Stanislau Bahdankevich: Seizure of Crimea costs less than Russia’s losses

Occupation of Crimea can be attractive from the military and strategic points of view. However, it will benefit Russia neither from the economic nor from the political perspective.

Situation round the Crimean events in the interview with the EuroBelarus Information Service analyses Stanislau Bahdankevich, former head of the National Bank of Belarus and honored member of the United Civil Party.

- Russia has now violated all possible international agreements: Agreement on friendship with Ukraine, on non-violation of borders signed in Kharkov, Budapest Memorandum.

Russia has basically occupied Crimea: 50 thousand members of “self-defense” squads armed with Russian weapon cannot suddenly come from nowhere.

Under the excuse of historical justice, Kremlin has occupied the peninsula. Though before Russia came to the territory, Crimea belonged to Crimean Tatars; and it is only after the Russian occupation that a million of them emigrated to Turkey and 300 thousand stayed in Crimea. This is the historical truth Russia is concealing.

Indeed, the West has violated international agreements in Kosovo; but before Western army moved in Kosovo, 100 thousand people have died in massacre between Croats, Serbs and Albanians. Thus, introduction of NATO army to Kosovo and occupation of Crimea by the Russian army are incomparable.

According to the latest population census, 58% of Russians, 12% of Tatars and 20% Ukrainians live in Crimea. So I don’t believe that Ukrainians voted against their mother country: the results of the referendum show that 97-98% voted for joining Russia.

- Will Crimea benefit economically from the Russian occupation?

- Why did earlier Nikita Khrushchev give Crimea to Ukraine? Because of the economic benefits: Crimea gets electricity, fresh water from the mainland Ukraine. If we think globally, Russia could have engrossed Crimea economically, without military intervention. It is a mystery for me why it didn’t happen.

Russia can invest in Crimea; but somehow South Ossetia and Abkhazia didn’t turn into flourishing states yet.

I don’t think that the losses Russia is suffering now are worth the seizure of Crimea. Even China and Lukashenka didn’t support Kremlin.  

When one nation starts dominating the others it is Nazism; in this sense I see no big difference between Hitler and Putin.

- What benefits does Russia get from Crimea then?

- It gets nothing; Russia only loses its prestige. Russia has spent many years to convince the world that it is not a Soviet Union, not the Evil Empire. But in result it turned out that the Russia of Putin is no better than the Germany of Hitler.

In the economic sense, Russia gains nothing either. There is some win from the military perspective, but none from the national. Russia cannot even dare to hope to become a part of civilized Europe or Eurasian area.

Besides, Russia set a dangerous precedent: now China can occupy the Far East under the pretext of protection of Far Eastern Chinese; and Russia won’t do anything about it.

- Will Russia be satisfied with Crimea or sooner move further to the south-eastern Ukraine up to Belarus?

- The original plan was to cut off as much as possible from Ukraine. Though the unity of the international community might stop the Russian invasion: I bet 70% against 30% that it would stop the invasion.