Even if it wants to, can Russia afford to incorporate Crimea into its territory – either economically or diplomatically? Western media is not alone in posing the question. This editorial from Russia’s Gazeta is categorical in its conclusions: ‘No’ and ‘No.’
The non-nonsense Gazeta editorial starts off this way:
Crimea may not turn out as a “triumph of historical justice and Russian neo-imperialism,” as has been said in the State Duma. A delegation from the Crimean Parliament may have been greeted with ovations on Friday, but the question may well come down to how many geopolitical points Russia loses. In a sense, Russia hasn’t annexed Crimea, but Crimea – Russia.
Of the three main options for deciding the fate of the peninsula – annexation by Russia; becoming a quasi-independent state like South Ossetia, or remaining part of Ukraine under the terms of the 1992 Confederation Constitution – only the last would be relatively advantageous to Russia.
In all cases, Crimea would be backed by the Russian taxpayer. A measure of political responsibility for Russia is one thing, and becoming ensconced in profound political consequences another.
On March 6, the Crimean Parliament voted to become an autonomous part of Russia, and has submitted a request to Russian leaders. At the same time, the lawmakers rescheduled a referendum on the peninsula’s status. A plebiscite was first planned to coincide with early presidential elections on May 25, then on March 30, and now on March 16.
READ ON IN ENGLISH OR RUSSIAN, OR READ MORE GLOBAL COVERAGE OF THE UKRAINE CRISIS AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.
Founder and Managing Editor of Worldmeets.US