The West’s nightmare has become true – Russia has annexed Crimea. As much as this may appear to be the result of a popular consensus, it is very obvious that Russia is now laying the bricks of its strategic plan one at a time.

The annexation of Crimea is an indication that it is now time for the West to face up to the reality of a ‘new Russia.’ Yes, Crimea is a very strategic location for Russia. After all, how long was Russia, one of the strongest naval forces in the world, going to continue its presence in the Black Sea by renting a naval base from a foreign country?

Trusting Ukraine to host a Russian naval force was as much of a problem for Ukraine as it was for Russia. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine and Russia agreed to share the Black Sea naval base in Sevastopol. In addition to the annexation of Crimea being strategic, it is also an indication of a new competition between nations and and of a new balance in a new world.

In reality, the process of Putin annexing Crimea despite the West’s opposition, and especially the opposition of the US, was actually a much expected and unavoidable event, albeit one that was left at the mercy of time in the hope that it would be delayed. This unavoidable process could be interpreted as a new era of ‘Cold Peace’ as much as it could be seen as a new Cold War.

First let us look at the US….

The US was well-aware that it could not go on as the world’s sole superpower after the end of the Cold War for much longer. For this reason it could be said that the aggressive US foreign policy was as much as the Democrats’ fault as it was the fault of the Neo-Cons.

In fact, the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan could be read as a preparation for the rise of possible rivals in the region. The geo-strategic occupations of Afghanistan and Kosovo as well as the geo-economic occupation of Iraq shows that this pre-emptive strategy was deployed with prior knowledge. At the same time it could be seen as a receding and retreating America trying to establish a new balance with the least damage and losses possible.

In light of this, even though there is no immediate military or economic threat, the Arab Spring could be seen as a transition to make way for the Muslim world – which hosts an entirely different culture and civilization to that of the West – to join the process of establishing a new model of global capitalism. In terms of geo-strategic interests, by securing the region’s oil and energy reserves, the US aims to maintain its superiority over regional rivals.

In fact, it could even be said that in this period, in which we are witnessing America’s increasingly aggressive and imperialist policy, we are actually witnessing America’s pull-out strategy.

On the other hand, a resurging Russia, which has recovered relatively quickly from the collapse of the Soviet Union, is not delaying taking its place as the new regional power. Although in the past Russia occassionally was forced to step back when opposed by the US and NATO, its recent tactics shows that it is now deploying a new policy. Despite being neutralized in Iraq and Kosovo along with its inability to prevent the economic revolution, Russia gained its first victory in Georgia, albeit a small and regional one.

After testing the West’s inability to act in Georgia, Russia was able to take more confident steps to secure Crimea. Russia is still insistent that it is bound to agreements with the West and international law, but it is very clear that Russia is determined to pick up where the patronage of the West has failed. Instead of displaying a will to divide Ukraine, Russia is opting for a much smaller intervention by annexing Crimea. In other words, instead of challenging the entire world, Russia’s policy is focused on more effective and coordinated steps to protect its interests.

This way, instead of jumping into an ideological war – which no country integrated in the free market should do – we can see Russia adopting a strategy aimed at victory in the fields of nationalistic and economic competition. Putin, in correctly perceiving that the US and NATO would not fight for Crimea, has put forward the first step in gaining such a victory in a short period of time.

At this point one can ask: How can one trust a West, which was willing to forgo the use of its nuclear arsenal and was unable to protect Ukraine, to protect any one else? Can we now expect Russia to forgo its interests in Syria in the face of a West who will be seeking to adopt a new result-focused policy to avenge the loss of Crimea?

As Russia strengthens step by step, the US continues to retreat one step at a time.

�lgili Yaz�larEnglish