AMERICA'S CRIMEAN GAMBIT… OR NOT?

                             

Protesters on the Euromaidan, December 2013

                            

And so, the cards were laid down on the table. As Moscow has ordered its troops from Ukraine’s border to return back from “military exercise,” and we hear more about diplomacy, and less about military intervention, then the confrontation with Russia clearly begins to disentangle. There should be no doubt that the West (i.e. U.S.) has managed to push Mr. Putin into the corner with not to many options left. But what is at stake, and how was it bargained? In my opinion one should look far beyond the current geographic focus of the conflict. But to understand how far and why, a necessary prelude is necessary (spoiler alert; if you don’t care about elaborations and bla-bla, scroll down directly to the last two paragraphs).

Ukraine was, sort of speaking, the Full House President Obama pulled in the game just when Mr. Putin was finally getting a grip of his own game. The West seemed pressured by Mr. Putin to negotiate, and renegotiate on every single issue that has plagued American foreign policy interests – from Syria, to Iran, to even Afghanistan. And Russia was relentlessly opposing it all. In short, my argument today is quite cynical, which is however well in tune with my realist view of politics in general. I claim that the crisis of Ukraine was well concocted and played by western scenario in attempt to turn the tables on Mr. Putin. And it succeeded. If this sounds too conspiratorial, I suggest as a starter to listen to the audio files recently leaked out between the Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the U.S. ambassador in Kiev Geoffrey Pyatt. If nothing else, they should set you in the mood for the rest of my claim.

Of course, this is not to say that the U.S. or any other state has directly stirred the events on the Euromaidan. If anyone is to blame for the events, that would be Mr. Putin’s protégé (now certainly out of grace) Viktor Yanukovich, with his decision to apply brute force in a desperate attempt to nit in the bud the growing popular revolt. But, this was a reaction to pressure, with little to no other options left available to a tinpot dictator, and most certainly under the pressure of Mr. Putin himself. The great Sun Tzu claimed in the Art of War that if one knows himself, and his enemy, he will win every single battle. I don’t know how much the U.S. knows “itself” but I guess they surely know well the nature of the tinpot dictators. The U.S. foreign policy makers are just the right type to know those, anyway.

 

Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of rightwing Svoboda party

And then there were the plenty of extremists running around Kiev, Lvov, etc., creating havoc. It is not fashionable to talk about the extremists in the Euromaidan nowadays, some of which are blatant neo-Nazi, but I will. They are a fact of life, and a matter of the fact. White supremacist banners and Confederate flags flew over the occupied City Hall in Kiev, and a large number of Nazi SS, Wolfsangel, and white power symbols were drawn over the memorial of Lenin (not that I harbor any sentiments to his “commemoration” place), while Sieg heil salutes could be seen and heard all over the Euromaidan. The ultra-nationalist Svoboda party, whose leader Oleh Tyahnybok has openly called for the “liberation” of Ukraine from the “Muscovite-Jewish mafia,” is one of the three largest opposition groups behind the protests – not a fact to be undermined. I can continue with even more egregious examples, such as the frequent habit by Yuriy Mykhalchyshyn – Tyahnynok’s deputy – to quote Joseph Geobbles, or for that matter his “great” spontaneous idea during the inauguration of Svoboda’s in-house “think-tank” to name it “The Joseph Goebbels Political Research Center.” The so-called “Right Sector,” which demanded a “national revolution” and threatened with “prolonged guerrilla warfare” if its demands were not met, is even more extreme than Svoboda party. 

 

Member of the Party of the Regions,
which served as the sort of anti-Ukraine
lobby - tacit ally of V. Yanukovich and
providing justification for Russian
invasion

But not this is the main point of the current analysis. For what is worth, despite the overwhelming presence of such groups in the Euromaidan, and the emerging evidence that the likes of such groups had enjoyed long established connections with Western powers (for example, the Svoboda group is linked to other neo-fascist parties in Europe throughout Alliance of European National Movements, which fact, however, has not prevented Assistant Secretary of State Amanda Nuland to meet with the Svoboda leader, and other opposition leaders in early February), the death of the tens of Ukrainians who sought nothing less than the best and the brightest future for their country must not be tainted by blind associations with these extremist forces.

Plus, I slowly become convinced now that – willingly or not – these extremists played a rather important role in a script written not in Kiev, or in Washington, or in Brussels, but in Moscow. This is by the way always the case with the radical elements – they are embarrassment to acknowledge, but useful instrument to exploit in a crisis and then distance from. They are the agent-provocateurs, the well known “les casseurs” in the annual French demonstrations, for example. They come and taint any protest, steering the popular attitudes from the morally superior demands, against the repulsive violence they become associated with. Hence, only a few major actors during the zenith of a crisis would admit direct links with them. 

Members of Svoboda Party with flags displaying the Wolfsangel SS sign

But they will mercilessly exploit the negative externalities from their actions nonetheless. It is a bit like having a crazy aunt, which would crash your wedding party and spill out the beans to your in-laws about their total lack of taste in setting up the ceremony: embarrassing yes, but you can distance yourselves from her, while leaving the truth to hang up in the air as a Damocles’ sword. Well, the extremists are something like that, but a lot more violent, and regrettably a lot less humorous.

Svoboda party activists on a march
October, 2013

The West, of course, was not merely an innocent observer here, either. Oh, no! And when I talk about the “West” I predominantly mean “the U.S.” with the slight help of Canada, and the reluctant meritocracy of foreign policy resemblance by the EU. While we may not have much direct evidence for its direct involvement, apart from the leaked audio files and the open meetings of U.S. officials with the opposition leaders, the indirect involvement of the West was out there on display all along. Oh, yes of course, there is also the “slight” matter of Senator McCain’s eternal sense of omnipresence, this time taking shape in his direct address of the Euromaidan, shoulder to shoulder with Arseniy Yatsenyuk – the West-designated future political leader of Ukraine, and the with no else but the embarrassing aunt on the party, Oleh Tyahnybok. One has to wonder how Sen. McCain will ever sit again on one of these meetings with the Israeli prime and foreign ministers, or with the members of the Knesset, or for that matter ever meet eye to eye, let alone be invited to an annual meeting, or God forbid – to address such a distinguished gathering – with the ultra-sensitive AIPAC members, after such a blatant support for an anti-Semite and a neo-Nazi. Ups, correction, I was wrong! He doesn’t care much I guess, and so seem the AIPAC leaders, as Sen. McCain just addressed the AIPAC Annual Conference the other day. Ah, morals and mores – can’t live with them, can’t kill them!

 

Senator McCain in December in Ukrain, meeting with Oleh Tyahnybok,
and standing shoulder to shoulder with him during his address
of the crowds on the Euromaidan

The rest of the evidence for the Western involvement, however, is crumbs one has to follow through the mainstream media, or for that matter to observe what is missing from there. As it became clear from the leaked phone conversation – no doubt an example of an outstanding professional work by the KGB-successor, the FSB – Assistant Secretary Nuland has made clear the U.S. desire for close and incessant consultations with the western tapped replacement for Viktor Yanukovich, Arseniy Yatsenyuk – no less then “four times a week.” She also claimed in December 2013 that the U.S. has invested $5 billion in the building of “democratic skills and institutions” in Ukraine.

At the end of January, the British newspaper The Guardian came out with a sharp commentary by the newspaper’s columnist and associate editor, Seumas Milne. In it, he bluntly stated that the protests are “played out through the western media according to a well-rehearsed script.” Almost a month later, the popular online American magazine Salon came out with an alarming article about the U.S. support for neo-Nazis in Ukraine. Not many mainstream outlets followed suit, though. But if the curious reader desires more, the sporadic leaks in the mainstream western press, and the flurry of publications in the unchecked and unedited blogsphere, will provide her with more than abundant evidence for the role of the West, and for its support for the rightwing extremists, in the protests. The same, which made the Russian ethnic population threatened and perhaps provoked the “call of honor” by Mr. Putin. What happened, in short, is not much different than what happened a decade ago with the Orange Revolution, or for that matter with the so-called Arab Spring. This time, however, Moscow had fewer options to act on. In fact, it had none than the obvious.

This leaves us at the present distribution of power. At the moment when many claimed that Ukraine’s protests are an example of lingering flicker of hope the democratically thinking Ukrainians desperately clanged to – a last breath of democracy in the bear’s hug – a few “bold” publications claimed outright that the Ukraine’s crisis is indeed an example of Russia’s weakness, not a demonstration of strength and resolve. I must agree with those who claim that. From Mr. Putin’s perspective what happened in Ukraine is not a sign for the failure of the European and American efforts to steer away the country from the Russian sphere of influence. It is not a triumph of his ability to keep Ukraine in his sphere of influence. Neither, should he find too many reasons for self-congratulations. Despite the claim by the former Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns that “Putin has struck at a vital US interest – a free and stable Europe,” – a comment he interestingly removed from the reprint of his opinion in the Financial Times a few days later – and that the U.S. must respond accordingly, I happened to believe that the crisis in Ukraine is the force majeure for Russia, at least for the time being.

Since the end of the Cold War NATO (i.e. the U.S. and a fellowship of 27) has been pressuring Russia constantly and relentlessly along its borders: It expanded to accept the Baltic republics – former Soviet territories. It engulfed – by their own request – almost all Eastern European countries, including Albania, as its members. Nowadays, six former republics, supposedly still in the Russian sphere of influence – Georgia, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and yes, Ukraine – participate in NATO’s “Partnership for Peace” program, which allows to their militaries to connect and socialize with NATO’s military functioning and technology. Admittedly, Russia was also member of PfP, but only on paper. In 2002 this partnership was transformed into a "council," which is more of a meeting place to discuss and negotiate. For the rest of the members in the PfP, however, the partnership is real, and is often seen as the first step towards full-fledged membership. 

And, finally, five more former Soviet republics – Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan – now cooperate with NATO by providing bases on their territories to be used in the Afghan war, or by allowing transit, refueling and overflight rights to NATO forces. The only way it may become even more embarrassing for Moscow will be if Lukashenka – the loyal servant of Kremlin and brutal dictator of Belarus – joins NATO, or for that matter, by popular demand from the Russian Duma, Moscow joins itself. So, when a publication in The Atlantic claims that Russia is pressed to the wall by the U.S. and the recent invasion of Crimea by Russian troops is a desperate move by Russia to protect its interests, I must agree.

The new distribution of power leaves Russia desperate to prove strong, and the West – able to trade horses with Mr. Putin. The ultimate prize for him should be to gain legitimate and permanent control, one way or another, of Crimea. It is predominantly Russian, it has a strategic location for Russian military interests, and with the large naval Russian base in the Black sea, is a place from where Russia can access the south of Europe, Asia, and indeed – the world.

But this high prize should come at even a higher price. One of the items on the table should be the regime of Assad, and the support Russia gives to the bloody Syrian government. The other cost should be no brainer – closer cooperation with the West on the Iranian nuclear issue. Let’s not kid ourselves – Russia has the same, if not greater interest to enforce the recent agreements with Iran. But it pays off to play the spoiler, to be the free rider, to rip the benefits when someone else is willing to pay the price. This should end, here and now.

Russia should also agree to become more active and willing participant in the six-party talks, and perhaps even be encouraged to take the initiative to put more pressure on North Korea and its de facto patron – China, for slow relaxation of the iron grip of the totalitarian regime on its people, and greater cooperation with the rest of the world, including – ultimately – complete and unconditional denuclearization.

Finally, something not many talk about, but many suspect – Russia should not be tempted to take revenge on the West by looking for backchannel connections with various jihadist movements across the globe. It is rather understandable that Moscow may want a payback for its suffering in Afghanistan in the hands of the Western backed mujahideen. But neither this is the time nor the place. Kremlin has its own established connections with certain circles in Islamabad, Kabul, and Ankara, which could prove useful. But, these temptations should be curtailed. If history teaches something, it is that fooling around with the jihadists never pays off, as there is no middle ground to suspend that game after a while. But, of course, history teaches us that no one takes lesson from it – history’s paradoxical most important lesson. So, who knows?

The price Moscow should pay is surely high. It took fifteen years for Mr. Putin to bring Russia where it is now – racing towards its former throne from the Cold War. But the time of the Cold War is over. Mr. Putin is showing determination to bleed, if necessary. He certainly has studied well Carl von Clausewitz’s concept of “defensive war” and calculates that the force is with him, he is in the defender’s seat and will be vindicated by the reality, and history. But he is wrong! In Ukraine he is certainly not the “defender.” He is the aggressor. Getting this simple fact wrong is the difference between death and life. Regrettably, not Mr. Putin’s per se. But his political and perhaps historical death, for sure. He may not care much about Ukrainian and even Russian blood spilled in the name of the “greater good.” But he certainly cares about his legacy and his “rightful” place in history. They all do. The West must remind him this at every possible occasion.