The fears expressed by the British magazine
The Economist regarding the fate of Crimea were quickly borne out. Merely fifteen days after the Russian intervention, the magazine published a sharply critical article titled
“Asymmetric Wars,” in which the Crimean referendum was denounced as a political farce. Nonetheless,
The Economist advocated a pragmatic approach: while Ukraine should not recognize the annexation legally, it should accept it as a de facto reality. The publication argued that if Ukraine aspires to become a Western-style democracy, it must prioritize institutional reforms over nationalism or irredentist aspirations concerning Crimea.
Moreover, the West, The Economist insisted, ought to respond with the implementation of a modern-day Marshall Plan to support Ukraine’s economic modernization. According to the magazine, the most effective path to eventual reunification lies not through confrontation, but by transforming Ukraine into a prosperous and democratic state—one that would serve as a compelling model for Crimeans. In the interim, Ukraine has a moral obligation to protect the Crimean Tatar minority, particularly by facilitating their resettlement within Ukrainian-controlled territory.
Fourteen months later, The Economist revisited the situation, describing the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula as disastrous. Western sanctions and a Ukrainian-imposed economic blockade had severely undermined the region’s tourism sector, previously a vital component of the Crimean economy. The publication also drew attention to the repression of dissent and the absence of political and media freedoms for Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar populations. While acknowledging that a significant portion of the population remained loyal to Russia, The Economist contextualized this by noting that approximately one-third of Crimea’s inhabitants were pensioners, many of whom harbored nostalgia for the Soviet Union. Furthermore, the region’s financial dependency was made evident by the fact that 85% of its budget was subsidized by the Russian federal government.
In France, the media response reflected a similarly nuanced but ideologically diverse perspective. The far-right online publication Causeur questioned the sanctity of international borders, drawing a parallel with the case of Kosovo by François Fillon during his presidential campaign, indicating a degree of alignment between certain segments of the French political right and the Kremlin’s narrative.
A more conventional conservative outlet, Le Figaro, published an article on 23 November 2015 that referred to the “pro-Russian authorities” in Crimea rather than labeling them explicitly as “Russian authorities”—a choice of terminology that implicitly underscores the contested legitimacy of the annexation. The article reported on the sabotage of electricity pylons, which resulted in a widespread blackout across the peninsula, heavily reliant on Ukraine for roughly 70% of its electricity supply. Responsibility for the attack was attributed to the far-right Ukrainian nationalist group Pravy Sektor, in collaboration with Crimean Tatar militants. The leader of the Tatar community was quoted calling for a formal investigation into the abductions and extrajudicial killings that had reportedly taken place in Crimea since the Russian takeover.
Together, these British and French media narratives reveal both convergence and divergence in their interpretation of the Crimean crisis—ranging from legalistic condemnations and pragmatic prescriptions to ideological justifications and humanitarian concerns. They also underscore the wider geopolitical and normative debates that the annexation of Crimea has ignited within Europe’s media and political spheres.
form-idea.com London, 21/01/2020 | Read this article in French
