Why comparing Crimea with Taiwan or Kosovo is not valid

How Western leaders got it wrong in 2014    

We repeatedly hear from Russian propagandists that the annexation of Crimea in 2014 was nothing more than similar actions of NATO in Kosovo in 1999. They say if it is possible for one, why not for the other? In the last year, comparisons between Ukraine and Taiwan have also become more frequent. In the West, there is a concern that if Russia's war against Ukraine is successful it will encourage Beijing to resolve its dispute with Taipei in a similar manner.  In the East, they wonder why the Ukrainians can defend the territorial integrity of their state, but not the Chinese? The answer is that the examples of Kosovo, Crimea and Taiwan are totally different, they are not comparable, and, moreover, one cannot justify aggression in the case of another.

Different historical contexts 

Kosovo was part of Serbia up to 1999, until it was separated as a result of A NATO military operation. Independence of Kosovo was declared unilaterally in 2008.

From the early part of the twentieth century, Crimea was part of Soviet Russia within the USSR. In 1954 it became part of Soviet Ukraine. After the declaration of independence of Ukraine, following a referendum in 1991 in which 92.5% of Ukraine’s population, with a majority in every oblast, including Crimea with a 56% majority, voted for independence from Russia Crimea has been part of Ukraine. That was until Russia illegally attempted to annex it in 2014. A subsequebnt sham referendum held by Russia under duress has never been recognised by the international community.

The existence of a separate Taiwan came about as the result of the civil war in the Republic of China. On the mainland, the communist regime was established, which in 1949 announced the creation of a new state, the People's Republic of China (PRC). In contrast, the nationalist regime of the previous Republic of China (RC) remained IN PLACE on the island.

Therefore, if Kosovo and Crimea are or were only “parts” of the states, then China and Taiwan from the very beginning of their separate existence (1949) were separate states. Something similar would have happened as a result of the South winning the American Civil War – one new state (Confederation) and the old one on the territory shared in the past. Thus, there is no point in comparing the situation in China with Kosovo or Crimea. A possible aggression of the PRC against the RC will not be a struggle for territorial integrity, but a new stage of civil war (if you do not recognize the RC) or an ordinary interstate war (if you do). 

Different legal FOUNDATIONS

The Kremlin, due to the lack of legal grounds for declaring Crimea as Russian, constantly resorts to obfuscation with allegedly “historical arguments”. They say, Crimea belonged to Russia for centuries, the majority of its population is ethnic Russians, and its transfer to Ukraine in 1954 is illegitimate due to numerous alleged violations of the law. All these “arguments” do not stand up to SCRUTINY. OVER a period of 3,000 years Russia possessed Crimea for A tiny fraction, less than 6% of the time. Russians began to constitute the majority of the population only after the genocide of the indigenous population of the peninsula through the forced deportation of the Crimean Tatars in 1944. Finally, and most importantly Crimea being part of Ukraine has been confirmed in more than 400 treaties agreed between Moscow and Kyiv in the last 30 years. Therefor, neither from the "historical" or most importantly, from A legal perspective, is Crimea Russian. All claims to the peninsula are A result of the Kremlin's revanchist, colonial and racist policies. 

Kosovo's status causes much more serious disputes in international relations. Currently, only a little more than half of UN members recognize the independence of the country. This situation was a consequence of the way in which this independence was gained, by NATO intervention on the territory of Serbia. However, the 1999 military operation was justified by legitimate fears that the agression of the Serbian security forces against the Albanian separatists in Kosovo was leading to the genocide of Albanians. After the NATO bombing, the Serbian authorities agreed to withdraw their troops from Kosovo, and the region was occupied by an international peace keeping force. 

Occupation versus “occupation”

All this gave the the Russian authorities a pretext to interpret the history of Kosovo as a Western occupation and to justify its attempt to annex Crimea. Meanwhile, the differences between these cases far exceed the similarities. But even if NATO actions in Kosovo were not legitimate, that could never excuse what Russia did when illegally attempting to annex Crimea.

First, the Albanians-Kosovans suffered real discrimination from the Serbian authorities, and during the previous war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Serbian commanders demonstrated their capacity for acts of genocide. The struggle for an enhanced status within Yugoslavia, and later for independence had been pursued by Albanians since the 1980s.

Ethnic Russians in Crimea actually enjoyed privileges compared to both Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians. Only in one of 600 schools on the peninsula was education conducted in Ukrainian and 6 more were bilingual. The Ukrainian authorities not only did not impede, but even tolerated the activities of openly pro-Russian organizations in Crimea.  

Second, even though the declaration of independence of Kosovo in 2008 took place unilaterally in violation of the previous UN resolution 1999, there is no doubt that it was carried out by the Albanians and Kosovans. Advisory opinion that the declaration of independence of Kosovo does not contradict international law was issued upon the results of the proceeding at the UN International Court of Justice in 2010.

IN Crimea on the other hand there was an obvious armed intervention by Russian troops in the activities of local authorities, massive falsifications in the so-called “referendum” and terror against supporters of Ukraine. The attempted annexation of Crimea in 2014 is formally recognized only by one state outside Russia, Nicaragua, and less than 10 countries have made unofficial statements in support of the Russian status of Crimea. For the overwhelming majority of the international community, Crimea is part of Ukraine.

Third and most importantly, although the separation of Kosovo from Serbia took place with the help of the military intervention of Western countries, none of these countries who intervened benifited. Kosovo subsequently established itself as an independent state.

Meanwhile pro-Russian protests in Crimea were organized by the Russian State, which benefited from the attempted anexation of the peninsula, which was formally carried out by Russia in just two days.

Even though the independence of Kosovo caused discussions about international law, it still meant the emergence of a new state through a legitimate process. The annexation of Crimea became the first instance in Europe since the Second World War when one state took part of another of another by force.

It is the inadequate reaction on the part of the West, to the actions of Russia over the last eight years that has led to the escalation of the largest armed conflict in Europe since the Second World War.