Friday, March 14, 2014
Crimea Set to Vote as Russia and the West Continue to Disagree
The Guardian newspaper reported on Friday about the street clashes taking place in Donetsk, a largely Russian-speaking city in eastern Ukraine, where many residents have close ties to Russia. Donetsk declared a day of mourning on Friday after one person was killed and more than two dozen injured in one such clash. The city has seen repeated standoffs between pro- and anti-Russian demonstrators. On Friday, protesters from a pro-Russian march fought with those from a rally "for a united Ukraine," resulting in the death of a 22-year-old man and injuries to a reported 26 people. Other reports said 28 people had been injured and that the young man had been stabbed to death. Ukrainian media reported that pro-Russian protesters had attacked first, but the Russian Foreign Ministry and Russian media disagreed, saying instead that armed men had attacked peaceful pro-Russian demonstrators. In a statement released in response to the clashes, the foreign ministry said Kiev was not in control of the situation in the country and had failed to guarantee demonstrators' safety : "Radical far-right gangs armed with traumatic firearms and clubs, who began to arrive in the city yesterday from other regions of the country, attacked peaceful protesters who came out on the streets to express their attitude toward the destructive position of the people who call themselves the Ukrainian government," the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement. The head of Ukraine's security service wrote on his Facebook page on Friday that four people had been detained in connection with the violence in Donetsk and that "these detainments are only the beginning." Russian troops and armoured vehicles massed on the border with eastern Ukraine on Thursday, alarming Kiev, where Acting President Oleksandr Turchynov issued a statement saying that the Russian forces were "ready to intervene in Ukraine at any time." The Russian Defence Ministry admitted in several statements that at least 10,000 troops had gathered in provinces along the border, but said they were there only to participate in intensive exercises. Donetsk residents said the attacks originated from the pro-Russian demonstrations. The pro- Russian protestors had arrived at Lenin Square before the pro-Ukrainian ones, according to bystanders. Many residents of Donetsk think that the pro-Russia protesters are Russians sent from Russia, which is simply waiting for the right episode to trigger its invasion and occupation of east Ukraine, in a fashion much like that of Crimea. And, in what may be seen as Russia's raising the stakes in its confrontation with the West, Moscow also ordered six Sukhoi-27 fighter jets and three transport planes into Belarus, located on Ukraine's northern border, to head off what the Belarusian president, Alexander Lukashenko, said was a potential NATO threat. ~~~~~ In response to the buildup, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in her strongest words yet, warned Moscow that it risked massive political and economic damage if it refused to change course on Ukraine. In a Thursday address to Parliament, Merkel told German lawmakers the only way out of the crisis is through diplomacy and assured them that "the use of the military is no option." But, she said, the European Union and other western nations would soon freeze bank accounts and implement trade restrictions if Russia refused to enter "negotiations that achieve results and aren't just a play for time." If Moscow does not begin to "de-escalate" the situation, then Merkel said the 28 EU nations, the United States and other trans-Atlantic partners would act on their agreed conclusion that Russia's decision to deploy troops into Ukraine's strategic Crimean Peninsula was a clear breach of international law, and that Moscow was bullying its weaker neighbor with methods reminiscent of 19th century European power politics. She said western nations were "working on a political and diplomatic" path out of the crisis, including creating a format for talks directly between Kiev and Moscow, but said any question of Crimea breaking away from Ukraine was off the table. Merkel was adamant : "Let me be absolutely clear so that there is no misunderstanding, the territorial integrity of Ukraine is not up for discussion," she said. ~~~~~ Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and US Secretary of State John Kerry held six hours of private meetings in London on Friday. They did not find common ground and made separate statements to the press afterward. Lavrov said : "We will respect the will of [the] people of Crimea." Russia and the US have "no common vision" on the crisis in Ukraine, Russia's Foreign Minister said. However, Lavrov called his London meeting with John Kerry "constructive." Kerry said the US was "deeply concerned" about Russia sending Russian troops to the Ukraine border and in Crimea troops to the Ukraine border. After the talks, Lavrov told reporters that Russia had no plans to invade south-eastern Ukraine. Kerry said the US had not changed its position on the "illegitimate" referendum and would not recognise its results. However, he said his Russian counterpart had made it clear that Russian President Vladimir Putin was not prepared to make any decision until after the vote. The Secretary of State said that he had told Lavrov that there would be consequences if Russia "does not find a way to change course." ~~~~~ Dear readers, we are approaching the next crunch point in the Ukraine crisis. It is expected that on Sunday, Crimea will vote to join Russia. But observers on the ground say that the vote could be close. And if Crimea votes to remain part of Ukraine, it would be much easier to negotiate a deal with Russia, guaranteed by the EU and the US, to give Russia control over its Sevastopol Black Sea Fleet port without tearing Crimea away from Ukraine and precipitating an international confrontation in eastern Europe. But this is a minority view in Russia where the majority of Russians support Putin's stance and give him a 68% positive rank in popularity polls. However, when CNN asked four Russian students studying in London what the solution could be, only one said there was no peaceful solution. The other three Russian students said that Ukraine should become more democratic now that Yanukovich is gone and that it should move toward Europe while maintaining good relations with Russia - all this to be decided by coordinated popular referenda in Ukraine and Crimea. "Out of the mouths of babes..."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The U.S. wants Russia to accept something short of a full annexation of Crimea — but Kerry has not said what that might entail. --- Interesting statement. Does that mean the US will accept a deal for greater Russian control of some sort? That kinda sounds like 1930's Neville Chamberlain appeasement "diplomacy". Is the Ukraine sovereign or not?
ReplyDeleteMost readers will recall that by the late 1970’s relations between the United States and the USSR were at their lowest point since the Cuban Crisis some twenty years prior. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 signaled to many Americans—none more so than the 1980 Republican nominee for President—that Soviet Russia viewed the Carter administration as weak and indecisive and was taking full advantage of the fact.
ReplyDeleteThree years before the emergence of the Solidarity movement in Poland (1980-1981), a novel by retired British General Sir John Hackett called The Third World War envisioned a catastrophic chain of events that began with a worker’s strike in Poland, which led to an invasion of Poland by Soviet troops. This, in turn, heightened the anxiety of NATO and Soviet planners, leading to nuclear war.
And finally, rather than risk a wider conflagration with the Soviet Union, the Reagan administration wisely limited its response for fear of provoking a wider conflagration with the world’s other leading nuclear power. U.S. policy towards Eastern Europe in the 1980s points to the wisdom of American engagement that is both cautious and cognizant of the national interests of all concerned. If only we had such a policy in 2014.
We know how the story ended. By the force of its moral prestige, rather than through the force of arms, the leaders of Solidarity were able to achieve a breakthrough several years later as the Jaruzelski regime—shaken by the example of Gorbachev’s reforms and a wave of labor strikes in August 1988—entered into talks with the opposition. The agreement that resulted from the “Round Table” talks of early 1989 was, according to the historian Jerzy Jedlicki, “a masterpiece of political ethics.” Solidarity was legalized and elections resulting in the ousting of the Communist regime followed in short order.
I see some very similar circumstances about Poland as with Ukraine and the Crimea. This present problem can either blow up in our faces with Russian troops all over the place come Monday morning. Or between now and Sunday cooler heads will prevail or someone will voice a functional solution.
I think Putin wins and that will be a catastrophe.
ReplyDeleteWhen it seems barely possible for Putin’s warmongering to get any more terrifying, it does. As he explicitly states, he intends to “protect Ukrainian citizens” by positioning the Russian army behind them—not in front of them, as a genuine desire to protect people from an assault would appear to dictate. In effect, Ukrainian “women and children” would serve as a shield in any armed conflict that he chooses to initiate. Putin dares the Ukrainian side to fire first.
ReplyDeleteEspecially worrying is that Putin made these statements at a press conference. He was, in other words, not just speaking to Russians or Ukrainians. He was placing the international community in general and the West in particular on notice: If he chooses to start a war, large numbers of civilians will die. They may be Ukrainian, but they may also be anybody he resolves to “protect.”
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 signaled to many Americans—none more so than Ronald Reagan—that Soviet Russia viewed the Carter administration as weak and indecisive and was taking full advantage of the fact.
ReplyDeleteIs this a replay of 1979? Does Putin have little to no respect for Obama? Does he believe that Obama is so inept that in the end he (Obama) would not lift a finger to support the people of Ukraine and/or Crimea? Does Putin trust this is just another “red line in the sand” stance coming from Obama & Kerry?
Obama is the wrong man at the wrong time to be playing a standoff game with Putin. Putin is capable of anything and Obama is capable of essentially naught.
One way or the other the world will be a less safe place after tomorrow’s vote in Crimea. No matter who wins (or has already won) the Crimea vote Sunday … everyone will be the looser. International friendships will suffer, worldwide financial markets will take a big hit, international trade will suffer, various retail prices will skyrocket, and tension will be the influence of the day.
Out of all this downside, a new political leader may appear in the United States much like what happened in 1979.
William F. Buckley, Jr. in the first edition (1955) of National Review magazine wrote:
ReplyDelete"Among our convictions: It is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its citizens’ lives, liberty and property. All other activities of government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress. The growth of government (the dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly. In this great social conflict of the era, we are, without reservations, on the libertarian side. The profound crisis of our era is, in essence, the conflict between the Social Engineers, who seek to adjust mankind to conform with scientific utopias, and the disciples of Truth, who defend the organic moral order. We believe that truth is neither arrived at nor illuminated by monitoring election results, binding though these are for other purposes, but by other means, including a study of human experience. On this point we are, without reservations, on the conservative side."
That to me sounds like an umbrella that all REAL conservative thinkers could live under and prosper.
Where are the concerned good hearted actions from Obama and Kerry towards the oppressed, dying, crippled, molested women and children of Syria? Where is it written that anyone gets to pick and choose who we (democratic states) defend and risk war over and those that we just keep drawing one line in the sand after another?
ReplyDeleteHow quickly Obama and the EU jumps in to rescue people from the land next door and yet we watch 400 children being “gassed” with WMD in an impoverished land that has as little meaning to global tranquility as does the Ukraine & Crimea.
A foreign policy (something Obama doesn’t have) is formulated with at least some general guidelines and beliefs. Such a policy is not workable if everyday a new invention of a policy takes place in Washington DC. Bill Clinton was always accused of making policy based on the latest conducted polls.
Obama makes decisions (not policy, there is a big difference) based on what – not even poll numbers. For if he did and he would look at his approval numbers from the latest Gallup poll, he would resign and go back home, where ever that is by this week story.