Wednesday, March 05, 2014

Finnish Way is the ticket for Ukraine?

"The losers will be those simpletons of international politics — including the United States — who mistook the clashes of some Ukrainian neo-Nazis with Mr. Yanukovych’s police force for the dawning of democracy and the beginning of a Ukrainian Spring."


This is non-sense. Mr. Pukhov argues that essentially West should have given up on all those demonstrators in Kiev. His advice is same as those who criticize USA (guess who - Saudi Arabia) for backing protesters who threw Mubarak in Egypt. If Mr. Pukhov wants to join Saudi Arabia and rabid Israeli Lobby which loves dictators in Egypt; then I guess one does not have to tax oneself enough to argue with Mr. Pukhov. Mr. Pukhov does not see anything wrong with Ukrainian President Yunokovich who murdered protesters in Maidan. He does not see ample opportunities which Yunokovich had to work with protesters early on to address their grievances and stop the 'looting' of already impoverished Ukraine. Well, if America is going to be called 'guiliable / sucker of freedom talk'; I suppose any American Leader and in the end American Public can live with those epithets. That is because History has shown time and again that countries who are on the side of 'freedom of an individual' are in the end with keys of living in harmony. Putin's path is no way of reaching harmony.

"Far too often the Ukrainian issue is posed as a showdown: whether Ukraine joins the East or the West. But if Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it must not be either side’s outpost against the other — it should function as a bridge between them...For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one....Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I [Kissinger] took seven years ago, when it last came up....Internationally, they [Ukraine] should pursue a posture comparable to that of Finland. That nation leaves no doubt about its fierce independence and cooperates with the West in most fields but carefully avoids institutional hostility toward Russia."


I think Henry Kissinger has got it right more or less in this case. The only reason I would support Ukraine joining NATO is when Putin's Russia would invade Ukraine to gobble the Eastern Russian speaking part. At that point benality of Putin's aggression would be so obivious that for the remaining Ukrainian states to survive (and for Poland to survive as well); Western Ukraine will have no option other than join NATO. If at all, that is the criticism with Kissinger's analysis - he did not indicate military ways for West and NATO to be on defense so that the dire situation of rump Ukraine knocking on NATO doors is avoided in the first place. In other words, there is a language of 'force' which Putin understands very well and what specific things West can do so as Putin knows that West as well can talk the language of testosterone; all that needs to be articulated.

"Meanwhile, NATO forces, consistent with the organization’s contingency planning, should be put on alert. High readiness for some immediate airlift to Europe of U.S. airborne units would be politically and militarily meaningful. If the West wants to avoid a conflict, there should be no ambiguity in the Kremlin as to what might be precipitated by further adventurist use of force in the middle of Europe."


That is where I think Brezinski answered my criticism of Kissinger. For Obama Administration, the real workable path lies in combination of what Kissinger advised and what Brezinski laid down.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

in any conflict there is a prehistory, - a series of the events leading to it. the main problem is that most people got involved in the conflict itself so much, that they tend to forget what has led to it. unfortunately in ukraine, to all major decisions that people supported there was carefull brainwashing before.

starting with the collapse of Soviet Union, yes ukrainians voted for independence. But, as my parents told me, it was phrased as independence from Moscow, nobody even thought about braking economical bridges with Russia. people were brainwashed that most of the incomes end up in moscow, that's why ukraine is poor. ok, fought for independence, got 1000% inflation, melting of all savings, poverty, criminalism, etc...

First president Kravchuk didn't do anything good for economy, second president Kuchma, began the decade of offshoring budget money, corruption, - nothing helpful. Then, we got orange revolution. Yanukovich lost, Yuschenko with Timoshenko won. This was the first trully hope that new government can end corruption and improve economy. But the hope slowly faded within a couple of years after Yuschenko and team began to mean two independant entities.

The nation simply needed changes to the good, but every new government never improved anything. Ok, another swing (actually, surprisingly to me). Yanukovich, who lost in "orange revolution", all of a sudden became "popular". Even more corruption, no trust at all to judging system, no hope for better times. Remember, last 25 years, all people wanted was just better economy with more or less adequate government and more or less wise laws. There has never been a national conflict, - many families living there now are mixed, with some ancestors having russian roots and the others - ukrainian.

Now, we have completely desperate crowd who simply hates the current government and got tired of government unproductivity. I'm sure the main incentive for the protesters was to start changing the existing paralysis in the country. Unfortunately, "big brother is watching you", so interested in the conflict parties turn the things to their advantage. And the most standard approach is to mask existing problem with something that might resonate in masses: usually national or religios conflicts. First one worked perfectly. Now the conflict is presented as if ukrainians hate russians. Russian major TV stations expose Ukraine as being occupied by national extremists from the West, even comparing them with fascists. Which is really funny to watch for someone who lived in both countries.

Whatever the outcome we'll have, there is no way that it would be beneficial to a regular ukrainian citizen. The whole world is going to discuss whether ukraine should be independent, or seek help from europe, or from russia. But nobody will ever remember that in reality ukrainians should be convinced to start building their own economy, diplomacy with the neighbouring countries, and leave the national dispute for better times. At least when people can clearly think on full stomach.