In association with
Logo Logo Logo

The Kremlin’s Little Green Duds

In the decade since the European Union forged a stronger partnership with the Eastern European countries on Russia's doorstep, the Kremlin has tried desperately to reassert its sphere of influence, even launching illegal incursions into Ukraine. Yet it is now clear that Russia's efforts have backfired spectacularly.
Alleged Russian soldiers in full body armor and armed with an assault rifles next to the besieged Ukrainian Military Base in Perevalnoye close to Simferopol, Crimea (Ukraine) on March 5th, 2014. (Photo by Daniel van Moll/NurPhoto) (Photo by NurPhoto/Corbis via Getty Images)

Five years ago this month, a small force of “little green men” – soldiers wearing no national insignia – seized control of a police station in Sloviansk, a small village in eastern Ukraine’s Donetsk Oblast. Thus began the second stage of Russia’s campaign to dismember Ukraine, following its illegal annexation of Crimea that March. As the Kremlin’s own statements at the time made clear, Russia’s goal was to establish a semi-independent statelet – “Novorossiya (New Russia)” – in Southern Ukraine, and reduce the rest of the country into a kind of Greater Galicia.

The pro-Kremlin insurgents comprised an odd mix of nationalist hotheads and “volunteers” from the Russian special forces. Though Russia supplied them with “humanitarian aid” and sophisticated weaponry, the expectation was that they would mobilize popular support to see the Novorossiya effort through to its conclusion.

But Ukraine did not crumble. Following a presidential election in May 2014, it began to repel the invaders and restore order. To salvage at least some of his gains, Russian President Vladimir Putin deployed regular Russian Army forces in Ukraine. And in September, a political agreement brokered by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe – the Minsk Protocol – essentially froze the situation in place, with lines drawn between opposing tank brigades.

The events leading up to the conflict had begun the previous summer, when the Kremlin increased its pressure on the Ukrainian government to abandon talks for a free-trade and association agreement with the European Union. No longer willing to tolerate another neighbor deepening its ties with the West, Putin wanted to force Ukraine into a customs union with Russia, on the way to establishing a Eurasian Union to counter the EU.

The Kremlin pressure campaign went from trade sanctions, financial incentives, and political interventions to outright military aggression in less than a year. But six years later, it is clear that none of it worked. Although 7% of Ukraine remains occupied by Kremlin-backed forces, with defense and humanitarian costs for millions of displaced people weighing heavily on the national budget, Ukraine has made remarkable progress on a number of fronts. It now has a robust free-trade and association agreement with the EU. Following far-reaching economic reforms, its economy has begun to turn a corner. And it has just held the first round of a presidential election that meets Europe’s high standards of freedom and fairness.

The EU deserves some credit for this outcome. It has been a decade since the EU launched its Eastern Partnership, which established a more reliable framework for the bloc’s cooperation with Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. This initiative, it is worth recalling, was partly a reaction to the Russian invasion of Georgia the preceding summer, when the Kremlin tried to dismember that country by recognizing South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states. In the event, not even Russia’s closest allies would agree to recognize those occupied territories or legitimize its invasion. And Georgia not only survived – thanks in no small part to the EU – but has since held two fairly contested presidential elections.

Of course, the larger impetus behind the Eastern Partnership was that Russia’s neighbors in Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus had expressed a desire for stronger ties with the EU. Even so, the initiative never posed any threat to the partner countries’ existing arrangements with Russia. Those that had a free-trade agreement with Russia could have one with the EU, too.

To be sure, Eastern European countries outside of the EU still have serious economic and security issues to address. Each must do more to fight corruption, ensure the rule of law, and open up its economy. And, obviously, frozen or semi-frozen conflicts in Georgia and Ukraine – as well as those involving Transnistria and Moldova, and between Armenia and Azerbaijan (over Nagorno-Karabakh) – will need to be resolved.

But the important thing is that each of the “Eastern partners’” independence has been preserved. Though countries such as Azerbaijan and Belarus are on very different domestic trajectories, they all have continued on the path toward democracy.

This represents a remarkable victory for the EU, given the Kremlin’s massive efforts to force these countries in another direction. Today, a Ukrainian flag flies in Sloviansk, and the little green men who led the attack on its police station five years ago are probably back in Moscow, drunk, disgruntled, and wondering what it was all for.

(Author Carl Bildt was Sweden’s foreign minister from 2006 to October 2014 and Prime Minister from 1991 to 1994, when he negotiated Sweden’s EU accession. A renowned international diplomat, he served as EU Special Envoy to the Former Yugoslavia, High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, UN Special Envoy to the Balkans, and Co-Chairman of the Dayton Peace Conference. He is Co-Chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations.)

(Alleged Russian soldiers in full body armor and armed with an assault rifles next to the besieged Ukrainian Military Base in Perevalnoye close to Simferopol, Crimea (Ukraine) on March 5th, 2014. (Photo by Daniel van Moll-NurPhoto)

Comment here !
Related News

As special envoys on COVID-19 for the director-general of the World Health Organization, we have witnessed firsthand the intensity of

One of the striking contrasts between the Trump and Biden administrations is the debate about whether the presidency has achieved

For decades, the United States – and the West more broadly – stood as a shining example of liberal-democratic prosperity

DANI RODRIK, CAMBRIDGE – Neoliberalism is dead. Or perhaps it remains very much alive. Pundits have been calling it both