Category Archives: Britain

Britain, Economic, European Union, Government, Russia, Ukraine, United States

Drawing a line with Russia…

THE UKRAINIAN DICHOTOMY

Intro: The West should have concerns, and these should leave Mr Putin in no doubt that his forceful entries in Georgia in 2008 and now in Ukraine, cannot be allowed to extend to those former Soviet countries – such as in the Baltic States – that are now part of the European Union and NATO, but which also have Russian-speaking populations

A meeting of the NATO-Russia council earlier this week to discuss events unfolding in Ukraine was a welcome development in the efforts to defuse the crisis. Dialogue has been important because not only is ‘jaw-jaw’ better than ‘war-war’, but because of the need to minimise the risk of misunderstandings and misjudgements.

The West appears to have allowed the Russians to annex Crimea without the slightest of physical restraint, a position that has immediately led to the Kremlin redrawing the map of Russia that now contains and subsumes the southern region of Ukraine. The perception that the West was rather relaxed was reinforced when a document photographed in the hands of a British government security adviser appeared to rule out any direct response to Russian aggression in Crimea, whether military action or economic sanctions. There is also irony in the fact that Vladimir Putin says he did not aim in annexing the Crimea, a portrayal that will be impossible for some to untangle.

A political anomaly arose, too, when the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, said that Washington was reaffirming its guarantee of Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty and integrity as set out in the Budapest Declaration of 1994, which the UK is also a party and signatory to. How, though, this can possibly extend to keeping Crimea within Ukraine is not clear. Even if sanctions are off-limits – for the Government will be acutely aware that any British sanctions could soon backfire, such as energy supplies from Russia to Europe being curtailed or Russian capital outflights from the City of London – it is difficult to see Mr Putin being cowed by diplomatic isolation or the cancellation of the planned G8 summit in Sochi in June. No doubt, the Russian leader can probably have confidence in the quickly arranged referendum planned for March 30, which will aim to grant greater autonomy for Crimea, to do his annexation for him.

But the West should have concerns, and these should leave Mr Putin in no doubt that his forceful entries in Georgia in 2008 and now in Ukraine, cannot be allowed to extend to those former Soviet countries – such as in the Baltic States – that are now part of the European Union and NATO, but which also have Russian-speaking populations.

John Kerry said the United States did not seek a confrontation with Russia, but will stand-by Ukraine. How, when US sanctions on Russia has already led to Mr Putin selling billions of dollars’ worth of his country’s gold in propping up the Russian Rouble? Further volatility on the Russian currency could have a devastating effect on the livelihoods of almost all Russians.

Standard
Britain, Economic, Foreign Affairs, G8, Government, Russia, Society, Ukraine, United Nations, United States

Restraint by the West over Ukraine is needed…

UKRAINE

Intro: Mr Kerry infers a Russian policy of the playground bully, laying claim to another country’s territory and assets, because – perhaps accurately in calculation – there is no one with the strength to defy him

Throughout history, a host of rules have been built up about how nations should relate to one another. International diplomacy, largely a game of manners and etiquette, seeks to operate through points of protocol. A president, for example, as head of state, will outrank the standing of that country’s prime minister. But these rules may also be fundamental points of law, where the use of force, say, removes another country’s territorial sovereignty. In such circumstances, ostracism has to be the best punishment.

Diplomacy, as it happens, is also a game of power. When a nation with vast power and strength confronts one that has very little, there is not much the weaker party can do. This is reflective of what we are now seeing between Russia and Ukraine.

The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, is likely to claim that by occupying Crimea is solely to do with protecting ethnic Russians and his country’s strategic interests. Such an argument was used by Mr Putin when Russian forces invaded Georgia in 2008 (in claiming the tiny mountain enclave of South Ossetia). The US Secretary of State, John Kerry, has said, however, that this should be deemed in the pretext of being ‘completely trumped-up.’ Mr Kerry infers a Russian policy of the playground bully, laying claim to another country’s territory and assets, because – perhaps accurately in calculation – there is no one with the strength to defy him.

This has become a crucial question for the West. Russia refuses to be constrained by international niceties, not only with its neighbours, but others too. Consider the example in Britain. Even if the Kremlin did not sanction the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, a Russian turned British spy, on British soil, it certainly did its level best to block and impede the investigation. If Mr Putin is willing to flagrantly breach the rules of the club of nations, why, then, should he be allowed to profit from membership?

While we should not be arguing that East-West relations be thrown back towards a Cold War philosophy, it is right that Western leaders question why Russia is worthy of G8 membership on its current form. Sochi was to play host to G8 in June, but that is now in jeopardy following Russian military manoeuvres in Ukraine.

It is generally accepted that there is little we or our allies can do, other than supporting the new government as best we can on the ground in Ukraine. Whether Mr Putin aims to seize wider territory in Ukraine, a gamble which seems unlikely, there is little doubt that Crimea is now de facto Russian territory and has been annexed.

Western countries will be fearful of confrontation with Russia, because it can seriously hurt Europe (at least in the short-term, economically). Russia controls the levers of oil and gas that flows through the Siberian Straits, any disruption to Europe would be hugely costly.

Standard
Britain, Foreign Affairs, Government, Middle East, National Security, Syria

Recent peace talks in Syria have been a complete failure…

SYRIA

The recent round of peace talks in Geneva concerning Syria collapsed in just under 30 minutes. If anyone believed that the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, and his enemies had the slightest intention of making peace, this latest setback should be evidence enough of just how difficult it is going to be in bringing about a peace treaty. At this stage it seems wholly impossible. Just to get the blood-stained dictator and a selection of his foes to the negotiating table required almost three years of international endeavour and a death toll that has now reached 140,000 people since the civil war started. All efforts to bring about peace in Syria have ended in failure.

The crisis has usurped even the bleakest of forecasts. Last year, it seemed reasonable and rational to believe that Assad’s agreement to disable his poisonous gases and chemical weapons would at least rid the conflict of these ghastly weapons. But even that deal is unravelling.

Under the agreed timetable, 700 tons of Assad’s most dangerous chemical agents should have been shipped out of Syria by 31 December, 2013. In January, the best estimate was that a mere 4 per cent had actually been removed. It is understood that a further shipment (of an undisclosed size) has taken place since, but it will not have altered the overall stockpiles of chemical agents being held by the Syrian regime by that much. The agreement was designed to destroy Syria’s entire inventory of some 1,300 tons; less than 50 tons has been deemed to have been disposed of.

More worryingly, hundreds of British Muslims have travelled to Syria’s war-torn country to join the most radical rebel groups, most of which are aligned to Al-Qaeda. British intelligence and senior police officers are gravely concerned of the prospect of these people returning home to the UK with their newly-found skills acquired from Al-Qaeda run training camps disbursed throughout Syria and neighbouring countries in the Middle East. No counter-terrorism official doubts that such radicalised individuals threaten our national security.

Syria is systematically destroying itself before our very eyes. Millions of refugees have been displaced and are placing an intolerable strain on neighbouring countries as they seek refuge and shelter. All efforts to bring peace to this blood-soaked land have been foiled, and have created in the process a new generation of jihadists.

No one should forget that Assad has been aided in his mission – and been given a licence to do what he has been doing – through Russia and Iran who have sustained this war by arming and funding the Syrian regime.

Standard