Tweet
RUSSIA'S VERY DIFFERENT TAKE ON UKRAINE CRISIS: WALKOM
There is little the West can do to force Russian troops from Crimea.
But we should try to understand why they're there.
ALEXEY DRUGINYN / RIA NOVOSTI / EPA
Russian President Vladimir Putin's marathon press conference on
Tuesday was marked by whoppers, including that Russian troops in
Crimea are not Russian, but the West should try to understand why
the troops are there, Thomas Walkom writes.
By: Thomas Walkom National Affairs, Published on Tue Mar 04 2014
There are two things to keep in mind about the Ukrainian crisis.
The first is that, rhetoric aside, there is little that the West can
or will do to force Russian President Vladimir Putin's troops out
of Crimea.
The second is that Russia's view of what's happening inUkraine differs
dramatically from the one commonly accepted here.
If those who overthrew the old order in Kyiv are counting on the West
to protect them militarily from Moscow, they are almost certainly
doomed to disappointment.
The U.S., Canada, and other NATO members have made it clear that they
are not willing to go to war with Russia over Ukraine.
There has been talk of economic sanctions. But as both the West and
Russia know, these would cut two ways.
In the short run, Western Europe depends on Russian oil and natural
gas. Russian rubles grease Britain's important financial industry.
As the BBC reported, British Prime Minister David Cameron has been
warned by his own officials against imposing sanctions that could
interfere with London's role as a financial centre.
The West could expel Russia from the G8 group of big industrial
nations. But so what? Many countries, including China, get by perfectly
well outside of the G8.
Resolutions condemning Russia's intervention in Ukraine's Crimea
region, such as the one passed unanimously in the Commons Monday, may
make the participants feel virtuous. But they have no practical effect.
Lost in the clamour is the fact that Russia has an entirely different
take on what is happening in Ukraine.
In the West, last month's revolution is lauded as a victory of
democracy over despotism. To Russia's leaders, however, it was
a Washington-backed putsch designed to draw a region long deemed
essential to Moscow's security into the enemy camp.
U.S. President Barack Obama says Ukraine can both be a friend to the
West and to Russia.
Putin's press conference Tuesday was marked by whoppers, including
his claim that Russian troops in Crimea are not Russian.
But I suspect he was speaking close to the heart when he accused the
U.S. and its friends of playing a crucial role in the "coup d'etat"
that brought Ukraine's new government to power.
"They sit there across the pond as if in a lab running all kinds of
experiments on the rats," Putin said.
To Moscow, the decision to dig in now follows logically from what it
sees as two decades of Western double-dealing.
Canadians remember that the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Russia
remembers that, in return, the U.S. and its allies agreed to recognize
Moscow's vital interest in its own neighbourhood.
In particular, then U.S. president George Bush pledged not to expand
NATO eastward.
Yet to Russia's dismay, that pledge was soon broken as NATO welcomed
11 former Soviet satellites into its fold, including Poland, Hungary
and the Czech Republic.
In 2003 and 2004, Western countries backed so-called colour revolutions
in Georgia and Ukraine. In 2008, NATO agreed that both would eventually
be allowed to join the military alliance.
The West viewed all of this as the march of democracy. But Moscow
saw it as hypocritical meddling.
Russia knows that the U.S. accords itself the right to intervene
militarily in the affairs of its neighbours. It has famously done so
throughout Latin America and the Caribbean.
Yet when Moscow does the same, it finds itself branded a pariah.
Being lectured on international law by the country that illegally
invaded Iraq almost certainly irks.
In a perfect world, Moscow would abandon its strategic interests in
Crimea (it's been home to Russia's Black Sea fleet since 1783). In
a perfect world, Russia would not care if a united Ukraine joined NATO.
In the real world, this is unlikely to happen. For this crisis
to end, Kyiv and Moscow will have to reach some kind of political
accommodation.
Moral and financial support from the West may be cheering for Ukraine.
But it won't be enough.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/03/04/russias_very_different_take_on_ukraine_crisis_walk om.html#
There is little the West can do to force Russian troops from Crimea.
But we should try to understand why they're there.
ALEXEY DRUGINYN / RIA NOVOSTI / EPA
Russian President Vladimir Putin's marathon press conference on
Tuesday was marked by whoppers, including that Russian troops in
Crimea are not Russian, but the West should try to understand why
the troops are there, Thomas Walkom writes.
By: Thomas Walkom National Affairs, Published on Tue Mar 04 2014
There are two things to keep in mind about the Ukrainian crisis.
The first is that, rhetoric aside, there is little that the West can
or will do to force Russian President Vladimir Putin's troops out
of Crimea.
The second is that Russia's view of what's happening inUkraine differs
dramatically from the one commonly accepted here.
If those who overthrew the old order in Kyiv are counting on the West
to protect them militarily from Moscow, they are almost certainly
doomed to disappointment.
The U.S., Canada, and other NATO members have made it clear that they
are not willing to go to war with Russia over Ukraine.
There has been talk of economic sanctions. But as both the West and
Russia know, these would cut two ways.
In the short run, Western Europe depends on Russian oil and natural
gas. Russian rubles grease Britain's important financial industry.
As the BBC reported, British Prime Minister David Cameron has been
warned by his own officials against imposing sanctions that could
interfere with London's role as a financial centre.
The West could expel Russia from the G8 group of big industrial
nations. But so what? Many countries, including China, get by perfectly
well outside of the G8.
Resolutions condemning Russia's intervention in Ukraine's Crimea
region, such as the one passed unanimously in the Commons Monday, may
make the participants feel virtuous. But they have no practical effect.
Lost in the clamour is the fact that Russia has an entirely different
take on what is happening in Ukraine.
In the West, last month's revolution is lauded as a victory of
democracy over despotism. To Russia's leaders, however, it was
a Washington-backed putsch designed to draw a region long deemed
essential to Moscow's security into the enemy camp.
U.S. President Barack Obama says Ukraine can both be a friend to the
West and to Russia.
Putin's press conference Tuesday was marked by whoppers, including
his claim that Russian troops in Crimea are not Russian.
But I suspect he was speaking close to the heart when he accused the
U.S. and its friends of playing a crucial role in the "coup d'etat"
that brought Ukraine's new government to power.
"They sit there across the pond as if in a lab running all kinds of
experiments on the rats," Putin said.
To Moscow, the decision to dig in now follows logically from what it
sees as two decades of Western double-dealing.
Canadians remember that the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Russia
remembers that, in return, the U.S. and its allies agreed to recognize
Moscow's vital interest in its own neighbourhood.
In particular, then U.S. president George Bush pledged not to expand
NATO eastward.
Yet to Russia's dismay, that pledge was soon broken as NATO welcomed
11 former Soviet satellites into its fold, including Poland, Hungary
and the Czech Republic.
In 2003 and 2004, Western countries backed so-called colour revolutions
in Georgia and Ukraine. In 2008, NATO agreed that both would eventually
be allowed to join the military alliance.
The West viewed all of this as the march of democracy. But Moscow
saw it as hypocritical meddling.
Russia knows that the U.S. accords itself the right to intervene
militarily in the affairs of its neighbours. It has famously done so
throughout Latin America and the Caribbean.
Yet when Moscow does the same, it finds itself branded a pariah.
Being lectured on international law by the country that illegally
invaded Iraq almost certainly irks.
In a perfect world, Moscow would abandon its strategic interests in
Crimea (it's been home to Russia's Black Sea fleet since 1783). In
a perfect world, Russia would not care if a united Ukraine joined NATO.
In the real world, this is unlikely to happen. For this crisis
to end, Kyiv and Moscow will have to reach some kind of political
accommodation.
Moral and financial support from the West may be cheering for Ukraine.
But it won't be enough.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/03/04/russias_very_different_take_on_ukraine_crisis_walk om.html#