Russian Federation 2

One More "Seriously Bad Idea": It's All Putins Fault

By John Pedler
June 20, 2015 "Information Clearing House" - Paul Krugman the American Nobel laureate in Economics tells us (New York Times June 12th) of ‘seriously bad ideas’ which get repeated ad nauseam in the media, get believed, and cause immense harm to many economies. In foreign affairs there is right now a seriously bad idea which floods our media overwhelming fruitful discussion of the Ukraine crisis. This is the ‘seriously bad idea’ that it’s “all Putin’s fault”. Expert voices on Russia and the Ukraine are being drowned out.

We don’t hear what many ‘Western’ experts have long been saying about how the blame for the Ukraine crisis lies with the EU and the US as well as with Russia. There are two recent publications which deserve the attention they have not had. The first is the 10 February report of the House of Lords Committee on Foreign Affairs chaired by Lord Tugendhat. It declares that ‘Foreign Office [and by extension the EU’s] shortcomings led to a catastrophic misreading of the mood in the run-up to the Ukraine crisis’. The second is Professor Sakwa’s recent monumental work ‘Frontline Ukraine’ evenhandedly distributing blame on the EU, on President Putin, and on the US.

In the last months noted historians John J. Mearsheimer, Margaret Macmillan, and Tarik Cyril Amar have faulted US and EU policies which have ignored Russia’s vital interests. As early as 8 September last year three former US Ambassadors to Russia/USSR signed a New York Times Oped headlined 'Give Diplomacy a Chance' - Jack F. Matlock, Thomas Pickering and James F. Collins. 

EU, US, Russia – their true national interests coincide

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov's annual news conference of 21 January and Mr. Gorbachev's grave warning of 29 January should be seen for what they were – indications that Russia would be prepared to negotiate over the Ukraine provided its interests are respected.

Russia has a vital interest in the Ukraine, the EU has a very important interest, the US has no political interest provided the Ukraine is a benign hyphen joining the EU west and the Russian east of Europe. It was flouting Russia’s vital national interest in the Ukraine that led to the present crisis. The call for the Ukraine to join NATO was the last straw. And Mr. Putin, with his understandable fear of the US, if defied reaches for his sword; further defied, he uses it.

It is not only President Obama who is under pressure to end the present stand off with Russia. President Putin too, is under pressure. The assassination on 27 February of Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsev, who had openly deplored the policies that had brought civil war to the Ukraine, momentarily revealed the depth of Russian middle class concern about President Putin’s alienation of ‘the West’. Putin is popular in Russia for standing up, as any Russian President must, for Russia’s vital interests – not for a Ukrainian civil war that’s in the interest of no one – particularly the hapless Ukrainians. So if Putin is made an offer that Russia “cannot refuse”, he is likely to take it.  

Prospects for agreement on the status of the Ukraine

Last year the stage was at last set for serious negotiations about the shape of a Ukrainian settlement. For the European Union (Chancellor Merkel and President Hollande) had begun direct talks about the Ukraine with Russia (President Putin) without the US being directly involved, yet with the involvement of all the Ukrainian parties. These ongoing discussions could now have far greater potential to result in negotiations to end the civil war and determine the future status of the Ukraine.

There is too, a growing awareness that neither ‘the West’ nor Russia can afford to make more enemies than they already have. They both need partners: think climate change, Iran, Syria, and ISIS. And good EU/Russia relations will largely determine whether a much needed era of cooperation replaces these times of confrontation. President Obama was right when he famously remarked that in today’s world you can’t get much done without Russia.   

The shape of an agreement

In an article of mine before the annexation of the Crimea (14 March 2014), I urged that negotiations be opened which would include the lease of Russia's bases in the Crimea (Russia's No 1 vital interest in the Ukraine) being renewed in perpetuity as part of a package. It’s too late for that now, but important Russian concessions over the governance of the Crimea could still be sought in return for Russian agreement on the whole package which would include Ukraine not joining any military alliance.  

Given Ukraine's economic plight due to misgovernance and corruption, any package could include the EU matching Putin's offer (since withdrawn) of $15bn in aid - the $30bn assessed as the Ukraine's minimum requirement if topped up sufficiently with an IMF loan. Any preferential economic treatment for the Ukraine to be granted to both the EU and Russia; a joint EU/Russia commission for the Ukraine, based in Kiev, to signal any breach of the agreement and to coordinate such an EU/Russia "Marshall Plan". Obviously, all this would need to be fleshed out, but something along these lines would provide the basis for the future status of the Ukraine. Such a proposition would likely be received with relief by most Ukrainians – but they would of course need to have the last word in a properly conducted referendum.

But both the US and Russia are big ships – and big ships are hard to turn around particularly when there are those on the bridge who are out to seize the wheel: ‘unipolar’ neo-conservatives in the US and KGB ‘silovki’ who came in when Putin arrived on the world stage. It will be hard for Kerry and Lavrov to keep the ear of their bosses. If the media, ‘Western’ and Russian, were to become even-handed, it would do much to help them.

John Pedler, is a former British diplomat much involved with the USSR during the 'Cold War'. - dipconsult @ hotmail.com

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42204.htm