Short Sighted American and European Tactics regarding Russia in Crimea May Backfire

03 March 2014

Yesterday, Secretary of State Kerry articulated Russian “badness” in a long list of hypocritically stated elements

Apparently the Obama Administration does not yet understand that the more evil one makes an adversary look, the weaker we appear to be when we eventually prove unable to divert them from their allegedly nefarious path.

We’re good at pouring gasoline on fires

Secretary of State Kerry told Meet the Press, apparently intending to further irritate the Russian Federation:

[Y]ou just don't invade another country on phony pretext in order to assert your interests.

You mean like the United States did in Iraq — on the pretext of Saddam Hussein’s imaginary stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction?

How do you think the Russian Federation is going to respond to such a disingenuous American criticism?

Especially so because, in comparison, Russia reportedly has not yet fired a shot in Crimea, but the United States killed tens of thousands of Iraqis after our “oops, I was wrong” pretext for invasion.

Chain-pulling and backyard barking

Our self-righteous leaders like to make sure the tinderbox is in full flame.

Kerry, speaking sternly (as if to a child) also said:

I think there's a unified view by all of the foreign ministers I talked with yesterday, all of the G8 and more, that they're simply going to isolate Russia. That they're not going to engage with Russia in a normal, business-as-usual manner.

There could even be ultimately asset freezes, visa bans. There could be certainly a disruption of any of the normal trade routine, and there could be business drawback on investment in the country. The ruble is already going down and feeling the impact of this.

And the reason for this, David [Gregory, the interviewer], is because you just don't invade another country on phony pretext in order to assert your interests.

President Obama yesterday offered mediation.

The people of Ukraine are fighting for democracy, they're fighting for freedom, they're fighting to have their voices heard and not be governed by a kleptocracy, by a tyrant, by someone who puts their political opposition in jail, somebody who robs the country of its livelihood and future.

And by the way, President Yanukovych's only supporters abandoned him. They voted against him. They impeached him.

So Russia and President Putin are aligning themselves firmly with this kleptocracy. They're aligning themselves with the person who was legitimately stripped of his power by the parliament, even by his own supporters.

This does not have to be, and should not be, an East/West struggle. This is not about Russia and the U.S. This is about the people of Ukraine.

A strategically questionable approach

Slapping a potentially dangerous adversary around is usually a bad idea, especially when one is pretending to seek diplomatic solutions to potentially bloody problems.

Let’s start with Secretary Kerry’s silly statement, “President Obama yesterday offered mediation.”

Yes — the one nation that has done its best to weaken, marginalize, and spray contempt on post-Soviet Russia is now offering to mediate a conflict between Russia and anti-Russian parts of a very divided Ukraine.

Would you let your long-demonstrated and hypocritical enemy mediate a conflict that you were involved in?

This offer is so maliciously made that it will predictably infuriate Russia’s leaders. Ergo, Obama’s asinine mediation offer pours gasoline on the Crimean fire.

Then there is the following intentionally hidden fact — America has very probably been supporting anti-Russian neo-Nazis and anti-Semites in Ukraine

Virtually none of the American press has covered this embarrassing aspect of American meddling abroad.

The United States reportedly has had a significant hand in supporting the fascist and neo-Nazi elements that contributed to overturning corrupt and Russia-supported Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych.

For example, regarding the distasteful folks in this bunch:

Recent months have seen regular protests by the Ukrainian political opposition and its supporters – protests ostensibly in response to Ukrainian President Yanukovich’s refusal to sign a trade agreement with the European Union . . . .

The protests remained largely peaceful until January 17th when protesters armed with clubs, helmets, and improvised bombs unleashed brutal violence on the police, storming government buildings, beating anyone suspected of pro-government sympathies, and generally wreaking havoc on the streets of Kiev. But who are these violent extremists and what is their ideology?

The political formation is known as “Pravy Sektor” (Right Sector), which is essentially an umbrella organization for a number of ultra-nationalist (read fascist) right wing groups

including supporters of the “Svoboda” (Freedom) Party,

“Patriots of Ukraine”,

“Ukrainian National Assembly – Ukrainian National Self Defense” (UNA-UNSO),

and

“Trizub”.

All of these organizations share a common ideology that is vehemently anti-Russian, anti-immigrant, and anti-Jewish among other things.

In addition they share a common reverence for the so called “Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists”

led by Stepan Bandera, the infamous Nazi collaborators who actively fought against the Soviet Union

and engaged in some of the worst atrocities committed by any side in World War II.

As for the alleged US connection to these attractive people?

As the Euromaidan protests in the Ukrainian capitol of Kiev culminated this week, displays of open fascism and neo-Nazi extremism became too glaring to ignore.

Since demonstrators filled the downtown square to battle Ukrainian riot police and demand the ouster of the corruption-stained, pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovich, it has been filled with far-right streetfighting men pledging to defend their country’s ethnic purity.

White supremacist banners and Confederate flags were draped inside Kiev’s occupied City Hall, and demonstrators have hoisted Nazi SS and white power symbols over a toppled memorial to V.I. Lenin.

EuroMaidan protesters destroyed a memorial to Ukrainians who died battling German occupation during World War II.

Sieg heil salutes and the Nazi Wolfsangel symbol have become an increasingly common site in Maidan Square, and neo-Nazi forces have established “autonomous zones” in and around Kiev.

Svoboda’s openly pro-Nazi politics have not deterred Senator John McCain from addressing a EuroMaidan rally alongside Tyahnybok,

nor did it prevent Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland from enjoying a friendly meeting with the Svoboda leader this February.

In a leaked phone conversation with Geoffrey Pyatt, the US ambassador to Ukraine, Nuland revealed her wish for Tyahnybok to remain “on the outside,” but to consult with the US’s replacement for Yanukovich, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, “four times a week.”

At a December 5, 2013 US-Ukraine Foundation Conference, Nuland boasted that the US had invested $5 billion to "build democratic skills and institutions" in Ukraine, though she did not offer any details.

“The Euro-Maidan movement has come to embody the principles and values that are the cornerstones for all free democracies,” Nuland proclaimed.

Why is Max Blumenthal’s American neo-Nazi-backing claim believable?

The United States historically has funded and clandestinely given aid to whatever unattractive elements it wants to, when it perceives that it might be able to stick a spike into an adversary nation.

We are notorious for supporting dictators and quasi-fascists, when they claim (or seem) to be the dike that holds dreaded “commies” and “socialists” at bay.

With these nuances in mind — let’s return to Secretary Kerry’s provocative statements on Meet the Press

Notice that Secretary Kerry implies by omission that (a) Russian President Putin has been supporting a kleptocrat and (b) that motive-pure Ukrainians magically rid themselves of the despot without outside aid.

Nor was the Secretary of State forthright enough to admit that the Ukraine itself is split between Russia-supporting parts and EU –aligned portions.

It’s so much easier to mislead and drum up sensationalist posturing, than it is to provide full facts and admit one’s own contributions to the world’s instability.

Geopolitical maneuvering — let’s assume that President Putin turns out to be wily

A competent strategist in President Putin’s position would recognize that protecting Russia’s naval base and the pro-Russian population in Crimea is enough. There is no need to stir the hornets’ nest further by engaging in an invasion of the rest of Ukraine, which is predominantly anti-Russian.

If Russia acts with restraint, it will not be shooting itself in the foot in the massive way that the Obama Administration apparently anticipates. Which will pose an interesting “how to” lesson for the People’s Republic of China.

Broader strategic implications — China

What happens if Secretary Kerry’s threatened economic isolation of Russia doesn’t work?

What happens if China decides that a strong and aggressive Russia would divert American and European resources into a prolonged anti-Russian effort — while China is left free to ramble around, doing what it wants?

If China comes to such an assessment, might it not provide Russia with the economic support that the West is trying to take from it?

And if China did that, how would the West counter, given how dependent all of us are on China’s manufacturing and financial clout?

The moral? — As usual, American leaders are not thinking enough steps ahead

In addition to exhibiting the repellant hypocrisy that enrages some of our geopolitical adversaries — American political leaders are again exhibiting a determined blindness to the potential effects of stopgap solutions to problems they created themselves.

Recall that in the Crimean instance, it was the American and European policy of attempting to wrest Russia’s border states away from the Federation’s sphere of influence that started this conflict.

And it was the West that twice invaded Russian territory, partially justifying the Soviet and Federation mindset that maintaining a geographic buffer zone is desirable for national security reasons.

The United States has no excuse for deemphasizing the legitimacy of Russia’s self-protective strategic orientation. Remember how America reacted to the installation of Russian missiles in Cuba a few decades ago? Like the Russia Federation, the United States is emphatic about protecting its sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere.

Ain’t stupidly indulged hypocrisy grand?

We will see whether Vladimir Putin is smart enough to avoid geopolitical overreaching. If he is, the Obama Administration’s impulsive trash talking is going to look like weakness, rather than skill.

Such an error could have been avoided by recognizing that other nations have vital national interests that are equal in impetus to our own. Making an issue of those, when one is unlikely to win, is self-destructive.

PeteFree.com

Short Sighted American and European Tactics regarding Russia in Crimea May Backfire