The seizure of Crimea

Name
Professor
Title
Date
The seizure of Crimea
Russia grabbed Crimea in an unlawful move that dishonored the territorial veracity of the previous Soviet republic. Russia justified the hostility by declaring that Crimea was generally comprised of indigenous Russians. Presence of Oil in Crimea triggered Russia’s action. Ukraine had begun a program that would see the country self-sufficient and stop buying oil from Russia by 2020. Therefore, Putin’s seizure of Crimea was much focused on undermining Ukraine’s oil diversification strategy to safeguards its national interest (Popovici 12). “Defenders of diverse interpretations and ideas would invariably maintain passionately that the situation they favor embodies an essential course to reserve the state interest, while the position preferred by the challenger would degrade the nation and weaken of its capability to reserve the state interest” (Snow 24).
Though Moscow and Washington have done well in overpowering Cold War conflict, they haven’t developed appropriate cooperative relations. “An enhanced managed bilateral association is fundamental for the progress of America’s vital national interests” (Kuzio 6). “The part the U.S. must play in the resurgence of Russia is a query of American importance in what way Russia return and prosperity toward a further robust status would affect the United States interests” (Snow 34). The seizure of Crimea and the interference of Ukraine by Russia provoked the United States to intervene. Since 1991 when Ukraine reclaimed its freedom, it remained a good friend to the U.

S. on subjects that mattered censoriously for United States security and foreign policy.
The Russian decision to interfere with Ukraine wasn’t anticipated. This is because “Russia cannot produce enough food for itself and Ukraine happens to be its largest external provider of foodstuffs, which gives the Russians necessary grains” (Snow 33). Due to the strong friendship between Ukraine and America, Kyiv accepted to line up its non-proliferation strategy with that of Washington in late 1990s. Therefore, on main foreign strategy issues, Kyiv had indeed been very receptive to United States desires and that merited the interest of the United States. The U.S. had extended safety assurances to reverence Ukrainian liberation and their regional integrity so as to get rid of nuclear weapons. The Nuclear production challenges in Iran or North Korea may require security assurance as a solution. Thus, if the United States discredited the security assurance given to Ukraine, then security assurances would not be accepted or work in other countries. Thus, United States involvement in the conflict served a vital national interest.
Works Cited
Kuzio, Taras. “The Causes and Consequences of Russia’s Actions towards Ukraine.” E-International Relations, 16 June 2018, www.e-ir.info/2018/06/16/the-causes-and-consequences-of-russias-actions-towards-ukraine/. Accessed 22 Sept. 2018.
Popovici, A. “Why Russia Wants Crimea.” 12 2018, www.history.com/news/crimea-russia-ukraine-annexation. Accessed 21 Sept. 2018.
Snow, Donald M. “National Interests and Conflict: Russian Oil and U.S.-Russian Relations.” CASES IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS principles and applications, 7th ed., PDF, Row man & Littlefield, 2018, pp. 23-40.