Essay on Russia Ukraine Crisis

The Ukraine and the U.S. Governments are similar and different in a lot of ways. The purpose of this essay is to compare and contrast the two governments. The essay will begin with a breakdown of the countries’ governments. Then it will talk about each country’s history and culture. The essay will end with a summary of a current issue in each country.

Vladimir Putin, who is the president of Russia, the man that is held responsible for tearing Ukraine apart into a battlefield. The eastern region of Ukraine withheld a city (Crimea), which became the headlines of all western and global war for its significant role in the Ukrainian-Russian Conflict. This was due to the city that was being fought over by the two countries. As Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin was bashed by the world for being the new modern Hitler; which Hilary Clinton had compared Putin’s strategical methods on this crisis to. She compared it to the similar Nazi’s of 1930; which she had said in her speech at the University of California. Although, no one can really understand why Vladimir Putin was the most hated man of his time. Later it became evident that it was because of the propaganda that was created by the western media and news. We must really think the fundamentals as to why Putin really entered Crimea, and who really is behind the new regime that has settled in Ukraine as well as which part of the world is standing behind Ukraine.

One country is comparable to the United States of America in terms of world power and prominence. Russia makes their name known beginning in World War 2 (WW2), later in the Korean War, Cold War, and today’s proxy war in the Syria. Russia’s culture, environment, politics, military, and economy do not just make Russia a regional powerhouse, but slowly becoming a region of influential power to surrounding countries with the end state of a global superpower. All the factors that make Russia the powerhouse that it is slowly becoming, highlights the impressive trend that supersedes the previous Soviet Union and past leaders.

In all major countries they’ll always go through some type of “revolution,” in order to sort everything out. There will always be a rise and fall in a country’s history and in 1917 it was Russia’s turn to revolt. When the current czar during the revolution said, “I am not yet ready to be Tsar. I know nothing of the business of ruling.” (Doc 1) He wasn’t lying, everyone

While chaos continued to spread across the country, Russia began to eye the territory of Crimea, one if Ukraine’s most southwestern territories and an area that used to belong to Russia until it was transferred to Ukraine in 1954. By the end of February, masked Russian troops without insignias took over the Supreme Council of Crimea and several strategic sites across Crimea. This event led to the installation of the pro-Russian Aksyonov government in Crimea and the declaration of Crimea 's independence. This spurred the Ukraine’s provisional government to request an emergency meeting with the U.N. Security Council in which they called on Russia to stop all military action in Crimea. By Mach 1st, Russia’s parliament approves President Putin 's request to use force

Ukraine is granted a market economy status by the EU and USA. The sharp economic decline in the 90s resulted in deteriorating living standards for most citizens and widespread poverty. However, during the 21st century, there has been some positive economic growth in Ukraine, as well as Eastern Europe as a whole. Ukraine’s currency, the Hryvnia, was introduced in September 1996 and has remained relatively stable. The unstable political situation in Ukraine hardly influences its economic development. GDP has been growing steadily since 2005 at an average growth rate of 7% and industrial production has been expanding by 12%. The Ukrainian economy was hit by the harsh effects of the global financial crisis but managed to attain a 4.2%

the current event that have happened in crimea have left the world watching, wondering what is going to happen next. russian forces have invaded crimea and is currently trying to annex crimea. Crimea, which has a population that is about 60 percent Russian, was transferred from Russia to Ukraine in 1954, when both states were part of the Soviet Union. Crimea is also home to 300,000 Tatars, Turkic Muslims who suffered horribly under Stalin during Soviet times. They are almost all opposed to Crimea's union with Russia, and most boycotted the referendum. Recently Ukraine’s intelligence services identified Russian intelligence forces are targeting the pivotal parts of Ukraine’s government from within Russia. additionally SBU or Security Service of Ukraine identified that the Russian Black Sea Fleet was securing the presence of Russian secret services, national interests, and control over the direction of Ukraine’s political and military

There are many places on Earth that have a disputable history. Crimea is somewhere in the top of those places. This is due to the very complex situations that this peninsula and its inhabitants have faced throughout the history. Undoubtedly, history is one of the complex factors that played a crucial role and ultimately led to the seizure of the peninsula. First inhabitants of Crimea were the Cimmerian people in the 5th century B.C. They were followed by Greeks in the 1st century B.C. and then by Romans in 1st A.D. During the next millennium, the peninsula was overrun by many tribes. Among these tribes were Mongols and the Byzantines. Golden Horde, the Tatars, settled in Crimea in the 15th century. The Tatars are considered Crimean

The current global economic and political climate has promoted the question of whether fascism is on the rise again. Vladimir Putin is one of the few current world leaders who has shown fascist tendencies. Putin’s Russia has many elements that are reminiscent of the early 1900’s fascism. There are many similarities between Putin’s Russia and the fundamental principles of classical fascism. Putin asserts Russian power by putting pressure on weak neighboring states, and slams the West’s criticism of his policies and actions. By annexing Crimea and supporting pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine in 2014, Russia was able to justify “its military-patriotic mobilization of society” and the transformation of Russia into a “besieged fortress” (Motyl, 2016, pg. 29). The annexation of Crimea made Russian citizens feel a wave of vicarious optimism. Putin’s ‘bully’ attitude and aggression are supposed to manifest Russian ethnic and cultural revitalization after decades of decline. Similar to Mussolini, Putin is building his regime on the promises of greatness, the display of military force, and the campaign to make Russia great again. Putin’s actions and policies provide the Russian citizens with a sense of national pride, which has been lacking since the post-Soviet era. He continues to pursue strategies and policies that restore Russian pride while consolidating power and influence in Russia. Putin lacks of interest in engaging with Western politics has also contributed to the rise of his popularity at

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.

It is Russia’s belief that annexations of any kind, under any circumstances, are evil. By definition, annexation is the forcible act of retaining a weaker nation by an oppressive, stronger nation. In annexation, the will of the people in the annexed nation is wholly ignored; no free vote is used to determine whether the people wish to be part of the foreign state or not. This is a wholly undemocratic practice and is representative of capitalist greed, completely separate from the workers’ sense of justice (“Report on

Unfortunately, these were not Yuschenko’s only setbacks. Economic issues, such as rising debt, hurt the Ukraine, and Russia became angry as Ukraine strengthened its relationship with the European Union. In apparent retaliation (though Russia claims this incident to be economically rather than politically motivated), Russia cut off its supply of natural gas in 2006 for a brief period of time because of Ukraine’s “use of row over prices” (bbc). In the same year, changes in the constitution were made, taking some powers from the president and instead giving them to the parliament.

As of now, Crimea is trying to separate itself from Ukraine, and trying to join Russia. When the unidentified, pro-Russian troops took control of the border station, they also captured the fifty Ukrainian border guards stationed there. The Russian agreement with Ukraine states that Russia cannot have more than 25,000 troops in Ukraine, unless the Ukrainian President allows more due to an emergency. However, there has been no declaration of any such emergency, and the estimated number of Russian troops in Crimea is anywhere from 25,000 up to 30,000, and they have reinforcements of 16,000 to 42,000 troops. Russia has also scuttled a cruiser hulk, a tug boat, a diving support vessel, and an unidentified ship to block Ukrainian ships from getting into Crimean ports. With control of the border, and the ports blocked, Russia has walled off Crimea from Ukraine. The Russians have installed the pro-Russian politician Sergey Aksyoov as the Prime Minister of Crimea, along with pro-Russian politician Aleksei Chalyi as the mayor of Sevastopol, which is Crimea’s capital city. So far, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Canada, Turkey, and the European Union have accused Russia of breaking international law and violating Ukrainian sovereignty.

The present day Russian Federation involves a democratic system, given the presence of elections, an independent judiciary, and the supremacy of law. Yet, in democracy, the crux of it involves an inevitable paradox: law limits state power, but the state must have the power to enforce the law. However, finding the balance of the ability to enforce laws, and therefore maintaining order, while not infringing on civil liberties, requires a mutual understanding, a social contract, between the rulers and the ruled. This requirement has not found its place in the Russian political arena, especially since “creating a rule-of-law-based sate out of dictatorship is not easy” (Bressler 2009). In addition, the Russian psyche views authority as a source of force and violence (Yakovlev 1996), an etymological result of a continuity beginning from imperial Russia. Although the Russian Federation, the Union Soviet Socialist Republics, the Russian Empire, and the Tsardom of Russia differ significantly, a strong state remains prevalent in the core of Russian history and politics. In short, the nature of political rule in Russia involves a never ending tug of war between the seemingly undying authoritative soulless entity known as the state and the equally undying Russian people’s hunger for liberty.

Russia’s Return as a Superpower. There are concerns that Russia may once again “reassert itself militarily” (Wood 7). After the original fall of communism in 1991, Russia seemed to be on a path to democracy. Currently the notion of a democratic Russia seems to be fading as Russia “has been centralizing more and more power in the Kremlin” (Putin 2). Regional governors, who were once elected by the people, are now being appointed by Moscow.