Taking a Look at the Russian-Ukraine Conflict

Ukraine has been an independent state since 1991 and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the two nations continued to hold close ties. In the past two decades, there have been several significant events affecting the balance of power between the two nations. One of the events was in December 1994 when Ukraine agreed to give up its substantial nuclear arsenal at Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurance. The condition of this agreement being Russia and other signing countries would issue an assurance against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine. Just a few year later Russia also signed the Charter for European Security, the action “reaffirmed the inherent right

George Soros, the multi-billionaire hedge fund manager and founder and chairman of the Open Society Foundations, sees a way to solve the crisis in the Ukraine. Soros, who fled his native Hungary with his family in 1947 because of the Soviet aggression and communist takeover of his country, can relate to what is happening to the Ukrainian people in their resistance to the Russian aggression in their country. Soros makes a couple of proposals that he feels will benefit Ukraine in his that was featured in The New York Review of Books titled “Ukraine & Europe: What Should Be Done?” This article can be found at www.nybooks.com/articles/2015/10/08/ukraine-europe-what-should-be-done/.

The recent annexation of Crimea by Russian President Vladimir Putin has its roots in February of 1954, when Khrushchev, as first secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, marked the 300th anniversary of Ukraine’s unification with Russia by presenting Crimea as a gift to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. As a result, what may well have been part of the power struggle among Soviet leaders after Stalin’s death is closely connected with the present crisis.

Ukraine, once a totalitarian state in the USSR, is now being ravaged by civil war. This war has been fought between Ukrainian Nationalist and Pro-Russian supporters in the Donbass region. This rising unrest can be traced back to the Russian ties that run deep in its Government. This Russian influence is being used by President Putin to incite Rebellion in the eyes of Ukrainians, and it all starts with Ukrainian politics of party groups Svoboda and The Party of Regions

The two countries, Russia and Ukraine, had different reactions towards the armed violence and impeachment of the Ukrainian president. Although the majority of the Ukrainians opposed Viktor’s decision to procrastinate the signing the EU-Ukraine integration agreement, all the ex-presidents accused for its interference with the affairs of Crimean. The former presidents of Ukraine, including Leonid Kravchuk and Leonid Kuchma described the present crisis as Russia’s political interventions designed to interfere with the internal affairs of Ukraine and its relationship with the European Union (Hanschke 1). The people of Crimea have not been seeking for secession from Ukraine, but their interest is to have extended autonomy and rights to govern the Crimean affairs with minimum involvement of the government of Ukraine. Russia, on the other hand, have dismissed the accusation and stated that it is pursuing the interest of the people of Crimea to join the Federation of Russia. Russia holds that the people of Crimea have the power to decide the future of their territory and Russia will be ready to respect their decision. Study shows that about 90

Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, former Soviet republics have been forced to undertake the harrowing task of achieving stability for their citizens and developing their own identities independent from the former hegemon. Some, such as Poland, have been successful in this regard, while others, such as Georgia, have been less fortunate. For Ukraine, a vast agricultural country with centuries-old ties to Russia, answers to the questions of stability and identity have been uncertain ones. In spring 2014, following the Ukrainian Revolution in which pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych was deposed and replaced by Olexander Turchnyov, Russian forces invaded Crimea after signing an accession treaty on March 18. Throughout the year, this conflict escalated with violence between pro-Russian militants along with Russian forces and Ukrainian military and thousands of deaths. The violence in Crimea, where Russians have an ethnic majority of 58%, and eastern Ukraine began to dissipate in late September when Russian military commenced a withdrawal from Ukraine. The violence intensified again in early November when pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine held new elections supported by Russia and denounced by Ukraine, the United States, and the European Union. This is an issue that has vast economic repercussions for powerful eurozone countries such as Germany, whose GDP growth rate fell to 0.4% in the second quarter, and who has 300,000 jobs that rely on Russian

People began blaming the president of Syria- Bashar al-Assad, but he refused to step down. He offered to change the way the country is managed, but the protesters didn’t think that was enough

The primary genre is the blog article from the online newspaper. The author of this article argues that there are many reasons why the crisis in Ukraine happened and that there are many sides to the story. However, he highlights two major views. One view is that Ukrainians got tired of the authoritative pro-Russian corrupt president and decided to fight for their freedom and democracy by supporting the idea of entering the European Union. The other view is that the whole problem in Ukraine is not the president himself, it is his origin. The president is from the East of Ukraine, which is a Russian speaking part of the country that does not want to be part of the European Union and is happy to be part of the pro-Russian trade union. However, many western bloggers and media present only one side of the story, ignoring a big population

In 2014, emergence of two separate entities in the east of Ukraine has reawaken the issues surrounding the provision of humanitarian action in non-recognized entities effectively controlling a territory. If the Humanitarian needs and the effects of wars on civilian population are rarely manageable for the de facto states without external assistance, Humanitarian action may be instrumentalized, hence creating additional challenges for humanitarian actors. The core idea of this paper is to highlight the interactions between the Humanitarian action and its possible instrumentalization in de facto states. Understanding past conflicts, the response given by humanitarian actors as well as their challenges could be useful to grasp current and future humanitarian endeavours in de facto states hence, comparing South Caucasus and Ukraine

The controversial Russian military intervention in Ukraine in 2014 depicts lawless arrogant image of Putin. Putin was responsible for invading Ukraine by deploying more than ten thousands armies in eastern Ukraine for more than a year. The civil war broke in Ukraine. The article, “The World May See An Even Darker Side Of Putin” depicted devastated consequences of war:

The political relations between Ukraine and Russia as the two independent subjects of international relations were established in 1991 after the eighth December of the same year signed the Belavezha agreement between Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, which marked the end of the existence of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as " subject of international law and geopolitical reality "and the establishment of the Commonwealth of Independent States. From that moment we can talk about the beginning of the existence of full political relations between Russia and Ukraine.

The conflict between the Ukraine and Russia is the Ukraine's most long-standing and deadly crisis; since its post-Soviet independence began as a protest against the government dropping plans to forge closer trade ties with the European Union. The conflict between Russia and the Ukraine stems from more than twenty years of weak governance, the government’s inability to promote a coherent executive branch policy, an economy dominated by oligarchs and rife with corruption, heavy reliance on Russia, and distinct differences between Ukraine's population from both Eastern and Western regions in terms of linguistics, religion and ethnicity (Lucas 2009).

However, today “these relations can at best be described as bleak, and at worst headed for outright confrontation.” From Russian point of view, two factors could be critical for worsening of the relationship, especially if considered together. The first is decision to build NATO Ballistic Missile Defense System in Eastern Europe and second is “color revolution” as well as Ukraine wish to join the NATO and European Union. Two additional historical facts shape the West and Russia relationships. The first is “Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine’s Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons” signed in 1994 thru which Ukraine lost all nuclear weapons. The second is “Partition Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet” signed 1997 for period of 20 years thru which Russia and Ukraine partitioned Soviet Black Sea Fleet, and regulated the stationing of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation on the Territory of Ukraine. In 2008, Ukrainian leadership announced the termination of agreements from the year 2017.

This article starts by introducing the historical path of Crimea, then analyzes the impact of Ukraine revolution on Russia, and further illustrates the influence of Crimea Crisis on the relationship between Russia and the Western World. The study ends with policy suggestions for the United States and the West.

In war-torn eastern Ukraine, both the Ukrainian government and the separatists acting on behalf of Russia violate the human rights established in the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.Ukraine has been a nation in crisis since 2013, when then-president Viktor Yanukovych refused to sign an association agreement with the European Union that had been in the works for years, instead choosing to strengthen ties with Russia. This led to a political movement and revolution now known as the Euromaidan, which pushed Viktor Yanukovych out of office and championed their new president, Petro Poroshenko, to sign an association agreement and take the first steps toward joining the EU. Unfortunately,