Tag Archives: Vladimir Putin

Economic, Government, Russia, Society, Ukraine, United Nations

An interventionist approach by Russia in Ukraine is highly dangerous…

Map of Ukraine highlighting Crimea and the strategic importance of Sevastopol on the south-west coast with ease of access to the Black Sea.

Map of Ukraine highlighting Crimea and the strategic importance of Sevastopol on the south-west coast with ease of access to the Black Sea.

Intro: As Vladimir Putin sabre-rattles over Ukraine, the situation is getting murkier

The appearance of armed men at airports in Crimea is a dangerous development in Ukraine’s messy and murky ‘revolution’. They have no insignia to say who they are, but their behaviour is one of a disciplined troop. It is fair to assume they are Russian. They are refusing to talk or elaborate on why they are there. Russia has its Black Sea fleet’s major naval base at the Crimean port of Sevastopol, and two air bases at the airports where the soldiers have appeared. Slightly more than half of the Crimean population identify themselves as being Russian, either by origin or allegiance. Reporters on the ground have even suggested that Russian envoys have been handing out Russian passports to those who want them.

Ominously, manoeuvrings are pointing in only one direction – that Russian president Vladimir Putin, who has deployed his tanks on Ukraine’s borders, has in fact moved some of his troops over the border. The Russian constitution allows for its armed forces to operate outside of Russia ‘in defence of Russian citizens.’ Seizing control of airfields could be a preparatory tactic before invading Crimea, or it might be a prelude in removing ‘Russians’ altogether.

To make matters worse, deposed Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich has resurfaced in Russia, following days on the run after his forced dethronement. Mr Yanukovich has declared that he wants to ‘fight for the Ukraine’ against what he has termed lawlessness and terror. He frequently refers to his usurpers as ‘neo-fascists’.

Russian intervention can only be seen as a highly dangerous move. Mr Putin must know that in this bitterly divided country such an incursion could lead to a bloody conflagration and a darkness comparable to that of the Cold War descending on East-West relations. Moscow will also understand that Mr Yanukovich is under investigation by western banking authorities for plundering his country’s wealth for personal gain. Yet, amid the turmoil, Russian preparations may also include an attempt to restore the discredited regime of Mr Yanukovich. The West should expect to hear a plethora of alibis and excuses as to why Russia is adopting an interventionist stance.

Sensibly, the new Ukrainian authorities under the country’s interim leadership have not risen to the bait. Whilst they do not yet have much authority over a large part of the country, they will be acutely aware that any escalation in belligerence could be the catalyst and excuse Mr Putin is looking for.

Diplomacy is still an option. Ukraine’s most pressing problem is that it is financially destitute. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) can provide loans for the purpose of restructuring an ailing economy, but so can Mr Putin. Most western leaders, too, appear to be willing to pay for a peaceful settlement, with Britain saying it will issue ‘blank signed cheques’ in helping Ukraine find its feet.

Geopolitically, understanding what Mr Putin wants will be a priority and key factor before any advances can be made. Whether that is complete tutelage over Ukrainian affairs or just considerable influence over a country that shares much of its history and culture with Russia, both of which will be an anathema to the protesting crowds in Kiev, a permanent settlement is still some way off. Convincing Mr Putin to keep his tanks away has to be the West’s prime objective.

Standard
European Union, Foreign Affairs, Government, Politics, Russia, Society, Ukraine

Ukraine and the difficulties ahead…

UKRAINE

Over the past two weeks events in Ukraine have moved fast. No day over the last fortnight has past in which something critical has happened. Following the ferocious rioting that led to 88 deaths, Viktor Yanukovych, the country’s former president, was dramatically dethroned. Events in Kiev, Ukraine’s capital, are being perceived as one of the most epochal developments in central Europe since the end of the Second World War. Disruption is far from over.

Ukraine is deeply divided, with half of the population in support of joining the European Union. These people see the benefits brought to Poland, a country of similar size to the Ukraine, that is now firmly embedded within the EU and Nato. Poland’s GDP is now three times what it once was and people there enjoy living standards that are envied by those Ukrainians who wish to see their country afforded similar benefits. The other half, though, are deeply loyal to Russia’s Vladimir Putin and aim to see Ukraine integrated as part of Putin’s wider Eurasia Union, a new and emerging federation of countries aligned to the political aspirations of Moscow.

Ukraine’s future leadership and direction is far from settled. With no clear coalescence around an alternative leader, Ukraine remains more representative of a volcano that has erupted with extraordinary violence and with the after-effects still yet to be felt. Russia has been a dominant force over much of Ukraine’s history, and the world awaits to see how Putin will play his hand.

Hidden from view in the confrontation that has ensued in the centre of Kiev is a chronic economic and financial crisis. Whoever replaces Mr Yanukovych will need to tackle pressing issues to secure continued Russian funding of the country’s debt. Without this, a more widespread collapse beckons.

For its part, the EU needs to look critically at its mooted trade agreements with the country to ensure a fair balance of reciprocal benefits. A major criticism at the present is that these favour EU exports over Ukraine’s well-endowed agricultural sector. Given this delicate economic situation, it is not just Russia but also the West that needs to proceed with great caution before the election of a new government in Ukraine.

The great fear for Western leaders is that Russia will intervene militarily in the affairs of its most important geopolitical neighbour. Such a threat cannot be ruled out. Putin will view this kind of struggle as a matter of personal prestige – he has a renowned reputation in humiliating his rivals, rather than a record of striking appeasement and deals with them. While in power, Mr Yanukovych, became one of Russia’s main allies.

That Mr Putin may act rashly in the days ahead was one of the ‘many dangers’ that William Hague, the British Foreign Secretary, has alluded to. Mr Hague also highlighted the possibility of renewed violence, or that ethnically Russian parts of the country, such as Crimea, will attempt to secede. This situation represents more of a direct challenge to the EU in particular, which has been attempting to woo Ukraine with a trade deal worth hundreds of millions of euros a year. Such a deal is not the same as membership of the EU, but for many it will not be far off. It would, for example, offer Ukraine guaranteed entry into a huge and developed market on its doorstep. Unlike Mr Putin’s recent offers and bribes to his neighbour of cheap gas and serviceable debt, the EU deal has few strings attached.

Ukraine needs a government, and elections will be held in May. In the coming days and weeks, Western leaders must do everything they can to promote a working economy in Ukraine so that its institutions can be free from corruption and outside interference.

Setting out a path to normalisation will be difficult, not least because the opposition forces in Ukraine are deeply divided. Hatred of Viktor Yanukovych masks profound differences in belief and ideology. An early and sympathetic engagement is vital if Ukraine’s open revolt and revolution is not to shatter the country even further and spark dangerous unrest across the entire region.

Standard
Foreign Affairs, Government, History, Middle East, Syria, United Nations, United States

The US Secretary of State faces challenges, but is John Kerry sufficiently supported?

US FOREIGN POLICY

John Kerry has illuminated the paradox of current American foreign policy. No where is this more embodied than in the Middle East, the region that continues to consume so much time and effort for the US Secretary of State. Rarely has the diplomacy and energies spent been as active and as bold as they are today. But flamboyant charges that the US is enfeebled and in retreat are also accusations that are running in parallel.

Mr Kerry is tacitly involved on three immensely challenging and overlapping fronts: his efforts to end the bloody civil war in Syria; the continued search for a nuclear deal with Iran that might end more than three decades of hostility between Washington and Tehran; and, the renewed and engaging process to secure a two-state settlement between Israel and Palestinians that has eluded negotiators since 1948.

An analysis of the progress being made will reveal a mixed picture. Encouragingly, the best advances have been made with Iran, with an interim deal that parts of the country’s nuclear programme have been frozen for a period of six months. This deal could yet unravel, but the U.S. and Iran are engaged in a process of constructive dialogue.

To the other extreme, Syria constitutes a total failure. The recent Geneva conference which could not even deliver an agreement on bringing humanitarian aid to tens of thousands of civilians, trapped by the savagery of the conflict, epitomises this rank failure. Vladimir Putin’s Russia continues to arm and supply the regime, while progress on securing Assad’s chemical weapons and stockpiles is, at best, described as being limited. More accurately, it would not be amiss to say that progress in removing Assad’s arsenal has been brought to a stuttering halt.

The current state of play in dealing with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is less clear. Whilst Mr Kerry has been doggedly determined in keeping talks going, his indefatigability may be perceived from different angles of thought. For those who support him, this involvement and persistent diligence is proof of resolve. It is also recognition of his courage by placing his prestige on the line in a way that many of his predecessors never did. For the detractors, though, the US Secretary of State is merely on an ego trip, driven largely by the naïve belief that hope will triumph over experience. The more impartial may wonder whether Mr Kerry’s goal of a ‘framework’ plan – an agreement by the two sides on the shape of the final agreement with the details being worked out later – is really any different from the other diplomatic formulae’, such as the ‘road maps’, that have littered nearly seven decades of futile peacekeeping.

Underpinning Mr Kerry’s efforts on all three fronts is the ‘damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t’ scenario faced by the US in the Middle East. Most expect America to lead, even if its ability to shape and bend the region to its will is often grossly exaggerated. When the U.S. has taken decisive action, as in Iraq or Afghanistan, it has been accused of being a blundering warmonger. Following on from these two long and costly interventions, Americans will have no appetite for another. Yet, when it steadfastly refuses to robustly intervene in Syria (or to a lesser extent in Egypt), it is denounced for abandoning its responsibilities, and of condoning and supporting human rights abuses. It can hardly wave a magic wand and expect all to be well.

American history tends to suggest that the most effective Secretaries of State tend to be those that have been closest to their respective Presidents. Henry Kissinger, for instance, under President Richard Nixon, or James Baker who held post during the reign of President George HW Bush, spring to mind. Secretary of State Kerry is barely a year into his tenure, and so it is too early to say whether he will join this company. Success, however, on one of the three major challenges he is faced with would amount to a distinguished and noteworthy achievement.

Standard