Last Thursday, The leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Germany, and France ended their peace talks in Minsk, Belarus with a ceasefire agreement that would pull back heavy weaponry and hold off fighting in the interim starting Sunday, February 15. Despite this hopeful outcome, both sides managed to announce threatening statements if the deal reached were to be broken. With eight Ukrainian soldiers dead, several more wounded, and new shelling in Donetsk and Luhansk during the interim, one can only assume that the Minsk deal will be used as a pretext to further escalate the current crisis. This troubling assumption makes sense since the previous Minsk ceasefire agreement in September 2014 that was supposed to lead to negotiations achieved none of its intended goals. Moreover, propaganda and misinformation from Kiev, Washington, and Moscow distorted any attempts at discovering who the agitators were, serving only to perpetuate more violence.
Today, the United Nations Human Rights Commission conservatively projects the death toll at 5,000+, and up to 1.5 million displaced Ukrainians mainly fleeing to Russia from eastern Ukraine. The western media, however (mainly in the US), reports on Russian-backed “separatist” aggression against Kiev, how Russian forces have entered eastern Ukraine, and how their annexation of Crimea in southern Ukraine is a violation of international law. To add fuel to the fire, the Obama administration and the State Department point the finger, and explain what the next set of sanctions will be if Russia takes another misstep. In order to have perspective and afford the five million eastern Ukrainians who have been on that land for thousands of years some humanity, it is important to understand their circumstances and grievances.
First, it is a matter of fact that most of the “separatist” fighters are indigenous adult male eastern Ukrainians. Without them, for certain, there would be no civil war in Ukraine today. Secondly, they, the eastern Ukrainian people, who for the most part speak Russian (in the Donbas region that can be as high as 90% of the population), wanted to be a part of the Ukraine with Kiev as their capital, until their President was overthrown in a coup, and the new government backed by the US and the Europeans began a bombardment campaign that has continued for the last 10 months. The initiative by Kiev was titled an “anti-terror operation”, giving them the authority to bomb civilian centers, homes, and public spaces (as has been reported by several Human Rights Organizations). Their initial justification for this, was the annexation of Crimea, a peninsula in the south of Ukraine that hosted Russia’s Black Sea fleet. After an unconstitutional referendum, the people of Crimea voted to be separated from Ukraine to be a part of Russia. The highly controversial outcome led to the first round of sanctions, a now more hostile Kiev, and the issue of territorial integrity. Since then, the violence has been mainly on the highly contested region that separates east from west (Donetsk and Luhansk).
For Russian President Vladimir Putin, the possibility of losing it’s main naval fleet in Crimea to NATO would have been disastrous illegal or not. More importantly though, is that this new cold war like face off between Russia and the West, is much closer to home for Russia, unlike during the Cold War (West/East Germany). For many obvious reasons Putin considers the conflict in Ukraine to be a core strategic interest, of which, he is willing to suffer great costs. From Russia’s historical perspective the current crisis has resulted from NATO expansion, EU expansion, and democracy expansion. Which is tentative of course, until it is for certain the elected official is pro-western, if not, there would be no hesitation to remove him/her from office, and restore a true democratic leader; a pro-western leader. This type of hypocrisy has been noted by the Russian President, in a speech at the Valdai Club, in Sochi, he reiterated how the double standards of the US are undermining the systems of international relations, saying “what is allowed for gods, is not allowed for cattle.” Surely, we can all agree that if Russia made a military alliance with one of our neighbors we’d hear noise, if not the war trumpets.
In the midst of this most recent peace deal, President Obama and the State Department are contemplating sending “lethal defensive weaponry aid” to Kiev. Apparently, the $1 billion dollar loan guarantee, the $350 million in military aid, and the $38 million in humanitarian aid are not enough. Despite US claims to prioritize peace, this new deal they are tossing around proposes an additional $3 billion in military aid, $50 million in energy relief, and another $1 billion dollar loan guarantee. Interestingly enough, this strategy is not meant to defeat the Russian backed “rebel separatists”—a scenario repeatedly described as impossible by top officials—; it is meant to drain Russian resources until they no longer can support the rebels. However, a great power, as Russia is, at least militarily if not in general, is not going to back down to what it considers to be its core strategic interests. Arming Kiev and possibly putting the Russians in a desperate situation along its borders (in which case they have already stated they would use tactical nuclear weapons) is something no one wants. Yet President Obama still manages to say that we are “mobilizing our nuclear capabilities” in response to Russia, as if nuclear war or nuclear threats were something entirely manageable and ordinary.
The mainstream media’s silence is appalling and disgraceful. Public debate is necessary to at least have a conversation about what the US role should be in Ukraine. The new peace deal was said to just be “a piece of paper”, by State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki, not a very inspiring sign from the US. The war hawks in the conservative wing and liberal interventionist that tout freedom and democracy, are out in numbers. Despite all of this, the solution if desired, is not so difficult. Make Ukraine a buffer state, give eastern Ukraine minor autonomy, take NATO expansion off the table, and rescue the Ukrainian economy with the help of both Russia and Ukraine. It’s difficult to predict what will happen next, but it’s almost for certain that if there is a resolution it won’t be quick and it won’t be easy.
Today, the United Nations Human Rights Commission conservatively projects the death toll at 5,000+, and up to 1.5 million displaced Ukrainians mainly fleeing to Russia from eastern Ukraine. The western media, however (mainly in the US), reports on Russian-backed “separatist” aggression against Kiev, how Russian forces have entered eastern Ukraine, and how their annexation of Crimea in southern Ukraine is a violation of international law. To add fuel to the fire, the Obama administration and the State Department point the finger, and explain what the next set of sanctions will be if Russia takes another misstep. In order to have perspective and afford the five million eastern Ukrainians who have been on that land for thousands of years some humanity, it is important to understand their circumstances and grievances.
First, it is a matter of fact that most of the “separatist” fighters are indigenous adult male eastern Ukrainians. Without them, for certain, there would be no civil war in Ukraine today. Secondly, they, the eastern Ukrainian people, who for the most part speak Russian (in the Donbas region that can be as high as 90% of the population), wanted to be a part of the Ukraine with Kiev as their capital, until their President was overthrown in a coup, and the new government backed by the US and the Europeans began a bombardment campaign that has continued for the last 10 months. The initiative by Kiev was titled an “anti-terror operation”, giving them the authority to bomb civilian centers, homes, and public spaces (as has been reported by several Human Rights Organizations). Their initial justification for this, was the annexation of Crimea, a peninsula in the south of Ukraine that hosted Russia’s Black Sea fleet. After an unconstitutional referendum, the people of Crimea voted to be separated from Ukraine to be a part of Russia. The highly controversial outcome led to the first round of sanctions, a now more hostile Kiev, and the issue of territorial integrity. Since then, the violence has been mainly on the highly contested region that separates east from west (Donetsk and Luhansk).
For Russian President Vladimir Putin, the possibility of losing it’s main naval fleet in Crimea to NATO would have been disastrous illegal or not. More importantly though, is that this new cold war like face off between Russia and the West, is much closer to home for Russia, unlike during the Cold War (West/East Germany). For many obvious reasons Putin considers the conflict in Ukraine to be a core strategic interest, of which, he is willing to suffer great costs. From Russia’s historical perspective the current crisis has resulted from NATO expansion, EU expansion, and democracy expansion. Which is tentative of course, until it is for certain the elected official is pro-western, if not, there would be no hesitation to remove him/her from office, and restore a true democratic leader; a pro-western leader. This type of hypocrisy has been noted by the Russian President, in a speech at the Valdai Club, in Sochi, he reiterated how the double standards of the US are undermining the systems of international relations, saying “what is allowed for gods, is not allowed for cattle.” Surely, we can all agree that if Russia made a military alliance with one of our neighbors we’d hear noise, if not the war trumpets.
In the midst of this most recent peace deal, President Obama and the State Department are contemplating sending “lethal defensive weaponry aid” to Kiev. Apparently, the $1 billion dollar loan guarantee, the $350 million in military aid, and the $38 million in humanitarian aid are not enough. Despite US claims to prioritize peace, this new deal they are tossing around proposes an additional $3 billion in military aid, $50 million in energy relief, and another $1 billion dollar loan guarantee. Interestingly enough, this strategy is not meant to defeat the Russian backed “rebel separatists”—a scenario repeatedly described as impossible by top officials—; it is meant to drain Russian resources until they no longer can support the rebels. However, a great power, as Russia is, at least militarily if not in general, is not going to back down to what it considers to be its core strategic interests. Arming Kiev and possibly putting the Russians in a desperate situation along its borders (in which case they have already stated they would use tactical nuclear weapons) is something no one wants. Yet President Obama still manages to say that we are “mobilizing our nuclear capabilities” in response to Russia, as if nuclear war or nuclear threats were something entirely manageable and ordinary.
The mainstream media’s silence is appalling and disgraceful. Public debate is necessary to at least have a conversation about what the US role should be in Ukraine. The new peace deal was said to just be “a piece of paper”, by State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki, not a very inspiring sign from the US. The war hawks in the conservative wing and liberal interventionist that tout freedom and democracy, are out in numbers. Despite all of this, the solution if desired, is not so difficult. Make Ukraine a buffer state, give eastern Ukraine minor autonomy, take NATO expansion off the table, and rescue the Ukrainian economy with the help of both Russia and Ukraine. It’s difficult to predict what will happen next, but it’s almost for certain that if there is a resolution it won’t be quick and it won’t be easy.
Comments
Post a Comment