My latest Telegraph piece on Ukraine is up on the DT website:
Russia’s “principled demands” are unchanged: that Ukraine stay independent of all “blocs”; that eastern areas of Ukraine get radical autonomy allowing them to have special economic relations with Russia; and that Ukraine kisses goodbye to Crimea.
A settlement that Russia probably favours is the Bosnia-isation of Ukraine. Ukraine loses Crimea, where Russia wins all but pretends that the issue is still somehow open: “let future generations decide”.
Otherwise, Ukraine’s territorial integrity is preserved on paper, but some eastern areas of Ukraine have something like the extensive autonomy given to Republika Srpska, the “Serbian” entity within Bosnia and Herzegovina. These areas could then be merged into Russia’s economic and political space as Moscow decides, but through them the Kremlin also would enjoy an effective veto on strategic choices made in Kiev: Ukraine in practice ends up “independent of blocs” (i.e. is unable to join Nato or move too close to the European Union), while in theory such options are not closed off.
Such an outcome might be attractive to many Western capitals, on the pragmatic basis that it is the best outcome now available. It gets normal European business back on track. And while the Middle East blows up, do we really have time to care about impenetrable Slav-on-Slav rivalry anyway?
Obviously it’s humiliating for Ukraine to accept anything like this. But in return for leaning on Kiev to swallow its pride, Brussels and Washington might offer Ukraine sizeable economic reform packages and trade deals which will help Ukraine pull away from its economic weakness in the years to come and so be much better placed to see off Moscow’s bullying. As for Crimea, there are European precedents for putting issues in the deep freeze without conceding any point of fundamental principle: for decades during the Cold War, the three Baltic states, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, were not recognised by London and other capitals as de jure part of the USSR.
My guess is that for now any Bosnia-style settlement is not going to be acceptable in Kiev. It would mean that Ukrainians are “free” to do only what the Kremlin allows them to do, a servile outcome no self-respecting leader in Kiev – or Washington or Brussels – can or should accept.
Instead a dangerous game of diplomatic chicken will continue. Kiev will press to defeat Russian ambitions around Donetsk. Moscow will tune up its military and other interventions just enough to stop that happening. The area will be wrecked and thousands of Ukrainians will be collateral damage.
In seconds out come the trolls of different shapes and scaliness:
Crawford’s obviously a firm believer in the old trick of spin a lie often enough, and it become’s reality…shameless fact twisting and standing the truth on its head has become the norm for the MSM…
Charles Crawford,are you the full shilling,or is lying part of your job description.?
Surely he doesn’t want (even more) people thinking he is yet another cowardly soft-left troll desperate to show what a good boy he is…
Come on, Charles Crawford, what’s your take on this immigration disaster, promoted by the FCO you spent your entire taxpayer-funded life working for?
But it’s not all bad:
Most reports in the Telegraph on this subject have just been anti-Russian rants, so this isn’t too bad compared to many previous ones. The one thing I wish it would have touched upon though is the fact that the EU started this whole thing, and therefore Russia is being reactive in this situation to the EU’s original interference and provocation…
Maybe it’s all in the local DNA:
It is not Slav versus Slav. That is a common misconception. Russians are Muscovites and Finn and spent most of their time paying tribute to the Mongol Kahns. And as long as Putting goes around professing “Ukraine is not even a country” (CNN March 3, 2014) there never will be peace only his antics that mimic what the Kahn’s did to Russia when they subjugated it.
Read the whole thing. It may be in the newspaper tomorrow too if you are too proud to use the Internet.
Share this page:
Well, you might treat this flooding as a compliment. All the webpages which show deep understanding of the Ukrainian crisis are spammed by Russian Internet commando. The Russians must have identified you as influential enough.
And I fully agree, that Mr. Putin will not let those separatists (many of which, if not majority, are actually from Russia, not from Donetsk and Lugansk) to be defeated, but he is not interested in their military victory either. He actually needs a burning conflict, and if it gets prolonged for winter or 2015, the better. Mr. Frost is also on his side.
It worries me, that such solution might actually be favoured in Berlin, which is seen by Moscow as the partner to discuss this. As much as Ms. Merkel dismisses such option, it is still very much on the table.
And this prompts me to ask a simple question – why is there so little solidarity between Europeans? I am Polish, and I know what Solidarity may achieve, but even spelled with lower case s – it is still very powerful. I find overall European reaction to Russian agression very disappointing. In terms of security I am eager to repeat after Ms. Nuland – f**k the EU, and talk to Yankees. If anybody may actually stop Mr Putin, it is them – not the Krauts nor Frogs.
Do you think that a political solution with autonomy is feasible now?
The key issue is how far Ukraine accepts (and we accept) that Russia will keep its foot on Ukraine's neck for the foreseeable future. This sums it all up well from the cynical viewpoint that it is all none of our business, and that we should leave Russia to kick around any country that is in its 'traditional' sphere of interest: http://nationalinterest.org/feature/obamas-ukrain…
Within that framework it does not matter much whether there is a political settlement including 'autonomy' for parts of Ukraine. Either Ukraine controls all its own territory, or it doesn't!
Thank you. It seems to me that the West (Europe) does not have the troops, money or the domestic support to do much of anything to stop Putin. The US has the troops, but not the domestic support and probably not the money either to do much of anything besides talk a big game. I think Putin knows all this (or firmly believes it) and is not deterred one bit in his moves. It brings us right back to your last two sentences and the question, what can we really do that can change this event?
Again
Thanks for the reply
I'm not being a smart ass with the question, just curious. I've said before I'm interested in your opinion since you've done that sort of thing for a living. Now in things military, some economics, and cultural I can sort of make my own way. Diplomacy though, especially the nuts and bolts of it I have little clue.