Rewriting History in Eastern Europe

On June 30, Russia's Prosecutor General began to investigate the legality of the Soviet Union's 1991 decision to recognize the declarations of independence of Lativa, Estonia, and Lithuania, the three Baltic countries now part of NATO. The question, raised by two members of the Duma, is whether the governmental body at the time had any constitutional power to make such a recognition. Although the Prosecutor General is required by law to investigate the inquiry, the premise itself is inflammatory.

(Source: Baltic Travel Services)

Naturally, all three countries instantly reacted with consternation and outrage, having fought to gain independence ever since annexation in 1939. Later on July 1, the Kremlin moved to distance itself from the review, calling it a formality, but also failing to fully condemn it. Unease has existed across former Soviet bloc nations following President Vladimir Putin's comments in 2014 asserting Russia's right to intervene on behalf of Russian-speaking populations in other countries, of which there are significant numbers in the Baltic states.

Overall, this may be a non-story, a request by extreme positions in the Duma blown out of proportion by media reports. The same could be done for statements or positions of an innumerable amount of politicians in the United States. On the other hand, given Russia's recent annexation of Crimea and the simultaneous abrogation of the 1954 transfer of that land from Russia to Ukraine, the request does carry more weight than simply nationalist rhetoric.

The G7 & Russia's Nonchalant Response

So far, this blog has been fairly quiet on the topic of Russia and Crimea (though it did have several previous posts on Ukraine). This hasn't been for any intentional reason, though the topic has been covered in the news fairly thoroughly. It is not trifling to consider that the standoff between Russia and the West contains the hallmarks of future conflict.

This week, the drama entered a new phase when the G8 became the G7. Russia was essentially booted from the G8, to which it has belonged since 1998. It seems unclear whether the expulsion is a disagreement that may be temporary, or if this action is somewhat permanent. Given the severity of the infraction and the tough talk from both sides, even a temporary suspension is unlikely to be short at all. Frankly, Russia does not seem to care.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's comments are particularly telling. Lavrov didn't even really need to use words. His words echoed his actions, suggesting that Russia felt the G8 was simply an informal club to which it had experienced a temporary visit. It's not that big of a deal to leave after all.

How Russia feels is important if tensions are to calm. Russia has never felt it had an opportunity to lead in Western multilateral institutions. It has long sought to carve its own leadership role in its own institutions within spheres of influence it has much stronger control over - historically, economically, and politically. At times over the past few decades, it has sought to spread that influence, but it has always returned home. In a sense, it is a form of atavism.

The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) has been Russia's response to NATO. Russia has reassured its allies in this bloc that they are not expected to be involved in any military action related to Ukraine. While full-scale war is far off, it would be significant. If the CSTO does not exist as an alliance, how far from the Soviet Union is it? Other Russian-led institutions continue to build influence over and connections between its former republics.

Ideally, deeper conflict will be averted and solutions to the Ukraine dilemma will be found. At this time, everyone seems to be prepared for a long, entrenched fight, though the West is not nearly as sure of its next move as Russia is. It would behoove Western nations, and the United States in particular, to give the situation some serious consideration. This kind of chess has not been played in a good while.