At three months since the beginning of the Kiev government military operation against anti-government rebels in Ukraine’s south-east, Europe appears to be acting to the detriment of its reputation as a peace and rule-of-law project, as well as its broader economic and trade interests and political goals in the region. The expansion of restrictive measures against the Russian Federation adopted July 17 and 29 by the European Council is meant to put further pressure on Moscow which Brussels holds responsible for the outbreak of separatism in Ukraine. Yet, by continuing to focus on the outcome of armed resistance rather than root causes of secessionist movement in Donetsk and Lugansk, Europe may unwillingly contribute to the perpetuation of violence in Ukraine, meaning that a ceasefire will become ever more distant and more victims among innocent civilians are yet to come.
While the West is contemplating further pressure, the news from the civil war zone in south-eastern Ukraine relate casualties among civilians on a daily basis. Since the beginning of the Kiev government military operation against the secessionists, there have been numerous reports of the violations of the methods of war allowed by international law (jus in bello), such as indiscriminate shelling of residential areas resulting in the killing of civilian population, the use of forbidden weapons producing indiscriminate shelling, preventing civilians from leaving the war zone to a safe heaven, killing and abduction of civilians and journalists, and other – all of which require an impartial international probe and bringing the culpable to justice. The Odessa massacre stands out as a distinct yet not less tragic episode in this crisis. By mid-July, the refugee and IDPs flight from the conflict zone has gone up to hundreds thousands, as confirmed by the UN.
These developments make procrastination on achieving a ceasefire – which Western sanctions tantamount to – an irrelevant policy tool as running counter to Europe’s values of peace, security and rule of law. What is warranted instead an immediate diplomatic intervention of urging a dialogue between the warring parties that would bring to a halt the continued bloodshed in Ukraine.
The daily death toll in Ukraine war zone is not dramatically different from that in Gaza (the latter having population density twice as high) where the international community has been inclined to focus on the humanitarian component of the crisis by urging a ceasefire. Yet, in Ukraine, the West has preferred to engage in a politics of blame game, looking for evidence of ostensible Russian military support for the rebels.
In the aftermath of the Crimea annexation, in its interpretation of the crisis Europe appears to be driven by inertia of the annexation stage. What may have been an appropriate policy option at the stage of Crimea annexation may be largely obsolete with respect to the ongoing armed stand-off between Kiev fighters and the pro-Russia separatists in Lugansk and Donetsk. Given that Moscow didn’t quite get it right in terms of international law (is anything wrong after Kosovo recognition?), Western move to adopt sanctions against Russia over Crimea annexation seemed to be not without reasoning.
It nevertheless is a misstatement that Moscow is responsible for the outbreak of separatism in Ukraine’s south-eastern regions of Donetsk and Lugansk. Indeed, Western justification of sanctions against Moscow is poorly substantiated. The assumption underlying the policy of sanctions produced in Washington and picked up in the cabinets of European bureaucrats is that counter-Kiev movement in south-eastern Ukraine is the product of Moscow’s meddling in Ukraine’s internal affairs. As it turns out, such assumption is false.
In its blame game against Russia the West is misplacing cause and effect. The current crisis was preceded by a number of strategic miscalculations or benchmark events. First, the repealing by the Ukrainian legislature on 25th February of the tolerant minority language law that granted Russian along with other languages the status of lingua franca used in the public sphere – produced by the rise to power of ultra-nationalist and extremist neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine following the overthrow of elected President Victor Yanukovitch – served to exacerbate the situation in the country.
Further, what triggered the ongoing crisis and precipitated a secessionist move by Ukraine’s south-east regions was the Kiev administration embarking on the course of rapprochement with the EU in disregard of the geopolitical preferences of about one half of Ukrainians who regard Russia as their point of reference and the subsequent U.S. and EU endorsement of the new Kiev administration as legitimate while it did not enjoy support in eastern regions of the country.
The current crisis is therefore nothing but a direct byproduct of foreign policy miscalculation by Kiev and Western bureaucrats. Once Kiev moved toward Brussels by signing the free trade and association deal with the EU, secession by Ukraine’s south-east regions traditionally supportive of a pro-Russia course was a foregone conclusion. It is therefore a major misplacement of blame when Europe is imposing sanctions against Russia over ‘undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity’ as Moscow, even if Western claims that Moscow is providing support for the rebels ultimately proved substantiated, would be merely a reacting party to the story.
Neither is the expansion of sanctions against Russia or threat thereof well justified as based on the assumption of Russia being directly manipulative of the separatists in Eastern Ukraine at the current stage of the crisis: Moscow may have an indirect political benefit in a secessionist pro-Russian movement in the east of Ukraine – not to confuse with bloodshed – but this does not stand as evidence of it being directly instigating from behind the scene; the most immediate counterfactual is that the separatists have been spiraling out of Moscow’s control on a few occasions. The alleged supply of weapons to the separatists by Moscow has not been a subject of an independent and impartial probe as of yet.
In exerting its pressure on Russia, Europe apparently is motivated by a sole immediate goal – to avoid the emergence of another pro-Moscow secessionist enclave along Russian borders – in the footsteps of the freshly Moscow-forged Crimea scenario. Perhaps even a more decisive determinant of this European drive toward sanctions is the existence in the region of the longtime secessionist entities of Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
As the Soviet Union was falling apart, republics on the periphery saw a rise of nationalism in their corresponding metropolises. This in turn triggered secessionism by Slavic-dominated and pro-Soviet regions like Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. As EU and NATO made eastward advances – the latter apparently contrary to the promises made to Moscow at the time of the disintegration of the Soviet Union – Russia began to strengthen its support for the secessionist entities along its south-eastern and southern borders. By cementing separatism in Moldova and Georgia ever since, Moscow de facto was able to secure a comfortable status quo in the region — these states’ non-adherence to Western blocs of EU and NATO. In its rationale of preventing another Transnistria emerge in its Eastern Neighbourhood, Brussels is therefore poised to prevent the emergence of another pro-Russian enclave serving Moscow’s geopolitical goals in the Near Abroad.
Upon scrutiny, Europe may discover that the point of no-return on federalization of Ukraine has been passed. While the dashing of the Russian language from the public sphere may have been a stage in the crisis where things were still repairable and Ukraine’s territorial integrity and existent territorial-administrative system were unquestionable propositions, following the commencement of the military operation by Kiev and the prolonged bloodshed that ensued, the bargaining position of the south-east has been strengthened. It is difficult to imagine the attackers and the attacked co-exist in the same state again – at least at this point in time. Federalization in the form of a broad autonomy is the maximum Kiev can count on following yet-to-be-started negotiations with Donetsk and Lugansk.
The current policy of blame and sanctions imposition produces nothing but a vicious circle in which the West fails to exercise its influence over Kiev to stop its military operation against the rebels with Moscow thus having no reason to follow suit with the rebels in the secessionist quarters. Such policy is counter-productive, unreasoned and unsubstantiated, driving this tragedy into a deadlock. Moscow will not back down given what it sees as the unfair blame game being waged against it by the West. By refraining from exercising influence on Kiev as a party that initiated the armed stage of the conflict – to force it into a ceasefire – and offering unconditional support for Ukrainian actions, the West de facto becomes an accomplice in this tragedy in Ukraine.
In this crisis it is imperative to switch priorities from political or geopolitical agenda to humanitarian one, meaning the parties to the conflict should be called upon to stop fighting and engage in a meaningful dialogue. The crash on July 17 of the Malaysian passenger plane in the conflict zone leading to the death of 298 people that were on board may be a serious enough reason to do so. Although, following Europe’s turning a blind eye on daily casualties among innocent civilians within a course of three months on its doorstep, the situation now becomes reminiscent of the famous line of General Radlov from Nikita Mikhalkov’s ‘The Barber of Siberia’ – “it depends whose life it is.” Europe should demonstrate that it is able to let values based on which it was founded – that of human rights and the right to life in the first place – prevail over politics in its decision making. The people of Donetsk and Lugansk and other residential areas affected by fighting have the same right to life as the late passengers of MH17 or the residents of Amsterdam, London or Paris.
Based on the lessons from Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the only and the best thing that the West can do given the fait accompli of the bloodshed – if it really wants to avoid another grey zone a la Transnistria on Europe’s map – is to prevent Russian monopoly on peacekeeping in the area in the post-conflict stage of the Ukraine peace process, disarm all irregulars and help the warring parties embark on a democratic dialogue that will focus on a devolution of powers while making sure the new administration in Donetsk and Lugansk are truly representative of the local people, not Moscow-sponsored stooges doing Moscow’s bidding in the region. Although it begs the question whether Donetsk and Lugansk would now ever accept any Western peacekeepers on their soil after the West’s failure to stop the party that had taken away so many of their innocent civilian lives.
Brussels and Washington have had secessionist conflicts resolution in Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia as part of their peace agenda in Europe’s Eastern Neighbourhood over the past decade and a half but, embarking on a competition approach with Moscow as opposed to cooperation and dismissing geopolitical preferences of a larger portion of Ukraine’s public, they may just as well have forged a new one. All that matters now is whether the cost of this policy faux pas in terms of loss of human life will not be too high.
Dear Ms. Mitaeva,
Mr. Putin propaganda machine tries to feed us with a subliminal message that
Ukraine and perhaps the rest of the Eastern and Central Europe are not free people and they belong to an imaginary buffer zone of Mr. Putin.
Please accept that they are not. Ukrainians (as well as Georgians, Latvian’s or Finns) are not subjects of Mr Putin nor are his “buffer”. They are real free people just like you and me.
They are free to join NATO or any other organization if this is what they choose.
Or do you think that Mr Putin somehow owns these people?
Talking about buffer zones and NATO encroachment over Russia smells of Russian imperialism and possibly racism, putting Russian neighbors in a position of “lesser” people.
This kind of thinking and rhetoric led Nazi Germany to start World War II.
Please stop!
Neighbors of Russia have the same rights as Russia and have the right to self-determination.
Dear PawelI66,
I have a feeling that you are not as ‘free’ as you
claim to be. The fact that you chose not to sign with your full real
name makes me think that you are afraid to express yourself openly –
meaning there is no real freedom of expression in your jurisdiction.
One
major prerequisite of being a free human being is being able to form an
opinion of your own. You seem to be citing opinions forged by
mainstream media.
My observation from life is that, in most
cases, people fall prey to propaganda because they are lazy or, in some
cases, because they are too busy in this post-industrial age. Rather
than checking out some facts
and doing some thinking about those, they, instead, readily absorb everything they are being ‘served’ by the media.
Please don’t be lazy! Collect some facts and do some brain work!
A number of facts directly relevant to what you mention:
—
Ukrainians and other nations are certainly free, sovereign nations but
talking of self-determination which you mention – Ukrainians are a
deeply divided nation when it comes to foreign policy – roughly half to
half.
Please do take the time to familiarize yourself with the results of this
poll by the Kiyv-based Institute: http://kiis.com.ua/?lang=eng&cat=reports&id=204&page=6&t=3
— Support for joining NATO is even lower than that for EU accession http://kiis.com.ua
—
If you do some basic research (online or at a public library), you
will find that neither Georgians nor other nations along Russia’s
periphery are as unanimously supportive of the EU and NATO options as
some would wish them to be. One therefore has to be very sensitive to these FACTS when planning policy in these regions.
— It is the lack of sensitivity to these basic facts that has led to the ongoing civil war and the overall crisis in
Ukraine.
I
wasn’t talking of ‘buffer zones and NATO encroachment’ – I don’t know
where you gather that from. But yes, a buffer zone might be one
possible solution, at least for the midterm, given that Ukraine is so
polarized and divided.
Your mention of ‘lesser people’ and
‘racism’ is more relevant to ongoing policies by Kiev, not too sure why
you speak of Russia in that context.
With respect to Ukraine’s
south-east – these guys are not willing to go into the EU or NATO –
something that has been a well known fact long before this whole crisis
broke out (http://kiis.com.ua). As I understand it, the Russians are
only raising the issue of their right to be heard and the right of
civilians to stay alive, not get killed at the hands of the Kiev
troops. I don’t see any ‘imperialism’ in this stance of Moscow
vis-a-vis this crisis.
I am not too sure why you mention Mr. Putin and propaganda machine. Please explain.
Do
you think there is a piece of propaganda in front of you every time you
come across a narrative that’s based on facts, not on someone else’s
opinion – that shatters your world view ( I understand fundamentally)?
I can support every fact I use in my analysis with hard evidence. You seem to be citing an opinion that’s not even yours.
And
I won’t stop calling for peace – don’t ask – people get killed in the
conflict zone every day. It is the pinnacle of cynicism to think of
NATO and EU expansion under the circumstance.
P.S.
I
was expecting a discussion on the points I make in the article – none
of what you say is directly related to what I argue. The thin red line
of the piece is that this bloodshed should be stopped because innocent
people get killed.
Overall, I sense that you haven’t taken the time to read the piece properly. Please do some work and familiarize yourself
with
some basic facts before you engage in a conversation with people who
have spent years trying to accumulate a decent level of expertise.
If
you reply, please make a counter-argument to the points I make in the
article. I won’t be able to engage in a broader philosophical
discussion – simply don’t have time for that.
Kind
regards,
M
Dear Masha:
I highly appreciate your response, but I am somewhat surprised that the Foreign Policy author retorts to a personal attack on her reader, instead of directly addressing the issues he raises.
In case you really feel that I am just being “lazy” and misinformed, please educate me.
Since you claim that my comments were not relevant to your paper, let me rephrase my questions:
1. Your stated goal of fighting for peace highly respectable. However, I wonder why you are not calling for peace by writing an opinion paper for, say, Komsomolskaya Pravda, and asking Mr. Putin to pull back his special forces from Crimea and Eastern Ukraine?
Do you may remember how the referendum on Slovakia independence looked like? Or, how the current discussion about Scotland separating from the UK is conducted? If Mr. Putin believes that parts of Ukraine or Georgia want to separate from these countries, why he does not support free referenda supervised by United Nations and preceded with a meaningful debate?
He did not do follow such a path. Instead, he sends his special forces to these countries to recruit and coordinate local “separatists” and then follows up with an overt invasion claiming to protect these people and to save the problem he created. Do you really believe that this is course of action does not mean that he was not responsible for the bloodshed in Georgia and for thouands of people being killed in Ukraine since last January?
2. Don’t you share my belief that Ukraine has the right to defend itself against Russian invasion? After months of denial that the “Little Green People” who invaded Crimea were the soldiers of Russian Federation, in May Mr. Putin admitted that they were. Was it an invasion or not? Don’t you think that Mr. Putin’s (and yours) asking for Ukraine to stop fighting amounts to asking them to surrender?
3. Is the commander of so-called “separatists” in East Ukraine, Mr. Strelkov (a.k.a. Gerkin) an officer of GRU/Russian Special Forces or is he not?
4. Have the bodies of “separatists” killed in Ukraine been buried in their “home country” in Donetsk or Luhansk or have been sent for burial to their true home country, Russia?
5. Have the SA11 mssile which killed 200 innocent men, women and childred been provided by Russia or nor? How can you claim that mr putin if not responsible for the war in East Ukraine and how can you claim that it is an internal conflict?
6. Has Russia guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine in the Budapest Accord or not?
7. Has the territorial integrity of Ukraine been agreement been also guaanteed by the NATO countries, US, UK and France? Do they have legal and moral obligation to support Ukraine against Russian aggression?
8. On several occasions both Georgia and Ukraine applied for being associated with (and eventually become members of) membership EU and NATO. Both participated in NATO training and sent their troops to support NATO missions. Each of my sentences above: True or false?
9. On several occasions, senior members of Mr. Putin’s administration brought up the concept of “near abroad” claiming that Russia has the right to somehow control the behavior of these independent states. True or false? If true: How is this incompatible with the notion of “buffer zones which I was asking about?
10. On several occasions, including today’s pronouncement of Mr Zhyrinovsky, Russians politicians threaten to “wipe off the surface of the Earth” this neighbors, simply because they date to have independent policies. How is this not imperialism? How does talking about special rights or Russia and Russians vis-a-vis other peoples in not racism? Are Mr. Putin’s actions compatible with the universal values of human freedom, dignity, and the right for self-determination?
11. Why do you think that Georgia and Ukraine do not have right to Joint EU and NATO? Do you consider these countries to be sovereign or not?
12. Do you agree that Mr. Putin’s propaganda twists the fact and fabricates news? Do you believe that Ukrainian army is crucifying children in Donietsk/Luhansk as portrayed by Russian state-controlled TV? Do you believe that Russia Today is credible and can be considered “independent press”?
And… do you believe that my questions above could be published in Komsomolskaya Pravda or any other media outlet controlled by Mr. Putin?
Regards,
Pawel
Dear Pawel,
Thank you for your reply.
I did not mean
to be personal. Don’t take the
offense! I do see quite often how people
cite what they read in the newspaper or heard on TV without any ‘processing’.
As for your allegation that I did not answer your questions, I must say that I did answer
them fully. Please re-read my previous
message and please do study the results of public opinion polls in Ukraine on
the issue of foreign policy. Your
previous questions may be relevant but very broadly – more to the larger topic
than to the specific points I make in the article.
As for the new points you raise, please see my comments below.
And I will repeat once more: it is very cynical to think of geopolitical gains or talk of sanctions while people in the conflict zone get killed on a daily basis.
Kind regards,
M
1. Your stated goal of fighting for
peace highly respectable. However, I wonder why you are not calling for peace
by writing an opinion paper for, say, Komsomolskaya Pravda, and asking Mr.
Putin to pull back his special forces from Crimea and Eastern Ukraine?
Do you may remember how the referendum on Slovakia independence looked like?
Or, how the current discussion about Scotland separating from the UK is
conducted? If Mr. Putin believes that parts of Ukraine or Georgia want to
separate from these countries, why he does not support free referenda
supervised by United Nations and preceded with a meaningful debate?
He did not do follow such a path. Instead, he sends his special forces to these
countries to recruit and coordinate local “separatists” and then follows up
with an overt invasion claiming to protect these people and to save the problem
he created. Do you really believe that this is course of action does not mean
that he was not responsible for the bloodshed in Georgia and for thouands of
people being killed in Ukraine since last January?
A:
There is no war in Crimea. There would be no Crimea if it wasn’t for Kosovo, I think. The war in the
south-east region of Ukraine started because of policy mistakes. The West has endorsed a new government in Kiev that had some strong nationalist colours and
neo-Nazi elements in it and was brought to power as a result of overthrowing a legitimate, democratically elected President. Moreover, Kiev signed the free trade and association agreement with the EU. Both the new government and the EU deal did not enjoy support in the south-east which is predominantly ethnic Russians and were understandably fearful of the nationalists at power and traditionally more pro-Russia than pro-EU.
Hence, secession by these regions was absolutely predictable. Please re-read my article. I talk about this
stuff. Just to remind you that this is a proxy conflict.
President Putin is not imagining that some portions of Ukraine or Georgia wanted to secede or, at minimum, see a different foreign policy course by Kiev.
Rather, it is public opinion polls and developments on the ground have shown that they are not content with their governments’ policies. Secession is a natural byproduct of the rise of extremism and nationalism and failure to take into account geopolitical preferences of significant portions of the country’s population.
The West would never agree to UN-sponsored referenda in Georgia, Ukraine or elsewhere along the Russian
borders and would always veto such initiative in the UN. The reason is simple. There were ‘rehearsal’ referenda in the region in 2006 which the West – and international organizations – chose not to recognize and not to monitor. The results were unanimously pro-Russia. If the West is so sure the results of these plebiscites were falsified and there is no genuine locals’ desire on the ground to separate and possibly join Russia, then why do you think they refused to hold internationally monitored referenda? There were meaningful discussions as part of multilateral negotiations prior to this.
It was difficult to follow events on the ground since this past winter as the story was unfolding very quickly. I would imagine that it is difficult to verify independently that Russians have indeed increased their presence on the ground beyond the numbers that had been stationed there in accordance with the bilateral agreement. I would not be surprised though if Moscow dispatched some agents in eastern Ukraine after the CIA and FBI had its agents stage a coup in Kiev, or so it seemed from the media reports. This would be their symmetrical response to Western meddling. The whole story is a bit too murky. Please correct me if I am wrong. But mercenaries usually participate on both sides in civil wars. This has been the case in the Balkans civil wars and in numerous other hot spots.
There were lots of provocations on the ground in South Ossetia prior to 8th August 2008. However, it has since been confirmed by an independent international commission that it was Mr. Saakashvili of Georgia who initiated the warfare by ordering an indiscriminate shelling of the city of Tskhinval on the night of 7th of August. The Russians had a reason to intervene after their peacekeepers stationed on the ground found themselves under attack. Pls check UN Charter and the EU Tagliavini Report on these developments.
2. Don’t you share my belief that Ukraine has the right to defend itself
against Russian invasion? After months of denial that the “Little Green People”
who invaded Crimea were the soldiers of Russian Federation, in May Mr. Putin
admitted that they were. Was it an invasion or not? Don’t you think that Mr.
Putin’s (and yours) asking for Ukraine to stop fighting amounts to asking them
to surrender?
A:
Please see previous answer.
If you check online the original Russian-language video with Putin talking about Russian troops in Crimea, you will notice one interesting thing – he mentions that Russian troops were behind the support for the referendum to ensure its peaceful conduct, he then states that there were 20,000 troops there, but he never uses the word ‘increase’ or ‘expand’ and it is not clear
whether 20,000 troops was an original number stationed there in accordance with the bilateral agreement, on top of those agreed numbers, or both taken together. So, I guess, it is all a matter of interpretation.
Like I said in my article, the Russians are a reacting party to the story. They did not start this mess in Ukraine. I think I explain quite explicitly how the crisis broke out in the article.
I guess the difference between CIA and FBI agents being
on the ground and Russian agents on the ground – provided both claims are substantiated – would be
that the former have been invited by the Ukrainian government while the latter would be invited by folks who disagree with the policies of this government
(particularly repealing of the tolerant language law and the Agreement with the EU). If you remember how this government came to power, then I don’t see much difference, to be honest. Both the West and Russia would be in violation of the Helsinki principles in such case.
With the mess that was ongoing in Ukraine, the
legitimacy of the new government being questioned and armed nationalists wandering around the country – I think the Russian justification for intervention was humanitarian. Once nationalist politicians start making stupid things, that certainly gives Mr. Putin a reason to intervene. The threshold, the scope and the methods of such intervention are certainly to be defined. Humanitarian intervention is not well codified in international law.
Americans went into Iraq under the WMD and protection
of civilians pretext. The WMD claim turned out to be a fake.
3. Is the commander of so-called “separatists” in East Ukraine, Mr. Strelkov
(a.k.a. Gerkin) an o fficer of GRU/Russian Special Forces or is he not?
A:
I cannot comment on these guys’ papers as I have not seen them. It would be a stupidity to put Russian agents
openly in front of TV cameras. Pls see
the previous answer in 2).
4. Have the bodies of “separatists” killed in Ukraine been buried in their
“home country” in Donetsk or Luhansk or have been sent for burial to their true
home country, Russia?
A:
It is the assumption of the West that the rebels fighting on the ground are exclusively of Russian origin and therefore the counter-Kiev movement is illegitimate. I do not have full verified information on the exact composition of their contingents to be able to comment but, while Russians may be indeed aiding – which still requires substantiation via independent impartial probe as to what extent – a certain portion of the rebels fighting against Kiev forces are indigenous. Google names like Alexandr Zakharchenko, Pavel Gubarev, Oleg Tsarev, Ponomarev and other – these are locals, not Russians.
5. Have the SA11 mssile which killed 200 innocent men, women and childred been
provided by Russia or nor? How can you claim that mr putin if not responsible
for the war in East Ukraine and how can you claim that it is an internal
conflict?
A:
There is an independent international probe ongoing into the causes of the crash of MH17 which killed 298 people onboard (not 200 as you claim), including the type of missile if this was indeed a missile that brought the
plane down. Please refrain from leveling any charges until the release of official results of this investigation.
On a separate note, Americans have never released their official authentic satellite data on this crash.
What do you think this means?
On the rest, please see above.
6. Has Russia guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine in the Budapest
Accord or not?
A:
Moscow can no longer guarantee something that’s undermined by Kiev itself.
Pls see my comments above and my article.
7. Has the territorial integrity of Ukraine been agreement been also guaanteed
by the NATO countries, US, UK and France? Do they have legal and moral
obligation to support Ukraine against Russian aggression?
A:
Ukraine is not a NATO member in case you were alluding to art. 5 of the Washington Treaty.
NATO does not guarantee territorial integrity.
As long as support is moral and legal…
But I suggest that you doublecheck the meaning of the term aggression.
8. On several occasions
both Georgia and Ukraine applied for being associated with (and eventually
become members of) membership EU and NATO. Both participated in NATO training
and sent their troops to support NATO missions. Each of my sentences above:
True or false?
A:
Don’t see your point here.
I guess it is a philosophical question whether policy makers can remain as legitimate rulers of their nations once they start promoting a foreign policy that ignores the sentiments of larger proportions of their publics.
9. On several occasions, senior members of Mr. Putin’s administration brought
up the concept of “near abroad” claiming that Russia has the right to somehow
control the behavior of these independent states. True or false? If true: How
is this incompatible with the notion of “buffer zones which I was asking about?
A:
Pls see previous message.
I think the idea is not so much to control as to accommodate the rights of ethnic Russians.
As I understand it, the idea of a buffer zone with respect to Ukraine might be seen as one possible way of ensuring that the country does not split up. With half of Ukrainians looking eastward and another half looking westward, drawing the country either way means tearing it apart.
10. On several occasions, including today’s pronouncement of Mr Zhyrinovsky,
Russians politicians threaten to “wipe off the surface of the Earth” this
neighbors, simply because they date to have independent policies. How is this
not imperialism? How does talking about special rights or Russia and Russians
vis-a-vis other peoples in not racism? Are Mr. Putin’s actions compatible with
the universal values of human freedom, dignity, and the right for
self-determination?
A:
There is a nationalist hardliner in almost every nation, including in Europe.
Mr. Zhirinovskiy is not part of the executive. According to the Russian Constitution, the President and the Foreign Ministry are in charge of foreign policy.
Please also see my response on racism in the previous message.
I don’t see how caring for ethnic Russians may qualify as racism.
The ‘universal values of human freedom, dignity, and the right for self-determination’ which you invoke may also be applicable in the case of Ukrainian
separatists.
11. Why do you think that Georgia and Ukraine do not have right to Joint EU and
NATO? Do you consider these countries to be sovereign or not?
A:
I have never said what you assert in the first sentence here.
I have answered this question in the previous message. Pls also see above.
12. Do you agree that Mr. Putin’s propaganda twists the fact and fabricates
news? Do you believe that Ukrainian army is crucifying children in
Donietsk/Luhansk as portrayed by Russian state-controlled TV? Do you believe
that Russia Today is credible and can be considered “independent press”?
And… do you believe that my questions above could be published in Komsomolskaya
Pravda or any other media outlet controlled by Mr. Putin?
Regards,
Pawel
A:
I am not in a position to comment on the details of events on the ground.
I think your question has to deal with the broader issue of feasibility of having independent media. There is no
such thing as absolute independence and, as far as media outlets are concerned, they are understandably dependent on their financiers – media is a very
expensive enterprise, sometimes not very profitable. Hence, you have government media, corporate
media… They are all as free as their
owners allow them to be. The percentage
of media that can afford to run an alternative line is pretty low everywhere. RT is a government-sponsored channel and as such by definition is not independent. Again, I am not in a position to comment on the credibility of any particular news reporting.
I cannot respond on behalf of any newspaper. Your questions highlight the key refrains from the Western media. I do not see why the Russian press would not publish them – supplied with their answers and
justifications. You can certainly give it a shot with the Russian media and then let me know what the result is.