London and Washington knew of the overwhelming desire of Crimeans to re-unite with Russia from the early days of Ukraine's independence. UK and US diplomats predicted that Ukraine would split and that Crimea would look to Russia, British Cabinet papers released to the National Archives in London reveal.

In 1994 the British got a chance to learn first-hand about the strength of pro-Russian sentiments in Crimea. A visit by Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd to Ukraine and Russia coincided with a crisis in relations between Kiev and Simferopol, Crimea's capital. In May 1994, the Foreign Office informed Prime Minister John Major that the Crimean parliament, the Supreme Soviet, had "decided to renew the validity of the Crimean Constitution adopted in 1992". This, the FCO memo said, meant ending the legal status of Crimea as part of Ukraine.

© Photo : The National Archives London Foreign Office report to Prime Minister Major re conflict between Ukraine and Crimea

Crimea had been an autonomous republic within the Russian Federation; in 1945 it was downgraded to a region within the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and was in 1954 transferred to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in what the Foreign Office described as an "administrative fiat of [Communist leader — NG] Kruschev".

The Crimean head at the time was sacked for opposing the move. Most Crimeans never accepted the transfer, which many saw as a "virtual deportation from Russia to Ukraine", and in early 1991 over 80% of them voted in a referendum to restore Crimea's autonomy. The Ukrainian Supreme Soviet acquiesced. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991, the Crimeans began a relentless campaign to reunite with Russia. In May 1992, the Crimean parliament adopted the republic's constitution, which declared Crimea's right to self-determination. Kiev threatened to open criminal proceeding against the Crimean leaders and hinted at military action to stamp out "separatism".

The Crimeans had to put their drive for reunification with Russia on ice. But in 1994 they repeated their attempt and elected their own president on a ticket of re-integration with Russia.

Grass Greener in Russia

The British Foreign Office briefed Prime Minister John Major in May 1994:

"Kiev insisted that the Crimean parliament should rescind anti-constitutional measures, particularly attempts to take over the command of interior ministry forces, the security services and demands for dual citizenship — Ukrainian and Russian". [About 70% of Crimeans are ethnic Russians — NG]

"The Ukrainian authorities see these moves as part of a further push for secession by Crimea, or possibly for eventual reunification with Russia.

If the Crimean parliament refuses to back down they could legally seek to impose direct rule…but it is hard to see how they could enforce this on the ground…"

Crimea, the FCO brief continued, "has always had a special status in the Ukrainian constitution and enjoys considerable autonomy under existing legislation". In fact, Crimea had its own constitution that gave the republic sovereign powers.

The Foreign Office saw the potential for even greater devolution for Crimea, particularly on economic matters, which the central government in Kiev had neglected, despite all the financial assistance it was receiving from the West.

© Photo : The National Archives London FCO memo to PM Major re Crimean drive for re-integration with Russia

"Crimean demands for autonomy or re-integration with Russia will not go away. 70% of the population are ethnic Russians. They only became Ukrainian by administrative fiat of Kruschev in 1954. Their historic, linguistic and cultural ties are all with Russia and at present Russia looks to have a more prosperous future. The two parliaments may be able to come to a compromise, probably involving Crimea gaining further economic autonomy.

This ultimately is the key to security and stability in Crimea. Unless Ukraine embarks on a serious economic reform programme to stem economic decline the grass will always seem greener on the other (Russian) side".

Negative Security Assurance

While in Ukraine, Douglas Hurd was told that Kiev was open to international help in settling the dispute with Crimea. The Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) agreed to establish a resident Mission to Ukraine, to be based in Kiev with an office in Simferopol. The Ukrainians have subsequently unofficially claimed that they were able to handle Crimea without the CSCE's help. "Some might see it [CSCE involvement] as internationalizing a purely internal Ukrainian problem", an FCO memo said.

Russia, the FCO observed, was acting responsibly by calling on Kiev and Simferopol to resolve their differences peacefully.

The British Ambassador in Ukraine cabled London:

"Deputy [Ukrainian] Foreign Minister Tarasyuk, said that president Kravchuk had informed president Yeltsin of Ukraine's intention to resolve the situation strictly in accord with the Constitution and to treat it as an internal matter. Yeltsin had raised no objection. This had encouraged the Ukrainians to think that action up to normal law enforcement measures need not necessarily induce a Russian reaction.

Despite these resolute statements Ukraine has few options and is all too painfully aware of it".

The Americans were also doubtful about the chances of a peaceful resolution of the Crimean issue, but what most concerned them at the time was Ukraine's accession to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Ukraine had inherited Soviet-era nuclear weapons, and Washington — as well as London — was eager for it to give them up for good. However, the issue of Crimea threatened to derail the denuclearization of Ukraine.

"Little cause for joy", lamented the US State Department. "Rada probably resistant to reform and effective decision-making. Crimea on a slow fuse. NPT ratification could be delayed".

© Photo : The National Archives London UK Embassy cable from Washington re US angle on Crimea

Ukraine had signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty but its parliament was delaying ratification, demanding extra security guarantees from nuclear powers, on top of the standard negative security assurance offered by established nuclear powers to states that had joined the NPT regime.

A negative security assurance is a guarantee by a state with nuclear weapons that it will not use or threaten to use them against a non-nuclear state. Unlike a positive security assurance, it does not require a state with nuclear weapons to come to the aid of a non-nuclear state if it is attacked by another state with nuclear weapons.

The Ukrainians insisted on positive security assurance, but neither London nor Washington was prepared to offer this.

In April 1994, the British Foreign Office reassured Prime Minister John Major that the negative security assurances that Britain, alongside the US and Russia, had agreed to give Ukraine in return for her giving up nuclear weapons "does not bind us to any significant new commitments".

"A new paragraph which states 'the sides will consult in the event this situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments' does not require us, we believe, to go beyond the steps which we would anyway wish to take in such a situation".

© Photo : The National Archives London Ukraine security assurance debate

The assurance was less than the Ukrainians would like, the FCO admitted. Kiev had repeatedly asked for a legally binding treaty, something which London and the other depositaries of the NPT had firmly resisted. To counter Ukraine's pressure for more binding guarantees, the US suggested offering the same common assurance to Kazakhstan and Belarus. Both had agreed to get rid of their share of Soviet-era nukes and ratified the NPT in exchange for national guarantees given separately by each of the NPT depositary states. But Ukraine was insisting on a joint guarantee by all three depositaries [Russia, Britain and the US], hence this post-dated offer of a joint guarantee to Kazakhstan and Belarus was designed to "serve as an example to Ukraine" and "help persuade doubters in the Ukrainian Government that this is really the best offer they are going to get".

The FCO advised the PM that a joint assurance to Kiev would add "nothing in substance" and would not "open the flood gates to similar demands from other states".

London and Washington were so worried that Ukraine would have second thoughts about agreeing to give up its Soviet-era nuclear arsenal that they were looking for ways of luring Kiev into ratifying the NPT by promising partnership with the EU.

EU Commissioner for Trade Sir Leon Brittan went to Ukraine to discuss a Ukrainian request that President Kravchuk sign a Partnership Cooperation Accord with the EU in Brussels in the end of May or early June 1994. The request was clearly linked to the timing of the snap presidential election in June-July 1994 [which Kravchuk lost to Kuchma — NG].

Sir Brittan "had been obliged to reply that some member states wanted accession to the NPT [in other words, getting rid of nuclear weapons — NG] before the PCA was signed".

The trade commissioner admitted that such strict conditions might be hard to accept, but it was apparently the only way forward to ratify the NPT and then move on to a PCA with the EU.

Finally, Western efforts bore fruit and in November 1994, the Ukrainian parliament ratified the NPT, albeit with "awkward provisos" in the view of British diplomats. Nevertheless, London and Washington told the new president, Kuchma, that they considered Ukraine's accession to be unconditional. Ukraine was given a joint negative security assurance by Britain, the US and Russia at the Budapest CSCE summit in early December 1994.

Splitting Ukraine

Once the NPT was out of the way, London channelled its efforts into luring Ukraine away from Russia.

The British Secretary of State of Defence Malcolm Rifkind wrote to Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd:

"…the situation in Ukraine merits particular attention and it is in the clear interest of the West for us to make every effort to promote Ukrainian independence and stability. This is a major security interest for the UK, perhaps second only to what happens in Russia. We must take a long term view of our interests".

© Photo : The National Archives London MOD letter to FCO re Ukraine

Kiev took its own view of the way forward having obtained the security assurance by the nuclear states. Four months after the Budapest summit, it unilaterally abolished the 1992 Crimean constitution and deposed the popularly elected president of Crimean Republic, Yuri Meshkov.

His supporters claimed that Ukraine had effectively annexed Crimea through a coup d'etat. They made further attempts to uphold their constitutional rights in 1995, 1998 and 2006, but to no avail. However, as British diplomats opined in 1994, Crimean demands for autonomy or re-integration with Russia would not go away.

An American forecast for the long term developments around Crimea turned out to be prescient: "Ukraine could eventually split into more than two parts", the State Department predicted in 1994. Fast forward to 2014, and it looks like Washington knew all along what would happen if Ukraine was forced to make an existential choice between the East and West.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.

The views and opinions expressed in the article do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.