Q&A with Professor John Kopper on Recent Develops on the Situation in Ukraine

On April 24th, I sat down with Professor John Kopper, chair of the Russian department at Dartmouth College to discuss recent developments regarding the situation in Ukraine, especially heightened tensions between the United States and Russia.

JS: The United States has started stationing soldiers in Poland for military exercises. Today 150 soldiers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade landed in Poland and they will be joined by another 450 troops in the next few days. There will also be further military exercises run by the U.S. in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. What does this deployment mean for the situation in Ukraine? Why do you think the U.S. deployed soldiers now?

JK: I think we’re mainly reassuring those countries, and Poland, that being in NATO means something. They’re nervous. Three of them are former republics and they see Putin invading a republic and occupying it. Annexing part of it. Poland was behind the Iron Curtain. Although they don’t share a border with Russia, actually. None of the Eastern European countries do now. The borders are with Belarus and Ukraine. They still fear invasion because, historically, they’re enemies.

JS: Do you think the U.S. is escalating the situation?

JK: No. Not at all. Putin’s escalating this situation. This probably wouldn’t exist without one man. Maybe the whole thing. It’s a chess game for sure, and both sides are trying to get away with something with an escalation that their allies and their populations accept without invoking a destructive situation, which would be war.

JS: Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov claimed the U.S. was “running the show” in Kiev. What did he mean, or is that part of Russia’s information strategy?

JK: It’s definitely spin and he’s appealing to the xenophobic streak in the Russian population right now. They don’t want people meddling in what Putin’s trying them is not just their backyard but their property. I think we virtually have no influence right now on Ukrainian politics.

JS: The U.S. is reportedly considering appointing a new ambassador to Russia. Will this help improve the situation?

JK: No. That’s the short answer. The ambassador doesn’t make policy. What you hope for is an ambassador who’s well enough informed that it’s simply another good voice reporting on what’s going on in Russia and who has the contacts within Russia to possibly make a small difference.

JS: A recent New York Times article claims Russia is demonstrating a new military prowess - one combining special ops troops, cyber-warfare and a mass information campaign. This strategy is much more complex that its military strategy used in Chechnya at the turn of the century. What do you think?

JK: I think it’s technically true. In terms of improving the military, Putin is another example of Russian rulers who model themselves on Peter the Great. It’s the latest westernizing - he’s westerning the military and he’s doing a very good job. He’s sharp enough to know the Western models are the most successful. So he is trying to be like us. On the other hand, the vast majority of people in the Russian army are not going through special ops training. Their general level of training is far below American forces or those of any western European country. Most are conscripts. They live in terrible conditions, they’re demoralized, and looking at the size of the Russian army now doesn’t tell the whole story. A sector of it is increasingly well-trained like its western counterparts.

JS: Do you think the situation will escalate beyond military exercises and ignite into an actual war?

JK: I think it could. I can see a non-nuclear war breaking out in small areas, one after another. I don’t see a major conflagration. I guess I find myself looking at Putin following too close in Hitler’s footsteps in the late 1930s, wanting land, basing it on ethnic claims and knowing that his popularity is largely contingent on that. The Russian economy isn’t doing too well at the moment. I think the difference is countries gave Hitler things because they thought if they gave him one more little piece, that would be enough. We have the example of Hitler so countries aren’t thinking like that now. Today it’s more a case of ‘what can we realistically do to stop Putin?’ and that’s a huge difference.

JS: If you do think that a conflict is possible, what do you think the likelihood of that be? What would need to happen for that to occur?

JK: I think Russia going into NATO countries would certainly force the issue. I don’t know how long NATO could get away with doing nothing without essentially doing nothing. It was brought into existence to fight the Soviet Union. It wasn’t dissolved when the Soviet Union dissolved, so if it has a reason to exist now, it would be to protect Europe from Russia. And if it doesn’t, everyone will assume that means it can’t.​

Part 8 - Q&A with Professor of Russian Victoria Somoff

JS: Do you foresee Ukraine splitting into smaller countries as a result of this crisis?

VS: I don’t think it would split. The areas, even though we might see a majority of Russians or a majority of Ukrainians, it’s mixed. They’re not monolithic. They’re so many ties between people there. There are no neat lines that you could draw that could split. There are differences, but in any country, there are some differences. Cultural, ethnic, linguistic, ideological, but they’re not the reasons to split up. There are all these negotiations with different interests. I don’t see how Ukraine could be split up. As I said, the people who participated in the protests were of all ethnicities. And once again, for Putin, that may be one of his inspirations. For him, it works to think of Ukraine as being an artificial construct that can break along ethnic and cultural lines. That’s what he hopes to do. That demonstrates his deep-seated notion of thinking Ukraine is not really a state. By exercising military force and instigating disturbances in eastern areas, that obscures the picture. If he continues doing that, and if he is allowed to continue with it, then yes, partition would be possible, but it would not be because of Ukraine made the choice. It would be because Putin decided it. Without him in Ukraine, I don’t think Ukraine would split. There are no clear lines that it could follow.

JS: Do you think Russia will retaliate against U.S. citizens living within Russian territories, such as deporting them or restricting their visas?

VS: Once again, if he continues and doesn’t to listen to scenarios and causes Russia to enter some kind of Cold War, then he might. He might put restrictions on peoples’ travel and whether they can enter or exit Russia. If this becomes ideological warfare, it becomes quite possible that he might restrict visas. He’s already targeting certain journalists. As you might know, there were some cases where journalists weren’t allowed to enter. So something like this can easily happen. The first thing he might do is he might limit Russians’ ability to enter and exit, which is now a complete norm. But if he starts building an iron curtain again, then yes, absolutely. He could do that and make it difficult for Americans.

Part 7 - Q&A with Professor of Russian Victoria Somoff

JS: I understood your stance regarding economic and diplomatic responses, but I just want to clarify that when it comes to the military, you think the United States should refrain.

VS: I honestly don’t even know. It’s terrifying to think about it because warfare in the modern world, it’s apocalyptic. It’s impossible. It’s going to be either some kind of cold war or isolation of Russia, which I think that’s where the steps the U.S. is making leads to with the talk of economic sanctions, stopping military alliances and statements from NATO. 

So there’s either going to be some kind of cold war, which might lead to some kind of lack of communication between countries and diplomatic warfare similar to the scenarios we saw during the Cold War. Because if it gets to military, I honestly don’t know how to picture that since Putin has nuclear weapons and he knows that. 

That’s of course why everyone is concerned. It seems like the world is suspended watching and not really knowing what to do because what would you do. Putin has that button. He’s got one hand on the gas and oil which is his control over Europe and he’s got his other hand on the button and that is what gives him the idea that he can go and bully small nations around and the world is stunned and doesn’t know what to do because how can you risk starting the third World War?

JS: Kind of gives the impression that this situation might likely play out like 2008 when the United States didn’t involve itself militarily in the Russo-Georgia war. 

VS: The U.S. did not, because in some way, before the Russo-Georgian war began, Russia was able to use a pretext. It was not a sufficient pretext to engage in war but at least Russia had a pretext of the Georgian government ordering its military to mobilize. 

There is nothing like this in Ukraine. It’s clearly a manufactured pretense, that to make it as anything else, just shows a complete misunderstanding of events or dishonesty. There was not a single case documented against a Russian, and this is in the age of the Internet when information spreads quickly. Everything is being manufactured through Putin’s channels. If you look at Russian television, and he controls federal channels and radio stations and newspapers, they have to make up everything. 

There was no violence against ethnic Russians in the Crimea. There are no refugees from Crimea. It’s just not happening. It’s completely manufactured. If this is not the case for a strong international intervention, then I don’t know what is. What else does dictator have to do to provoke an outrage. 

If the world waits this out and tries to placate or appease him, to find excuses, they can't because there is no excuse at all. During the protests, perhaps, the Ukrainians expected more support but the West was cautious because they didn’t know who was the driving force, who was coming to power, would he be a legitimate president to negotiate with. 

But here, I don’t see how it’s possible to frame it any other way than a complete violation of one country’s sovereignty, and that’s a cornerstone of international law. If this is allowed to happen, then it’s the whole concept of international law will have to be redefined – how we live with each other, and negotiate, and make agreements. I think it’s a very clear case of a violation and a very clear response should be forthcoming or we’ll be in a different world. It’s hard to say what kind of world it’s going to be but it will be different.

Part 6 - Q&A with Professor of Russian Victoria Somoff

JS: The Turkish government granted permission to the U.S. for a U.S. warship to cross into the Black Sea. Building on the idea that, let’s assume for a second, the crisis turns hot and shots are fired, do you think the conflict will remain between Ukraine and Russia just as the 2008 Russo-Georgian War stayed between Russia and Georgia, or do you think the United States might intervene? Or do you think the European Union will enter the conflict at the risk of losing its supply of gas from Russia?

VS: For Ukrainians, it’s a frustrating situation because they sense the reluctance of the European Union to give a more definite response. Such scenarios are terrifying to consider. This crisis is a real crisis, who knows what’s going to happen. No one wants war to happen. It’s terrifying to think Russians and Ukrainians, two very closely related people, would begin killing each other. This conflict will redefine lines, maybe even ethnically. Right now, it’s not an ethnic conflict but it will be if Russians are perceived as occupants and killers in an actual war. 

As far as U.S. interference goes, on the one hand I think there should be a very clear and unambiguous response to what Russia is doing, and perhaps all options besides military should be explored, and they should be explored very carefully. There should not be any hesitation as to what to do. I think the west kind of hesitated during the protests in Kiev. It wasn’t clear who was in charge of the protests. There were fears that it might be some right-wing group leading the protests. 

So Ukrainians don’t perceive much support besides voiced concern about violence from the west. What has been achieved is due to the Ukrainians themselves. They got rid of their corrupt criminal government themselves trying to move towards the west. The west has to meet them halfway. The west has to support them because there are unequal forces. Tiny little Ukraine and the huge country of Russia with all its military power. 

Moreover, Ukraine actually signed the agreement called the Budapest Memorandum in 1994 and it was between Russia, Ukraine, the United States and Great Britain where Ukraine agreed to get rid of all nuclear weapons and become nuclear-free in exchange for protection of its integrity and sovereignty. So the United States, Great Britain and Russia signed that agreement and now Russia has violated it among other international laws. 

For western countries not to interfere, it would mean that a country like Russia could break international law and avoid retaliation, and that no protection would be afforded for the country that trusted in the agreement, which could change the world’s understand of international law and how it works. What’s allowed and what’s not allowed. Other nations are going to look at this and think, “It doesn’t work. We need to have our own weapons. Because in the situation when we need help, when it’s clear to everyone, it’s a very arrogant violation of law but other countries will just say, ‘we are concerned’ or they’ll do little or nothing else.” So some kind of intervention could happen.

Part 5 - Q&A with Professor of Russian Victoria Somoff

JS: Do you think the people of the Crimea want to be annexed or remain under Russia’s sphere of influence?

VS: That’s tricky. Crimea is the population of Ukraine, I think it’s the only region of Ukraine, where the majority of the population is ethnically Russian. It is pro-Russia. Even though there is 24 percent Ukrainians and originally the land belongs not to Russians and not to Ukrainians but Crimean Tartars who were forcefully deported from Crimea in 1944 by Stalin, and then prohibited from returning to Crimea. 

So now Crimean Tartars, who represent, I think, 12 percent of the area’s population, claim the land as an ethnic group and they are very anti-Russian. They have already requested the Turkish Government to interfere on their behalf. It’s somewhat unique in terms of its history, it has a complex historical background and cultural history, and its ethnic majority is Russian. 

That’s what Putin is using as a pretext, to defend the rights of the ethnic Russians, but I think his presence obscures the picture. It’s very difficult to really understand what the people of Crimea want with Russian troops being right there. And so they’ve created this temporary government of Crimea, but it was already formed with the Russian presence there. It doesn’t give a clear picture of what’s happening. 

In order to understand what the people of Crimea would want, and these are things the newly formed Ukrainian government should carefully listen to, and to understand the complexities of this region, that it is different, somewhat, to a degree from other areas, but with Russian troops there, with the pressure, with the blocked airways and blocked military bases, with soldiers in unidentified uniforms in administrative buildings, who claim that Crimea wants to be Russian, it’s not a true picture. 

In order to understand what Crimea wants, Russia has to get out of there. It’s actually two different questions. One question of Crimea’s complexity which has to be taken into account but by Ukraine. It’s a Ukrainian matter and it’s something the Ukrainian government has to decide what to do about it. What Russia is doing, it is violating international law and violating the sovereignty and integrity of another country. It has no business being there and interfering in the question of what Crimean people want. It’s between the Crimean people and the Ukrainian government. 

And then being there makes it immediately inadequate, whatever picture they’re seeing. From what I know there are monitors and representatives from international organizations coming into Crimea to try to understand what is happening because there is no way to get an understanding at all. 

The Ukrainian military has actually shown remarkable strength by not giving in to the provocation. Because it seems Putin is looking at everything for a pretext. Russia is executing full-force psychological attack there and there are many reports from journalist saying Russia is not firing shots but is not allowing the military to function. Russia is blocking the peninsula. It’s outrageous. Russia is supposed to leave and then talks can commence about Crimean complexity, about ethnic make-up, about linguistic make-up and cultural differences, but not with Russian troops there.

Part 4 - Q&A with Professor of Russian Victoria Somoff

JS: Following up on Crimea, I understand the largest, or the most important part, is the naval bases in the Crimea, such as at Sevastopol. Do you think by the end of this crisis, Russia will resort to extreme measures, such as igniting a war in Ukraine with other parties like Ukraine, the European Union or the United States, in order to annex the Crimea? Russia used to have control of the Crimea, up until Khrushchev handed the Crimea to Ukraine. Do you think Putin will make a power play to retake the Crimea from Ukraine?

VS: I think that’s what he’s trying to do. That is what he’s trying to do right now. And I think the world is stunned in a way by what he is doing, and I think that’s why it’s so hard at this point to figure out what will happen. I think that everyone is very concerned, troubled and shocked by what he is doing. I think his intention is clear, although I’m not sure about the form of his specific vision, but moving military troops into the territory of an independent sovereign country is aggressive. 

He has a pretext. He tried to make his case in front of the safety council of the United Nations that he’s protecting the Russian population of Ukraine and that he wants to take the area under control, that Yanukovych is the legitimate president and that Yanukovych asked him to intervene. His intention is very clear. 

He’s not firing any shots yet, but he’s moved his military. He’s blocked military bases. He’s blocked airways. What’s happening is disturbing on so many levels. There are constant reports that say no one really knows. He does want to partition, maybe annex, the Crimea. 

He might even want to create disturbances in other areas of Ukraine like Donetsk, and there are lots of reports about what is happening in eastern Ukraine, saying that pro-Russian activists are suddenly becoming more powerful and active and that they were quiet and mostly talking during the protests but now they feel supported and encouraged. Putin’s ambition may go ever farther but what would happen depends to a great degree on how the world responds.

Part 3 - Q&A with Professor of Russian Victoria Somoff

JS: Is there a strong resentment from Ukrainians towards Russians? Do you think Ukrainians perceive Russia’s actions as trying to reassert its former dominance from when it was the Soviet Union?

VS: I would say yes to your second question, but I think it is important, and I believe speaking in English makes it harder to differentiate, but when you’re asking Ukrainians versus Russians, it seems the conflict is framed in ethnic, linguistic or cultural terms, as if it’s ethnic Russians against ethnic Ukrainians, but it’s not what the conflict is about, and in Russian, you can say Russian meaning ‘related to the state’ by saying rossiskii or you can say russkii meaning the ethnic group and that would be something different. And the Ukrainian protest is anti-rossiskii, anti-Russia as a state. It’s not against ethnic Russians.

I think it’s important to see this difference, and even though there’s an overlap between the two, and yes, large support from Yanukovych comes from ethnic Russians in the east and opposition from ethnic Ukrainians in the west, but the origins of the protest itself isn’t against ethnic Russians, it’s against Putin’s regime. 

It’s against Russia as a state. It’s against Russia’s attempt, as you said, to assert control over Ukraine, to view Ukraine within its sphere of influence as a satellite state that is now trying to pull away. That’s where the protest comes in – to oppose that political direction of Russia rather than ethnic Russians. 

And it’s framing the conflict in ethnic terms that is precisely what Putin is trying to do when he claims that an intervention in the Crimea is to protect ethnic Russians. It works for him to see this conflict as a conflict between ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Russians, but it is not. 

And now Maidon has declared independence. Now Maidon is a word for independence. It is a word that is used to indicate a protest. Maidon means ‘square’ in Ukrainian but now it’s a common word because maidons were opened everywhere. They are spaces where people can protest the government.

JS: Similar to how people might use “Waterloo” to indicate a person’s downfall?

VS: Exactly. On Facebook, the page that was providing all the updates is called EuroMaidon, or European Maidon, and an opposing movement was called anti-maidon. Or when people used cars or transportation in various ways to help set up the protest where called auto-maidon. Maidons have had people of all ethnic groups – Russians, Ukrainians, Russian speakers and more. It’s not an ethnic conflict and I think that’s crucial to understand. 

And to your second question, yes, absolutely. I think that’s what Putin’s government is trying to do. It’s a real threat to Russia’s geopolitical standing. It doesn’t want Ukraine to pull away from its sphere of influence and I would say yeah, he’s trying to exert his influence with what he has. And I guess he didn’t expect the protest to go that far and to be that powerful, and for people to really stand for what they were fighting for and not to leave the streets for months. 

It’s one of the most long-lasting protests in European history. They’ve been there since November. Right through the winter, sub-zero temperatures, police attacks and sniper attacks at the end. I think Putin did not expect that was going to happen. He can’t stand Ukraine going away.