Category Archives: United States

Economic, European Union, Foreign Affairs, Government, Russia, Society, United Nations, United States

Diplomacy can help Ukraine survive. A military intervention by the west in Crimea is not an option…

Intro: The hard fact is that Russia, while a major part of the problem, also has to be part of the solution

The Russian defence ministry denied issuing an ultimatum to the Ukraine military positioned in Crimea that they would be attacked if they did not surrender by 3 am today. Russia claims this is but one of a number of provocations that has been issued, by whom it is not entirely clear. For many observers, though, this is a clear signal that Russian forces are intent in pushing into Crimea by having a head-on confrontation with Ukraine’s military. Quite probably, it is a Russian manoeuvre which sends out a blunt and sinister message – we are here to stay in Crimea to protect Russian interests and any calls for us to depart will fall on deaf ears.

Indeed, the strategic importance of Crimea to Russia is difficult to understate. It contains Russia’s main Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol. Without it, sea-lane transit to the Mediterranean becomes a lot harder, and any loss of such an asset would make Russia look a lot more vulnerable. Despite what others may wish for, Russia is not going to give up Crimea under almost any circumstances. While Europe and the United States can only hope that Russia will relinquish its Crimean stranglehold, many will acknowledge the lack of leverage the west has. Vladimir Putin can claim to be protecting his citizens in eastern and southern Ukraine against what has become a chaotic state where law does not rule. The history of Crimea clearly shows that this is a state which is hostile and threatening to its people.

Diplomacy is the west’s only tool and it has to recognise this. There is no question that military action can be taken in response. The hard fact is that Russia, while a major part of the problem, also has to be part of the solution. For how will restoring a lasting normalisation of life in Ukraine be possible unless Russia is part of that process?

Whilst tacticians will surely be right in their riposte that before normalisation can begin, the sabre-rattling has to stop and the military manoeuvring ended. But it is hardly something now that can be stopped overnight.

Coupled with the risk of military fighting breaking out, there is also the possibility that civilian groups might start attacking each other. Crimea is a state of some six religions and encompasses a wide and ethnic diversity. With ethnic and national tensions already inflamed, and with the rule of law so fractured, police forces would struggle to cope given that they are already notoriously distrusted. Restoring calm is urgently needed.

This is where western diplomacy can play a major role. Mr Putin can be threatened with diplomatic and economic isolation, such as those already issued by the United States and the European Union, but he can also be offered sweeteners in the form of emergency money that Ukraine will need to function and for it to repay its debts to Russia.

The task in resolving the dispute in Crimea is becoming increasingly more difficult by the day. This will not be helped if shots are fired which would risk provoking a major conflict.

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
Economic, European Union, Government, Politics, Russia, Society, Ukraine, United States

Ukraine and its future stability…

Intro: For Ukraine to have a stable future it is imperative that Russia, the European Union and the US work together in collaboration if that stability is to be assured

Despite all the tumult of recent weeks, the crisis in Ukraine is just at the beginning. Europe’s seventh most populous country will be without a fully-elected government until at least May, a situation that has arisen following its former president who was stripped of his power and who has been on the run since being forced out. It is believed Viktor Yanukovych has found safe haven in Russia, Ukraine’s closest ally in the region.

The underlying mood appears to be one of score settling. Separatism in the east is stirring, especially in Crimea, which is predominately Russian by culture and history. Ukraine is strategically important for Moscow: the Russian’s maintain a major naval base at Sevastopol, allowing the Russian navy to deploy quickly into the Black Sea as the need arises.

Ukraine is broke, precipitated by the immediate origins of the crisis which was economic. The currency, the hryvnia, has depreciated by 12 per cent since the start of the year, and the public finances are teetering on the verge of collapse. According to the interim-government in Ukraine, one which is attempting to aid transition to a newly elected government, the country needs £21 billion between now and the end of 2015 simply to pay its bills. Mr Yanukovych is widely reported as having taken bribes in accepting Russian aid and membership of the Moscow sponsored Eurasian Union, rather than entering into trade deals and agreements with the EU.

The West needs to be careful in any vainglorious attempt of portraying or by assuming it has won following the overthrow of Mr Yanukovych. The geopolitics, best seen as a tug-of-war, is fraught with difficulties. For Ukraine to have a stable future it is imperative that Russia, the European Union and the US work together in collaboration if that stability is to be assured. The danger is that any one of these superpowers treats the country as the prize in a zero-sum game.

America’s approach has been cautious. President Obama has, thus far, shown no desire for a full-scale showdown with Moscow. But this attitude is shared by his European allies, too, as they strive to put together an economic rescue package in which Russia would ideally be involved. In reality, though, the real uncertainty surrounds how Moscow will react to the fate of its southern neighbour. Where culture and history are so closely interwoven, Russia is likely to be wary of any western driven agenda.

The initial response of the Kremlin to events in Kiev was one of ferocious outrage. Dmitry Medvedev, the Prime Minister, accused Europe of turning a blind eye to the dictatorial and ‘sometimes terrorist methods’ used by the new authorities to suppress dissent in eastern Ukraine – the area of the country which is particularly sympathetic to Russian ideals. Mr Medvedev has also declared that the opposition had seized power by an ‘armed mutiny’, a belief which could still lead to direct military action by Russia in the Crimea. A request by the Crimeans for Russian protection would be the pretext for the worst possible outcome.

However, since that outburst, the tone from Moscow has been more restrained. Earlier this week, Sergei Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, indicated that the policy of ‘non-intervention’ would continue. He said, rather curiously, that it was in Moscow’s interests for Ukraine to be part of a ‘broad European family’. However, the Kremlin has an array of options of how it might influence events such as how it will control vital gas exports to all parts of the Ukraine.

Gauging how the crisis will end is no easy task. A form of partition is one possibility, but that can only happen if the considered consent is given by all interested parties. Demarcation along similar lines to the 1993 ‘velvet divorce’ between the Czech Republic and Slovakia is one model that might prove helpful if negotiators are looking for historical references in bringing about an ordered and peaceful outcome in Ukraine.

Standard