The key issue is not the return of Crimea into Ukraine’s lap. European countries need to come to an agreement with Russia in order to stop the catastrophe from spreading to Eastern Ukraine, which is not a homogeneous region.

       Angela Merkel and Vladimir Putin have known each other for 10 years, and Putin seems to see Merkel as one of the most respected European politicians. They discussed problems and searched for compromise solutions even at the most difficult times. Hence, there is hope that German diplomacy will help maintain a platform for dialogue with Russia in the dramatic Ukrainian conflict, which I consider to be the worst in the past 50 years.

       The EU must avoid sliding back into a cold war. Poland and the United States, which are aware of this danger, have given Germany the leading role in relations with Russia. German diplomacy has accepted this task and responsibility for developments in Europe.

       It is important to remember that the member states of the European Union are obliged to speak as one and to seek a solution that would suit all members. The post-Warsaw Pact countries, which are accusing Russia of deliberate and planned restoration of the empire and of inroads into Europe, are being overemotional. This may be an extreme view, but it has a right to exist. As for Western Europe, it does not see the current situation as too dramatic but considers Russia’s actions to absorb Crimea as unacceptable.

       The EU describes the process as annexation, whereas Russia presents it as the incorporation of the peninsula’s Russian population.

       The EU cannot remain aloof in this situation. The main issue on Europe’s agenda is how to respond to Russia’s actions and what sanctions to adopt against it. Business is in favor of treading softly to prevent damage to bilateral relations. But politicians are for tough sanctions in response to what they consider to be a violation of international law by Russia.

       It is important to understand that the key issue is not the return of Crimea into Ukraine’s lap. That issue should have been addressed a week ago. Today, European countries need to come to an agreement with Russia in order to stop the catastrophe from spreading to Eastern Ukraine, which is not a homogeneous region. Germany is advocating talks because sanctions and severed relations can only escalate confrontation. Looking further into the future, we need to determine what Russia and the West can do to help Ukraine to preserve its statehood. Even without Crimea, Ukraine must keep its borders and maintain an effective economy.

       Europe is against a split in Ukraine because this would endanger its statehood and is fraught with financial, economic and political collapse. One of the fatally negative effects would be large migration flows into Russia and the EU. When a European country totters on the edge of collapse, the other European states must provide financial assistance to prevent this. This is what Germany thinks, but considering the very difficult bailout of Greece, German politicians are wary of making rash financial decisions. They understand that Western support will not be enough to save Ukraine. We hope that Russia will help us stabilize Ukraine.

       We must make substantiated decisions and do this quickly. There is still hope in the West that Crimeans will vote to remain part of Ukraine as an autonomous republic. But in my opinion, Crimea’s accession to Russia is a foregone issue. Europe will not recognize the results of the March 16 referendum or Crimea’s possible accession to Russia, just as Russia did not recognize the secession of Kosovo from Serbia. Crimea will be pushed into isolation, but ultimately these events will only be assessed soberly when they become part of history. Reasonable people in the West understand that Crimeans are a highly complex mix, unlike the predominantly Russian and Ukrainian population of Eastern Ukraine, where many are against joining Russia.

       Moreover, there is no unity in Russia itself on possible solutions to the Ukrainian crisis. The Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights has criticized the decision on Crimea taken by Vladimir Putin and the Russian leadership in general. But the council is an advisory body set up to talk directly with human rights organizations and civil society. Human Rights Commissioner Vladimir Lukin, who was sent to Kiev to mediate at the talks between the Ukrainian government, the opposition and the EU countries, refused to sign the final document on the settlement of the crisis. As a civil society representative, he claims that both sides violated human rights in Kiev.

       Civil society must be able to express its opinions and to voice its fears. This is not acting against the interests of one’s state, and so criticism of Russia’s policy by an internal actor should be encouraged. In my opinion, the Human Rights Council has a very important role to play as a mouthpiece of civil society and as an instrument of dialogue with the authorities.

       Views expressed are of individual Members and Contributors, rather than the Club's, unless explicitly stated otherwise.