Tag Archives: Russia

European Union, Politics, Russia, Society, Ukraine

Ukraine, Russia and the wider issue of morality…

TUG OF WAR

Many Ukrainians are now so desperate to join the European Union that they are prepared to protest in ways not seen before in the country. They run the risk of brutality from President Viktor Yanukovych’s security forces, for whom the concept of community policing remains alien and an anathema. Mass anti-government protests in Ukraine have brought large swathes of the country to a standstill, largely prompted by Moscow’s strong-arm and bully-boy tactics aimed at halting Kiev’s attempts to improve the country’s trading ties with the EU. This fervour stems from a particular theory of Ukrainian nationhood, where many of its electorate believe the country should be an equal partner in the European Union, rather than remaining little more than a Russian satellite.

International opinion has, at times, questioned the morality of Russian decisions, such as that in 2009 when Moscow turned off the gas supplies to Ukraine in the middle of winter to dissuade it from forging closer ties with Brussels. The arrogance of Russian ambitions towards Ukraine could hardly have been laid barer. Continued threats over the continuity and supply of gas, as Russia continues to apply its power over Ukraine, underlies more cynical Russian ambitions. Mr Putin’s plan is for Ukraine to join Belarus and Kazakhstan in a political trading bloc to be known as the Eurasian Union.

For many Ukrainians, though, that is not only a poor substitute for the EU, but also an uncomfortable reminder of Ukraine’s position as a member of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Russia is seeking to capitalise on how Eurasian integration will likely generate increased interest from its other neighbours through the usual warm rhetoric of international diplomacy. But, in truth, the West would be right to assume a more menacing aspect to it. As Mr Putin is the dominant partner in this new Eurasian Union, it is worth examining and putting into perspective some of his recent comments and actions. For example, what of his attitude to the legitimate interests of other nations in the Arctic and his unnecessarily harsh treatment of those seeking to preserve the environment there? Russia is motivated by the rich new oil wells recently located in the Arctic and the huge benefits that exploration will bring to the Russian economy. Mr Putin’s rather indifferent attitude to human rights doesn’t bode well, either, for the Eurasian Union becoming a model template of tolerance and openness.

However, not all people in Ukraine are worried over Russia’s attempt to wrest control over its affairs. Many Ukrainians do support President Yanukovych’s decision to ditch his negotiations with the European Union and seem undisturbed about the record of human rights in their own country or in Russia.

The tragedy of Ukraine being forced to choose between traditions and that of regional power blocs is its nemesis. Geography dictates that fate, at least to some degree, is inevitable. Ethnic, economic and cultural ties do naturally tug in the opposite direction when a country is caught between two bigger powers. Yet, in all practicalities Ukraine should not have to make such a choice and would not need to if Russia would allow her to develop her links with Europe.

Conceivably, Ukraine could do that as well as being closely aligned to Russia. Ukraine should be allowed to maintain her trading and other relationships, but as part of a wider settlement between the EU on one hand and Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus on the other.

Mr Putin’s stance between his own nation and that of his close neighbours is generally perceived and accepted as a zero-sum game – the EU’s gain, for instance, must be Russia’s loss. But persisting with such a position will leave Ukraine at best in a state of uncertainty or limbo, and at worst a target for permanent bullying.

..

DURING last week’s annual state of the nation address, Vladimir Putin emphasised his belief that Russia takes a morally superior world-view to the West. It is hard to credit Mr Putin with that surprising claim considering the level of violence taking place on a daily basis in countries such as Syria and Ukraine.

Moscow’s staunch and unrelenting support for the dictatorial regime of Bashar al-Assad has been a prime reason why diplomatic efforts to stem the bloodshed have been thwarted in a raging civil war that has now claimed the lives of more than 100,000 people and displaced millions more.

Mr Putin claims that there is a clear moral compass behind his government’s domestic policies. But where is the evidence? Modern day Russia is a country where political opponents are killed or dispatched to Siberian labour camps, where gangsterism is rife, and where free speech is actively discouraged. Widespread and endemic corruption has persuaded Russian businessmen to flee the country in their droves to escape the constant threat of state-sponsored violence and extortion.

Mr Putin’s personal ambition of reviving Russia’s fortunes as a world power is a self-evident prophecy. He may well believe that, by resisting the tide of what he refers to as the West’s ‘non-traditional values’, his aspirations will be realised. In truth, so long as the Russian President remains intent on crushing political dissent at home and intimidating his enemies abroad, no one is going to be endeared to his sense of moral teaching.

Standard
Government, Middle East, Politics, Russia, Syria, United Nations, United States

The agreement between the United States and Russia on Syria’s chemical weapons…

SYRIA: US/RUSSIAN AGREEMENT

The agreement between the United States and Russia on chemical weapons in Syria is an important piece of political diplomacy. The idea that Bashar al-Assad could avoid military action by giving up his chemical stockpiles was much more than an ‘off-the cuff’ remark by John Kerry, US Secretary of State, who expressed that view in London last Monday.

The notion that has been circulating that Vladimir Putin has outsmarted the United States, his country’s historical adversary, by somehow exploiting Mr Kerry’s blunder must surely be a mistake. The U.S. has wanted this deal, proved by its tireless efforts to get it, and the world should welcome it too.

The agreement is a step in the right direction. The deal provides for the destruction of Assad’s chemical arsenal under United Nations supervision by the middle of next year. The prospects of the deal being met must be weighed against the risk of Syria’s chemical weapons being seized upon by Iran, or even Russia itself, as potential complicity creeps in.

While Mr Kerry has talked up the prospect of the UN authorising military action if Assad failed to comply, those words are not in the text of the agreement, and Russia would have to agree that the terms of the deal had been breached.

The mere fact that an agreement has been reached, however, has two consequences. First, it does make it less probable that Assad or his commanders will use chemical weapons again, because to do so would politically embarrass Mr Putin. This has pertinence because the need to deter the Assad regime from using gas again was the strongest argument in favour of the limited punitive action proposed by President Obama. Second, it means that Russia is now engaged in a process that could lead to an eventual end to the bloodshed.

The parochial argument that the delay in air strikes sought by British MPs in the House of Commons by providing the time for a deal to be made does have substance. Globally, the return of Russia to the international stage is one of the more important changes in geopolitics in recent years. That may be a response to the winding down of American interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, though Russia stepping forward was far from inevitable. Yet, again, if the U.S. had not taken the initiative in the region, no one else would have done so, particularly with Britain baulking at the prospect of becoming embroiled in another war. That Russia is now engaged in the search for an end to the brutality and carnage in Syria is a hopeful change.

For there to be a settlement in Syria, Iran will also need to be consulted as it too is also a patron of the Assad regime. We should not naively assume that the recent election of the ‘reform-minded’ Hassan Rouhani as Iranian president – with recent expressions of goodwill to Israel – mean that Iran is now a force for peace in the region.

But the agreement could bring the Iranian leadership to accept that its interests are best served by following the Russian lead and sharing some of the responsibility for ending a conflict in Syria that has claimed the lives of more than 100,000 people.

The deal between the United States and Russia deserves a cautious approval, even though the prospects for a settlement in Syria still remain particularly distant.

Standard
Government, Politics, Russia, Syria, United States

The West should pursue punitive strikes in Syria…

‘RED LINE’ POLICY

Following Russia’s proposal on Syria aimed at monitoring and destroying Bashar al-Assad’s stockpile of chemical weapons, President Obama suspended a congressional vote to authorise the use of force against the Syrian regime.

But that proposal looks overly optimistic and unrealistic. Not only do the U.S. and Russia disagree over enforcement mechanisms if the Syrian regime fails to comply – the United States and her allies want a resolution provisioning the use of force in the event of non-compliance, the Russians do not – but the operational and technical challenges associated with destroying these weapons in a risky and volatile conflict zone should not be interpreted as something that will happen with unqualified ease.

Western military intervention has not, therefore, been averted and still remains a probable scenario. That has to remain an option that can still make an important contribution to the Syrian conflict, as well as beyond it.

Those desperate despots and tyrants around the world must be sent a message, namely that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated or permitted. Where this horrific form of weaponry is used the international community must insist it has the right to act. America’s ‘red line’ policy is once again being called into question.

Critics point out it is the numbers killed, rather than the means through which they are killed, that should constitute the ‘red line’ for the international community and those who are in support of humanitarian intervention. That, however, misses the logic, purpose and the devastating impact of chemical weapons use.

Recently on this site an article was posted concerning how history is littered with examples of chemical weapons being used during warfare (see article). Chemical weapon attacks in modern times can be traced to World War I. More recently they were used in 1988 in the Iraqi Kurdistan town of Halabja. These lethal and macabre attacks not only kill quickly and with an immediate impact on the local population, but they also inflict terror and have long-term consequences. They have the capacity to dramatically reduce enemy morale and fix a permanent physical and psychological scar on the local population. Chemical weapons inflict long-term injuries to its victims and can affect future generations in the form of birth defects and other disabilities. In Halabja, Hussein’s forces killed at least 5,000 men, women and children almost instantly. Thousands more continue to suffer today.

Chemical weapon attacks are not simply about destruction but about inflicting long-term, immeasurable and sustained pain and horror on a population. By their very nature, the use’ of chemical weapons are indiscriminate with their targets and their reach goes beyond the boundaries of the battlefield.

On the battlefield, they have the capacity to alter the balance of a conflict and offer a strategic advantage, especially in localised conflicts. Whilst it is certainly questionable that the limited use of chemical weapons will change the direction of the conflict, there effectiveness in urbanised and local areas should not be underestimated. Syria is engaged in a localised conflict where battles are taking place between disparate rebel forces and regime loyalists in an array of towns and cities.

Yet, if chemical weapons were used in a more consistent and sustained fashion and throughout the towns and cities embroiled in the conflict, then the entire balance of power could be altered to favour the regime.

Hesitation over military action is also based on the premise that the West would be supporting and fighting alongside radical al-Qaeda factions that dominate and comprise the Syrian opposition. That, though, misses two important aspects: firstly, that it would be against Western interests to have a rebel victory at a point when the West has very limited influence on the ground and, secondly, victory would put these radically inspired al-Qaeda elements in a position where they would come to dominate the Syrian state. That would be catastrophic for regional and global security and for the interests of both the West and the broader international community.

It has been made clear by President Obama (along with a British declaration) that any military strikes will not be aimed at removing the Assad regime (which otherwise would amount to ‘regime change’) or afford the rebels any meaningful victory. Instead, they say, strikes would be ‘punitive’ in their nature, giving in-effect Assad a bloody nose. Hence, Western action that aims to deter further chemical weapons use would not be instigated to bolster or afford rebel forces any meaningful victory.

The use of punitive and symbolic military strikes does not have to mean that diplomatic efforts should be put aside. The form of military intervention proposed by the US/UK, despite both powers having temporarily drawn back, can realistically be combined with diplomacy. The U.S. and Britain have repeatedly stated that the only outcome to this conflict can and must be a negotiated political settlement.

Military strikes, it is argued, will induce Assad into negotiating. But this has to be coupled with an effort to force rebel forces to also sit down at the negotiating table. That seems unlikely to happen at this stage, given that Assad has immense regional support as well as important proxy support from Russia. Rebel forces themselves are divided on the issue and do not operate under one unified banner.

But military strikes will show a willingness by the West to act that goes beyond the current conflict in Syria. The West is not currently in a position to topple Assad through extensive use of its military capacity (such as deploying ground troops), but it can and should still send a message to the Assad regime that it will act in the face of chemical weapons usage. That message would also resonate to other existing and future despots of the world.

Standard