“‘Now grateful descendants have demolished monuments to Lenin in Ukraine. This is what they call de-communization. Do you want de-communization? Well, this quite suits us. But you must not stop halfway. We are ready to show you what genuine de-communization means for Ukraine,’ Putin said in his address to the nation over the situation in Ukraine’s southeast.”
By this, Putin meant he is ready to absorb all of Ukraine into Russia. That’s what real “de-communization” would be, a hard statement. He explained that Ukraine never really existed and was created by communist Russia. He seems to make valid points in that regard. However, Putin knows Ukrainian nationalism is real. At one point during this war, he said their nationalism – their Ukrainian identity – should be respected. He indicated again now that Ukraine should have remained part of Russia, subtly criticizing the Russian communists for separating Crimea and Ukraine from Russia.
Putin looks relaxed, very calm. He thinks everything is going according to whatever his plans are. We know what the Russian leaders think about the Western leaders and media (nothing good). Lavrov called the sanctions “dumb” soon after they were enacted. Surely, David Ricardo’s comparative trade theory was not dependent on the actual size of the world or planet. The world can become smaller for Russia and it can still benefit from trade; it is large and rich enough that it could be a “small world” all by itself. I thought it was helpful for Lavrov to say it, but he did not repeat it. He must have wondered, “Why am I helping!”
Russians must have seen the retired American Generals on television saying that Ukraine can defeat Russia in war (who I don’t see on TV as much lately). It should be forbidden by law for Generals to put themselves on international television showing what they know and don’t know. It’s unethical whenever their opinions are contradicting more measured declarations from authorities like Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and General Mark Milley. The image of defense personnel is as important as the quality of weapons.
I think Russia is aware that Crimea is theirs now thanks to the policies and actions of “neocons”. They criticize them for having provoked a coup and secession movements in Ukraine, without being able to mention what Russia gained from that. After gaining Crimea, the richest parts of Ukraine, and of Europe, have been incorporated into Russia proper through conquest and referendums in the last 12 months. Russia was already the richest country in natural resources and the biggest geographically. Thus, there is no bigger ‘Russian’ than a ‘neocon’.
We know that this war could not be more important than it is to the Russian government. Is Article 5 of the NATO Treaty – that an attack against one member is an attack against all members – really “sacred”? It is not safe or prudent to assume Russia believes that; it believes NATO is overextended and it doesn’t think much of the politicians and diplomats who believe it is as valid as 74 years ago. It was signed in 1949 and much has indeed changed. Russia’s vast arsenal of nuclear weapons affects the context of the treaty. NATO extended itself to Finland and still wants to extend itself to Ukraine. It makes no sense for nuclear superpowers to be adversaries post-communism.
The West looks oblivious to the fact that it is providing weapons for the express purpose of killing as many Russians as possible, and that killing and wounding Russians when they are not doing the same to you could provoke an in-kind reaction eventually. The Russian population is angry because – as they themselves say – Western nations are killing Russian soldiers!
In time, Putin might feel great pressure to address this big issue; Russians may think, “Since when do you believe that you have a right to kill Russians while saying you are not at war with Russia?” In an international forum a few weeks ago, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said something startling: that an outcome of this war needs to be that Russia is never able to do it again (invade).
Victoria Nuland, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, repeated the same point this past week and said it before too. I think that they mean what they say. This implies an outcome where Russia is completely defeated in war like Ukraine says that it will be. It could mean that the Russian government will be replaced. It could even mean that Russia will be split into parts. It means very strong things. They raised the Ukraine-Russia war to world war status, where Russia’s future is marked out like Hitler’s Germany was before the end of WWII. On the other side, Russia and China say that a new world order is rising, but they don’t say that the United States must never again be able to invade anyone (probably in private they say that kind of thing).
The truth is that Ukraine has only been losing. Declarations from Putin and Medvedev (Deputy Head of the Security Council) point now to Russia aiming at conquering all but the Western part of Ukraine. It appears they might in the future be interested in bargaining over West Ukraine with the adjacent countries, Poland, Romania and Hungary (Polish and Romanian lands were ceded to Ukraine after WWII and from Hungary to Ukraine after WWI).
Russia still wants a negotiated end to the war, which could be used for leverage by the Biden administration. Article 6 of Russia’s proposal to the United States says: “All member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO, including the accession of Ukraine as well as other States.” Article 4 says: “The United States of America shall not establish military bases in the territory of the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, use their infrastructure for any military activities or develop bilateral military cooperation with them.”
No comments:
Post a Comment