When I was first learning to speak English, alongside it I was learning to speak Russian. When I was first learning to read English, I was also learning to read Russian. In my life, I’ve generally been exposed to heavy influence by both cultures. So, to me, the cultural divide on the topic of Ukraine’s current conflict is fascinating. I feel that both sides make valid points and both sides heavily overreach. It is remarkable to what extent they disagree and the way in which many are misinformed and uninformed. To provide some basic background, from the Russian perspective, Ukraine is currently extremely heavily reliant on Russia and Russia does much to compensate for Ukrainian political and economic setbacks. This is because Ukraine is valuable to Russia. In general, eastern Ukraine is closely related to Russia, speaking Russian and having close political ties to it. Western Ukraine, which more openly supports European Union integration, is closer to Europe, but has fewer resources of its own and does not have the trade outlet of Crimea, representing over a third of the coast of Ukraine (Although, now, neither does Eastern Ukraine). The Ukrainian government has sparked protest with extreme laws and by representing Russian interests over those of what may be a majority of the country. However, the issue goes even deeper.

The democratically elected president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, fled from Kiev to the east due to the riots there. On the other hand, the protests first gained ground when they essentially were made illegal by an unparliamentary passing of a set of laws on protests. These laws making wearing masks, even peacefully, punishable by years in prison. The laws also criminalized broadly defined “extremist activities,” blocking government buildings, and setting up tents without authorization. All of these laws followed a complete rejection of trade deals including a major free trade deal with the European Union, widely supported by the Ukrainian people (In fact, many western Ukrainians even support joining the European Union). Such deals are clearly in contrast with Russian interests. The laws passed are unquestionable violations of human liberty, yet the Russian government has come out in favor of the government that passed them. Notably, these laws were all repealed only a few weeks after mass protests emerged as a result of them. However, despite this, the president has been ousted. Due to the entanglement of Russia, to maintain Ukrainian political support, they have logically needed to side with the government of Ukraine due to its treatment of the European Union and trade deals. Their major contention is with the attempts at intervention by the west. However, this puts them in the uncomfortable position of supporting other policies that it may not want or need an explicit position on.

The issue with Crimea is also a complex one. The Soviet Secretary, Khrushchev, gave Crimea to Ukraine as a gift during the Soviet Union, presumably under the assumption that it was never going to break apart, first annexed in the 19th century. In reality, the majority of Crimean citizens are actually ethnically Russian and many were born as Soviet citizens in what was then Russia. This is demonstrated by the referendum on March 16, which made Crimea an independent territory, as has been accepted by Ukraine and likely to be soon annexed by Russia. The sanctions imposed by the US against Russia as a result of the conflict over Crimea is also seen by many Russian citizens as another example of an attempt to act as a world police, where they cite other results of US “liberation attempts.” Clearly, the response may be that America's global military policy has resulted in significantly fewer wars for the greater part of a century (Coincidentally, largely due to the cold war) and that rational claims to independence are not universally recognized by the country in the first place, holding several territories that have consistently attempted to separate, also with a different racial makeup. In addition, in noting that Crimea also holds a significant portion of Ukrainian military infrastructure and that Russia doesn’t even have a direct connection to it over land, it becomes harder to argue that it’s purely out of fairness or safety.

It is also important to recognize that, in general, much of Russia’s past economic policy towards Ukraine were discounts, gifts and other deals generally favoring Ukraine in exchange for continued political influence over the country. This is extremely evident in that, after Russia stopped discounting Ukraine’s oil in early March, the price rose by over a third, with over 1.8 billion dollars in gas debt previously not enforced by Russia, and with the extremely significant debts of Ukraine to Russia were forgotten near the end of the Soviet Union in exchange for a few military units. Russia has been certain to maintain this economic relationship and political influence over the country, to maintain its past sphere of influence, for the trading opportunities provided by Crimea, and for increased trade with its neighboring country. It is also notable that the EU acts as a direct competitor to Russia, as the world’s current largest economy. One may ask if Ukraine is thus obliged to respect its alliance with Russia. The most compelling argument for Russia’s continued influence is that the vast majority of Eastern Ukraine is more closely aligned with them, speaking Russian, with an extreme influence by their culture. At least half of the country supports a continued alliance with Russia.

However, this is largely due to the fact Russia has consistently attempted to undermine Ukrainian culture throughout their long and powerful relationship and generally control the country. With the 17th century had a policy of absorbing and Russianizing Ukraine. In 1729, the tsar first made Ukrainian in printing presses illegal. From 1864, Russian was the official language of schools. From 1892, it was illegal to translate Russian books into Ukrainian. Consistently, Russia and the Russian people have neglected Ukrainian as a language and culture. Ukraine has only now left the Commonwealth of Independent States as a sign of independence, already damaging their economy and suggested to reduce investment and said to be affecting their people. Russia has also threatened that it may change its position on Iran if the US does not stop their push to control the situation. This is to maintain a greater amount of control.

Obviously, the issue in Ukraine is complex and there are multiple sides with arguments with merit. In general, Russia has a mostly logical claim to Crimea and has clear reasons to want to maintain its long relationship with Ukraine, but the government of Ukraine is currently corrupt and may not even represent a majority of the country. Ukraine’s freedoms are important and it is fundamentally wrong for an unrepresentative government to instill laws that violate the freedom of expression and protest of the Ukrainian people.