This isn't how you do a truce, guys. On the other hand, since this isn't the first time the sides have declared a truce and then continued killing each other, we probably shouldn't be surprised by this outcome. Russia's response hasn't been surprising either: the West is behind everything, Washington is arming the rebels, this is part of an attempted coup, etc.
But some of the stuff from the West has been interesting. I'd always considered sanctions to be a way to kill hundreds of thousands of a nation's most vulnerable citizens in hopes that the dictator ruling them suddenly develops a conscience and change his policy, and don't think doing that to a country already undergoing economic hardship is going to make things better. Except the US and EU are talking about "targeted" sanctions going after Ukraine's leadership, freezing assets and visas. Now, I'd worry that putting economic pressure on a group already leaning towards Russian handouts might at best do nothing and at worst drive them further away, but I'm sure these policymakers know what they're doing.
There's also John McCain's reaction; he likes the sanctions idea, but he's also finding time to criticize the president for I guess not doing enough against Russia and Putin? He says that Putin's "played" us, and that Russia's leader is "amoral, he’s cold, he’s distant, he’s tough,” and all of that I can agree with. But calling Obama naive is unfair - the guy orders drone strike assassinations of targets regardless of the cooperation of the country whose airspace he's violating, for crying out loud. It's better to say that Obama is simply unwilling to commit much to certain situations, such as Ukraine or Syria, where he either doesn't seen an American interest or a chance of getting a cost-effective positive outcome. If anything, I'd call him a cynic.
The most surprising thing I found was from the Council on Foreign Relations' neat Ukrainian issue guide, not so much due to the linked article's content, but its subject. It was short commentary from someone complaining that we - the US, the EU, the West - are "losing" Ukraine. This is a bit of an odd notion to think about, as we - the west, the EU, the US - never really "had" Ukraine at any point, did we? So why should we care if Putin "takes" it?
The Cold War is over, thank the deity of your choice. The great debate of whether democracy or communism is better for a country's people has been decided through the military-industrial complex and horrific proxy wars. We've reached the "end of history," where the big political debate isn't between one or more ideologies, but to what extent you can fit the Western liberal capitalist model with your country; there isn't a globally-viable alternative anymore, no great philosophy offering a different world model.
Putin doesn't like this. He sees himself - or I've read various works characterizing him this way - as the leader of a bloc providing an alternative to the West, a bloc built upon principles of... well, it looks like Putin's club is all about being able to stay in power indefinitely, thwart popular sovereignty, and crush protesting citizens without anyone else being judgmental about it. As such, this has led him to align with Syria and Iran, and is part of the reason why he's leaning so hard on Ukraine's regime. The other reason is that he doesn't consider "Little Russia" an independent state.
Competing with Russia over Ukraine's future, then, runs the risk of playing into Putin's hands, validating his worldview as the leader of nondemocratic Russia facing off against the West in Cold War II. But like I said it isn't the same situation, no fringe political scientists are arguing in favor of Putinism, and nobody outside the ruling regimes of Kiev and Damascus particularly wants that style of government. The West isn't competing with Russia to see who can control the most puppet regimes, and doesn't need to "have" Ukraine for that reason.
But that doesn't mean we should do nothing, or feel comfortable if Ukraine "goes" to Russia instead of the West, like so many of its people want. If the Cold War was about paying lip service to democracy while ignoring the piles of bodies, maybe now we can ignore the political angle and focus on helping people. Because the problem isn't that the Ukraine is building close ties to Russia; the two countries have a long history, and while it's been less amiable than relations between, say, Canada and Great Britain, it's only natural for countries to feel a bond due to their shared past.
The problem is that Ukraine is building close ties to an autocratic, oligarchic Russia. The problem is that if Kiev severs ties with the West and becomes Moscow's puppet, a lot of Ukrainians are going to suffer. And there's enough suffering going on in the world that the West isn't acting upon, so maybe we should put forth a bit more effort into at least preventing more from occurring.
Really, we shouldn't be beating ourselves up for losing Ukraine, we should be lamenting that we lost Russia. If we had come up with a better transition strategy than "shock therapy," if we had been a bit more outspoken when Yeltsin was shelling the Russian parliament, if we had helped Russia rebuild itself into a liberal, functional state instead of a combination of the worst parts of capitalism and pre-Soviet authoritarianism, Ukraine wouldn't be an issue. And we could be continuing to do nothing about Syria instead.
No comments:
Post a Comment