Latent tensions have loomed before civil strife actually irrupted in Ukraine amid deep-rooted political uncertainties. That claims upon the Crimean peninsula would be eventually raised by Putin’s Russia, concentrating troops at the borders and effecting what appeared to be a military invasion, followed by a political validation (i.e. the referendums in the Eastern provinces), were not unfathomable. Yet, in its mitigation attempts the West has failed to appraise the region’s complex history that seeps into centuries of contending geopolitical ambitions, unresolved territorialities and ethnic tensions.
However, regional links and interdependencies are not entirely a Soviet legacy or the emanation of personalistic political narratives, and all too often European political architects have indulged in a zero-sum competition that failed to acquiesce the complex role Russia has played in its proximity, not only in parts of Eastern Europe but also in Central Asia and the Caucasus.
The Crimean Peninsula reproduces to a great extent similar patterns. Its strategic utility has been claimed by neighbouring nation-states and empires, its geography subjected to competing national security paradigms, a Black Sea Sea strategic outpost constantly invaded and annexed, populations displaced and demography altered.
The Black Sea, despite its professed regional status with multiple but largely ineffective attempts towards cooperation, now re-emerges as an arena of entrenched geopolitical competition.
On the backdrop of such concerns, the question of access to a stable supply of resources able to sustain expansive territorial projects becomes the ubiquitous thread. Whether the stabilization of these regions was a strategic prerequisite in preserving or diversifying supply and transit routes, a means to an end rather than an end in itself, remains purely a rhetorical exercise. Conversely, if we ask ourselves whether the annexation of the Crimean peninsula was Russia’s premeditated act or an impromptu action forced by circumstances of instability and uncertainty, would be to the same effect. The very basis for future dialogue would be acquiescing the fact that revisionism stems from the over-politicisation of geography and this has been valid for regional actors and their more distant European counterparts alike. Hence, understanding the region’s complex history would be a modest step towards mitigating the risks of destabilising political actions, that impact on the future of Wider Europe.