The Ukraine Crisis:  Who has caused more problems, the US or Russia?

Introduction

The conflict began in November 2013 when then president Viktor Yanukovych dismissed a deal with the European Union in favor of closer economic and political ties with Russia. This decision led to uprisings and protests within the ethnic Ukrainian population and rejoice among the ethnic Russians. After these protests the president flees, aided by Russia. Eventually these protests led to military action from both sides. In February 2013, pro-Russian Ukrainians seized Crimea, an area located in the south. Days later the Crimean government voted to join Russia, but the results were fixed by Putin’s government. The European community and the US strongly opposed this move and imposed sanctions on Russian officials, notably to retreat from the Crimean territory. However Russia bends these rules by retreating only to the border of Crimea, creating fear that perhaps they were going to try and acquire it once again. An election is held and nationalist president Petro Poroshenko is elected, however voting does not occur in pro-Russian areas. He announces a cease fire which only lasts 2 days. On July 17th, Malaysia Airline flight MH17 is shot down near the border of the Ukraine and Russia. This led to more tensions between the two groups as neither would take the blame. It was later speculated that Russia was supplying rebels with arms as well as sending in troops. Putin, who stated that all soldiers were volunteers, denied this. However, it has been confirmed that conscription is in place. Additionally the US deployed troops to aid the Ukrainian people. A few weeks later Russia seizes a port city, which prompts another cease-fire, which is ignored. Another election occurs in the pro-Ukrainian side, which leads to the Russian rebels holding their own elections, bringing a pro-Russian to power. Fighting shifts from territories to strategic locations, such as the Donetsk airport. The Ukrainians have to retreat, giving the rebels access to the airstrip while allowing them to airlift supplies in and out. On February 12 both sides sign an official peace treaty, however the underlying issues are still present. Poroshenko announces that the majority of Ukrainian troops have retreated however fighting with the rebels continues.

It was a big challenge finding unbiased sources that presented all sides of the conflict equally. It is difficult to decipher the truth when media is so widely used as a tool of propaganda. Additionally, the Ukraine Crisis is a conflict that is complex and multi-faceted. We had to do extensive historical background research in order to understand the issue completely. The resources we chose are of all different viewpoints, because we couldn’t find any neutral articles (which is expected in a political conflict as heated as this one).

Link 1
This article describes the involvement of the US in the crisis. It describes the country’s apparent aggression toward Russia, declaring a ‘new cold war’ policy with the aim of turning it into a pariah state (an outcast from the international community). The article tries to prove that the US’s aggressive attempt to try to maintain the international balance of power by checking Russia’s expansion, is more harmful than Russia’s expansion in the first place. It suggests that the US’s ‘humanitarian work’ sent into the Ukraine is really an attempt to maintain American power, rather than from good will.
The guardian, a renowned English newspaper, is widely known to be reliable. The only fault is that their editorial opinion leans more toward the left side of the political spectrum, and sometimes withholds parts of information to better prove their point. All of the facts in this article are true, but it fails to present the other side of the issue in order to give a full presentation.

Link 2
This article goes against  how the Ukraine crisis is normally viewed. It demonizes the pro-Ukraine anti-separatists who coerced president Yanukovych, who is pro-Russian, involvement into stepping down from power. It calls them “fascist forces” who seized power in an “illegal coup”. It describes how they burnt Russian-speaking protesters alive, and murdered civilians.
The Pravda is a Russian political newspaper associated with the Communist party of the Russian federation. For years, it has been known to be shrouded with distortions and propaganda to support the Russian cause. They accuse the pro-russian separatists who seized power to be fascists, but in reality this is just a blanket term used to demonize because in reality they do not fit the description of fascism.

Link 3
This article describes how the crisis is the United States’ fault. The author makes what he calls a realist case for the inevitability of Putin’s response to NATO and the EU trying to absorb the Ukraine as well as other countries. It says how Putin’s response was expected, as he was only trying to destabilize the Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to join the west. The article asserts how western ‘liberal delusions’ simply provoked Russia, making Putin not the primary instigator of the crisis.
Although John Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago is an intelligent and well-versed man, some of his arguments are flawed. For example, he asserts that NATO and the EU were trying to expand from the start of the crisis, but this is false. They simply played a role in the crisis, but didn’t set it off. However, Foreign Affairs, the magazine in which the article is published, is a widely trusted news source on American foreign policy, stating that “its articles will not represent any consensus of beliefs”

Link 4
This article defends the US right to be in the Ukraine and the illegitimate excuses Russia presents to justify its actions. Former Ambassador to Ukraine, Steven Pifer, and former Deputy Secretary of State, Strobe Talbott, claim that while the US accompanied by NATO have a right to defend the continent of Europe, Russia has no rights to be advancing or mobilizing against Kyiv. Pifer has formulated a hypothetical plan where the Ukraine is given sanctions that allow the pro-Russian citizens to use the Russian language as a means of appeasement. Further they argue that Russia puts too much emphasis on their isolated and patronized past, using it as an excuse to mobilize and expand.
While this article does provide interesting points and opinions, the fact that part of the groups argument is demonstrating a hypothetical solution is an unrealistic answer to a major crisis that needs immediate aid. The article uses many references from NATO members making a definite bias towards the US aid on keeping Ukraine independent. Interestingly Sputnik News has been deemed the Kremlin’s “propaganda machine” by western officials, but this article in particular points out Russian faults.

Link 5
This article claims that the United States are supporting and financing training of troops belonging to the Ukrainian government, some of which are reportedly neo-Nazis and are already participating in war like crimes including beheading. The focus of the article is the ominous nature and lack of upfront information we have about the activity sponsored by the American government and its reasons for supporting the Ukrainian government. There is a clear bias against the Americans in this article as it does not address any of the abuses taking place on behalf of the pro-Russian rebels and uses emotive language to show opinions such as “…filthy lies the US claims to be championing democracy and human rights in Ukraine,” and “suggests that the paramilitary units, most of them created by billionaire oligarchs who financed and recruited fascist and neo-Nazi volunteers.” This article is an editorial that does contain news in it to back up the authors opinions.
We chose this article because while it does show clear bias, it also exposes readers to harsh information we could not find in most articles including many factual quotes that do validate many claims they have argued. The author finds quotes by many leaders from different camps making the range of information it holds very interesting and educated. Over all, this editorial contains enough facts and quotes that although there is a clear and persuasive bias, enough evidence is backing up the major points and there is much knowledge to be gained.

Conclusion

A decision regarding where the majority of the blame on the Ukraine crisis is difficult to make because in many ways all parties are responsible. However, we have concluded that although Russia may be in the spotlight for acts of aggression and invasion, due to the history of the countries involved, it is the US who has the least right to be getting involved. It seems that although America claims to be aiding Ukraine in defending its borders from Soviet forces, the real motivation lies in establishing trading partners and Ukrainian dependency in order to bolster their own economy. As we know, Russia and the US have a hostile past and repressing Russia’s attempts at expanding would seem to be an appealing idea to both the US and NATO. What’s more is that while America claims to be situated in the Ukraine to establish peace they have offered to manufacture arms to forces that have already administered gruesome acts of violence including beheading. Russia has been mobilizing around the borders of Crimea and is eager to expand their borders but we must understand the historic importance of those lands to Russian history. The majority of pro-Russian Ukraine is ethnically Russian and many consider the occupied portion of the Ukraine to be a part of Russia regardless of the borders. Previously Kyiv was the heart of Russian life and it was only through war and annexations that Russia had lost these lands to the Ukraine. That being said, Russia has no right to go invading the borders of another country regardless of if they find it justifiably theirs. The Ukraine crisis is not one that has a right answer and the country is too strongly ethnically divided to please either side currently. A peaceful agreement would be ideal, but unrealistic at this time, and the country will most likely continue seeing bloody revolts and suppression based on the internal division and external pressure placed on the population.