The current revolution in Ukraine has taken a turn away from Russia and toward Europe, with the President fleeing the capital and being voted out by parliament. Russia could still use its army to squash the rebels, but with much less legitimacy, except by claiming to protect the ethnic Russians in eastern half of Ukraine.
The President did come to power via a democratic election, but the political split of the country is pretty obvious in this map showing which parties won in different areas. So, perhaps the most practical resolution is for the country to split into two, while allowing free movement of citizens and property across the two newly-formed countries.
I’d be happy to see the whole country spin out of Putin’s grasp, but if a split will save lives that’s better. perhaps Russia will keep its army out if it can retain a buffer-state, albeit a thinner one, between it and Europe.
What is ironic is that a border with the EU would be great for Russia economically, and I can’t think of a single scenario in which it could hurt their security or sovereignty in any way. They’re a nuclear superpower. The only thing that would hurt them is a hostile buffer: which Putin is creating through his own actions, by obstructing the Ukraine’s joining of the EU and alienating its people.
And I understand why he’s so desperate to prevent that: the closer liberal democracy creeps to their doorstep, the more Russians’ eyes open to the fact that they could have it too.
Nicky, whereas I agree in principle that any move toward liberal democracy is better than Ukrainian co-dependence on Putin’s Russia, it is premature to assume Ukraine has the institutions to survive the transition to greater independence. The European Union could find they’ve adopted another Greece. Corruption is still a norm for many Eastern European states. We can be optimistic. Yet, I will reserve any expectations for improved quality of living standards. Economically, the Ukrainian state is in worse shape now than the immediate days following the Orange Revolution. Any instability could result in ethnic clashes. The EU couldn’t stop that. My limited understanding of the crisis is, they have severe unemployment, and the typical ethnic finger pointing is the easy answer. If Russian officials aren’t bleeding the people, their own Ukrainian officials will do it. A blow against Putinism doesn’t necessarily mean a gain for anyone. Although, I enjoy a sense of guilty satisfaction whenever I hear of any dictator suffering a setback.
An old (2002) but very readable paper by Anders Aslund gives his view of how Ukraine evolved up to that point. In summary, a few oligarchs were in control. The government did bring in reforms but slower than most post-communist states. However, rivalry between oligarchs, and an impending financial crisis, made more reforms possible. Along the way, a fair amount of institutional clean-up took place: in government processes, in reducing the power of the security services, and in allowing small businesses to be founded. Relative to many other ex-communist states, Ukraine may seem backward, but there’s good reason to be optimistic that they’re on the right path. Further, the Western-leaning factions and oligarchs have shown more willingness to open things up. So, their current ascendancy is good news.
Aslund also has an article that described recent events, up to just before the President’s fleeing.
I’m surprised to see the U.S. public reaction to Russia taking control of Crimea. Anecdotal evidence, but even my middle-of-road friends think Obama is doing less than he should, and not being tough enough.
Nevertheless, from a longer-term perspective, I cannot see how Putin can come out a winner from all this. The four possibilities seem to be as follow:
Russia withdraws from Crimea after some months in some type of face-saving way, perhaps with Crimea gaining some more autonomy
Russia controls Crimea for years to come, and the rest of Ukraine comes to some political power-sharing between East and West
Russia takes control of some or all of Eastern Ukraine
Russia takes control of all of Ukraine
The first option means a return to status quo, but likely with a less monolithic government: a net win for good guys. Perhaps it will also mean new east-west tensions in Ukraine.
The way I see it, from the layman’s perspective, is that #2 is the most likely option. Strategically, it changes little for anyone anywhere. it gives the west one more barb it can berate Putin with. If played right, it could catalyze Western Europe to reduce its reliance on Russian energy imports.
Taking control of Eastern Ukraine would mean that Western Ukraine has a huge incentive to move into the arms of the EU. If that ends up with Eastern Ukraine moving into NATO some years hence, this will be another step in the squeeze that has been going on for many years now, with NATO creeping closer to Russia.
Taking control of all of Ukraine sounds like a costly answer for Russia. He would not have the figment of an argument for doing so, and he would have to bog his troops down. Not at all good for anyone living in Ukraine, but – over a decade or so – it will cost Putin.
Again, as a layman on this topic, it seems to me that the people who have taken control in Ukraine need to come to a solution that accommodates politicians from across the country – East and West. It is odd, and worrying, that – shortly after taking control – they would pass a law that reduces the importance of the Russian language in officialdom. That stinks of nationalism. What they need is just the opposite. I think the ball is mostly in their court, not Putin’s.
Putin’s expansionism is a bigger issue than just Crimea. There needs to be a much tougher reaction from the West than there was during the Georgia invasion, if it is to end in Crimea or even Eastern Ukraine. Obviously, it can’t be the full out political and economic isolation of Russia (because holding something back leaves them an incentive to not escalate further), but it needs to be painful.
Russia isn’t as important as they seem to think they are. A demonstration of that, by cutting down on trade (through various means, it doesn’t have to be overt sanctions, it can be tariffs and regulatory roadblocks - God knows every western government has the power to obliterate trade using whatever excuse they feel like using) might go a long way towards reigning in their ambitions.
And, above all, there needs to be a long term solution to the European reliance on Russian energy. The EU bureaucrats need to figure out which is more offensive to their sensitive taste buds: being Putin’s lapdog, or fracking and nuclear energy. Same with the US: the federal gov. has the power to singlehandedly bring down the price of oil by a good chunk, and devastate both Putin and Iran’s ability to fund their ambitions, just by supporting oil production and infrastructure on US soil.
Couldn’t agree more. Germany closed the doors to nukes by policy and – via regulations – to fracking. In the U.S., the president stops the Keystone pipeline while Kerry talks about Global Warming being a top foreign policy issue. It is all too easy for people to look outward for villains, and Putin enjoys the part anyway. U.S. and European voters should start berating themselves, for their own stupidity. More likely, some white guy will shoot some black guy, and the news channels will forget that Crimea exists. Europe will go back to worrying about Greece.
If Putin sits in Crimea, even if voters yawn it off, I hope their leaders and governments do something more vis-a-vis Russia. At the very least, I hope that NATO’s border states – Poland and the Baltics – would be slightly more worried. As an outsider, it seems crazy that so many European countries rely on Russian imports for over 50% of their natural gas. Some, like Lithuania, get 100% from Russia! It seems that energy resources are Russia’s main source of power, and that is where the west needs to focus its efforts.
Putin enjoys the moral high ground. As long as his troops stay in western Ukraine, he can rightly claim to be protecting the lives and interests of ethnic russians. That Western European countries would do anything to jeapordize a couple hundred billion euros of trade per year is laughable. To suggest that Obama would become a fracking or nuclear supporter within his lifetime is dreaming. As long as Russia is tending to the interests of ethnic russians and we do not see Russia invading Poland, Western European nations and the US should butt out.
An immoral man governing illigitimately may still occassionally take virtuous and moral action.
Nope. That’s the “stopped clock” fallacy… saying it is right twice a day. Putin’s actions are not moral, even when they are coincident with what a moral person would do. I’m happy Putin gave Snowden asylum; but, this was not a moral act on his part.
As for the act itself, there too, the threat to ethnic Russian in Ukraine is mostly fiction. And, when it comes to Crimea, it is non-existent. So, Putin’s actions do not even coincide with what is right.
Putin enjoys the moral high ground. As long as his troops stay in western Ukraine, he can rightly claim to be protecting the lives and interests of ethnic russians. That Western European countries would do anything to jeapordize a couple hundred billion euros of trade per year is laughable. To suggest that Obama would become a fracking or nuclear supporter within his lifetime is dreaming. As long as Russia is tending to the interests of ethnic russians and we do not see Russia invading Poland, Western European nations and the US should butt out.
Does’t every single dictator in the modern era and on claim to be protecting some ethnic group or equivalent?
I am going to avoid using obvious analogies because they are overused.
Nope. That’s the “stopped clock” fallacy… saying it is right twice a day. Putin’s actions are not moral, even when they are coincident with what a moral person would do. I’m happy Putin gave Snowden asylum; but, this was not a moral act on his part.
As for the act itself, there too, the threat to ethnic Russian in Ukraine is mostly fiction. And, when it comes to Crimea, it is non-existent. So, Putin’s actions do not even coincide with what is right.
It is remarkable how one can accuse another of a fallacy while committing it in that act. Yours is exactly the “clock stopped fallacy” because you hold a fixed position on all moral actions of Putin regardless of their individual merits. You are sure to be right twice a day. Cheers.
Yours is exactly the “clock stopped fallacy” because you hold a fixed position on all moral actions of Putin regardless of their individual merits.
Though I obviously disagree, I do like the way a concrete topic, like Ukraine, can lead one to think about more general and abstract ideas in areas like logic.
Putin enjoys the moral high ground. As long as his troops stay in western Ukraine, he can rightly claim to be protecting the lives and interests of ethnic russians.
Protecting them from what? The imaginary nazis his propaganda machine made up?
Protecting them from what? The imaginary nazis his propaganda machine made up?
When I say, “protecting the interests of ethnic russians”, I do not mean their objective interests. I am referring to their perceived interests. They are getting what they want. They may rue the day, but they should get exactly the government they deserve.
When I say, “protecting the interests of ethnic russians”, I do not mean their objective interests. I am referring to their perceived interests. They are getting what they want. They may rue the day, but they should get exactly the government they deserve.
What about when you said “protecting the lives of ethnic Russians”? What do you mean by that?