As Russia with its air attacks and special forces is actively helping Syria’s dictator Bashar al-Assad to crush pro-Western moderate opposition, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has been holding last-ditch talks in Munich to save “the peace process” and convince the Russians to allow delivery of humanitarian aid to starving civilians in besieged rebel-held territory.
“In light of the ceasefire plan agreed last week in Munich between Moscow and Washington, it appears to have become accepted: Allow Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin to win by focusing attacks on anti-regime rebels in strongholds such as Aleppo — and then, after a decent interval, to join with them to crush the militants of ISIS.” (Financial Times, “A Syrian policy that dare not speak its name”. by Michael Ignatieff, Feb. 16). The name of that policy is “betrayal,” spelled out in the same article.
“Once the US abandons the rebels to their fate, those who survive will surely align with their Sunni brothers in ISIS.” But Russia’s help against ISIS is not likely to be greater than help from the mirage of coalition of 50 countries featured last year by U.S. President Barack Obama.
Meanwhile, Russia is deliberately attacking Syrian civilians to intensify refugee migration to Europe and destabilize the European Union.
The primary concern of Western strategists seems to be to shield NATO from getting involved in Syria’s mess. “This option (US-led military engagement to contain Assad) is no longer on the table. It would risk a dangerous clash between the US and Russia….. Nato’s support for Turkey under alliance’s article 5 should not be put in doubt; but Ankara must act responsibly over the Kurdish question.” (Editorial in the Financial Times, Feb. 17). This makes it sound like the fly in the ointment is the perennial Kurdish resistance to oppressive regimes.
An obvious omission in this editorial is to mention that “Nato’s support for Turkey” could only be colloquial. Nato has only one battle- ready American brigade besides some European units of questionable readiness — and all of them together remarkably inadequate to respond to Russian advance into the Baltics.
While Russia is rampaging is Syria, inability of the West to stop it is not caused by shortage of military hardware, but by pathological fear of conflict with Russia. Western governments are largely demoralized and undermined by their elites that pile up and warship personal wealth to the point of cultural dementia, and weigh military spending mainly as a profit center. They have institutionalized Cayman Island financial mentality, foot the bills of political campaigning across much of the entire spectrum, and cater to rioting mobs more readily than acting in the public interest.
When public distrust of government becomes the norm, erosion of support for risky foreign affairs becomes pervasive. It also fosters the rise of acrimonious politics in the style of Donald Trump, as In the United States.
Also, Obama has shown little interest to tangle with Russia, preferring to concentrate in the last year of his second term in the White House on domestic issues close to his social concerns and activism as senator from Illinois before becoming president. And then, the leading candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are looking for endorsement where they can find it, lately in rabble-rousing Al Sharpton’s corner, and show not much attention to foreign policy dilemmas.
Wrote Johannas Marcus in BBC News, Feb. 11: “Russia is succeeding in Syria, where the West has failed, by setting an achievable goal and maintaining enough force to reach it.”
Any conclusions can be drawn regarding Ukraine?
“On Ukraine, Russia has followed a somewhat different path,” writes Tony Barber in “Syria is just another piece in Russia’s strategic Jigsaw” (Financial Times, Feb. 13). “Without fanfare, Vladislav Surkov, a close Putin adviser, held talks in mid-January with Victoria Nuland, US Assistant Secretary of State….. One price it seems safe to predict the Russians will never pay, to secure an end to western sanctions or for other purposes, is the abandonment of their claim to wield some kind of permanent political influence over Ukraine and other neighbors. …. Far more than Syria, Ukraine is for Russia not just about power projection but a matter of national life or death.”
Whose life or death? No one inside or outside Russia believes that Russia would die as a nation if Ukraine escapes its clutches. Russia just would become a smaller empire. “National life or death” perception is about the Ukrainian nation.
And so, at this time what should Ukraine do or not do? A very interesting overview of current Ukraine politics, by Brian Mefford appeared in the Kyiv Post (“Ukraine Update”), Feb. 17. An almost obvious conclusion one can draw is that a mortal danger facing Ukraine is not lack of patriotism, not the weak economy, and not even corruption. It is the proliferation of political parties that testifies to inability to join forces for common action.
In terms of social agenda, political parties in Ukraine show not much difference (except for banned Communist party). Actually, they have no social agenda to speak of, such as conservative, less conservative, liberal-socialist, etc. They seem to be mainly personality-driven, with visible and invisible oligarchic support, and define themselves mainly as good against bad. Psychologists say, lots of political party diversity (and discord) among Ukrainians comes from personality traits.
As to what not to do: a snap parliamentary election. A guaranteed result of the present micro- fractional divide would be political paralysis in a new parliament. Like it or not, President Poroshenko has both the image and ability to lead the nation in this difficult time. He shows stability, so badly needed, and gets support from the present parliamentary configuration. But he needs to respond by co-operation with anti- corruption and reformist actions, and not stand in their way.
Realistically, even if the reform movement is on track, Ukraine will not have a much better government than it now has any time soon. What is certain is that Ukraine is a whole lot better off now than it would be under Russian occupation. It is not inconceivable that, given Vlad Putin’s ongoing march in Syria towards startling humiliation of the West and a highly probable disintegration of NATO as a result (see the New York Post, February 18, “America’s greatest alliance is about to end in a whimper”), he may be moving towards a decision to invade Ukraine full-force.
This is the time to stand united and not be distracted by multi-party hassle.
