Russian President
Vladimir Putin’s meeting with Turkish President Tayiip Erdogan in Ankara on
Dec. 1 should be a wakeup call for Washington. The meeting aimed at
“boosting trade and strengthening relationships despite sharp differences over
the crises in Syria and Ukraine”, as reported in the Kyiv Post.
Putin’s visit came a week after talks between US Vice
President Joe Biden and key NATO ally Turkey failed to reach an agreement on
cooperating over Syria. This is taking place amidst heightened preoccupation in
Washington not only with ISIS in Mideast and Ebola outbreaks in Africa but also
with the current internal US crisis with racial strife and rioting across the
country stemming from law enforcement issues. Vision is also blurred by perpetual
headaches from international “terrorism”.
Putin’s Ankara visit shows that the Obama administration can
no longer cop out from recognizing “the Ukraine crisis” as relevant to the US.
If Turkey effectively drops out as an eastern bastion of NATO (as already
underway), the Black Sea will become a Russian lake with fortified shorelines.
Add to this a possible Russian thrust to Odessa and Moldova through Ukraine’s
south, and NATO’s Balkan connection is in real trouble.
Diplomacy is often equivalent to running away from saying it
like it is. But sometimes equivocation
can inadvertently clarify or confirm previously vague outlines and dispel some
doubts. Such was an interview with John Kerry, US Secretary of State on New
Jersey Public Television (Channel 50) on 3 November.
In the bottom line, his answer to a question about the
ongoing confrontation between Ukraine and Russia was: “Mr. Putin should
understand that Ukraine can be a bridge between Russia and the West”. Does this not sound obsolete? John Kerry knows
probably better than anyone that Ukraine as a bridge between Russia and West
would have no meaning as long as Vlad Putin or anyone of similar cut is in
charge in Moscow. Putin’s objective is de facto destruction of Ukrainian state.
And so Kerry’s answer is an example of public relations
footage rather than a principled statement. Coupled with President Obama’s
emphatic earlier refusal to send weapons for Ukraine, you get the picture. To
place this into a broader context, look at Kerry’s answers to questions
relating to Mideast:
“Syria’s president Assad must go because he is a magnet
attracting Islamic fighters (who hate him) into the ranks of ISIS”. However, he
went on, any action against Assad must wait because ISIS is the main danger to
the entire Mideast, and is also a terrorist threat.
And what about Turkey, which stays aside
because the US is not taking action against Assad (Turkey’s main gripe and
perhaps an excuse for lying low))? “Turkey’s position is understandable”, says
Kerry.
What is also understandable is that America’s deal with
Russia’s Putin to save Syria’s Assad regime last year is prioritized by the
Obama Administration above US relations with Turkey, its NATO ally. It could
also be somewhat confusing if the US were bombing both ISIS and Assad, who are
fighting each other. Remarkably, the US would not be in this bind if it had not
bowed to Russia’s pressure in 2013 to let Assad off the hook with his chemical
weapons deal (which now is shoved under the rug anyway).
Although the Obama Administration’s foreign policy is under
fire from the Republican Party, it seems doubtful that the latter can cut this
Gordian knot, as long as it shares Obama’s
fear of Kremlin’s unpredictable response.
Feeble response in
the West to provocative intrusions into Western countries’ airspace by Russian attack
aircraft in recent weeks is another example. Putin
seems to be probing the nerves of western leaders by conversationally bragging
that Russia can make mince-meat out of NATO’s dilapidated defense fence. Again
there is no response from NATO other than paper- paint a miniature “reaction
force”. Also, reminders come from Moscow that “Russia can turn America into
nuclear dust”.
While the merits of arming Ukraine are undeniable, arguments
abound why it should not be done. Yes, it may lead to stronger incursions by
Russian troops and armor. But Russia would also be paying higher price than it
does now.
The more probable reason for denial of weapons to Ukraine is
fear of a larger Russian response that may spill into central Europe and wipe
out appeasement politics that are Europe’s and President Obama’s favorites along
with evocations of “consequences”. But
it is just as likely, if not more so, that Putin may opt not to pay the price
of a larger battle when Ukraine has more and better armaments.
Putin’s temptation to rip into more Ukrainian territory is probably
greater now, while defenses are weak. And, if Ukraine falls, Russia’s
incursions into NATO fringes and more would not be long in waiting.
Is it not strange for the US to downplay Ukraine’s genuine
and powerful democratic choice and marginalize the country into a “bridge”
format, while propping up and re-arming puppet regimes in Iraq and in
Afghanistan in the presence of US occupation forces over 10 years at the cost
of trillions of dollars, mega- corruption on all sides, and near- bankruptcy of
the United States treasury?
Explanations that Taliban and now ISIS are major threats to
the world invite skepticism. In Syria, despite atrocities and bluster, ISIS has
been unable to dislodge the Assad regime. Their success in Iraq now came from
collapse of the Iraqi army, when reportedly not more than about 800 ISIS
fighters started with a mission to liberate prisoners, and saw the Iraqi army
running away, abandoning their tanks and artillery.
Call the mistake a mistake. Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded in the early
1990s in a context of fuzzy geopolitics. The vision of oil pipeline from
Turkmenistan through Afghanistan was part of the fantasy. The mainstay of Afghanistan’s economy
continues to be opium exports, growing more in this decade. As for Iraq, its oil will always sell at
international markets regardless who runs that country in one form or another.
What is obvious to many does not diminish the
entrenched fixation with the Mideast in
US government circles. In a commentary
in the Financial Times (“Russia is a bigger challenge than ISIS”, November 11),
Gideon Rachman writes: “One US national security official, whose
responsibilities include both Russia and the Middle East, looked incredulous
when I asked him, last week, which was the more important. The Middle East by
far, he replied”. Rachman goes on: “But for those who worry most about
Vladimir Putin’s Russia, it is the Middle East that is the dangerous
distraction, just as the dangers in Europe are mounting”.
In a recent speech, Russia’s president has pointedly
mentioned that “the West didn’t expect Russia to rise again”. Nor was the West
prepared to be trumped by Putin’s welcome in Ankara.
As recently as two weeks ago, President Obama was expected
to be sending another 1500 US military advisers to Iraq, in addition to 1500
(officially) already there. They would train and maybe lead a new Iraqi army,
to be made of 9 brigades. Also, according to PBS News interview November 8 with Anthony Cordesma, former
political assessments advisor to US Secretary of Defense, a separate Sunni
national guard force is envisioned to
challenge the Sunni ISIS base. Sounds like the making of the next fiasco. This
script seems to be outpaced by natural clarity despite the old fuzzy vision.
The writing on the wall in Ankara appears to be that President
Erdogan is moving Turkey closer to its Islamic roots not only in cultural sense
(as is evident in the last 10 years) but also on the international political
arena. Erdogan is evoking the traditions of the Ottoman empire that before
World War I was dominant in Mideast, where the West is promoting its own agenda
in the last 90 years.
The commercial gas deal made between Putin and Erdogan in
Ankara, including also a new gas line through Turkey to the Balkans, is a
manifestation of Turkey’s intent to snub Western concerns to its own perceived
advantage. Ironically, this is one of the reasons why the US and EU may have to
rethink their geopolitical alliances, and take a fresh look at Ukraine.
Boris Danik is a retired Ukrainian-American living in North Caldwell, New Jersey.
