Introduction
The ongoing conflict in Ukraine explains why Russia is being accused of terrorist acts and violations of human rights. The current upheaval began in 2014 when this nation annexed Crimea, a region of Ukraine. After this event, Russia’s military intervention in the country continued for several years. This was fueled by the events that took place during and after the infamous Ukrainian Revolution of 2014. Many international leaders and nations acknowledged that the annexation violated all international laws. Consequently, the actions of Russia forced the members of the G8 to suspend it from the union. This paper describes the potential future of this conflict and how Russia should compensate for the caused damage.
What Should Happen in the Future?
The current situation reveals that Russia has breached the existing Terrorist Financing Treaty. The state has been funding and supporting self-proclaimed armed groups such as the Luhansk People’s Republic and the Donetsk People’s Republic. Russia has also been accused of mistreating different ethnic groups in the troubled Crimean region (Titaev, 2016). The annexation has also been identified as an action that breaches the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). On the other hand, Russia was keen to indicate that its move was aimed at protecting the rights and liberties of ethnic Russians inhabiting this region.
The current predicament has forced the Ukrainian government to sue Russia for its atrocities and crimes against the people of Crimea in the International Criminal Court (ICC). The current tension can be reduced using a number of options in an attempt to protect the citizens of Ukraine. The first one is for the developed countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom to support Ukraine (Karagiannis, 2014). These states can also provide adequate financial support to empower Ukrainian troops.
The second strategy is the use of sanctions against Russia. This approach will result in increased pressure from international and domestic stakeholders. The move will ensure that Ukraine defends its territories. The suggested initiative can force Russia to stop its intervention in Crimea (Nudelman, 2015). Additionally, the strategy will ensure that the United States and other nations such as the United Kingdom are not involved in this upheaval directly.
Different non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the media can help to publicize every human rights abuse committed by Russia. This approach will condemn inappropriate acts such as the downing of the Malaysian plane and the annexation of Crimea (Titaev, 2016). The initiative will attract the support of international and domestic stakeholders and mount pressure on Vladimir Putin. Through the use of a powerful campaign, it will be possible to change this situation and address the challenges facing many people in this troubled region.
The final intervention that can deliver positive results is the use of a “red line”. This concept means that the United States must set a specific date and force Russia to withdraw its troops from Ukraine. The approach will ensure that different rebels are unable to continue their attacks (Cumming-Bruce, 2017). The purpose of this initiative would be to ensure that the conflict is resolved. However, there is a need for adequate negotiation, timing, and coordination of efforts in order to deliver positive results.
How Should Russia Compensate?
The crisis experienced in Crimea has resulted in numerous challenges and issues. For instance, many people have lost their lives and others have been forced to live in harsh conditions. Some of the Ukrainian banks operating in the region were forced to close, thereby losing their business (Nudelman, 2015). This is a clear indication that the decision by Russia has seen numerous changes that continue to affect the people of this nation. It would, therefore, be necessary for Russia to compensate Ukraine if this stalemate is to be addressed.
To begin with, Russia must be ready to relinquish the region of Crimea. This is the case because the decisive vote of 2014 has been observed by many people as an act of aggression or occupation. Many scholars have gone further to indicate that Ukraine must receive monetary compensation from Russia for the illegal exploitation and theft of the country’s assets by Russia (Karagiannis, 2014). The nation has also lost most of its offshore oil deposits. Russia must also be compelled to offer natural resources such as oil as a way of compensation.
It should also be observed that initiatives might have significant consequences on the relationship between the two nations and those of the region. This is the reason why a decisive solution that is backed by the parties should be identified. The ultimate goal is to prevent any form of aggression or war in this region (Khodzhaeva & Rabovski, 2016). The support of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is also critical in order to ensure that the compensation method is appropriate for the involved parties.
Restitution
In regards to the restitution, there are a number of issues that might be taken into consideration. The application of international law is what is expected to guide the nature and future of this occupation. A good case study is that of 1940 when Stalin chose to invade Finland in an attempt to annex the country’s second-largest city and make it part of Russia. This occurrence is what forced the Allies to come up with the UN Charter. This means that the current occupation of Crimea is something that is against this international Law. The occupation of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990 was condemned widely by the global community (Cumming-Bruce, 2017). The current situation is quite complicated since Russia has veto power in the UN Security Council.
After the annexation of a region in Georgia, the Joint Control Commission (JCC) was formed to promote a ceasefire and deal with the ongoing conflict. The commission also facilitated the restitution process and the return of different refugees. This was also the same issue experienced in Kosovo. Every international attempt put in place to promote or support the reconciliation process was quite ineffective or unsuccessful (“Crimea in the dark,” 2016). It is agreeable that the events experienced in Crimea are not unique. This is the case because Russia has been trying to assert itself as a superpower. This has been a message to the West as the nation plans to defend its former territories and pursue its national interests.
If successful restitution is to take place, the international community must look at the ineffectiveness of existing accords and treaties that deal with similar cases. The use of sanctions as an approach has not been fruitful. Khodzhaeva and Rabovski (2016) acknowledge that the involvement of NATO in this region could prepare the best environment for international conflict.
Using the cases of Kosovo and Georgia, the international community must develop an efficient process that is capable of socializing Russia and making it part of this union. The proposed strategy will encourage Russia to compensate victims in Ukraine and return its territorial lands (“Crimea in the dark,” 2016). The move will also make it easier for Russia to appreciate and recognize borders in the region. It should also be acknowledged as a superpower in an attempt to prevent possible conflicts that can undermine global peace while at the same time facilitating the compensation of businesses, families, communities, and individuals in Ukraine.
The Finnish model has been referenced by many scholars. It will be appropriate for Russia and Ukraine to be guided in order to establish close financial and economic ties. This means that the current insecurity facing Russia can be addressed by making it part of Europe (Khodzhaeva & Rabovski, 2016). With this strategy in place, Russia will be willing to restore Crimea as a Ukrainian region and give desirable compensations to different parties or stakeholders.
Conclusion
The above discussion has proved that the increasing insecurity concerns facing Russia have forced its leaders to reassert power in the region. The Crimean crisis is a classical case of Russian state terrorism that is being condemned by analysts and political experts across the globe. With numerous possible solutions in place, there is a need to reintegrate Russia into the European fraternity if the current upheaval is to be addressed. Past case studies have proved that every existing international policy and law might not address this kind of predicament since the nation is a member of the UN Security Council.
References
Crimea in the dark: The silencing of dissent. (2016). Web.
Cumming-Bruce, N. (2017). Russia committed ‘grave’ rights abuses in Crimea, U.N. says. The New York Times. Web.
Karagiannis, E. (2014). The Russian interventions in South Ossetia and Crimea compared: Military performance, legitimacy and goals. Contemporary Security Policy, 35(3), 400-420. Web.
Khodzhaeva, E., & Rabovski, Y. S. (2016). Strategies and tactics of criminal defenders in Russia in the context of accusatorial bias. Russian Politics & Law, 54(2-3), 191-226. Web.
Nudelman, M. (2015). Who owns the Scythian Gold? The legal and moral implications of Ukraine and Crimea’s cultural dispute. Fordham International Law Journal, 38(4), 1261-1297.
Titaev, K. D. (2016). Pretrial detention in Russian criminal courts: A statistical analysis. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 41(3), 145-161. Web.