the new world order that emerged after the Cold War, the Russian Federation did not want to lose Ukraine, which gained its independence after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, had close, historical and cultural ties with Russia in the past, has a significant Russian population and is an important actor in its close vicinity. The Russian Federation had long been opposed to the Western influence, which increased especially with the Orange Revolution and reached its peak with the NATO enlargement; the Russian Federation has attached special importance to Ukraine, which is in its immediate vicinity. However, the West did not take this discontent of Russia into account and continued its actions against Ukraine. In this context, when Yanukovych rejected the Eastern Partnership program, which the EU offered to Ukraine within the scope of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), regarding the development of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law, the tense atmosphere in Ukraine was exacerbated and the sequence of events that led to Russia’s intervention in Crimea began. After Russia’s intervention in Crimea, the USA reacted harshly and imposed serious economic sanctions on Russia. While the USA aimed to isolate Russia in its region, it actively led NATO in this direction. Being dependent on Russia in terms of energy, European countries followed policies aimed at mitigating the crisis and acted cautiously towards Russia along with the economic embargo. It is thought in the final analysis that the decisive actions of the Russian Federation and the West based on mutual trust will contribute to the solution of the crisis and ensuring stability in the region.

Keywords

Russian Federation , USA , EU , Crimean intervention , Ukrainian Crisis

References

  1. Aksoy, M. (2014). Kriz bağlamında Avrupa Birliği ve Ukrayna ilişkileri. Uluslararası Politikada Ukrayna Krizi, ed. Hasret Çomak, Caner Sancaktar, Zafer Yıldırım, İstanbul: Beta Yayıncılık, 431-438.
  2. Apetroe A. and Gheorghe C. D. (2018). EU-NATO cooperation: Is pesco the answer to the balance of Eu’s regional priorities? Ukraine Analytica, 3(13), 55-61.
  3. BBC. (10 March 2014). Crimea referendum: What does the ballot paper say? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26514797, (Accessed 02 September, 2020).
  4. BBC. (10 November 2018). Armistice Day: Trump-Macron smooth over defence spat. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46162052, (Accessed 22 September, 2020).
  5. BBC. (20 March 2014). Ukraine crisis: US sanctions target Putin’s inner circle. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26672089, (Accessed 03 November 2020).
  6. BBC. (September 15, 2014). How Far Do EU-US Sanctions on Russia Go?. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28400218, (Accessed 28 October, 2020).
  7. Bilener, T. (2007). Ukrayna Dış Politikasını Etkileyen Unsurlar. Karadeniz Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13, 115-132.
  8. Gaddy, C., G. and Ickes, B. W. (10 June 2014). Ukraine, NATO Enlargement, and the Geithner Doctrine, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/ukraine-nato-enlargement-and-the-geithner-doctrine/, (Accessed 15 November 2020).
  9. Caşın, M. H. (2015). NATO stratejisindeki değişim ve Rusya-NATO rekabetinin geleceği. Putin’in Ülkesi: Yeni Yüzyıl Eşiğinde Rusya Federasyonu Analizi, ed. İrfan Kaya Ülger, İstanbul: Seçkin Yayınları, 313-346.
  10. Cerrah, U. (2014). Ukrayna krizinin Avrupa Birliği enerji politikalarına Etkisi. Uluslararası Politikada Ukrayna Krizi, ed. Hasret Çomak, Caner Sancaktar, Zafer Yıldırım, İstanbul: Beta Yayıncılık, 453-477.
APA
Yazıcı, H., & Yıldırım, Y. (2021). The Reaction of US and EU to the Russian Federation’s Intervention in Crimea. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 18(40), 2683-2730. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.884358