Beyond Crimea: The New Russian Empire

The final stage of the trajectory is either formal or de facto annexation of the territories where compatriots reside. However, Russia’s reimperialization of post-Soviet territories and the policies that can result in annexation should be understood as an ongoing, long-term process rather than a final step. In this process human rights violations, protection, and the right to self-determination are evoked. Polls may be conducted and referendums held. Even the rapid referendum in and annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea belies the fact that Moscow’s policies of passportization had been under way in the peninsula for many years before, as will be demonstrated in Chapter 4. The variation in timing and conditions of Russia’s efforts of territorial expansion across the post-Soviet space does not diminish the consistency of Russia’s aim of extending its power over or taking over former Soviet territories where Russian compatriots reside. The propaganda for protecting Russian compatriots facilitates Russia’s search for a modern-day version of the Anschluss, in which Nazi Germany invaded and incorporated Austria in accordance with its propaganda campaign for uniting ethnic Germans and the territories where they resided in a single state.

To date, Crimea is the sole case of outright annexation. It is a unique case, Moscow’s defenders may argue, because fifty years ago, this originally Tatar territory was part of the Russian state. By contrast, Moscow has still not recognized Transnistria’s independence nor tried to annex the territory, despite the fact that it declared its independence from Moldova in 1990. Nonetheless, albeit internationally unrecognized (except by South Ossetia and Abkhazia), Transnistria has in effect become Moscow’s puppet territory. Georgia’s South Ossetia and Abkhazia have declared independence and both are now seeking closer integration with the Russian Federation. Ukraine’s militant-run Luhansk and Donetsk, self-proclaimed “people’s republics” are likely to follow in the footsteps of South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Transnistria. The separatist forces in the two conflict zones in Ukraine are largely armed, manned, and supported by Russia (in spite of Moscow’s denials), and the separatists’ “independence” may in the future even gain Moscow’s official recognition, if not lead to annexation.

Despite the Kremlin’s assertions of the right to protect compatriots and citizens anywhere in the world, and especially in the near abroad, it has shown some reluctance and caution about officially sending in armed forces for this purpose or for annexation. The Russian military engaged the Georgian forces in South Ossetia and Abkhazia but insisted it did so only after Tbilisi sent in troops to recapture the rebel territories. In Ukraine, Moscow preferred to rely on hybrid warfare. It is very telling that even by mid-2015, despite all evidence to the contrary, the Kremlin has refused to admit both domestically and internationally that Russian armed forces were fighting in eastern Ukraine. Instead, high-ranking Russian officials such as Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russia’s envoy to the UN Vitaly Churkin have argued that the Russian soldiers who were fighting in Ukraine’s Donbas region were merely volunteers.¹²⁸ Likewise, Russian soldiers on the ground explain that they are simply spending their vacation days in eastern Ukraine and personally support the activities of the separatists.¹²⁹ The purpose of such a narrative has been to consistently deny Russian military interference and characterize the war as a conflict between Kiev and a group of local, home-grown rebels rather than Russian forces. Furthermore, in May 2015, Putin issued a decree to the effect that deaths of Russian soldiers or injuries to them occurring in the course of “special operations” can be classified as military secrets, even in peacetime.¹³⁰ This effectively blocked any public inquiries regarding the involvement of Russian soldiers in Ukraine and the resulting casualties.