The crisis in Ukraine, it's connection with Russian conflict and impact on Europe and world. International Management SS 2016 Roman Rymar 4007576
Table of content 1. Introduction 2. Background 3. Economic causes 4. Foreign Policy 5.Relations with the European Union 6. Relations with Russia and Conflict in Eastern Ukraine 7. Different ways the Ukraine crisis could affect the global economy
1. Introduction The crisis in Ukraine has become a tragedy, as is evidenced by the thousands of people who have been killed, and hundreds of thousands of refugees. It will alter the future of Ukraine, Europe, Eurasia and possibly the world. The crisis began in the fall of 2013 as a public response to the authorities ill-advised policy and the greed of the elite. But clumsy assistance provided by concerned "partners" turned the crisis into a coup, a power grab and subsequent chaos, which quickly spread across Ukraine, one of Europe s largest countries. Months later, Ukraine is still fighting a bloody civil war and humanitarian catastrophe amid an increasingly destructive economic crisis. Ukraine will never be the same again. No one, neither Ukrainians, nor Russia nor the West, needs the old Ukraine. Ukrainians don t need it because it didn t provide them with the necessary development, a better quality of life or national unity. As for Russia and the West, they have no need for a Ukraine that plays with, and sometimes even trades on, the contradictions that exist between them. Ukraine has been a major sore spot for Europe since the end of the Cold War. It was an ulcer that reopened many times as a result of domestic issues, or for lack of attention, or at the prompting of external actors, souring Russia s relations with its European partners.
2.Background Ukraine, comparable in size and population to France, is a large, important, European state. It occupies the sensitive position between Russia and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member states Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania. Because many Russian politicians, as well as ordinary citizens, have never been fully reconciled to Ukraine s independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, there was strong Russian support for the annexation of Crimea and a continuing belief that the country belongs in Russia s political and economic orbit. It has been reported that in 2008, Russian President Putin told U.S. President George W. Bush that Ukraine was not a state and that while the western part of the country may belong to Eastern Europe, eastern Ukraine was Russia s.1 On the other hand, the U.S. and European view (particularly in Central and Eastern Europe) is that a strong, independent Ukraine is an important part of building a Europe that is whole, free, and at peace. In its economic history, Ukraine has evolved first from an agricultural to an industrialized, and then to a service-oriented country. Major industries include coal, electric power, machinery, chemicals, food processing, woodworking, and tourism. The industrialization of Ukraine started in 1930s when it was a part of the Soviet Union. Having inherited a huge industrial potential from the USSR, Ukraine, as an independent country, has lost part of its industrial capacity due to ongoing inner political and economic crises. Dependence on Russian energy supplies is also a problem as are non-economic, social factors, including an under-developed institutional and social infrastructure and corruption, which have further delayed Ukraine's transition to a fully developed industrial/service economy. Since Ukraine achieved independence in 1991, Ukraine s political scene has been dominated by oligarchs (powerful, politically well-connected businessmen, mainly based in eastern and southern Ukraine), which had divided up the country s economic assets among themselves and regularly manipulated the government budget for their own profit. President
Viktor Yanukovych who was elected in February 2010, drew his main support from oligarchs from the Donets Basin (Donbas) region of eastern Ukraine. His government was criticized for high-levels of corruption, in part committed by Yanukovych s own family and close associates. U.S. and European Union (EU) officials expressed strong concern over the government s human rights record, especially the targeting of opposition leaders for selective prosecution. Many observers had believed that, despite growing dissatisfaction with the Yanukovych government beginning in 2013, there was little likelihood of public unrest in Ukraine, given the failure of the government that emerged after the 2004/2005 pro-democracy Orange revolution as well as widespread disillusionment with the political class as a whole. However, in November 2013, the Yanukovych government, under pressure from Moscow, made a last-minute decision to not sign an association agreement with the European Union that would have aligned Ukraine more toward Europe, at least in the areas of economics and trade. The decision sparked antigovernment demonstrations in Kyiv s central Maidan Nezalezhnosti, or Independence Square. Smaller protests occurred in other Ukrainian cities, mainly in opposition strongholds in western and central Ukraine. Observers noted that when government security forces took forceful actions against the demonstrators, public reaction shifted from just protesting against Ukraine s failure to sign the association agreement to the government s lack of respect for the basic human dignity of Ukraine s citizens. In February 2014, when the Yanukovych government embarked on its most violent crackdown against the Maidan, resulting in over 100 persons being killed, it quickly sealed its own demise. The death toll likely caused support for the crackdown in the government-controlled Ukrainian Rada (parliament) to evaporate and, ultimately, the regime to collapse. On February 20, 2014, the Rada approved a resolution calling for the withdrawal of the Interior Ministry and military forces from the streets of Kyiv to their bases. As protestors began occupying government buildings and as the situation in the streets became more chaotic, Yanukoyvch and many of his supporters in the government and parliament fled, including to Russia. After Yanukovych and his supporters abandoned Ukraine, the Rada, now composed mainly of former opposition deputies, rapidly passed sweeping measures to address the unrest and reform the government. The parliament formally deposed Yanukovych as president on February 22 for abandoning his duties. The parliament restored many democratic provisions of the 2004 Ukrainian constitution, eliminating changes made by Yanukovych to strengthen the presidency, and ordered new presidential elections to be held on May 25, 2014. On February 27, 2013, the Ukrainian parliament approved a new, interim government, headed by Arseniy Yatsenyuk, a former prime minister. Despite the rapid changes and formation of a new government, many Maidan protestors viewed the new government skeptically, suspecting that it was nearly as opportunistic and corrupt as the Yanukovych regime.
3. Economic causes The mass protests in Ukraine from December 2013 through February 2014 took place against a backdrop of growing economic challenges. However, the protests were not preceded by a dramatic deterioration of socioeconomic conditions. Moreover, 2010 2012 could be described as a period of social stability in Ukraine. There are echoes of the mass protests of 2004 in the Maidan protests of 2013 2014, not in terms of the social and economic developments of the time, but rather in the aspirations of the working-age population of Ukraine. The challenges facing Ukraine included the perpetuation of post-soviet production relations; shadowy property redistribution practices; pervasive corruption; disregard for the opinions of a large portion of the political spectrum; undercapitalization of the economy; destructive speculation on foreign policy decisions. Chronic recession. Ukraine s real GDP started falling in the third quarter of 2012, immediately after the 2012 UEFA European Championship (Euro 2012) in Poland and Ukraine. The decline of the GDP reached the lowest point with a 2.5 percent contraction in the fourth quarter of 2012 year on year, and stayed at the level of 1.1 percent to 1.3 percent in January-September 2013. In the fourth quarter of 2013, Ukraine reported GDP growth for the first time in five quarters. The country s State Statistics Service estimated total real GDP growth in 2013 at zero percent. That figure was announced in the last days of Nikolai Azarov s government, possibly for political reasons, as the standoff in Kiev and several western regions entered an acute phase. According to the latest data from the National Bank of Ukraine, seasonally adjusted real GDP declined 0.3 percent. The Ukrainian government expects the decline in GDP to accelerate to a fall of 3 percent in 2014.
The budget deficit and social policy. The Ukrainian government chronically ran a budget deficit of 3 4 percent of GDP in order to pursue a positive social policy. Real income in Ukraine grew by 16.2 percent in 2010, 6.1 percent in 2011, and 9.7 percent in 2012. In 2013, real income growth decreased from 7.6 percent at the beginning of the year to 1.9 percent by July. Real wages grew even faster, gaining 14.4 percent in 2012 and 8.2 percent in 2013. The 2014 budget envisioned a 6.8 percent growth in subsistence and minimum wages, peaking on October 1, 2014, six months before the planned presidential election. Growing economic imbalances. The growth in consumption amid an economic recession led to higher imports and declining investments. Gross fixed capital formation dropped by 6.6 percent in 2013, according to the State Statistics Service. In all, fixed asset investment from all sources plunged by 11.1 percent. The net inflow of foreign direct investment was cut in half in 2013, from $6.63 billion to $3.35 billion, according to the National Bank of Ukraine. Growing debt. The key factor that kept recession at bay was the government s policy of allowing foreign and domestic debt to grow. As a result, Ukraine s total sovereign and state secured debt increased by 13.4 percent in 2013, as high as during the economic crisis of 2008 2009, when the economy contracted by 15 percent. Ukraine s aggregate sovereign debt rose 83.6 percent during the presidency of Viktor Yanukovich (2010 2013), reaching $73.1 billion or 40.2 percent of GDP. Direct internal debt grew by 35 percent in 2013 to $32.1 billion, and direct foreign debt went up 6.9 percent to $27.9 billion. About 40 percent of Ukraine s sovereign debt matures within two years.
Loss of international standing. In 2012, the global economy started to grow more quickly than the Ukrainian economy. Ukraine was losing international standing and could no longer hope to join the group of the world s 20 leading economies, which was a major policy objective for President Yanukovich. In 2010 2013, Ukraine s share of the global GDP fell from 0.408 percent to 0.389 percent. The IMF expects it to fall to 0.381 percent in 2014. The Ukrainian government s main creditors are the National Bank and the banking system of Ukraine, investment banks, the IMF, the World Bank and Russia. By the end of 2013, 59.4 percent of internal government bonds were held by the National Bank and 30.8 percent by Ukraine s commercial banks. The government and the National Bank combined owed slightly more than $7 billion to the IMF (after 2010, the release of new tranches under the Stand-By Arrangement (SBA) with the IMF was suspended), and $3.3 billion to the IBRD. By December 31, 2013, Ukraine owed $17.4 billion under Eurobond programs, including the first tranche of financial assistance from Russia, issued in late 2013, and registered as Eurobonds with obligatory placement on the Irish Stock Exchange. Ukraine s total debt to Russia is estimated at between $5 billion and $7 billion (including money owed for Russian gas delivered as of the end of February 2014; the possibility that the Kharkov Accords will be terminated is not taken into account). Low unemployment. Under President Viktor Yanukovich, the unemployment rate remained below 2008 2009 levels, and considerably lower than in some central and southern European countries. According to the ILO, unemployment in Ukraine following the 2008 2009 crisis stood at 8.8 percent for people between the ages of 15 and 70. The overall figure fell to 7.5 percent in 2012, and the unemployment rate for the most vulnerable group of working age men decreased from 10.8 percent to 8.9 percent. The ILO estimated that the number of unemployed has remained relatively stable at 1.7 1.8 million Ukrainians between the ages of 15 and 70, which is 3.5 times more than official unemployment figures. In the third quarter of 2013, only 6.2 percent of people in this age group were registered as unemployed, while the figure for the working age population (18 60 for men, 18 56.5 for women) was 6.7 percent.
4. Foreign Policy. Given the significant domestic problems facing the Poroshenko government, the scope of Ukraine s foreign policy is focused on a few main foreign policy priorities. These include to secure international support for Ukraine s sovereignty and territorial integrity, including nonrecognition of Russia s annexation of Crimea; to reorient its economy as quickly as possible toward Europe; and to seek continued international assistance to ameliorate the country s dire economic situation. In December 2014, the Ukrainian parliament overwhelmingly renounced Ukraine s former neutral, non-bloc status and indicated a preference for closer relations with NATO. After taking office, President Poroshenko requested assistance from NATO for its military. At the September 2014 NATO summit in Wales, the alliance agreed to set up four trust funds to help Ukraine s military in such areas as logistics, command and control, military personnel issues (including wounded soldiers), and cyberdefense. 5.Relations with the European Union. Ukraine has been a priority country within the EU s Neighborhood Policy and the Eastern Partnership for several years. The EU policy is intended to forge a close relationship that encompasses political association and economic integration that could prepare Ukraine for eventual membership in the union. The desire by a least some segments of the Ukrainian public for stronger relations with the EU and the West fueled the initial protests in late 2013 that culminated in the collapse of the former Yanukovych regime. In response to the crisis in Ukraine, in March 2014, the European Commission unveiled an initial support package of 11 billion (about $15.5 billion) focusing on the comprehensive reform process initiated by the new government in Ukraine. The package included 1.6 billion (about $2.2 billion) in macro financial assistance loans to support Ukraine s government finances. The EU also agreed to provide some 1.5 billion (about $2.17 billion) in grant aid between 2014 and 2020 to assist Ukraine s reform efforts. The package includes up to 9 billion (about $11.16 billion) in loans from the European Investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The package also included close to 110 million (approximately $112.5 million) aimed at developing the private sector, including small and medium enterprises. The European Union s main instrument to promote European values (such as human rights, fundamental freedoms, rule of law, political dialogue and reform) and deepen economic ties with Ukraine is the association agreement (AA). The AA includes a free trade agreement with the EU, formally known as a deep and comprehensive free trade agreement (DCFTA). Although the DCFTA further opens potentially lucrative EU markets to Ukraine, it also requires Ukraine to adopt EU legislation and standards and to gradually expose Ukrainian firms to tough competition from EU imports. Approximation to EU norms could also lead to increased foreign investment in Ukraine. The EU and Ukraine signed the parts of Ukraine s association agreement dealing with political issues in March 2014, and the parts dealing with economic issues (including the DCFTA) were signed on June 27. Ratification of the pact was delayed due to Russian threats to block Ukrainian imports from its markets unless the pact was modified to protect Russia s interests. The EU and Ukraine refused to do so, and the European Parliament and the Ukrainian parliament ratified the accord on September 16, 2014. Moscow responded by closing off the import of selected Ukrainian products. However, the EU and Ukraine did appear to bow to Russian threats by agreeing to postpone implementation of the DCFTA until 2016. In the interim, Ukraine was granted unilateral trade preferences from the EU. The association agreement with the EU came into effect on January 1, 2016, with the promise of a gradual improvement in the Ukrainian economy once the trade relationship begins to take hold and matures. As expected, as soon as the agreement
went into force, Russia suspended its own long-standing free-trade deal with Ukraine and banned imports of Ukrainian food. In addition to the aid package and the association agreement, the EU established a High Level Investment Forum/Task Force and created a dedicated Ukraine Support Group, composed of experts from EU institutions and member states in different sectors to provide advice and support to the Ukrainian authorities in the mentioned reform sectors. The EU also committed to help modernize Ukraine s natural gas transit system and to work on reversing the flow of pipelines through Slovakia so that Ukraine can receive gas from the west. Finally, the EU agreed to accelerate its Visa Liberalization Action Plan to allow Ukrainians to travel throughout the EU. 6. Relations with Russia and Conflict in Eastern Ukraine Ukraine was the center of the first eastern Slavic state, Kyivan Rus, which during the 10th and 11th centuries had become one of largest and most powerful states in Europe. Kyivan Rus was eventually incorporated into the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and subsequently into the PolishLithuanian Commonwealth. During the latter part of the 18th century, most Ukrainian territory was absorbed by the Russian Empire. Following the collapse of czarist Russia in 1917, Ukraine achieved a short-lived period of independence (1917-20), but was reconquered and endured Soviet rule until Ukraine achieved independence in 1991following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Although independent, Russian political and economic influence over Ukraine remained strong with Moscow determined to ensure that despite any changes in the government in Kyiv, Ukraine, would remain on good terms with Russia. In some ways, recent Russian perspectives on Ukraine are seen as the culmination of longstanding Russian resentment of the outcome of the Cold War. In 2005, Russian President Vladimir Putin called the collapse of the Soviet Union a major geopolitical disaster. Russian leaders have also asserted that nations in the post-soviet region should remain of privileged interest to Russia. Part of the justification for that assertion is an alleged right to protect Russian citizens and compatriots (persons deemed to be linked to Russia by language, culture, or ethnicity). Moreover, Ukraine has a particularly important place in Russian psychology, according to many experts. Putin has referred to Ukrainians as brothers of the Russian people. Eastern Orthodox civilization, in which Russians see themselves as the leading force, got its start in Kyvin Rus when Prince Vladimir converted to Christianity in AD 988. Russians often point out that their ancestors spilled a great deal of blood to incorporate Crimea and most of the rest of Ukraine into the Russian Empire, and a great deal more to keep it within the empire (and its successor, the Soviet Union) through several wars. Until the collapse of the Yanukovych regime in February 2014, Putin preferred using indirect methods of influence in Ukraine. These included carrots, such as lucrative business deals with Ukrainian politicians and oligarchs, but also sticks, such as de facto economic sanctions and using Russian media (which was and is still popular in Ukraine) to attack uncooperative leaders. Russia reacted with great hostility to the emergence of a new, more pro-western leadership in Ukraine in February 2014 by seizing Ukraine s Crimean peninsula. Starting on February 27, heavily armed Russian-speaking troops poured into Crimea, seizing airports and other key installations throughout the peninsula. At the time, Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed that the troops were not Russian Federation military forces, but only local Crimean self-defense forces. On March 16, the Crimean authorities held a referendum on Crimea s annexation to Russia. According to Crimean officials, Crimea s union with Russia was allegedly approved by 96% of those voting, with a turnout of 83%. Ukraine, the United States, the European Union, and other countries denounced
the referendum as illegal and not held in a free or fair manner. Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a treaty with Crimean leaders on March 18, 2014, formally incorporating Crimea into Russia. In April 2014, Putin suggested that Russian Federation military forces did in fact invade Crimea. Since then, the Crimea front has been relatively stable as the reality of its return to Ukraine continues to fade. Recently, however, an incident involving a disruption in the supply of electricity from Ukraine to Crimea resulted in recriminations and accusations of sabotage and a discontinuation of trade between Ukraine and the peninsula. In addition to Russia s annexation of Crimea, in March 2014, thousands of pro-russian protestors began organized demonstrations in eastern Ukraine, especially in the major cities of Donetsk and Luhansk in the Donbas region and in Kharkiv. Some demonstrators favored union with Russia; others sought only greater autonomy from the government in Kyiv. Demonstrators seized government buildings. They also faced off against pro-maidan demonstrators. Unrest in eastern Ukraine took an even more ominous turn in April 2014, when armed men stormed and occupied key government buildings and broadcast facilities in Donetsk and Luhansk, as well as in Slovyansk and more than a dozen other towns in the Donbas region. 24 The government in Kyiv responded with military force and employed local militias to help push back the separatists. The Ukrainian government said Russian intelligence agents orchestrated the separatists attacks and released video, photographs, and audio recordings allegedly identifying them. Senior U.S. officials and NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Philip Breedlove stated that they believed Russia had played a leading role in the activities of the armed separatist groups in eastern Ukraine by providing arms, troops, and material support. On May 11, 2014, the leaders of the armed separatist forces of the socalled Donetsk People s Republic (DNR) and the Luhansk People s Republic (LNR) held referendums on their sovereignty. According to the organizers, the question of independence from Ukraine was approved by 89% of those voting in Donetsk region and by 96% in Luhansk region, with a turnout of 75%. No international observers monitored the vote, and witnesses reported rampant irregularities. The Ukrainian government denounced the referendums as illegal. In response to the Russian annexation of Crimea and the conflict in the Donbas region, both the United States and the European Union initiated a series of sanctions and travel bans against those
Russian and Ukrainian personnel who were identified as being part of the destabilization of Ukraine (see below). Both the United States and the EU made the full implementation of the Minsk protocol a precondition for easing sanctions on Russia. A particularly violent flare-up of attacks by the pro- Russian separatists against Ukrainian-held territory in late January 2014 and early February 2015 led the United States and the EU to warn Russia that it faced possible additional sanctions for its military intervention in Ukraine. 7. Different ways the Ukraine crisis could affect the global economy Economic Sanctions Top Russian officials and businessmen, mostly in Putin s inner circle, are being hit hard with targeted sanctions for their involvement in Crimea. These individuals face visa bans in the US, foreign asset freezes, and the prospect for further sanctions from other countries. While Putin has personally laughed off these sanctions, they could in the long term embitter some of Russia s oligarchs and billionaires against him as they feel the pinch of increasing sanctions targeted against them. The US and European Community seem ready and willing to employ further economic sanctions to voice their displeasure over Russia s aggression in Ukraine. This could escalate further, as more regions in Eastern Ukraine with pro-russian protesters could potentially follow Crimea s footsteps and be annexed by Russia as well. Tourism The destabilization of Ukraine has affected tourism not just in Ukraine and Russia, but also in other countries such as England. Wealthy people in Russia are spending less on British luxury goods, while Western tourists are avoiding Russia and Ukraine due to the risk of upheaval. If tourism falls in Russia and Ukraine, the unemployment rate could rise in the tourism sector of those countries, further damaging their economies. The Russian Foreign Ministry has even released statements discouraging Russians from traveling to the US for fear of being interrogated by the CIA, which is a rather ridiculous allegation. As the war of words continues between East and West, tourism revenues, particularly in Ukraine and Russia, will plummet and add to their economic woes. Global Economic Instability Recently, the IMF chief warned that the Ukraine crisis could destabilize the global economic recovery if it spills over to other European countries at a time when global economic growth is still weak. The G-7 has also expressed the same concern over the global economic upheaval. With a fragile world recovery and a recent Great Recession, the world is not ready for another global economic crisis, which could lead to a devastating outcome potentially another global economic crash. Global Defence Spending Russia s invasion of Crimea will likely increase Eastern Europe s defence and military spending. This has the potential effect of benefiting the US arms industry, since the US has defence contracts with many European countries. Even neutral countries, such as Sweden and Norway, are considering closer cooperation with NATO in order to increase military spending as the threat of Russian aggression continues. The end result could isolate Russia s militarily if Russia s neighbouring counties upgrade and modernize their own armed forces.
Higher Food Prices With Ukraine being the sixth-largest wheat exporter, investors are speculating that wheat prices will increase, which could further bring instability to the market. Already there has been a rise in sugar, coffee, and soybeans throughout the world. Higher food prices can lead to a slowdown in the growth of economies in two ways. First, with high unemployment rate still looming and food prices on the horizon, people will be forced to allocate funds towards basic necessaries and away from non-essential goods. Second, higher food prices in turn spike inflation rates, which could force banks to react by increasing interest rates in order to offset sharp upward prices. Nuclear Weapons In 1994, Ukraine signed an agreement with world leaders, including Russia, to give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for a promise that their territorial sovereignty would be respected. Russia has gone back on that promise by invading Crimea, and the message it sends to those countries that are pursuing nuclear arms is a dangerous one. The greatest risk to the global economy comes in the form of nuclear weapons ultimately being used as a result of some future conflict. With countries like South Korea, Japan, Iran, and others now more scared than ever at the prospect of foreign invasion, the demand for nuclear weapons has grown. In the end, if countries do expand their nuclear weapon capabilities it will endanger the world economy as a nuclear conflict becomes more likely. The damage done to nuclear disarmament and global stability could be one of the most enduring consequences of the Ukraine crisis.
Bibliography 1. Foreign Affairs, USA, March 3, 2014, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140987/keithdarden/ukrainescrisis-of-legitimacy 2. http://kremlin.ru/news/20366 3. http://kremlin.ru/news/20366 4. http://zn.ua/world/ombudsmen-rf-uveren-chto-evropeyskim-emissaram-net-dela-do-ukrainy- 139525_. html 5. http://www.iiss.org/en/politics%20and%20strategy/blogsections/2014-d2de/february- 1d08/ukraine-russia- 088f 6. http://www.iiss.org/en/politics%20and%20strategy/blogsections/2014-d2de/february- 1d08/ukraine-russia- 088f 7. http://www.iiss.org/en/politics%20and%20strategy/blogsections/2014-d2de/february- 1d08/ukraine-russia- 088f 8. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/06/superpower-capitalist-world-orderukraine 9. http://www.segodnya.ua/regions/donetsk/chislo-zhertv-v-mariupole-dostiglo-semichelovek-519197.html 10. http://news.eizvestia.com/news_politics/full/314-po-zakazu-rossijskoj-propagandysfalsificirovali-shusterlive-kuzhel-video 11. http://www.unian.net/politics/916109-sredi-organizatorov-stolknoveniy-v-odesse-2-maya-byilibyivshiemilitsioneryi.html 12. http://russian.rt.com/inotv/2014-04-22/nuland-posle-zhenevi-rossiya-ne 13. http://www.mk.ru/politics/2014/06/09/rasmussen-nato-pridetsya-imet-delo-s-novymrossiyskim-stilemvedeniya-voyny.html 14. Dmitry Yarosh, Pravy Sektor leader http://zadonbass.org/news/all/message_77205 15. http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/rr900/rr903/rand_rr903.pdf 16. http://orzzzz.com/10-ways-the-ukraine-crisis-could-affect-the-global-economy.html