By Izzet Enunlu,

It is an important question to solve a problem but also quite a limiting one, because the answers for this question are considered facts and are usually uncontested. Once the earth was flat and at the centre of the universe, now we know it otherwise. On the other hand, the question ‘What if?’  holds the facts at bay and allows us to think in a speculative way forcing our brain to imagine and to create, to better understand the facts.

We could ask this question looking at the past, the present and the future. The past events had happened as the history recorded because the circumstances would not allow it to happen in a different way. However, thinking about what would happen if things had developed a different way, could help us to decide how to react in the present and to plan the future. So let’s ask the question ‘What if the West would give a stronger reaction when Russia seized Crimea and the Donbas region in 2014?’

How Would West Hold Strong in 2014?

So the West reacted decisively and strongly against Russia in 2014, but what could be their response?

Their reaction could be similar to what is today and the first step could be to impose much stronger sanctions than in 2014. This way the West's dependence on energy to Russia would be curbed from the beginning. Due to Europe’s declining production of natural gas, Europe’s natural gas imports have increased since 2016. So the sanctions would increase the importance of the development of alternative and renewable energy resources before they begin to rely on Russia in the energy sector. The two years in between would provide a smoother transition for their energy policy. That would also deprive Russia of important revenue, putting a strong pressure on their economy decreasing the popularity of their regime.

Of course every action has a reaction. The Western economy would inevitably slow down but it could be much more desirable than an economic recession expected for the year 2022 and onwards. Moreover it would be a very positive step in controlling global climate change.

The second immediate step after the sanctions had to be security support to enforce and reform its military. Previously, security assistance to strengthen a country's military abilities as in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq had proved to be ineffective. The general scepticism for this type of assistance was well understandable at the time also by  looking at the performance of the Ukrainian army in 2014. The invasion of Russia was more like a coup against the Ukrainian government than an invasion and gave the impression to the West that the standing of Ukraine as a state was not strong, so security aid was small.

However, no two cases are similar. The dynamics and the nature of Ukraine is different from Afghanistan and Iraq. Today we witness that people from different ethnicities like Crimean Tatars and even the majority of Russians prefer to describe themselves as Ukrainian citizens. A national feeling could develop because after the Euromaidan Russia lost its grip on Ukraine, and the old institutions inherited from the Soviet that took guidance from Russia could have been replaced, relying on democratic principles helped the formation of  a distinct Ukrainian nationality. 

Third step would coincide with the present times and would be to grant candidate status to Ukraine by the European Union and to invite Ukraine to NATO.

How Would a Firmer Attitude of the West Could Affect Russia?

As it appears, sanctions though considered hostile are not answered with military response by Russia. Russia is confident in its grip on the energy supply and the influence it creates, so simply prefers to wait for its target to exhaust. Although the sanctions would be stronger than in 2014 in the beginning they would hurt more Europe than Russia. However, in the long term, the detrimental nature to Russia and beneficial effects to Europe would be obvious.

While the West would begin to stand on stable grounds, Russia’s income by selling its natural resources would dwindle. The financial reserves of Russia would be frugal enough not to allow a long military engagement.

Easiest and the most reliable propaganda for the authoritarian regimes to unite their citizens around the leader is to create external threats. The pacific stand of Europe gave the means and also the courage to the Russian leadership to choose this negative strategy. From 2014 to today President Putin created a popular personality cult. If the West could adopt a stronger attitude, today his hold on Russian people would be weaker and the opposition figures like Alexei Navalny and Mikhail Khodorkovsky would have a chance to compete against him.

What Would be the Fate of Crimea?

Crimean peninsula strategically is very important. This importance has been expressed very firmly by Russia, but that does not mean that it is not important for the West. However the West seems not to recognize this fact. Aqyar (Sevestopol) has been a very important port and naval base throughout history. Montreux convention limits the access to fleets from non-Black sea countries. Russia is the only power with ambitions to dominate Black sea, naturally attributes great importance to the region. Today the strong Russian navy thanks to its control on the Crimea can accommodate a large navy and can dominate Black sea. A serious demonstration of this strength is the obstruction of the vital grain supply from Ukraine endangering many third world countries with famine. This shows why Crimea is also strategically invaluable to the West.

Crimea's importance does not only rely on its strategic value. It is also important as a propagandist statement. As a result, to return it back to Ukraine would be considered as a large blunder and no Russian leader would dare to do it. However the pressure that is applied to Russia, could open possibilities for negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. Both countries could agree on a compromise that would enable establishment of a free Crimean Republic. The new republic would pledge certain assurances to both states, possibly sacrificing certain sovereignties. Exiled Crimean people could return and be protected from oppression and assimilation.

So  If the West would Give a Stronger Reaction in 2014:

Stronger sanctions could weaken President Putin’s regime and strengthen the stance of the supporters of democracy. Security aid could transform the Ukrainian army and could discourage Russia from planning future invasions. In that case even NATO protection might not have been as necessary. Crimea could regain limited but meaningful independence.

However liberal capitalism seldom has a long term vision. Short term benefits coupled with pending long term drawbacks nurtures an undeserved optimism for the future. The West buried its head thinking that sacrificing Crimea would satisfy the appetite of Russia. The potential to nurture Ukraine as a strong ally and partner was disregarded.

Today the same danger awaits. Some western countries ponder if the south  and east of Ukraine would be enough to bring peace. As long as  the strong aid to Ukraine is delayed, Russia gets stronger and the resolve of the West weakens.  

As President Zelensky said, it is easier to defend than to take back. If the West will be as short sighted as in 2014, that may mean the sacrifice of the independence of Ukraine. So now we can ask the questions ‘What if the West steps back?’ and ‘What if the West fulfils its pledge?’.