Ukraine: Yulia’s Breath of Stale Air
According to a seasoned observer of Moscow’s political scene, the Russian political class cringed last Wednesday morning on learning that Obama had suffered a humiliating political defeat. The Russian leaders don’t think much of Obama personally, but they are worried over what the Republican control of the House might mean for the fledgling “reset” in US-Russian relations—the solitary foreign policy success of the Obama administration.
“One vulnerable target for the Republicans is the new START treaty which the Obama administration hopes to get ratified during the lame-duck session of the sitting Senate,” our source says. “Another likely victim of the Republican congressional victory could be Obama’s measured and cautious policy in the post-Soviet space, with clear signs of respect for Russia’s legitimate, if not privileged, interests in the region. Republican control of the House and its Foreign Affairs Committee means that they would be in a position to pass provocative legislation … or provide financial support and even military assistance to Georgia”—enough to disrupt and perhaps destroy the "reset."
Moscow’s fears over the future of the “reset” may well be justified. The neoconservatives, atavistically Russophobic and unhappy with the limited “engagement” of America around the world over the past two years, hope to use the Republican majority in the House to advocate a fresh round of bear baiting. Their agenda is apparent from the prominence the neoconservative flaghship, The Wall Street Journal, gave to ex-Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko’s plea ("Save Ukraine’s Democracy,” October 29) for renewed Western meddling in Ukraine’s internal affairs.
Having failed to interest anyone influential the West in her ill-founded claims of foul play following the presidential election last winter, Ms. Tymoshenko has rehashed the same talking points in connection with last Sunday’s elections of regional councils and city mayors in Ukraine. “They are not just a local affair,” she warned, “[t]hey warrant international scrutiny due to mounting evidence suggesting that they will neither be free nor fair. The European Union should be wary of a neighboring country that controls the flow of gas to millions of EU households sliding into authoritarianism”:
Since President Yanukovych assumed office eight months ago, political power has been centralized and civil liberties threatened. Most notably, media freedoms have come under attack. The opposition is virtually excluded from the airwaves as a result of pressure from media barons loyal to President Yanukovych and self-censorship for fear of displeasing the administration or having their offices inspected… Western leaders can exert great pressure on Ukraine's government, for instance by attaching conditions to the next round of IMF loans or by using negotiations on Ukraine's Association Agreement with the EU as a lever… We appeal to the international community to be vigilant and safeguard the European values we hold so dearly.
What the Journal’s readers may not realize, but most Europeans who matter knosw very well, is that it was former President Yushchenko’s and Ms. Tymoshenko’s brand of “Ukrainian democracy”—the dysfunctional Orange duopoly—that brought instability of the gas flow “to millions of EU households” two years ago. It takes some chutzpah for Ms. Tymoshenko to try playing this particular card now. Her rise to prominence was entirely due to her ability to make tens of millions of euros by reselling Russian gas to Eastern Europe before the “Orange Revolution,” when she belonged to the old post-Soviet oligarchy. She swiftly turned anti-Russian after Yushchenko’s triumph by declaring loyalty to the West. When Moscow responded by declaring that Ukraine would have to pay the same price for gas as the Germans and Italian, she was quick to rediscover the advantages of being nice to the Kremlin yet again. Her tenure as Prime Minister was marked by rampant corruption at home and irresponsible posturing abroad. Her heavy-handed treatment of the opposition helped her enemies then, and makes her claim of holding European values “so dearly” ridiculous now.
Having spent a week in Kiev last June, I can attest that following the end of the Orange regime Ukraine is becoming a more normal country. Russophobic Orangism has always been a minority obsession, but after Yushchenko it is discredited as a practical project. Today it is confined to the Galician fringe in the west of the country. The rest of Ukraine is finally getting on with focusing on pragmatic solutions to real problems. That means: NATO is off the agenda, there will be no gas disputes, the Black Sea Fleet’s home base lease has been extended, lip service is still paid to the EU membership in the knowledge that it will not happen.
Ms. Tymoshenko refuses to accept that she is a failed politician devoid of new tricks. Unwilling to leave the scene, she is trying to play the role of Czechoslovakia’s Gustav Husak in 1968—as the voice of ideological orthodoxy demanding foreign intervention. Her attempt is sordid. It would be irrelevant, were it not for the Journal giving it undue prominence. This indicates that the neocons have not given up on provoking Russia. They are irritated that having good relations with Moscow is a top priority in Paris, Berlin and Rome. They would like to return to the policy of encouraging an impoverished, practically defenseless nation such as Ukraine to become their pliant tool against the superpower next door. They have learnt nothing from Russia’s response to Saakashvili’s attack on South Ossetia in the summer of 2008, when Moscow maneuvered Washington into a position of weakness unseen since the final days of the Carter presidency three decades ago. The EU and Obama are guilty of many sins, but at least they both see the need for a sane relationship with Moscow that acknowledges that Russia has legitimate interests in her “near-abroad.” Ukraine’s geographic position as the natural transit route from the oil and gas fields of Russia, the Caucasus and Central Asia to Central and Western Europe is a valuable asset. The previous administration unnecessarily turned that asset into a liability and a source of periodic friction with Moscow and the EU. It failed to grasp that being a transit route for a strategic commodity is not tantamount to having the commodity itself – especially if alternative transit routes are potentially available. The issue has always been political rather than economic. The new government understands that the solution is in a plus-sum-game model of shared responsibility and shared profits.
It is ironic that the “pro-Western reformists” Yushchenko and Tymoshenko were regarded as discredited by the international financial institutions, while President Yanukovych—maligned by the neocons as a neo-Soviet autocrat—is regarded by them as solid and trustworthy.
Ukraine needs to continue reforming its energy policy, tightening fiscal discipline, combating corruption, reforming the judiciary, and ensuring free and fair elections—but the task is neither unique to Ukraine, nor more daunting than it is elsewhere.
Tymoshenko is still paying the price of her miscalculation from exactly a year ago. She could have started to build bridges with future opposition partners long before her expected defeat, but this did not happen due to her excessive self-confidence in the run-up to the presidential election. She remains blind to the fact that no consolidation of Ukraine’s opposition can be effected on the basis of Orange demagoguery of six years ago. It may take months or even years for the Ukrainian opposition to come to terms with the new realities at home and abroad, but Ms. Tymoshenko is not the one to do it.
The U.S. policy toward Ukraine has always been and remains inseparable from its relations with Russia. Yanukovich’s visit to Washington last spring marked the beginning of a genuine reset in the U.S. –Russian relations. It was Obama’s helpful signal to those in Russia, notably President Medvedev, who believe that such a reset in Moscow’s relations with the United States is possible. Premier Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov are reputed to take a more jaundiced view, having experienced the mendacity and duplicity that characterized the Russia policy of the Bush-Cheney administration. Continuing to reassure Moscow vis-à-vis Ukraine would serve the American interest in a key region, defined with realism and pursued with pragmatism.
Entries(RSS)
why are the neocons "russophobic?" Does it stem from their contempt to traditional christianity i.e. Catholicism and Orthodoxy?
Brian,
I would say the efforts to protect Christians in Iraq is way below the record of Saddam Hussein. I was really disappointed after his hanging, that the NEO-CON run GOP did not make good on its promises. The world will become a better place,the blessings of democracy will flourish, peace will reign, security through projecting strength will be the answer, etc. etc..
Evidently they meant this --- http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=39031
when the neo-con/GOP promised a better form of Iraqi government.
Of course our former leader, President Bush, always promised, "when the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."
Apparently pressing the reset button with Putin means that he gets everything materially, i.e., a START treaty to his liking and aquiescence in Russia's sphere of influence in the east. Obama gets protestations of friendship, comity,and smiles before the camera, nothing more. Tempermentally, Obama is built to be bulldozed and abused by strongwilled foreign leaders, since he, like all leftists, is a worshipper of power and brute force above all things.
Putin is not getting "everything" -- he is merely obtaining for Russia (at long last!) the treatment by the U.S. seemingly devoid of Clinton's and Bush/Cheney's malevolent mendacity and studied duplicity. That is a good thing. It is right and proper for Russia to have her sphere of influence in her near-abroad, and America's meddling in Ukraine or Georgia was on par with, say, Russian meddling in Canada or Chinese meddling in Mexico. Unnecessary, dangerous, geostrategically senseless, and civilizationally self-defeating.
Thanks once again to Dr. Trifkovic for injecting another treatment of sanity into the diseased patient that is American foreign policy.
The fears of of another surge of Russophobia are well-grounded given Republican, that is to say, neo-con, recent history. In the week following the elections, it appears to me that once again the "winners" have misread the electorate; this vote was, in my view, a collective vote against some of Obama's more outrageous plans for health care and immigration than it was a deep longing for a return to the Republican way of government. Utopian imperialism flavored with a generous serving of anti-Russian behavior seem to be the linchpins of GOP foreign policy and nowhere outside of the op-ed pages of the usual suspects have I noticed anyone pining for a return to the Bush/Cheney method of international relations.
Thus, we again might have to watch as a full-court press is applied to a chastened Obama to hasten the entry of some nations in to the EU and even more dangerously, NATO, that will have only dismal consequences for the US. 1960's Cold War rhetoric directed toward Putin and the Russians will not help US foreign policy, but apparently will assist the neo-con handlers and the sycophants over at the WSJ to achieve whatever it is they are planning for our future.
The dimmest John Bircher will tell you that control of the House of Representatives will mean control of the nation's purse strings. In that regard I'm hoping for the best (cut off funding to our wastrel wars) and anticipating the worst, because the cleverest politician is not as honest as your average Bircher.
Loved the line about Obama being bulldozed, Our Fearless Smoker-in-Chief bowed low to the illegimate Saudi king. What a loser!
I have [Catholic] friends in France who believe that Russia will be the savior of European Christendom. I really doubt that entirely, given most of the recent Russian expatriates I have met, but at the same time it must be admitted that, on the whole, the world would be worse-off without a self-sufficient Russia--or any historically Christian country for that matter--not subjected to American theoretical ideas of how to conduct society.
Even so, I will have no faith in the potential of any country to constitute itself as such until one stands up and destroys every TV set and station within its borders.
Russia was recently called the Great Satan by Iran's leader for suddenly refusing to sell S-300 SAM missles to Iran. But on the other hand, it is selling the same missles to Syria & Venezuela along with subs, jet fighters and AK 47 factories. So what gives? We stopped meddling in Ukraine and Georgia, but they can still arm these countries? Oh! I forgot, Russia is also going to build a nuclear reactor for Hugo Chavez.
Regarding Comment 8, we have hardly stopped meddling in Ukraine and Georgia, to say nothing of Chechnya, and are still working with our old, dear, friends and allies, the Islamists, to effect a Yugoslav-style partition of Russia. If we succeed, maybe bin Laden can establish his ultimate safe haven there, and perhaps we will award him the Medal of Freedom.
SS-300s are defensive weapons; selling them to Venezuela and Syria is detrimental to US interests only to those who'd like to keep open the option of a US intervention in those countries at some future date, in which case it serves the American interest because it makes such insanity less likely.
As for the sale of a nuclear reactor to Chavez, does it make Hugo guilty of plotting to build the weapons of mass destruction? Not even "The Weekly Standard" has suggested that! Chile and Ecuador have the same plans to ease their energy problems. Thirty one countries already have some 440 reactors & operate nuclear power stations. Among those, twenty seven have plans to build more reactors. Two-dozen others plan on acquiring them, mostly with Western technology. So please...
Hugo Chavez probably wanted those nuclear reactors because his disastrous price controls have led to a shortage of nearly every utility and food supply in his country and are quickly burning away whatever resources or capital Venezuela still has left. Chavez probably figures nuclear reactors to be another large bold aggressive solution.
Possibly, probably even -- his gross mismanagement of the Venezuelan economy is beyond dispute -- but it is still preposterous to claim that selling those reactors to him is somehow tantamount to making a hostile anti-American act.
I agree. I find it hard to believe if there could be much of a hostile anti-American act from any other nation, considering America has a giant military machine that dwarfs the second bests and has a wide intelligence reach. What can Chavez, Gaddafi,.etc ever do, even if they actually wanted?
It is akin to how it is today suggested that Iran could be a threat to Israel, even though military experts have said Israel can bomb every Iranian reactor by air if it wanted, and has enough nuclear weapons to pre-emptively finish off Iranian nuclear weapons.
Completely agree with Dr. Trifkovic's analysis, as always. Here's an article I wrote about the last Ukrainian presidential election.
http://www.vdare.com/girin/100222_diversity.htm
Another minor distinction between enemies are those who dislike us, those that hate us, and those that kill us. I wonder what the neo-cons have been saying recently about the success of their surge in Iraq. I think the Syriac Patriarch explained rather well what they mean by success and surge.
"Christians are slaughtered in Iraq, in their homes and churches, and the so-called 'free' world is watching in complete indifference, interested only in responding in a way that is politically correct and economically opportune, but in reality is hypocritical," said Syriac Catholic Patriarch Ignace Joseph III Younan after these latest killings."
For more on the slaughter of Christians in Iraq and elsewhere see:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/
Dr. Trifkovic,
I am perplexed by your apparent minimizing of anti-Russian sentiment in Ukraine. I was under the impression that the Ukrainians had suffered terribly under the Soviet/Russian yoke. Also, however shabby Tymoshenko's performance as a politician may be, can she really be compared to a Husak, who was willing to return his country to their slavemasters in Moscow?
I happen to have some Ukrainians in my extended family, whom I shall be seeing over Thanksgiving. This couple saw the worst of the Second World War, and I am gradually piecing together their story. I would very much like to elicit their opinions and feelings on the Russian role in their country's history. Can you suggest a line of questioning?
It depends where your Ukrainians come from. Various degrees of anti-Russian sentiment are certainly present in the northwestern third of the country, centered on L'vov, but the scene is very different along the southern Black Sea shore and in Kiev itself (still a predominantly Russian-speaking city), not to mention the Donbas. In Ukraine's second largest city, Kharkov, "Orange" notions are viewed with a ligh-hearted scorn. Yushchenko's miserable showing last February is a clear indicator where things stand.
Dr. Trifkovic, what is your opinion of the "Svoboda" party that apparently did very well recently in local elections in Galicia? They have been described as both anti-Western and anti-Russian and are always referred to as anti-Semitic and far right. I am not vouching for the accuracy of these statements as they came from English language Western or Western oriented outlets.
#7 : "I have [Catholic] friends in France who believe that Russia will be the savior of European Christendom."
Nicholas, your friends are right. Russia will do so, but only when the pope (in union with all the bishops in a public ceremony) Consecrates Russia to Our Lady's Immaculate Heart. Our lady promised it WILL be done, but that it will be late. And She was right. It is getting very late. The question is : when? Pray daily for it!
The idea of a Catholicized Russia flowing out and reconquering the post-Christian West is understandably attractive to many people, but I would be wary about interpreting the prophecy quite that way. All that was said was that the Holy See and the bishops have a duty to effect this consecration. Beyond specific commands, it is dangerous to attempt to hasten the coming of a specific vision of a prophecy; moreover, that is precisely what we reproach Evangelical Christians for.
Ron Holt wrote: "Tempermentally, Obama is built to be bulldozed and abused by strongwilled foreign leaders, since he, like all leftists, is a worshipper of power and brute force above all things."
You mean like Israel is now doing to him?
At some point Christendom will have to be reestablished, otherwise the Muslims will have completed the conquering of the secular west. How that happens who knows, but we have it from our Lady that the pope & bishops will eventually consecrate Russia to her immaculate heart, and things will happen. If as swiftly as the conversion of Mexico after our Lady of Guadalupe, then I expect the Orthodox to return to full communion with the successor of St Peter. The west must unite to deal with the Muslims, and as Tom Pauken said in his book, Russia plays a huge key in the containment of Islam. These United States are a joke - Protestants & Secularists, eventually no one will take them seriously, and I suppose Europe will sort it out, or perish ...
@22: I basically agree with you. But Russia as is is at best only a little more reliable than any other once-Christian country re: the ultimate showdown. The first step is to cleanse the Catholic Church of bourgeois-ralliement and Jansenist elements.
Aboslutely, Holy Mother Church needs to cleansed of internal heretics, and return to orthodoxy. If politics derive from culture, and culture from religion, then the root problem is the religion. Pray for the Holy Father, that he may have the fortitude to root out the heretics.
Michael Voris over at Real Catholic TV produced an interesting speech:
Rebellion in the Church
http://www.realcatholictv.com/cia/05rebellion/