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.
No comments:
Post a Comment