Welcome back from the beach! Did you have a good time? Are you rested and relaxed? Good.
We will soon be at war with Ukraine. This alarming situation has been escalating for months, while you were buying presents and planning a socially distanced Christmas, and came to a head while you were lying on the sand trying to get more than nine pages into the latest diversity novel.
The United States is speaking of giving very heavy assistance to the Ukrainian government in its dispute with Russia. Russia, in turn, is speaking of putting forces into Cuba and Venezuela, to show the US what it’s like to have enemy “big power” (read: nuclear-armed petro-kleptocracy) forces on its borders. In the West this is being portrayed in a familiar fashion, as the relentless hunger of the rapacious Russian bear coming once again for the sweet Ukrainian maiden.
From the Russian side, it is about the West’s relentless attempt to encircle Russia, with the absurd notion that NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) should extend all the way into western Asia. The West says it’s the Russians’ fault; the Russians say it’s the West’s fault. Is there a way to cut this Gordian knot? Yes. It’s the West’s fault.
The dispute goes back to 2014, as a proximate cause, and all the way back to the late 1980s, as a more extended explanation.
As the eastern bloc began to break up in the late ’80s, George HW Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev made a deal that nations departing from the Warsaw Pact would not be recruited into NATO, thus lying as a neutral buffer zone between NATO and what was still the USSR. When the USSR dissolved in 1991, that commitment was restated, somewhat more vaguely to the new Russian (Commonwealth of Independent States) leadership.
But in the ’90s, that Western commitment was reneged upon, as the US’s lone superpower status looked set to extend well into the 21st century. NATO extension was not merely geopolitical expansion, but the extension of a neoliberal realm in which the “Washington consensus” could operate, and post-socialist nationalist economies could be broken open and made into dependent markets.
There were some leaders of the old eastern bloc who were eager to join, with countries like Poland not unreasonably believing that a renewal of Russian nationalism had no good news for it. But even if it didn’t, it got it anyway. The “Rambouillet agreement” presented to Serbia as the take-it-or-leave-it way to avoid a war over Kosovo, absolved all potential peacekeeping forces of any local criminal culpability, and specified that Kosovo would be a free market economy. It was designed to humiliate or crush Serbia, the last outpost of Russian influence within Europe.
By the 2000s, much of the old Warsaw Pact was in NATO. In 2004 the Baltic states, former Soviet republics, were signed up. In 2008 Georgia, its government taken over by a bunch of Economist-reading Erasmus exchange students, was briefly invaded by Russia, largely to reassert the interests of several Russian-oriented pseudo-republics inside its borders. They were out in a few weeks, and the invasion stalled Georgia’s path to membership, which remains on the table.
Ukraine has been a more complex proposition. Until 2010, under leaders Viktor Yushchenko (the poisoned guy, Frankenstein lookalike) and Yulia Tymoshenko (remember her — hair in circular plaits, waitress in a Tolkien-themed theatre restaurant), Ukraine reoriented to Europe and NATO.
In 2010, pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych was elected. He steered away from the EU and NATO and signed loan agreements with Russia. A resistance from pro-European Ukrainians — very well-funded by Western agencies — began, a revolution/coup/putsch forced Yanukovych out (and into exile) and the country swung back to Europe — which prompted Russia’s annexation of Crimea (with Russia’s only warm-water ports), uprisings in the eastern, pro-Russian Donbas region, and the creation of two people’s republics unrecognised by anyone much, except Russia.
Russia continues to have military in those areas; Kiev recognises that its writ does not run there.
This land of warm-water ports has become hot now, because the current Ukraine government has made moves to breach a buffer zone between western Ukraine and the self-declared republics of eastern Ukraine, as established by the Minsk accords in 2015.
A first move in April was stood down. Now 90,000 Russian troops are massed at the eastern Ukraine-Russia border, ready to come in and defend the “people’s republics” if they are breached by US- and Turkish-armed and -advised Ukrainian forces, ahead of a renewed push for Ukraine’s “right to choose” NATO membership.
It is this that has prompted Putin to (wryly?) threaten troops in the western hemisphere.
How much of the portentous talk of war is real, and how much is media wars with an on-the-ground component, is hard to discern. But the pro-US flacks are somewhat hampered by the utter absurdity, in realpolitik terms, of suggesting that Russia has no reasonable concern about a small(er) nation’s sphere of influence — especially after the 2014 pro-European “orange revolution/coup” was so visibly and vastly funded by US and European agencies to get the result they wanted. Hence much of the pro-US talk harks back to the wheezy notion of “respect” rather than concrete geopolitical interests.
The NATO hawks are infuriated by various steps back the Biden administration has made — such as cancelling sanctions imposed by Donald Trump on companies working on the Nord Stream 2 Russia-Germany pipeline — but NATO membership has not yet been renounced or refused. Indeed Biden has calibrated, saying that an “incursion” would attract less concerted US actions than a full-scale invasion. Over here, Greg Sheridan is on holiday, trying to recreate the shroud of Turin with a microwave and a tea towel (“I can’t! The gospels are true!”), so the task falls to Peter Jennings, head of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI):
America’s credibility as an ally is on the line … If Biden concedes to Putin’s claim, American credibility and power fades … We need a confident America operating with a sense of its own power and purpose.
Who needs this exactly? Jaded cold-warriors in search of a dose of geopolitical viagra to make themselves feel alive again, in a world where state conflict lacks any sustaining historical narrative. To sate their pathetic desires, they want a NATO that extends across the world, save for Russia and China, and is nothing but a renewal of the notion of the US as a territory-less empire enforcing an unargued idea of truth and goodness.
Those days have flown, with the last plane out of Kabul airport. If central Europe and west Asian nations want to create an independent treaty group, I wouldn’t bloody blame them. But NATO has no role there. Still less ourselves, as the US’ bayonet-cloth for which there is zero public support after the failure and debauch (with which groups like ASPI are splattered) of the past two decades.
Ah well, back to the beach for the last rays of summer. Don’t forget to pack a diversity novel!
Thank you, Guy. At last, a commentary that goes beyond the shallow depths of media holiday waters in which any venturing deeper than “will dictator Putin tell his troops to invade Ukraine?” is carefully avoided in case we upset our US overlords.
So many conflicts, so much history! I’m glad someone else is doing the research for me so I can at least have a slightly informed view. Its exhausting just learning about it, I feel for those living through it.. 🙁
If you pose the question, “who is at fault, A or B?”, answering it requires more than just establishing that A is at fault. It may be that B is equally at fault as well, or indeed more so, in which case just giving the answer “A” is deeply misleading.
I agree completely that the west is at fault over Ukraine; NATO expansion to the east was a bad mistake (altho exactly what was promised to Gorbachev is disputed). But I think it’s very hard to argue that the Russian response, even if it goes no further than it has so far, is reasonable or proportionate.
I agree and would add that I am very uncomfortable with A and B being the United States and Russia and (C?) Ukraine and their subjectivity and rights being an afterthought. I posted a longer piece with some detail about my concerns but it has hit the dreaded waiting for approval.
Totally agree AP7. Too many commentators treat Ukraine’s internal politics as irrelevant. I’m still waiting for
your longer piece to appear.
In the meantime, here’s an article that takes Ukraine’s internal politics into account and explains its dilemma:
https://warontherocks.com/2019/02/implementing-the-minsk-agreements-might-drive-ukraine-to-civil-war-thats-been-russias-plan-all-along/
Thank you for this, very good background on a very complex situation, allowing one to see some of the internal politics interacting with the external ones. The internal extremists remain a real problem for Ukraine becoming a viable and stable democracy, along with the great power pressures and the ongoing corruption and lack of prosperity. What Putin most doesn’t want is a prosperous democracy next door. His fear of demonstration effect would overwhelm him and likely lead him outright intervention. He worked for the KGB in East Germany and then saw, and helped in, the collapse of the Soviet Union. Rather than NATO what Ukraine really needs is a Marshall plan.
I lived for some time in Russia in the 1990s, and visited the Soviet Union during perestroika. It was quite clear that by that point what most people wanted was a social democracy, Sweden, Denmark and West Germany were seen as models. However economic collapse, the impoverishment of the middle class and the return of the appatchiks as racketeers dashed those dreams.
Charles mate, yeah but nah. Your logic is correct, and all too rare in an online forum. But I question your view that “the west is at fault over Ukraine”, and that “NATO expansion to the east was a bad mistake”.
Starting with NATO expansion, it might be true that dissolving the alliance when the USSR imploded would have been a good move for peace in the long run, but we’ll never know. It’s at least strongly compelling to argue that Russia’s descent into kleptocratic imperium wouldn’t have been affected one iota. Considering that there were still Russian troops of occupation in Czechia as late as mid-1991, there were plenty of reasons to be wary.
NATO’s first post-cold war expansion didn’t occur until 1999, and by then Russia had been militarily involved in Chechyna, Abkhazia and Transnistria/Moldova. Why wouldn’t countries with long, recent histories of oppression under Russian forces ask to join? And who in Central, Northern, or Western Europe could credibly deny them? Plenty of historians believe that joining NATO actually improved ties with other European nations and contributed to, you’d never guess, mutual peace and prosperity.
And as for “the west being at fault”, well, I haven’t seen any British or German armoured vehicles crossing the Russian border to carve out a border-zone. If any Western nation acted the same way, and demanded the same privileges, I have no doubt what everyone’s reactions would be.
A bit simplistic here. “I haven’t seen any British or German armoured vehicles crossing the Russian border to carve out a border-zone.” There was the episode of the Crimean War in the 1850s involving British and French cavalry and Turkish troop fighting against Russia. The British were there post-WW1 in Archangel and North Russia carving out territory for the anti-Bolshevic forces. The Germans were in the USSR and Russia in both world wars not just invading but pillaging, stealing, requisitioning, burning and carving out territory for itself and anti-Russian or anti-Soviet forces. You mightn’t see it but it certainly happened. I can’t blame Russia for being concerned about NATO country on its borders and a long border at that.
Many of the conflicts of which you speak are Russian republics – Chechnya for one. Ingushetia for 2. They have been havens and breeding grounds for not just Muslim seperatists but Islamic extremists so Russian cooperation in this fight is critical. Abkhazia and Ossettia are partially recognised separatist states of Georgia and contain ethnic Russians. This is Russian repression in reverse. It is the Russians in non-Russian states which complicate issues.
It is wrong for NATO to expand eastward to incorporate Ukraine as they are poor and have nothing to lose by a war with Russia and western troops will be used just as they were in Kosovo when the Kosovars and Albania strategically began a fight for succession from Serbia. Quite frankly, democracy is worth dying to defend. Ukraine is not. Its defence is a cover for other anti-Russian initiatives. To “defend” Ukraine is weapons of mass destruction all over again and with a twist.
So Hitler had a right to invade Czechoslovakia then? Plus, the people who haven’t escaped the Donbas (migrating to Ukraine) and are true Russian nationalists want to join Russia like Crimea, not live in a made-up republic.
Also, cherry-picking history ignores every time Russia has had the power to expand its empire and did. Is close to reducing China to 1800 – 1980 and ignoring 4000 years of civilisation. Though under 1000 years in Russia case.
How can you occupy Chechnya, Abkhazia if they are part of Russia?
Thanks Ma vie. Yes, fair point; I certainly don’t blame Poland & the Baltic states for wanting to join NATO. But the big game was always democracy in Russia, and I think the west threw that away by being too confrontational in the 1990s & 2000s, enabling Putin to play the nationalist card. It’s possible it would have come to grief anyway, but it looks to me as if a big opportunity was missed.
Sorry, but why is it always somebody else’s responsibility to transform Russia into a liberal democracy?
Then such democracy is stymied by corrupt leaders in Russia etc., then they blame the ‘west’?
Erdogan in Turkey, Orban in Hungary et al. are masters of this tactic playing demographics by appealing to their ageing and less educated regional constituents through consolidated/controlled legacy media (like Australia’s?), but have lost it with more educated, mobile and urbanised youth/working age; often 50% of youth plan to emigrate due to incompetent but authoritarian leadership…..
“But the big game was always democracy in Russia.”
Should it read “my type of democracy”?
There are many forms of democracy and I would like to see a comparison on the democratic processes of electing the three leaders in the major powers in the World ie USA, China, Russia.
In Particular China has a collegiate system which in concept is not so far removed from the US collegiate system. The populous in US and China do not vote their leader directly into power. However China has one party and the US two.
Xi is more popular than Biden.
Putin has the highest approval rate of all three.
Apart from snide ignorant remarks – Why is it so?
May I suggest it would be a revealing article that would educate so many people making the wrong assumptions in these comments.
No, sorry Maroochy, if you think Russia and China count as forms of democracy I don’t see much potential for a useful discussion.
The argument of a closed mind unwilling to consider anything that doesn’t fit into their narrow frame of reference.
Typical liberal behaviour in any argument, my way or a highway.
You seem to have a narrow idea of democracy – please outline your, no doubt interesting, parameters.
Life’s short; we have to pick our battles. I don’t think it’s worth arguing with anti-vaxers or climate change denialists. Similarly I don’t think it’s worth arguing with people who think Russia and/or China count as democracies.
Exactly, too many in Australia, but not western Europe, seem to hero worship Putin and Russia, although a white Christian nationalist authoritarian regime (like Australia and/or Abbott?), with several Central Eastern or Balkan leaders flirting with (or compromised by) Putin; but careful in public as clear voter majorities support both the EU and NATO, especially includes younger generations.
Putin has almost equally been as negative towards the EU (like Tories, GOP, LNP & Koch think tanks), as NATO (originally designed to keep both Germany in check and Russia at the borders); but continually disregards or bypasses the reality that these supposedly offensive smaller border nations through Europe are democratic societies with small militaries, simply bullying?
Issue round Putin, like Erdogan et al, is he appears to have wedged himself into a corner enriching and securing his leadership vs. decline in support in urban centres, while Russia suffers economically, health wise due to Covid, ageing/declining populations, decline in budgets/public services while the military has significant budget support, corruption, no freedom of speech, lack of human rights and youth want to emigrate (the latter is replicated in similar regimes in region).
In the Anglosphere it has become very complicated by real and assumed clear links between oligarchs supporting/following Putin, many in the UK support the Tories (& Brexit), plus the GOP (& Trump) while one assumes Tony ‘shirtfront’ Abbott has some admiration for Putin; what is everybody else’s excuse, hero worship of false gods?
This shows how Australian politics, narratives and beliefs are not just decades out of date but evidence, like the UK, the lunatic left joining up (or being drawn into) partnership with the radical right to reward corrupt authoritarian leaders?
Yet Russian people love him, it is people like you were prising Yeltsin, but USA had to involve it’s all election gurus, to help him win his last election. Why it is always when West likes Russian leaders, Russians do not? Simple answer, Putin is there for Russian interests, not yours. And it is for Russians to decide how “democratic” Russia is. They do not want kleptocracy of USA or forced two party system of Australia.
Not yours either, it’s Russian citizens who are politically active in a liberal democratic sense, but risk trumped up charges, indefinite detention or if a journalist, murder; reality in Russia. Yet it’s working age and youth who will need to deal with the future, not Putin, but they are being throw under a bus.
Suppose, like the article, it’s similar to the cognitive dissonance round Trump, Joh Bjelke Petersen and Australia’s sporting heroes when it’s almost always middle aged and older men who have need for an authority figure?
Perhaps the most immediate concern in Australia is not the rights and wrongs of the situation(which are undoubtedly significant), but how Morrison and Dutton will try and turn it to their advantage for a khaki election. Given their recent form, they’ll probably stuff that up, but it may be enough to scare the electorate even more that it is.
Let’s not forget that the US always needs a hot war and somewhere to drop its bombs. It doesn’t really have one at the moment (I don’t think Yemen counts, unless you live there).
A war in the Ukraine is not out of the question.
It’s tempting to just fall back into the old pattern of lambasting the American technomilitary empire for the umpteenth time, but what’s the point? If they don’t respond to Russian moves, then they basically lose all credibility with their closest allies, who also happen to belong to the world’s single most important diplomatic and trading community. Not responding in some way isn’t really an option, so Peter Jennings is basically correct.
I like to read Guy’s articles for their thought-provoking difference from mainstream journalism, it’s one of the best things about Crikey. But saying that Russia is right to rattle sabres over Ukraine? It feels lazy.
Really, so much of this opinion seems to stem from our safe position far away from Russian borders, and a distasteful willingness to ignore the wishes of actual Ukrainians, who are set to be the big losers if things go pear-shaped. I don’t get a strong sense from their side that they’re all terribly thrilled by the idea of a return to Russian overlordship. Why shjould we be so ready to disregard their desires?
There are other countries bordering Russia besides Ukraine, and they are very happy keeping Russia at arm’s length: Norway, Finland, Estonia (who are developing a Scandinavian identity), Latvia (my Latvian friends HATE Russia), even Lithuania and Poland if you include the border with Kaliningrad. They all look towards Europe and the “West” rather than Russia, with good reason: that’s where the peace and prosperity is. How did Ukraine prosper under the Russian fold? Oh that’s right, it didn’t. What about when they were independent but in the Russian “sphere of influence” under communist leaders? They suffered terribly.
So what if there was some sort of agreement between a Bush and Gorbachev? Defending it is like defending the Great Powers carving up the Middle East after WWI, and how good was that for world peace?
Right now I’d lay money on this being another booster effort by Putin to rally local Russians behind him. Right now, Russia is a petrostate struggling under a pandemic that it has handled wretchedly badly; like the US it has a large military, but unlike the US it has an economy only marginally bigger than Mexico’s, and any serious war would cripple it. I get the sense that Putin is floundering against a halfway competent US President, and far from being the James Bond genius he plays on television, he’s doing just what Trump would have done in his place: he’s making noise.
Thanks Ma for echoing what many in the wider diaspora community feel (those “westerners sending support”). Ukrainians remember the horrors of the 30s-50s inflicted by the Russians/Germans/Russians. If anything, the West’s betrayal is to not support independence back in the 1910s. Russia has not right to portray themselves as a liberating force.
Also agree on the state of the Russian economy, they are fantastically poor on an individual basis, and on aggregate is even exceeded by Australia on a favorable exchange rate. Even if you disagree with western style liberalism, it’s military spending takes away from schools, hospitals, infrastructure, and other social services. Plus so many young minds dedicated to war rather than social advance.
And I don’t know how many readers are aware of this or have studied Russian history but in the 19th young men had to spend 10 years!!! compulsory military service in the Imperial Russian Army. Russian Jews were conscripted as well and were forcibly converted to Greek Orthodox and due to many of them not allowed to eat pork, which a staple of the Russian Army then, their going away to serve and possibly to starve, was accompanied by an intoning of the dead. No wonder they are poor and destitute. Their so-called ‘kulaks’, independent peasantry who Stalin slaughtered through a combination of massacre, annexation of property and mass starvation were less than half as productive as their German and French counterparts. It seems that economic inefficiency and brutal dictatorship are not the preserve of communism but are deep seated features of Russian historical life going back centuries.
Not just poorer, population is ageing and in decline, exemplified by villages disappearing every week, while Putin is faced with a lack of and falling support from urbanised working age/youthful and relying more on ageing regions…. using dollops of Czarist agitpop i.e. orthodoxy, nationalism and autocracy.
Agree, there have been too much ‘hero worshipping’ by many naive but ignorant and willing accomplices who avert their gaze from reality on the ground in the Baltics, CEE and Balkans (Bosnia is now another focus of nefarious forces seeking break up and stymying EU accession), and what borderland nations have to put up with on Russia, Putin and related.