The West and Ukraine − and the wars within (FB Ali)

Poor Professor Petro! A professor of politics at the University of Rhode Island, he was selected by the US State Department as a Fulbright Research Scholar in 2013 and went to Ukraine on a year's affiliation with a university in Odessa. Thus he happened to have a ringside seat when the troubles began in that country, and presumably watched in horror as the West appeared to misread and mishandle an internal power struggle into an international crisis. Doubtless he sent urgent missives to people he knew who might be able to influence US policy, but to no avail. Finally, he put his warnings into an article (Six Mistakes the West Has Made (and Continues to Make) in Ukraine) and published it on The National Interest.

But Dr Petro is wrong if he thinks the West is simply mistaken. Of course, there are intellectually challenged persons who do seriously misunderstand what is going on (John Kerry and Catherine Ashton, for example, and many media writers and columnists). Others fall into the same category because, though nominally bright, their ideological mindset causes them to seriously misjudge the situation (Susan Rice and Samantha Power, for instance). But the real reason behind the West's policies in Ukraine and Eastern Europe is that there is a strong faction among its policymakers that fully understands what is going on but has deliberately chosen this course of action. There is also a sane element in the West that seeks to impose a sensible policy, but is currently unable to prevail. The future of Ukraine, of relations between Russia and the West, and, indeed, of the world, depends on the struggle that is going on between these two groups, as well as the wider conflict over Ukraine between the West and Russia. To follow the course of these consequential contests it would help to identify who is in the various camps, and what they are trying to do.

The War Party

This is not too strong a title to give them since they believe the West won the Cold War and are angry that Russia has dared to challenge their consequent right to reorder Europe They would like to put Russia in its place (some of them would not even be too averse to starting a shooting war, if that became necessary). The leading elements of this faction are neocons and right-wingers. In the USA the most prominent are the neocons of the State Department (led by Victoria Nuland) and the CIA. Supporting them are the neocons in Congress, the 'think tanks' and the media, as well as the military industry. In Europe such elements are to be found in several governments, militaries and intelligence agencies.

 

 

Another element in this party is the NATO lobby. These are political and military leaders and defence industrialists in both the USA and Europe who would like to see a revival of NATO's strength and importance. For them this crisis provides a great opportunity to stop the decline of NATO in both relevance and strength, and hence as a lucrative source of military jobs and money.

A third element is the East European Governments and politicians who still dislike and fear Russia, notably Poland. They wish to see NATO extend its coverage more securely over them (and don't mind giving Russia a jab in the eye in the process).

The most active element of this party, of course, is the current regime in Kiev and its supporters. They know that the political and economic survival of the Ukraine they seek to rule over lies in it becoming the frontline in a new Cold War between the West and Russia.

The War Party wants to force Russia to back down, and let the West incorporate Ukraine into its fold. Since the presently imposed sanctions haven't worked, they want to ratchet them up until it does. Their inability to prove their initial claims about Russian troops being present in East Ukraine has now led them to try and provoke Russia into moving troops across the border by attacking the Russian-speaking areas that will not accept Kiev's rule. This move has not proved successful since Ukrainian troops are showing a marked reluctance to attack their fellow countrymen. This has caused the Kiev regime to create militias from its far right Svoboda supporters, and now there are reports that the CIA, which is instigating and guiding these moves, is bringing in mercenaries to do the dirty work.

The Resolution Party

This group comprises those who wish to resolve the Ukraine crisis in a sensible fashion without letting it lead to a breakdown in relations between the West and Russia. Leading it are those European governments whose countries would suffer the brunt of economic warfare between Russia and the West, prominent among them Germany's Angela Merkel. Supporting these governments are business interests that would be affected, as well as sections of the media. However, they are constrained in their efforts by the need to also maintain their ties with the USA, and not appear to break ranks with it.

In the USA there are undoubtedly members of the policy establishment who adhere to this viewpoint, though they are probably in a minority. I would hazard that the most prominent among them is Gen Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the JCS. This assumption is based not only on his past record of realistic and sensible policy positions but also on the recent evidence from the case of Gen Philip Breedlove. Some time ago the NATO military chief was as loud in his tough anti-Russian talk as his boss, NATO Secy Gen Rasmussen (including advancing some wild scenarios of a likely massive Russian push into Ukraine). Then, while the latter still held forth on an almost daily basis, there was a notable change in Gen Breedlove's public pronouncements (so much so that they are now considered no longer worth reporting in the MSM): while still pushing the need for strengthening NATO, he has dropped his inflammatory anti-Russian rhetoric. As a US military officer and commander of US troops in Europe Breedlove is subject to direction by Dempsey.

The Juggler in the Middle

What of Barack H Obama, President of the United States of America, an office "clothed in immense power"? It seems he is performing his usual act of balancing competing factions while staying uncommitted to any line of action, all the while hoping to come out ahead personally. He probably does not want this situation in Ukraine to blow up into a serious confrontation with Russia, but finds his options limited ever since Ms Nuland and the State Department along with the CIA took the bit between their teeth and set the current events in motion. While publicly acting tough (he also has to worry about his political flank) he is probably trying to slow down the runaway crisis so that it does not erupt into something that would damage whatever plans he has for the remainder of his presidency.

Moscow Centre

On the other side of this crisis is Russia. There are no competing factions there; its policy is completely determined by Vladimir Putin and his small circle of advisers and officials (that is backed, notably, by a huge majority of the country's population). What is their view of the crisis, and what are their aims?

To decipher the mysteries of Moscow we have, in lieu of John LeCarre, a worthy replacement in Alastair Crooke. An alumni of MI6 and a former British and European Union diplomat, he spent five days in Moscow recently and posted his thoughts on Russian perspectives on his blog. Not only is it first-hand reporting by an astute and well-connected professional, it also jives with what any sensible observer of these events would expect.

Some of the highlights of his report are worth noting. Moscow doesn't control events in Ukraine, and fully recognizes that limitation. He found no appetite for intervention in a Ukraine that is considered a "viper's nest" and a "vast economic black hole". Nevertheless, it is recognized that military intervention may at some point become inevitable, especially if there are massacres of ethnic Russians or pro-Russians. It is believed that events have foreclosed the 'loose federation' option; a secession of parts of the East is regarded as inevitable. Russia is not frightened of sanctions, and accepts them as part of a new paradigm of relations between it and the West. There exists in Moscow a very realistic and accurate view of the dynamics currently at play in the West.

The lengthy report (which I highly recommend for full perusal) then goes on to discuss the implications of current events for the future of international relations, and of the Russian policies that are likely to replace those followed since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Geneva?

Where does the four-party meeting in Geneva on April 17 fit into this picture? In an earlier post here I had advanced the proposition that what had happened there was that the West had essentially "folded". I still hold that view, but it needs some elaboration in this context. What appears to have happened is that, on this occasion, Obama threw his weight behind Merkel and the Resolution Party, allowing them to prevail. The statement of agreement lays down a pathway to a peaceful resolution in Ukraine, but it could not be followed up because neither Obama nor Putin control the players there. The 'federalists' would not abandon the control they had acquired in certain areas of the East without a parallel move in the West, which gave the Kiev regime an excuse to reject any meaningful negotiations. In any case, the people they were listening to (US Ambassador Pyatt and the CIA) were probably telling them to do this, anyway.

The Future

The Donetz and Luhansk regions of Ukraine have held referendums in which big majorities are said to have voted for self-rule. Whatever the limitations of such votes, the reality on the ground is that these regions are outside the control of the Kiev regime. Its attempts to reassert control through military force have failed, and are unlikely to succeed since their populations are largely ethnic Russian or Russian-speaking and have no desire to be ruled by those currently in power in Kiev.

The German foreign minister is now in Kiev to try and revive the Geneva plan for a 'round table' meeting of Ukrainian leaders of different factions under OSCE auspices. He is also likely to travel to East Ukraine in this behalf. Coming as he does from an EU meeting of foreign ministers, it appears that Merkel and her allies have launched a last bid effort to solve the issue through negotiations. This move comes too late for it to have much chances of achieving anything. Positions on both sides have hardened; lives have been lost in supporting them. Neither Obama nor Putin have full control over their Ukraine players; those who do have influence are against such a resolution.

If, as is likely, this last-ditch effort of the Resolution Party fails, then the present situation will continue along its inevitable path. The Donetsk and Luhansk regions (which have agreed to join together) are likely to effectively secede from Ukraine, though the formal process may take time. It is quite possible that other neighbouring regions may do the same thing. Backed by the War Party the Kiev regime is unlikely to acquiesce in such secessions. They are likely to continue their attempts to reassert control through military action. The Ukrainian military is unlikely to display greater enthusiasm for this task than it has done so far. If the regime tries to use Svoboda militias, mercenaries and heavy weapons to achieve its aim they will likely be neutralized by Russian action, overt or covert. It is unlikely that the secessions can be reversed.

The West is likely to express its unhappiness with these developments by blaming Russia for them and imposing more sanctions on it. The extent to which they will go depends on the internal tussle between the neocons in the USA and Merkel and her allies in Europe, who will bear the brunt of the blowback from them (and, of course, on which way Obama tilts, if he does at all). However, it is already apparent that the reality of the double-edged effect of sanctions is sinking in even among the War Party. As Alastair Crooke points out, Russia is not afraid of sanctions, and this will not alter the course of developments in the Ukraine. All they will lead to is a much more confrontational and insecure world in the future.

With so many critical problems facing humanity (over-population, widespread poverty, global warming, to name a few) this is not a happy prospect.

Comments

[ffintii]

Obama "tilts" on narcissism or WW3?

[steve]

"The Farce Is Complete: Joe Biden's Son Joins Board Of Largest Ukraine Gas Producer

Burisma Holdings, Ukraine’s largest private gas producer, has expanded its Board of Directors by bringing on Mr. R Hunter Biden as a new director."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-13/farce-complete-joe-bidens-son-joins-board-largest-ukraine-gas-producer

[GulfCoastPirate]

Why does Obama not fire Nuland and her cronies?

[VietnamVet]

FB Ali,

This is the best summary of the current situation in Ukraine that I have read.

One aspect of this crisis I’ve never seen before is the propaganda that is completely divorced from reality and is so vicious. In the Vietnam Era, the domino theory made sense even if it didn’t happen. Stalin, Mao and Ho Chi Minh, also, were worthy opponents deserving the best efforts of the American people not dirty rotten scumbags like Vladimir Putin. In Saigon the Generals were venal and incompetent but they were our Generals. Now, the US Government is supporting Jihadists in Syria and Right Sector in Ukraine who would like do nothing better than to kill Americans.

This change is due to who is doing the fighting. What we are seeing today are Wars between varying Western and Eastern Plutocrats over scarce resources. The people don’t matter anymore; except, to be kept out of the way, jailed, or killed. Today wars are fought with mercenaries not people’s armies. We are living at the start of the new Dark Ages if mankind survives climate change and a possible nuclear holocaust.

[Norbert M Salamon]

Thank you for the encompassing ideas and facts surrounding Ukraine, the West and Russia [with Chinese backing-as revealed today].

I think one issue is unmentioned, to wit, that the Ukraine economy will not survive past a few months [will sink below that of Greece], as neither the US nor EU has the sufficient cash reserves to keep Ukraine above water.

There is a shortage of analysis in MSM and blogsphere concerning the damages done to EU, US and world economies by the foolish attempt to sanction RF.

The people of RF are quite willing to make living standard impacts when the security of the Nation is involved. One does not need too much historical analysis to ascertain this fact. The same can not be held for either the EU or the spoiled children of US.

So my notion is that the "West" may win the battle in the short term, but will loose the war within a year.

[walrus]

Thank you very much for your appreciation Gen. Ali!

There are three other factors at play that I am aware of.

a) Putin is concerned not to tip the Russian economy into recession, it's currently quite finely balanced.

b) Putin is aware that truncating Europes gas flow will have permanent negative effects on European gas revenues. Once Europe has found and invested in alternate supplies, they will use them in preference to Russian gas even in the face of future Russian price cuts.

c) Chinese material support for Russia is not a given. For one thing, there is still bad blood regarding border issues.

[Medicine Man]

Thank you for the round up, Brigadier Ali. Very informative.

[James Patrick]

I've asked myself the exact same question. The best I can figure is that Obama thinks that by keeping neo-cons in his administration, he can neutralize/co-opt them as a group. "Better to have the camel on the inside of the tent pissing out, rather than on the outside pissing in," as Lyndon Johnson once said. The trouble with this approach, I think, is that the neo-cons are the type who will go on pissing in the tent even when they're inside of it! They're not loyal to any president or party. They are loyal only to their own, mad vision of world domination.

[turcopolier]

JP

"by keeping neo-cons in his administration, he can neutralize/co-opt them as a group." IMO Obama is a weak man If I were president, the neocons would be in hiding. pl

[burton50]

VV:

If being, first and foremost, a Russian patriot makes Putin a “dirty rotten scumbag”, well, then, from the U.S. perspective, I guess that’s how it will fly. The jury is still out, but I think, at least for Russian history, he could end up being one of the great figures. The Russian state collapsed in 1917, and in 1991-1999, it came damn close: the armed forces demoralized and dispersed, tax revenues heading toward zero, the ex-Communist mucky-mucks, the managerial class and the well-connected heading for the exits with all the assets of the old Soviet state, and a rapid flight of political power to the regional oligarchs and their political front men. All this left nothing at all for the ordinary Russian. The entire sequence was tenderly encouraged by “Western advisors” (Jeffrey Sachs and others, the “shock therapists”) for whom Russia was some of laboratory and, of course, the International Monetary Fund with its usual recipes for opening countries to the mercies of the transnational corporations.

This is the very same process that is playing itself out to a very bitter end in the Ukraine. In twenty three years, the place has been entirely looted by its home-grown oligarchs with little or no thought for the needs of the population. They run the place and its political formations. Not one of them had political (or even human) smarts enough to see the end point of this trend. Not one of them prevailed on their front people (Kuchma, Iushchenko, Timoshenko, Ianukovich and their blocs of Rada deputies) to lay the ethnic “dog whistles” that were the staple of electoral campaigns and to produce a program that would at long last lay the foundation for a single national vision.

Say what you want about Putin, but in the course of fifteen years he and his team have acted very decisively to limit and reverse the damages of this trend in Russia, rebuilt and re-energized the armed forces, begun the hard work of reconstructing the state’s tax base and its institutional organization, and brutally rehabilitated the state’s capacity to reign in the sort of massive theft and corruption that when on in Yeltsin’s era. The effort has begun to bear fruit in the reversal of the terrible demographic and economic trends unleashed by the collapse of the USSR (it’s to this that Putin’s famous quotation refers). The program was not to be a frontal assault in the Bol’shevik manner: the oligarchs are probably thought of as useful in their own way, but they are carefully supervise and have been warned in no uncertain terms that interference in the affairs of the nation (as in the Ukraine) wouldn’t be tolerated.

This blog is a daily read for me because the host and many of the commentators are almost reflexively sensitive – often from hands-on experience – to the powerful nuances of national or tribal cultures and their impact on the political situation in the world (http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2014/05/httpenglishahramorgegnewscontent164101044egyptpolitics-arab-spring-a-plot-to-divide-countries-egypts.html being just another case in point). It is in that same spirit that I try to place the figure of Putin, not in American context (he ain't no liberal democrat), but in the rather long tradition of the Russian State and its architects: Grand Prince Ivan III Vasilievich (1440-1505), Tsar and Emperor Peter I, Catherine II, Aleksandr II (“the Liberator”).

Congratulations to FB Ali for a superior analysis.

[seydlitz89]

FB Ali-

Excellent post sir!

My question would be, does the Kiev element see the Cheneyites as instrumental to their political aspirations? That is do they see themselves as playing the role of a Chalabi?

[FB Ali]

Thank you!

I agree with what you say about Vladimir Putin. He saved Russia from a decline into poverty and irrelevance. Perhaps that is one of the reasons he is so detested by the neocons and their supporters.

I think he is a Russian patriot, and this is his primary motivation in his policies and actions.

[Fred]

NMS,

The EU is going to find out the hard way when more unemployed Ukrainians start showing up in Berlin, Rome and Paris looking for work and welfare. The spoiled children in the US - they are being fed a constant barrage of information management that is placing the 'minimum wage' as their aspirational target:
http://tinyurl.com/mrr7ahk
http://tinyurl.com/pjtc3nd

[Tyler]

The neocons are the same as the current crop of neoliberals who think they can export democracy at bayonet point and subscribe fully to blank slate voodoo.

Why doesn't he fire them? Because he fully agrees with what they're doing!

[FB Ali]

I agree that Putin has these economic compulsions to consider. However, he may well decide to let geopolitical necessities override them in the short term. The fact that his current policy has such huge backing within Russia may allow him quite a bit of room to accept economic pain for such a period.

[Clwydshire]

Thank you. There are reports of some 400 or so U.S. Academi contractors in the Ukraine, dressed as Ukranian paramilitary police. The report in Der Spiegel begins with a denial and condemnation of the report as a rumor by Academi (formerly Blackwater). A Russian news service is then cited that the U.S. mercenaries are working in eastern Ukraine wearing Ukranian "special" or paramilitary police uniforms. Spiegel then cites the orginal “Bild am Sontag” report. The information is supposed to have come from U.S. intelligence agencies and Spiegel says is is supposed to have been discussed by German officials at their recent regular foreign intelligence meeting. All this is unofficial so the presence of these people is still described as "unconfirmed" in the Spiegel article.

Presumably if U.S. contractors are serving as special police, they will not be so hesitant to use violence as native police.

Who, in the American government, really controls these people? The arrogance of the neo-cons is breathtaking.

[The Twisted Genius]

Brigadier Ali,

Great analysis. I would add the top Ukrainian oligarchs as a critical part of the government in Kiev. The Maidan thugs immediately saw theoligarchs' importance to their own continued survival and appointed several of them as governors of the eastern oblasts. The oligarchs have the money, the organization and, most likely, the connections to the "mafiya" needed to create muscle for Kiev. They also have the motivation since they would be toast if Putin had his way. Putin has effectively neutered the Russian oligarchs as a political force. My guess is that the oligarchs are funding the mercenaries from Academi as well as the local police forces still loyal to Kiev. The CIA is probably funding the national guard units being formed from Svoboda and Pravy Sektor hooligans.

I think General Breedlove's change of tune is also tempered by a realistic assessment of the military situation in Ukraine. He sees, as do I, that Putin's polite men in green are sufficient to get the job done. I, too, thought Russian tanks would roll across Ukraine early on. Obviously Putin did a better risk versus gain assessment from Moscow than I could have done from my gazebo. He had his polite men in green to feed him accurate information from Ukraine. I only had the squirrels to advise me.

[FB Ali]

There is no doubt that the Kiev regime is using those in the West I have labelled the War Party for their own purposes, both in the short term and the long term. These require, as I said above, Ukraine "becoming the frontline in a new Cold War between the West and Russia".

[The Twisted Genius]

Vietnam Vet,

I disagree with your assessment of Putin. He is a skilled adversary worthy of respect. Rather than a dirty rotten scumbag, he is a heard hearted empath and, perhaps, one of the rough men we hear so much about. As Burton50 said, he has politically neutered his one per centers, the Russian oligarchs. Russian history will probably look kindly on the Putin years.

[D]

Col. and JP: The largest enterprises Obama ever managed prior to the US Executive Branch were a classroom and a Senate office - what's that? 20-30 people at a time? He has been in office over five years and is just now discovering the sweep of the Executive Order. The Executive Branch had over two years to set up and knock down the Obamacare software procurement and chose a contractor off an IDIQ contract for such a huge project instead of full and open competition - and then botched oversight royally. He sets a policy course, vacillates and then reverses direction. His words often lie about 179 degrees off course from his actions. He is eating the Democratic Party's seed corn and has left a lot of elected Democrats quietly seething. What I'm saying is this guy has no Washington smarts and is no executive. He has little control over his employees nor much understanding of how to tighten things up. I'm pretty sure there are lots of people around him who like it this way.

[Haralambos]

With all due respect, Norbert M Salamon, I would quibble with several of your thoughts. I do not think "there is a shortage of analysis." To cite two: http://johnhelmer.net/ http:/ http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.co.uk/
as well as this blog and several others.
In regard to the ability to support the Ukraine, I think our US "involvements" over the past dozen or so years have been supported by mortgaging the future and bailing out the banks. The Fed can just keep printing, while the EU does not have that freedom or apparently so, although they have fudged it and allowed several countries to cook the books and continue to do so, especially Greece. As for the Ukraine and Greece, I have lived in Greece on and off for going on 36 years. The current situation here is indeed serious, but were the Ukraine to enter the EU, I imagine it would add tens or hundreds of thousands of immigrants to Greece and other countries seeking a better life in the EU. I base this on my sandals on the sidewalk here and my observations of the scores of beggars on the streets after the most recent expansion of the freedom of movement and the fact that the Greek state does not have the resources to patrol its huge borders to maintain fortress Europe.

[GulfCoastPirate]

Colonel,

Can people like you actually win these days or does it take someone like Obama? Is he really 'weak' or just playing the game he needs to play?

'... the neocons would be in hiding' - nice. That's where they belong.

[ToivoS]

This a very good summary. I would like to add that it is very unlikely that Obama and Kerry wanted this to happen and they were oblivious to what Nuland was doing in Ukraine. However, Nuland knew exactly what she was doing and had the support of all the other neocons and brzezinski hawks that influence policy. The War Party is a good way to describe them. It is still perplexing that Nuland still has a job, for Kerry can't be that dumb and not know what she knowingly did.

Obama erred when he made War Party member Hillary his Sec of State. She is the one who promoted Nuland and also brought in Ann Marie Slaughter.

Obama and Kerry, even though it will cost them face, really do not have much choice now but to follow Germany's lead. Though it might be too late. Today's ambush of that Ukrainian army convoy that killed 8 soldiers and destroyed two APCs might stir up the competitive spirit of the army so they will make stronger efforts to conquer the east.

[The Twisted Genius]

seydlitz89,

I think the coup leaders in Kiev see Nuland, Pyatt and the COS in Kiev as visibly and immediately instrumental to their political aspirations, along with the oligarchs they appointed to rule the eastern oblasts.

[JohnH]

Maybe Obama is leading from behind...

In other words, not in charge, as in serving as a spokesman rather than a decision maker.