“Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine, suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire.”
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Polish-born former U.S. National Security Adviser
“You understand, George, that Ukraine is not even a state!”
a reported comment from Vladimir Putin to President George Bush in Bucharest last year.
“In the last 80 years of the 20th century we declared our independence six times. Five times we lost it,” President Ukrainian Viktor Yushchenko
A full-blown military conflict with Ukraine seems unlikely but is no longer unthinkable. (Two years ago a war between Russia and Georgia seemed equally unlikely.) The Economist
I pulled these juicy quotes from an article in The Economist which you should read to get the latest on the Ukraine / Russia relation inflammation. I've been watching this situation for the past couple weeks. It is both interesting to me as a former Soviet Foreign Policy student, and concerning as a former resident of Ukraine who loves many Ukrainians.
Inflammatory rhetoric between Russia and Ukraine of course is nothing new, it has been the diplomatic protocol between the two since .... forever? It's a dysfunctional relationship to say the least, in both history and present reality, and both sides have talked some real nation-state smack in the past few years. But one thing has always been historically clear; only one side has been, and still is capable of being a threat to the other. What seems currently clear is that that one side is increasingly ...threatening.
Russia's withholding of ambassadors and "not-normalizing" relationships is more than just smack. In terms of nation-state diplomacy and relations that's an attention getter. Imagine the United States or Canada deciding not to exchanging diplomatic parties and ambassadors, and the rising use of "Anti-Russian" as a term the Russian leadership uses to describing Ukrainian actions, policies, and events. These are not what you might term positive relational developments.
At this point in Yushchenko's now lame-duck presidency, (elections are scheduled for January) Medvedev's letters and "foreign policy TV advertisement" are obviously less of a message to Viktor than it is an opportunity to assert and spin-test Russia's foreign policy views...and possibly its policy objectives. (Is the fact that Medvedev made his video at the Black Sea supposed to tell us something of whats' on his mind?)
It seems to me that there are lots of bad historical precedents for this sort of thing. Two nations trade smack and escalating rhetoric over unresolved issues. Then one side finally makes a threat the other can't answer. At that point one nation usually gains the initiative and usually the advantage, and the other shift to the defensive. Unless you enjoy "splendid isolation," some powerful friends ...or possesses a nuclear arsenal, the defensive is not a place to be. ...the results usually write another chapter in a history book.
Ukraine needs some international friends and has been on a long, and so far fruitless search to secure some security. It gave away its nuclear arsenal post haste in the post-Soviet era thanks to some serious pressure (and millions of $ in disarmament-contingent aid) from the USA and Europe. I'm not suggesting that Ukraine should have kept them... just that the ones who talked them out of the nukes didn't seem to have a plan or even seem to foresee a need to ensure Ukrainian national security by any other means. Seems more than a little ignorant and naive given the history and the neighborhood.
So, Ukraine was left without security alliances, no military big stick (nuclear or non) in the shadow of a neighbor who considers Ukrainian national identity as an aberration, and assumes the kid brother will eventually be brought to his senses and come home.
...one way or the other?
Where will Ukraine find security? There are not many options. The EU? LOL!! Firstly, European security commitment is probably an oxymoronic term. More importantly, Europe's dependence on Russian natural gas dominates its relationship and policies toward everyone and everything to the East. By Europe here I mean the industrial-economic-political energy using power center mainly represented by Germany. There are a number of off-color euphemisms that could be used here to describe the European / Russian natural gas relationship, but lets just say none of it bodes well for any nation sitting between Germany and the Russian gas pimp. Especially if you are on the supply route, and the route is about to change.
Where will Ukraine find security? There are not many options. The EU? LOL!! Firstly, European security commitment is probably an oxymoronic term. More importantly, Europe's dependence on Russian natural gas dominates its relationship and policies toward everyone and everything to the East. By Europe here I mean the industrial-economic-political energy using power center mainly represented by Germany. There are a number of off-color euphemisms that could be used here to describe the European / Russian natural gas relationship, but lets just say none of it bodes well for any nation sitting between Germany and the Russian gas pimp. Especially if you are on the supply route, and the route is about to change.
The Baltics, Poland and others clearly understand Germany's Nord Stream project in something like these terms. The gas pipelines that supply Germany and much of Western Europe cross Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia... That means everyone downstream with a stove or furnace has had a vested interest in the territorial integrity of those countries... well at least an interest in the gas that transits that territory. Once Germany has Nord Stream will Germany care about anyone to the east? Exactly. Does Russia understand this? Exactly.
Russian aggression toward an EU Member seems a far stretch at this point (unless you are Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili) What about a non-EU eastern European country...like Ukraine for example? Everyone knows it's not EU and in no danger of being EU anytime soon. Especially those in the EU. I'm guessing most Europeans probably consider Ukraine only marginally or technically European ...more Russian right? and didn't they threaten to leave us freezing in the dark last winter?? I think we can figure an EU with an alternate gas supply is not going to give its pimp a hard time if he beats up one of the other girls... as long as gas keeps flowing to the EU.
How 'bout the US? Probably not a lot of hope there either. George Bush dangled NATO to both Ukraine and Georgia, but was he really serous to the commitments that would take, or was that just a ruse to torque Russia's tail? Or was it simply a bridge too far? Well that can be someone's doctoral dissertation cause it is all history now.
In the meantime we have had a Georgian war and the election of Barack Obama. Bush might not have been serous about his NATO tease, but President Obama just simply doesn't strike me as being a serious or weighty foreign policy presence. More importantly as it concerns Ukraine, I'm guessin' he doesn't strikes Mr Medvedev... and probably more importantly Mr Putin as a serious or strong international policy force. Even if he was, would he really risk much to establish or defend Ukrainian integrity? I can see Obama doing a great Lord Chamberlain impression as he capitulates on Ukrainian sovereignty to Russia ..."it is a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing."
Nothing indeed. The EU's response, and the the response of (at that time) candidate Obama to the Georgian War and Russian aggression was not exactly confidence inspiring. ...unless of course, you are Russia.
Posts
