It seems that with each passing day, we are getting ourselves (I speak mainly of the US and our NATO allies) deeper and deeper into this thing, taking positions that will be difficult to intake later, making commitments that we may come to regret. At the same time, the more I learn about Ukraine, and the larger project of NATO expansion, the more my misgivings grow. Is what we are doing here really wise?
Obama, Ukraine's PM warn Russia as Crimea heads for vote
Merkel Joins Obama in Pressuring Russia to Back Down on Crimea
I'm afraid the "consequences" and "costs" and "massive economic and political harm" we are threatening them with could actually cut both ways. They can impose costs and consequences on us too if they choose. For one thing, Americans and American companies have a lot of money invested in Russia it turns out. For another, Ukraine and Europe depend on Russian exports of gas, which could be turned off, or the price raised.
Another thing is that by rushing in this way, aren't we committing ourselves to some kind of large aid program to prop up Ukraine's failing economy (often described as a "basket case")? The Russians actually made some rather generous aid offers to Ukraine before the coup or revolution or whatever your preferred term is: Billions in loans and 30% off on the price of gas (also worth billions) IIRC. Can we or should try to match that? Over time trade with the EU could perhaps be worth a lot to Ukraine, but it has more immediate problems. When Ukraine was in Russia's orbit, it was also to a large extent, Russia's problem. By trying to displace the Russians there we are in some ways making Ukraine's problems our own.
The notion of making Ukraine a member of NATO seems especially foolish. Do we really want to commit ourselves to defend Ukraine's borders?
Are we standing up for some clear principle of International law? Not even sure about that. Don't the residents of Crimea have as much right to self-determination as the rest of Ukraine? When Kosovo wanted to secede from Serbia, the roles were reversed. We said they do have the right to secede, regardless of what the rest of Serbia thinks about it, and Russia said that it was a violation of Serbia's sovereignty.
Another thing is that it seems that to a large extent Ukraine itself is responsible for the situation it finds itself in. When the new government took over after the revolution, its first act was to repeal a mostly symbolic language law. No practical reason really, the purpose was just to give the middle finger to Russia and Russian speakers in Ukraine. Before that (before the latest revolution) they elected one corrupt leader after another. They had the Orange Revolution before, but what came of it? What did they do with that opportunity? Were the new leaders any less corrupt than the previous ones? Will this new lot be?
The final point is this: just how far are we willing to go, and how high a price are we willing to pay to "win" this pissing contest? What if Russia is willing to go farther and pay more? I know that military confrontation isn't the answer. So what if we impose sanctions and Russia goes ahead and annexes Crimea anyway? Do we then impose more sanctions? What if they take a tit-for-tat approach and impose sanctions right back? I suppose we can do more damage to their economy than they can to ours, but it's still lose-lose. And for what? A place where a majority of the residents want to join Russia anyway?
Obama, Ukraine's PM warn Russia as Crimea heads for vote
Quote:
Simferopol, Ukraine (CNN) -- U.S. President Barack Obama and Ukrainian interim Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk had strong words for Russia on Wednesday as Washington again warned Moscow there will be consequences if it doesn't remove its troops from Crimea and Kiev said that it will "never surrender." |
Quote:
Aid package clears early hurdle Eight U.S. senators, led by Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, are scheduled to travel to Ukraine in coming days. Meanwhile, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a package of loans and aid for Ukraine on Wednesday, along with sanctions against Russia for its military intervention. The measure, which now heads to the full Senate, also includes the approval of long-delayed reforms at the International Monetary Fund. The aid package includes $1 billion in loan guarantees from the United States as well as $50 million to boost democracy-building in Ukraine and $100 million for enhanced security cooperation for Ukraine and some of its neighbors. |
Merkel Joins Obama in Pressuring Russia to Back Down on Crimea
Quote:
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said today Russia is risking “massive” political and economic damage. U.S. President Barack Obama appealed to Russian leader Vladimir Putin yesterday to not absorb the Black Sea peninsula after the vote or the U.S. and its allies “will be forced to apply a cost” to Russia’s violations of international law. “If Russia continues on the course of the last weeks it won’t just be a catastrophe for Ukraine,” Merkel said in parliament in Berlin. “It would also cause massive economic and political harm to Russia.” |
I'm afraid the "consequences" and "costs" and "massive economic and political harm" we are threatening them with could actually cut both ways. They can impose costs and consequences on us too if they choose. For one thing, Americans and American companies have a lot of money invested in Russia it turns out. For another, Ukraine and Europe depend on Russian exports of gas, which could be turned off, or the price raised.
Another thing is that by rushing in this way, aren't we committing ourselves to some kind of large aid program to prop up Ukraine's failing economy (often described as a "basket case")? The Russians actually made some rather generous aid offers to Ukraine before the coup or revolution or whatever your preferred term is: Billions in loans and 30% off on the price of gas (also worth billions) IIRC. Can we or should try to match that? Over time trade with the EU could perhaps be worth a lot to Ukraine, but it has more immediate problems. When Ukraine was in Russia's orbit, it was also to a large extent, Russia's problem. By trying to displace the Russians there we are in some ways making Ukraine's problems our own.
The notion of making Ukraine a member of NATO seems especially foolish. Do we really want to commit ourselves to defend Ukraine's borders?
Are we standing up for some clear principle of International law? Not even sure about that. Don't the residents of Crimea have as much right to self-determination as the rest of Ukraine? When Kosovo wanted to secede from Serbia, the roles were reversed. We said they do have the right to secede, regardless of what the rest of Serbia thinks about it, and Russia said that it was a violation of Serbia's sovereignty.
Another thing is that it seems that to a large extent Ukraine itself is responsible for the situation it finds itself in. When the new government took over after the revolution, its first act was to repeal a mostly symbolic language law. No practical reason really, the purpose was just to give the middle finger to Russia and Russian speakers in Ukraine. Before that (before the latest revolution) they elected one corrupt leader after another. They had the Orange Revolution before, but what came of it? What did they do with that opportunity? Were the new leaders any less corrupt than the previous ones? Will this new lot be?
The final point is this: just how far are we willing to go, and how high a price are we willing to pay to "win" this pissing contest? What if Russia is willing to go farther and pay more? I know that military confrontation isn't the answer. So what if we impose sanctions and Russia goes ahead and annexes Crimea anyway? Do we then impose more sanctions? What if they take a tit-for-tat approach and impose sanctions right back? I suppose we can do more damage to their economy than they can to ours, but it's still lose-lose. And for what? A place where a majority of the residents want to join Russia anyway?
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1cWH6OP
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire