Introduction
Russia’s wishes to have political control of Crimea are not a recent phenomenon but one that has been present for a long time. However, over the last one month, Crimea and Russia have been embroiled in controversy. This has resulted in the most reported-about East-West confrontation since that of the Cold War. This comes after President Viktor Yanukovic was overthrown in the wake of protests in Kiev, which escalated to widespread violence. The situation worsened when the Crimea Parliament, comprising of ethnic Russians gave a majority vote to join Russia. Consequently, the region of Crimea set a referendum for 16th March. There has since been a standoff, which continues to worsen as Russia’s president, Vladmir Putin, continues to hold his ground that Crimea has a right to determine the destiny of her people. A few incidences continue to cause unrest in the region. One of these is the presence of Russian troops in Crimea and the continued use of surveillance planes in the region. Top European leaders and President Obama have stated that the plan for a referendum is illegitimate because it violates the constitution of Ukraine. They have moved to impose economic and travel sanctions over Russia and its leaders over failed talks to reach a compromise. Overall, this issue is controversial because most Russians see the imposed sanctions by the United States and the European Union as a way of seeking control over Crimea even though “the people” have decided to join Russia. On The other hand, the US and major European countries see Russia as a bully, and suspect its motives, especially with the recent ousting of the Ukrainian President. This paper examines the story of the Crimean Crisis as communicated by three sources: Reuters, The Guardian and BusinessWeek.
Gutterman and Osborn (1) wrote an article on Reuters.com stating that the standoff between Russia and the combined voices of the United States and some European countries is intensifying. They highlight Russia’s warning to the U.S. regarding sanctions that have been imposed on Moscow. They state that the sanctions would bounce back to hurt the United States. The authors use rhetorical devices such as similes and allusions. The authors use a simile to compare the bouncing back of US sanctions to a boomerang. This comes as a group of armed militia, believed to be Russian, attempted to take command of another Ukrainian military base. This story focuses on the confrontational stance that has been adopted by the two opposing sides, saying that this standoff marks the second-most tense exchange that the two countries had ever faced. The author uses another rhetorical device: allusion. He compares the confrontation to the Cold War. In addition, the article refers to a telephone conversation, which happened between President Vladmir Putin and American President Barack Obama, stating that they had still not arrived at an agreement. According to Gutterman and Osborn (1), the result of the failure to come to an agreement between Putin and Obama has resulted in the announcement of sanctions against Russia by the United States. The article earns some credibility through the use of reported speech quotations from different key leaders involved in the standoff. The article is also very detailed, and the authors seem bent on showing the standoff as a conflict which may have serious implications. The shortcoming of this article is that it makes the assumption that conflict is likely to erupt. This is seen through the Cold War allusions and focus on the confrontational stance in the crisis. The article has assumptions but no logical fallacies.
The second article appears in Businessweek.com and is by Tom Lasseter. The author highlights the uncertainties that exist over the Crimean crisis. The author highlights this uncertainty even in the Russian President, Putin (Lasseter 1). He states that parties to the crisis do not really know what they are doing or what the repercussions of their actions might turn out to be. The article focuses more on analyzing what is being said than on what is actually happening. The story reports the exchanges that are likely being made by the US government and those made by Sergei Markov, a Kremlin advisor. In this regard, it is likely to lose credibility as a source of news on the crisis. This article also fails to present actual speech quoted as stated by key officials and leaders speaking about the Crimean Crisis. In addition, there is an assumption that Sergei Markov predicts war in Ukraine. This is despite the fact that Markov does not explicitly say so. There is a logical fallacy when the author portrays Markov as having a different approach to that of President Putin because if that were the case, Markov may not openly say so. In this regard, it does not appear credible as a source of news. The article is well-articulated and uses rhetorical devices such as metaphor: “will shepherd the country.” The word “shepherd” is used metaphorically to signify leadership. Allusion is used when the author states that Russia has not experienced such startling fiction since Dostoyeyevsky’s “two plus two” analogy.
The third article is by Shaun Walker and it appears in the Guardian on 6th March 2014. This article takes an internal perspective by focusing on what is happening in Crimea. For example, the author reports on the voting process that was used in the Crimean parliament, stating that the vote was 78-0 for secession of Crimea from Ukraine. The referendum slated for 16th March is also mentioned as a key point of discussion. The author reports a statement made by the Crimean deputy prime minister, who simplifies the role of the referendum, stating that he considers Crimea to belong to Russia already. The deputy Prime Minister believes that the referendum is merely for the purpose of “confirming” what the parliament had already passed. The author provides evidence to imply that most people in Crimea favor the process of secession from Ukraine. The story is well articulated and contains a wide range of details on the Crimean Crisis. However, the author merely presents speech provided by different leaders in this debate but does not give his interpretation of the events or speeches. Notably, there is little mention of external forces such as the United States, which is a major player in the debate. The many quotations provide credibility to the text. The article uses several rhetorical tools such as allusion and metaphor. Allusion is used when the writer compares the Crimean confrontation to the Cold War. Metaphor is used in “rumors are flying” to indicate the spread of rumors. There are no assumptions and logical fallacies because most of the text written by the author is made up of quotations from different personalities rather than his own original thought.
Conclusion
Crimean parliamentarians have recently voted to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. This may very well be finalized if the 16th March referendum goes according to their plan. Russian leaders, led by their President, have made a hard stand over Crimea, supporting the territory’s decision to join Russia. However, major European countries have joined the United States in branding this hard stance by Russia a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty. This paper examines three articles highlighting three different perspectives on the Crimean Crisis. These articles have different implications. For example, exposing the negative effects of Russia’s stance on Crimea is likely to elicit reactions such as demonstrations against Russia’s entry into the region. Covering the issue objectively is likely to lead to dialogue between the major parties in the disagreement. I strongly believe that Russia should not interfere with the affairs of Crimea. This is because Crimea belongs to a sovereign country. Russia should consult with Ukraine before taking its military troops to this territory. Lasseter (1) is more of a warning than a record of events. He states that it is likely that both parties to the standoff do not know what their repercussions may be. I believe that exchanges should be very cautious to avoid war.
Work Cited
Gutterman, Steve, and Andrew Osborn. "Putin rebuffs Obama as Ukraine crisis escalates." Reuters. Version 1. Thomson Reuters, 7 Mar. 2014. Web. 7 Mar. 2014. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/07/us-ukraine-crisis-idUSBREA1Q1E820140307>.
Lasseter, Tom. "War, Yes? War, No? The Ukraine Standoff as Diplomatic Mashup." Bloomberg Business Week. Version 1. Bloomberg, 6 Mar. 2014. Web. 8 Mar. 2014. <http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-06/war-yes-war-no-the-ukraine-standoff-as-diplomatic-mashup>.
Walker, Shaun. "Ukraine crisis: Crimean MPs' vote to join Russian Federation sparks outrage." theguardian.com. Version 1. Guardian News and Media, 7 Mar. 2014. Web. 8 Mar. 2014. <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/06/ukraine-crisis-crimea-vote-russia-kiev>
