Why Russia Will Ultimately Compensate Ukraine for Crimea

Currently, Moscow is facing sanctions from the West (toothless though they may be), there is a significant military build up on the Ukrainian border and, according to the IMF, Russia is in a recession with more capital expected to flee the country. For these reasons the idea that Russia would pay Ukraine for Crimea is not a widely held belief. However, in the long term there are several factors that make it likely that Moscow will ultimately offer some form of payment to Kiev.

Despite current geopolitical and economic obstacles Russia is relatively strong, however, the country is facing significant demographic challenges. Per the World Bank, 1988 was the last time the Total Fertility Rate was 2.1 (the replacement rate). From 1991 to 2011 this metric has fluctuated between 1.2 and 1.6 while the dependency ratio is 40 and growing. This means that Russia will likely be weakened both economically and militarily in the coming decades. For this reason Moscow has an incentive to cement agreements that protect Russian interests while the country is experiencing a period of relative weakness. Sooner or later legitimizing the possession of Crimea via some form of compensation will be necessary. Though the deal will have been forced, it will also have been finalized.

Ukraine owes a significant amount of money to Russian companies, such as Gazprom, as well as international lenders (e.g. the IMF), and a variety of European banks and businesses. By compensating Ukraine for the annexation of Crimea Moscow would essentially be disbursing money which would ultimately flow back into the Russian economy while simultaneously protecting the interests of its European business partners. Essentially, the end result would be that Russia forced the sale of a territory of strategic importance to Moscow since it had become clear that Kiev could not be counted on the protect Russian interests. With the deal legitimized, Ukraine’s debt would be pared down to more manageable levels. That said, a Ukrainian default is still a very real concern. The IMF did not authorize a $17.1 billion bailout out of charity. The financial contagion that a Ukrainian default would engender would be extremely problematic to say the least and thus must be prevented. The IMF deal requires raising taxes and energy prices. Given that Kiev could not afford discounted gas it is unclear how Ukrainians will deal with this price hike. For this reason continued political instability in the country is likely. Despite this problem, any capital inflow (especially a compensation package that does not need to be repaid in the manner that a loan would) could put Ukraine on a path to ultimately regain a degree of economic self sufficiency and in theory become a stronger trade partner for both Russia and Europe. This process will not be easy and will need to be monitored closely.  

Maintaining a favorable buffer against neighboring countries has long been a key concern of Russia. This is why ensuring the compliance of states such as Ukraine and Belarus has been a strategic imperative for Moscow. The leverage that comes with controlling the energy supply for many of its neighbors has been a useful foreign policy tool for Moscow in recent years. Not surprisingly Russia’s neighbors do not like this dependency. There are movements to undermine Russia’s leverage which naturally goes against Moscow’s interests and if Russia is distracted with Ukraine it has fewer resources to undermining these movements. There are numerous areas of concern for Moscow. For example, it is likely that US-Iranian détente will result in the development of energy pipelines linking the Caspian to the Persian Gulf and the further development of infrastructure connecting Azerbaijan with Turkey. We are already seeing some improvements in Azeri-Iranian relations that testify to this. September’s meeting of the Caspian 5 (Russia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan) will be an important summit to monitor. Another story to follow is the memorandum of intent that Ukraine and Slovakia signed on Monday April 28^th. If the deal goes through the reverse flow of gas from Slovakia into Ukraine will commence in October. This will reduce Ukraine's dependency on Russian gas. Presumably, Moscow will try to undermine this deal.

While compensation for Crimea will not likely be paid out anytime soon such an action would help legitimize Russia’s claim to Crimea and could help ensure potential investors that the country is safe for business. Keep in mind it is in both Moscow’s and Western businesses’ interest to keep political instability in Russia at a minimum. Compensation is a means towards that end. For this reason, if Moscow starts making noise about offering some form of compensation for Crimea it could be a sign of improving business conditions in Russia.