Troublespots in 2015

As we enter 2015, here is an obligatory look ahead of some of the major issues that the United States might deal with over the next year.  Hopefully, it is not only the U.S. but given the trend over the last decade or so, international cooperation has been difficult to secure.  For those who blamed the overly aggressive approach of President Bush as being divisive, President Obama’s overly conciliatory approach has won fewer friends.  In fact, many countries have lost faith in the U.S. and it is a faith that will be further tested over the next year.   

Even as it was happening, many observers thought Vladimir Putin’s reach for Crimea and eastern Ukraine was an attempt to divert the Russian public’s attention away from the downward spiraling economy.  It is an economy that has grown progressively worse over the last six months.  With the recent collapse of the ruble, the Russian economy could be sinking at depths that even the nationalistic land grab of Crimea and the Ukraine might fail to obfuscate.  That means, providing that Mr. Putin does not engage in a complete change in thought process, the large Russian minority population in the Baltic States could make the countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia the next susceptible targets of Russian aggression.   

A second hot spot is an oldie but a goodie – the Middle East.  Just as Tunisia selected recently its first democratically elected leader, other members of the now defunct Arab Spring are examples of dictatorial and ruthless leadership hanging on.  Whether one is talking about Iran or Syria or Yemen (and there are many others), the Middle East will remain a tinderbox in the foreseeable future.  There seems to be a growing albeit still incompetent voice in the Arab world against the ISIS of the world and their death fetish vision of how society should develop.  However, the horrific crimes of ISIS as well as the ghastly attack on the school in Pakistan by the Taliban are bringing new attention to a region and its acceptance (tacit or otherwise) of such tactics. 

On the continent of Africa, there are several incidents brewing that could lead to disastrous consequences, whether the U.S. finds an interest to intervene or not.  The situation in South Sudan is a cauldron of hatred and seemingly unresolvable conflicts that have resisted strong efforts from the U.S., China and the occasional self-aggrandized actors who have tried to sponsor one peace effort after another.  An even worse situation is that in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).  Its lack of control in the east, the lack of follow through with promises of reform by President Joseph Kabila and Hutus and other forces from Rwanda have made this country one on the precipice.  The African Union is not keen to interfere and the worsening miasma threatens the entire region.  This does not even mention other problem spots, such as the terrorist-laden Nigeria. 

Of course, the usual suspects like China, North Korea and Iran et al. are a perpetual threat to regional and world peace.  In short, there are plenty of things that could cause the death and suffering of millions and certainly, the U.S. need to make their voice heard throughout the world and make a stand for our philosophies.  The president feels reluctant to play a larger, stronger hand in world affairs but previous presidents had warned against isolationism.  In a quote strangely enough quoted by President Obama in his book The Audacity of Hope, Theodore Roosevelt said “We have no choice…as to whether or not we shall play a great part in the world.  That has been determined to us by fate, by the march of events…All that we can decide is whether we shall play it well or ill.” 

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.

Shadows of Munich

In 1938, a group of diplomats and leaders met in Munich, Germany.  The occasion was Adolf Hitler’s claim on the western part of Czechoslovakia – the Sudetenland.  Germany, Italy, France and the United Kingdom were represented.  The Czechs were not there; a group forced to watch in the background as their country was torn apart for the sake of peace.  The Americans were there, unofficially in the form of U.S. ambassador Joseph Kennedy, and quietly went along with the agreement.  That pact would eventually give way to the wisdom that appeasement only makes the aggressor stronger.  Against this axiom, the European powers and the U.S. made the ravenous Russian beast stronger and the implications could be quite dire. 

Since the showdown in the Crimea, events that smack of the demands for breathing room by the Nazi government, the Russians have grown increasingly aggressive towards its former state.  Russia has also tacitly approved of the actions of pro-Russian mobs who, throughout eastern Ukraine, have been pushing buttons, pushing around Ukrainian authorities and generally increasing tensions throughout the region.  The Europeans and the Americans have been content with sanctions in hopes that Mr. Putin will realize the folly of his ambitions.  However, the Russian president has been making threats of his own in the form of the gas supply to the Europeans.  If European leadership and President Obama cannot think beyond sanctions, I fear history might repeat itself.  

In the last couple of days and after weeks of pro-Russian gangs running rough-shod over the Ukrainian civil government, the Ukrainian forces struck back in Slovyansk, in the eastern part of the country.  This follows attempts by the government to mollify pro-Russian protestors with the promise of more autonomy.  However, as the mobs’ takeover increased and solidified, special forces were employed to eject the protestors from government and police buildings as well as destroy barricades and checkpoints.  The Ukrainian government has been placed in a winless scenario as pro-Russian forces within the country have created havoc and Russian forces along the border have orchestrated more threats and pressures.  

This past weekend, Sen. John McCain lambasted the president for an increasingly weak and irrelevant international voice, suggesting that sanctions are not enough.  He further suggested that what the president and the Europeans need to do is supply intelligence and weapons to the embattled government.  However, that is not happening.  President Obama has no intention to place troops on the ground as there is little to no support for such a measure in the U.S. but one must wonder why the president has seldom discussed this situation at length.  As the Democrats prepare for the 2014 mid-term elections and the party seeks to salvage those Democrats, especially in the Senate, whose re-election efforts are jeopardized, the attention seems to have drifted away from international concerns.

As an historian, I do not make references to the Nazis and Germany’s pre-World War II behavior lightly.  It is too often referred to and often, incorrectly.  However, given the level of inaction and lack of measures taken by the western powers, it does make one wonder how this farce will eventually play out.  The president has often suggested his uneasiness with the notion of the U.S. as a superpower and the authority and force that comes along.  However, it is countries like the U.S., along with the European powers, which share a responsibility.  Teddy Roosevelt said it was of little use arguing that we hold an international presence but what was most important, is what we did with the duty.  I fear we are ignoring those obligations and the Ukraine will be only the first victim. 

An Eastern Dilemma

Recently and outside the attention of most American newscasts, an uprising has occurred and, apparently, succeeded in the Ukraine.  At the center of the debate has been an argument about the future direction of the country – either towards Europe or Russia.  The recently deposed and now missing president, Viktor Yanukovych, bent towards the money and support from Moscow while dismissing the demands of the people who largely looked to the economic prosperity and political freedom of the West.  The state of the Ukraine today is of prime importance to the future of Russian hegemony, EU expansion and American relevance.   

In 2010, Mr. Yanukovych defeated Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, who rejected the election results and would soon be arrested and jailed for her protests against a “rigged” outcome.  There were voices from the West who objected to the arrest of Prime Minister Tymoshenko but nothing changed.  Fast forward to November of 2013 and while an ailing Ms. Tymoshenko labored in jail, President Yanukovych announced his intent to back away from trade with the EU and instead move closer to Vladimir Putin’s Russia.  This marked the beginning of the protests that dominated downtown Kiev, the country’s capital, with crowds not seen since the Orange Revolution of 2004.  

Relationship between the Russian-oriented government and the European-oriented population grew worse when Mr. Putin extended a monetary lifeline.  In January, the presence of protestors in Maiden Square in Kiev grew as the parliament passed anti-protest laws.  In the last couple of weeks, events have taken a draconian level as government snipers took aim at defenseless protestors as part of an outburst of violence that lasted several days and led to the death of nearly 80 and the wounding of hundreds more.  In the last few days, this strange story has grown more so, if that is possible.  A compromise deal was struck on 21 February that would include, among other things, new elections but by the following day, Mr. Yanukovych disappeared and Ms. Tymoshenko was released from jail. 

The Ukraine is an interesting country.  The population is a divided one with western side of the country more European while the eastern part still speaking Russian and more in tuned with Moscow than Brussels.  However, the last couple of months have shown the brutality and heavy-handedness of President Yanukovych and even his most ardent supporters have withdrawn.  This does not mean that the cause of the Kiev protestors is widely embraced.  Indeed, people in the east are more likely to see this as a type of coup d’état.  Yet, the country still has a fugitive president and a people looking for some type of respite in the immediate aftermath.  

As of now, the intentions of Mr. Putin are the most scrutinized.  His desires to create a neo-Soviet Union seem to be a concern for many.  Meanwhile, there are those who are pressuring the various capitals of the West to take a more active role in supporting the protesting Ukrainians.  For President Obama, he needs to be the voice for freedom and liberty – in doing so, he needs to echo the core values of the American people and throw his support behind the protestors.  The Ukrainian government has chosen an interim president – Oleksandr Turchynov – who is also a close political ally of Ms. Tymoshenko and the president has urged for national unity.  On the horizon is the strong presidential candidacy of former boxing champion Vitali Klitschko, who is an avid supporter of a pro-Europe movement. 

It is difficult to say how the Ukraine will solve its issues.  Such issues are plentiful and there are many voices seeking a redress of past and perceived slights and oppression.  The Ukraine has a potentially prosperous and viable future.  However, that will not happen until the new crisis is averted and Mr. Putin is politely but firmly kept at arm’s length.  It would not serve the Ukraine to act petulant toward its former communist overseers but the country’s salvation rests in its ability to take control of internal affairs.  If it can do this, it would certainly serve as a harbinger of good things to come for the Ukrainians.       

The Instinctual (Ineffectual?) President

Russian president Vladimir Putin has been juggling a great deal of late – Syria, the Ukraine, domestic dissenters, terrorist attacks, the Olympics, treason and gay rights.  He has inserted himself into these issues like a man without enough to do.  Advantageously or not, he has entered into frays in an attempt to bring Russia once more to the fore.  As Benito Mussolini sought to re-create the Roman Empire, Mr. Putin wants to bring back the glory and the relevance of the Soviet Union.  What has emerged is a portrait of a man who does not have a master plan so much as an instinctual drive to matter once more.

In the Ukraine, it has been a battle between a government who is beholden to and admiring of the heavy-handed example of Russian rule while its people are desperate to be a part of the European Union.  The people have been staging one massive demonstration after another to demand entrance into the more economically prosperous West.  Mr. Putin doled out $15 billion that he will likely never see again, saving the Ukraine for the moment, but to what end? 

Concurrently, gay activists are primed to make their point with the upcoming Olympics but the president’s anti-gay stance is not controversial in a largely conservative country.  Additionally, while the Russians may be attacked by the more liberal West on the subject, few other countries are making waves on the subject, so why stir the pot?  The moral litmus test that Mr. Putin seems to be suggesting was made after the fact and is further proof that no grand master plan exists for the president.  

The Edward Snowden affair has made more than a few observers and leaders scratch their heads as the incident does nothing for Mr. Putin.  There may be a deep-seated Russian DNA that requires agitating and embarrassing the Americans but Mr. Snowden is no Kim Philby or Alger Hiss.  In the world of international relations and espionage, it would appear that only the naïve Mr. Snowden thought he had something noteworthy on his hands.  The fact that the conscious-stricken traitor has taken or tried to take refuge with three oppressive regimes (Russia, China and Venezuela) further diminishes his importance and message.  

However, the two things the Russian leadership knows about are dealing with internal dissention and throwing a parade.  Yet, the world has changed and even this has proven difficult.  First, Russia made headlines with the imprisonment of the crude, albeit impactful message of the punk band Pussy Riot.  While the Russians have traveled through the cauldron of glasnost, the government has limits.  Back in the day, the three young women would have disappeared and no one would have been wiser but the women have gone viral and they have become impossible to ignore.  Their recent release from jail by the “benevolent” Mr. Putin was seen as the cynical gesture it was and further proof that the president had little idea how to cope.   

Then, there are the Olympics.  Twentieth-century Russian/Soviet history has shown the importance of putting on a show.  Yet, the terrorist attacks in Volgograd threaten to bring down in horrific fashion Russia’s plans to present an athletically dominant and culturally significant image to the world.  No doubt, Mr. Putin, a la Captain Renault, is rounding up the usual suspects but the fact that fears linger and uncertainties are rising is proof that the Russians are not quite as efficient at crushing dissent and “troublemakers” as before.  While one may assume that the lack of more recent attacks is a sign of Russia’s determination, the Chechens are not known for sustained violence – only attacks that are sporadic and spectacular.  An attack at the Olympics would certainly fit the modus operandi. 

Vladimir Putin is an anachronism who is trying to portray his measures under the guise of a modern veneer.  Much like to tax and to please, this tactic is quite untenable.  If the president can have a safe and, for the Russians, a successful Olympics, the country will no doubt benefit but it will not be based on any grand master plan on the part of Mr. Putin.  As Julia Ioffe of the New Republic put it, this is a man thinking and acting instinctively, not deliberately.  While he is hoping that is enough, hope alone has seldom accomplished great things.   

From Russia with Confusion?

I’m a bit surprised at how little Americans are aware of Russian politics. Much of my surprise is based on growing up during the Cold War. More so than any other country, I knew who the Soviet premier was, I was aware of what the Soviet Union was doing and in general, the happenings within Russia were more top of mind to the average American. Other countries and other peoples have now pre-occupied the American attention span. While Russia has escaped our consideration over the last decade or so, it has not stepped away from the international stage and therefore, still worthy of our time to read about and keep track of.

Russia is mired in various things at the moment. A Ukrainian court has jailed its former prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, for the crimes of overstepping her authority. Her crime was an oil pipeline deal with Russia that decidedly favored Moscow. Her prison sentence has been criticized by nearly everyone who has a stake in the oil supply, from the Americans to the Swedes, and Russia has declared the verdict “anti-Russian.” It can certainly be argued that the verdict has as much to do with Ms. Tymoshenko’s abrasive and combative personality, particularly with her political opponents. However, whether this deal goes through or not, the U.S. and its Western European allies will be greatly affected. The European Union has stepped up the pressure by suggesting the Ukraine is jeopardizing its potential candidacy into the EU. Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich will have the chance to make amends when he meets Russian President Dmitry Medvedev next week.

However, the biggest upcoming story out of Russia is the election in March 2012 that will, if reports are to be believed, return to the position of president, Vladimir Putin. The reason why this story should be of interest to the United States is what the move means for Russian democracy. As it is, Russia has proven quite obdurate over the last decade in actions against North Korea, Iran, Syria and Libya. Worse, its rationale seems more to do with gumming up the works on the international scene than being based on any core beliefs or national interest. Now, the fear that international observers had with the presidency of Mr. Medvedev, a puppet that was keeping the seat of power warm until Mr. Putin could work around the Russian constitution, seem validated. What must the Russian people think? The Economist calls the situation farcical and it is hard to disagree with the assessment. This comes at a time when investors are leaving the country, government spending is up to make up the difference and oil revenue could certainly use the boost the Ukrainian deal would provide.

The Putin/Medvedev deal is not democracy – not even potential democracy. Granted, the U.S. took a while to improve their process but Russia seems headed in the opposite direction. What will the Russian people do when their frustrations with the economy are compounded by a shaky and disingenuous democratic system? Will they turn to something more radical and potentially dangerous or will they rise up to reiterate their demand for true democratic reforms? Whatever happens, it will be interesting and worthy of American attention.