Kuchma has not been foolhardy at all, so far as I can tell. He seems, like Putin, to be a politician of the highest ability. He is trying very hard to checkmate Yushchenko so that even if Y. wins he will have lost the ability to produce any real change as president.
So we won't see the Russian army taking over Kiev. On account of the response the EU/NATO/UN would give to an obvious threat to Europe's security? If this is the case, then I guess NATO has won the Cold War, and we are in a new era, one where Russia cannot project power by flexing military muscle. The only reason I bring it up is because one does not have to go that far back in time to remember the Russian army invading Ukraine, ostensibly to save it from the Nazis, but in reality to keep it under Russian control. These memories are fresh in the minds of Yelena's grandparents and parents, I am sure. When we talk about public opinion, whose is Putin afraid of offending? Ukraine's? Remember, most Russians still consider Ukraine to be a territory of Russia anyway.
Yushchenko's team has committed themselves to non-violence. Even if someone in the opposition's camp does go back on that eventually, one has to admit that this has been one of the most successful nonviolent political movements in history. It is more than an accident - it is grounded in their political philosophy, and maintained by a clear and efficient organization. They prepared for this well in advance, which is part of the reason they deserve our support.
We know that the spesnatz are already wearing Ukrainian police uniforms. You're right, they could don orange parkas and cause trouble, or they could do more to hassle the protesters than the Ukrainian police themselves will do. On Kuchma, I wonder if he hasn't already arranged for Putin to 'intervene' in that eventuality. I wonder if that's what the visit was about!
As long as the Russian military incursion is presented to the world as something that the Ukrainian government asked for then NATO would not become involved.
By 'Ukrainian government' we mean Kuchma. What if the opposition firmly rejects the incursion, however? Especially if Yushchenko is the president-elect after Dec. 26? With whom do we conduct diplomacy, a lame duck president who has declared martial law, or the democratically elected president who hasn't taken office yet?
A further scenario would be that the Ukrainian military backs Yushchenko and proclaims themselves the army of the sovereign republic of the Ukraine. Then they could pose the Russian military intervention as an attack on their sovereignty and hope to draw in NATO that way. However, Putin would simply set up an opposing Eastern Ukrainian army proclaiming the same thing, this stymieing NATO into inaction.
On what basis, then, would NATO act (if at all)? Wasn't NATO designed to counter this threat from expanding into eastern Europe? NATO let the Prague Spring happen because Czech was within the Warsaw Pact bloc. Is the Warsaw pact rule still in effect in practice?
A war between Ukraine and Russia? What could possibly at stake for the West? Pride, or ideals? I'm afraid we let the Balkans claim those antiquated concepts as victims and we haven't seen them since.
You're probably right. But I think there is a strategic interest as well. Is it better for Russia to gain more influence in the world or less? If the Cold War was worth prosecuting, has it now not become so even if Russia continues to act imperially? If we allow Russia to have Ukraine, will Putin not grow more bold? What would he do next?
Or would he stop there, as Ukraine is his "near abroad"? What is the difference between this logic and Warsaw pact logic? He's also announced that Russia is working on ICBMs capable of penetrating our missile shield (if it ever gets built). He thinks less like Gorbachev and more like Khrushchev all the time.
Comments