The Extension of Russian Sanctions is Ill-advised

The Trump administration, through its UN ambassador, recently stated that the eruption of violence in eastern Ukraine was Russia’s fault and that as a result, sanctions are going to remain in place. This action is likely to be considered hostile by Russia especially considering that the crisis in Ukraine can be blamed on both sides of the conflict. Since the election of President Trump, a considerable amount of optimist has developed in Russia that its government is going to work well with the United States to ensure that some of the most critical issues that are of common interest are addressed. The beginning of such a relationship was to be promoted by a lifting of sanctions, leading to the normalization of relations. However, this hope has receded slightly because of the American decision to extend sanctions.

The sanctions regime against Russia fails to put into consideration that it was the Obama administration, rather than Russia, which started the Ukraine crisis. It was American agents, under the direction of undersecretary of state Victoria Nuland, that instigated and facilitated the so-called Maidan Revolution that led to the overthrow of a legitimately and democratically elected president. Ukraine was not an
d has never been a part of what can be considered the traditional American sphere of influence. Instead, it has consistently been a part of the Russian world. Ukraine, specifically the city of Kyiv, is considered the cradle of the Russian civilization and both Russia and Ukraine consider themselves to be descended from Kievan Rus. The close linguistic and familial ties that many Russians and Ukrainians share cannot be underestimated, and this is the reason why the crisis in Ukraine is so tragic.

Ukraine has a long history of being under Russian dominance and there was a time when most of its eastern parts were known Novorossiya, or New Russia. Its close ties to Russia cannot be denied and it is in Russia’s interests to ensure that it has friendly relations with Ukraine. This was the case until the crisis, encouraged by the Obama administration, took place. The Russian reaction to the revolution in Ukraine was highly restrained because even though its ally and democratically elected president, Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown and a nationalist government put in his place, Russia did not undertake a full-scale invasion. Russia, instead, undertook two measured actions; the return of Crimea without bloodshed, and the provision of support for the rebels in eastern Ukraine. If, for example, a similar circumstance as the Maidan Revolution had taken place in Mexico with the active support of Russia, the United States would have acted to ensure that Russian influence was pushed back because it would have been considered a threat to its nationalsecurity. The fact that there is indeed a rebellion in eastern Ukraine shows that the Maidan Revolution did not have the support of the entire Ukrainian population. Instead, the revolution brought about a situation where the country ended up being dominated by a government filled by nationalist elements that leaned towards fascism. In addition, if it were truly a genuine government, it would have sought to implement the Minsk Agreements by giving the eastern Ukrainian oblasts the autonomy that it had promised; allowing for their participation in the national elections. Currently, the government in Kyiv is dominated by western Ukrainian nationalists that are hostile to any attempts to end the civil war. The result is that it is in their interest to ensure that a conflict with Russian-backed rebels continues in order for them to have some claim to legitimacy. Therefore, it is wrong for the Trump administration to continue sanctions against Russia, which essentially remains an outside actor, because despite Russian support for the rebels, it is up to the Ukrainians themselves to get to the negotiations table and sort out their own problems.