How Possible is a Ukrainian Paradox?

There has been so much going on in the last couple of weeks, it was difficult to know what to write.  However, the events in the Ukraine with a presidential election vote have led some to cast a worrying glance to eastward.  A great deal has been spoken with regards to the motives and designs of Russian President Vladimir Putin, including a couple of articles on this blog.  However, with the election, the question has to be asked about the intent and abilities of the new Ukrainian president.  How does one live next to a ravenous neighbor like Russia?  The Ukraine might want to consider the path taken by Finland as suggested by some but such a path is fraught with danger.

Former Canadian Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau once compared his country’s proximity to the U.S. with sleeping with an elephant – always keeping one eye open in the event it rolls over in the middle of the night.  The Ukraine finds itself in a similar situation.  In the years after World War II, Finland under the leadership of Juho Paasikivi and Urho Kekkonen navigated its relationship with the Soviet Union through a policy of capitulation and deference while maintaining its independence.  Certainly when one compares Finland to the besieged countries of Eastern Europe, the Finns held a special status.  The Ukraine’s political leaders can certainly endeavor to mollify the Russians but the country lacks the military strength and the united population that Finland enjoyed.   

The Ukrainian government must consider this because as the leadership of the U.S. and Europe are presently constituted, there is little chance that the former Soviet republic would get military help in the event of an invasion.  Unless the Ukrainians can build up a military that can force the Russians to hesitate, a la Finland or Cold War-era Yugoslavia, they must accept Russian dominance.  By recent news accounts, the new president of the Ukraine is the chocolatier magnet Petro Poroshenko and giving his connections in the eastern part of the country, he can follow the Finnish model of first placating the Russians.  First, he must reject NATO.  The Ukraine joining NATO is not going to happen without a more aggressive Russia knocking on its doors.  Mr. Poroshenko can then incorporate a neutral approach – to become the new Switzerland of Europe.  This would require the Ukraine to also reject military cooperation with the Russians but in order to build trust with its eastern neighbors.  The more committed to neutrality the Ukraine is, the less concerned the Russians will be.   

Post World War II, the Finns accepted the idea that the Soviets needed to be appeased.  Finland had a fairly united population which made the moves easier if not still controversial.  President Kekkonen’s “Finnish Paradox” which stated the closer Finland grew towards Russia, the freer they would be can only be achieved with a unified population.  It is just not there for the Ukraine.  For one, the vast majority of Ukrainians are more westward focused.  We are not talking about a large segment of the population that is supporting the thugs in the east – even in the east.  If, however, the new president made some innocuous gestures to the Russians, that might help alleviate tensions.  President-elect Poroshenko could renew natural gas talks with the President Putin and promise to regulate the country’s interactions with the European Union.  The western, pro-Europe Ukrainians will be nervous but there is a new reality with which to deal.  

Though some pundits have brought up Finland, it is not a fit here.  The Ukraine does not have the military prowess nor the united population that allowed Finland to remain more-or-less independent throughout the Cold War.  However, there are political maneuverings and neutrality options that could ease the concern of the Russians.  This said with the understanding that the U.S. and the Europeans have neither the will nor the leadership to take a stronger stance.  Given the limited options available to the Ukraine, it could be the best course of action to take.

The Scope of Free Speech

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.
           Noam Chomsky

In recent weeks, a row has emerged from the owner of the National Basketball Association’s Los Angeles Clippers – Donald Sterling.  He’s the longest serving owner in the NBA but due to a couple of well-publicized incidents, he has often been thought of (when he was thought of) as a buffoon.  Last week, a secretly recorded tape showcased Mr. Sterling’s backward thinking and racism.  In the aftermath, the commissioner of the NBA, Adam Silver, banned him for life and is attempting to force the sale of his club to the league so that they may seek a more suitable owner.  As ridiculous as Mr. Sterling’s comments were, I’m confused and alarmed by the action taken and the players’ reaction to the owner.

There are two major things about this whole fiasco that bother me.  The first is the nature of the comments and the league’s reaction to the same.  So that my affiliation is clear, I don’t subscribe to Mr. Sterling’s point of view.  He is like the drunk uncle at family gatherings whose embarrassing paradigm is stuck about sixty years in the past.  That said, the NBA’s actions are a bit dangerous to me.  In my perfect world, people like Mr. Sterling are taken care of by the market and its refusal to patronize his product.  However, not many people, let alone sports fans, have the courage of their convictions when their “team” is the question.  So, they want somebody else to do something.  In steps the commissioner.  

Mr. Silver laid down the law that Donald Sterling’s words, secretly recorded in the privacy of his own home, are grounds for immediate and indefinite suspension.  However, my problem has to do with the basis for the commissioner’s actions.  As Dallas Mavericks’ owner Mark Cuban said, it is not against the law to be stupid and backwards.  So, what is the fallout if you make it a crime?  Some might say, what is wrong with taking action against a racist?  The problem is that it seldom stops there.  History shows us that people with the power to control the masses begin with the agreed upon.  People feel comfortable with the first salvos – who is going to defend the actions of a racist?  Yet, it is a slippery slope and I’m concerned about the precedent set.   

The other matter that I do not understand is the reaction from the players and observers.  It seems we are giving way too much attention to the thoughts and actions of an 80-year-old, publically insignificant figure that people wrote off as a joke years ago.  Players turning their jersey inside out in protest – I want to know the individual who, prior to, connected the name “Clippers” only to Donald Sterling and not the men on the court.  Players emotionally declared the level of hurt and pain this has caused.  Unfortunately, it is likely these young men have suffered in the past from racism.  This is the worst?  The private ramblings of a marginalized man has caused this much distress and emotion?  I would suggest to you this man has never been given so much attention in his life.   

I don’t have the answer to racism.  Yet the attention paid to Mr. Sterling is disproportionate to its impact.  Additionally, when an organization can punish thought and privately expressed thought at that, what does that mean?  As a Jew, I learned early that even the neo-Nazis should be able to speak their mind publicly.  Forbidden speech is emboldened speech.  The protection of speech, certainly what is said in the privacy of one’s home, is paramount in a free society.  Racists and others of their ilk, in a free society, will face condemnation and marginalization.  The actions of the NBA commissioner borders on the tyranny of the majority and in the end could prove just as destructive as the racists.