From Tuzla to 'Great Russia'

The arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky has largely overshadowed the territorial spat between Ukraine and Russia over Tuzla, a small island in the Kerch Strait that separates Crimea from the Taman Peninsula. But these conflicts are in fact closely related: They are both clear manifestations of the transformation of President Vladimir Putin's Russia into an aggressive, nationalistic police state.

Some 80 years ago Tuzla was connected to the Russian side of the Kerch Strait by a sand bar. In 1925, the bar was swept away by a storm and administratively Tuzla became part of Crimea. On an official Soviet map printed in Moscow in the 1950s, one can see not only that Tuzla definitely belongs to Ukraine, but also a clear demarcation line dividing the waters in the Kerch Strait -- the same border Kiev claims today.

Of course, that old Soviet border separated two republics of one state. But legally the Soviet Union was a confederation with a constitution that allowed secession. After the peaceful demise of the union in 1991, all administrative borders became international ones.

	To Our Readers
	Has something you've read here startled you? Are you angry, excited, puzzled or pleased? Do you have ideas to improve our coverage? Then please write to us. All we ask is that you include your full name, the name of the city from which you are writing and a contact telephone number in case we need to get in touch. We look forward to hearing from you. Email the Opinion Page Editor

Moscow does not seem to have any legal grounds to claim Tuzla (or unilaterally declare the Sea of Azov its "internal waters") simply because it was once connected to the mainland by a sand bar. The unilateral "rebuilding" of an artificial dam in place of the extinct sand bar to "reunify" Tuzla with Russia is a wrongful attempt to seize the sovereign territory of a neighboring state.

The excuse given for Russia's provocative dam building at Tuzla -- the need to stop wave erosion -- just does not ring true. For almost 80 years this erosion was acceptable, but now it has suddenly become an ecological disaster that can only be stopped by annexing Ukrainian territory.

Tuzla itself is, by all accounts, a virtually worthless pile of sand. But the real prize extreme Russian nationalists seek is much bigger. It is the domination of Ukraine, the annexation of the Crimea and, possibly, other southern and east provinces inhabited by ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking Ukrainians.

The building of the dam to "reunify" Tuzla was officially begun by the Krasnodar regional authorities, who are known to be some of the most nationalistic and xenophobic in Russia. But Moscow did more than nod its approval: The Kremlin and government have fully supported the attempted annexation, and military force has been threatened.

The dam has been deemed "a bridge of friendship" over the shallow waters of the Kerch Strait. It is hoped that the confrontation over Tuzla will destabilize Ukraine, and that the Russian population of Crimea (and maybe other parts of Ukraine) will rally against the Kiev authorities and promote speedy unification.

The vast majority of Ukrainians (including Russian speakers) do not want any kind of "unification" with Putin's Russia. However, Russian imperial nationalists do not seem to care -- they favor something akin to the annexation of Austria by Nazi Germany in 1938 to create a "Greater Germany." The simultaneous pillaging of the property of rich Jews (the oligarchy) would seem to fit the picture.

Putin's official address to parliament in May was built around the notion of rebuilding a "Great Russia." Since then the idea of building (or rebuilding) some kind of "empire" has dominated the elite. Khodorkovsky was spending money to promote totally different ideas: that Russia should integrate with the West as a normal, rather than imperial nation. Maybe that explains why he was singled out.

The nationalists led by Putin want Russia to dominate other CIS countries politically and economically. It is thought that the West is too divided, too preoccupied in places like Iraq, and needs Russian help too much to intervene.

Until now Putin has indeed been appeased, no matter what he has done in Chechnya or anywhere else. Attempts to build a strategic partnership with Putin's regime will continue. This week, another Russia-NATO conference on partnership is taking place in Moscow. But despite all the "partnership" rhetoric nothing much has materialized -- either with NATO, the EU or the United States (despite all the friendly summits).

There is clearly a basic flaw in the relationship. Western democracies cannot possibly form stable partnerships or alliances with aggressive, nationalistic authoritarian states like Putin's Russia. Appeasement leads nowhere and integration will not happen, because the underpinnings are totally incompatible.

Pavel Felgenhauer is an independent defense analyst. As of next week, his column will be appearing on Tuesdays.