Crimea Will Have to Wait
Political analyst Victor Pirozhenko on how the U.S. changed its position in relation to Kiev.
The new United States ambassador to Ukraine, Mary Yovanovitch, begins to surprise.
In her first extended interview with one of the pro-Maidan Ukrainian internet publications, the ambassador essentially suggested that Kiev authorities need to forget about Crimea over the next decade.
But it’s her positive evaluation of the situation for free speech in Ukraine that shows that the U.S. will not disregard the ugly scenes of violence against the Russian citizenry, who came on Sunday to vote in the elections to the parliamentary elections (to the State Duma) in the Russian consulate in Kiev.
In her interview, Yovanovitch distinctly repeated that the United States will make sure that the “Crimean question” is not dropped out of sight of the “international community.” Against the background of the example is the long history of the Baltic countries achieving their own independence. Their experience, in particular, appealed to the ambassador of the United States. The comparison sounds like a statement to Kiev: “Calm down and don’t interfere, we ourselves will handle the problem.”
At first view, Mary Yovanovitch repeated all the overused arguments in support of the Kiev regime together with criticism and excuses to justify the need for external control of Kiev. However, she took into account the sensitivity of Ukrainian colleagues and still tried to soften the tone and add positivity.
She diluted her criticism of the lack of state reform and lack of success in fighting corruption with compliments to the citizens of Ukraine on their energy and desire for change.
In accordance with the friendly American tradition, Yavonovitch ignored the frequent instances of violence in Ukraine, which journalists exposed as a result of their professional activity. The situation with free speech since 2014, according to the ambassador, has significantly changed for the better. It’s difficult to say the accuracy of such an evaluation. Yovanovitch failed to consider the assassination of Pavel Sheremet, the burning of the TV channel “Inter” building, and prior to that, in 2015, the killing of Oles Buzina, along with hundreds of lesser-known famous cases of violence, the intimidation of journalists in Ukraine as a means of intelligence gathering and the neo-Nazi gangs.
Despite the accuracy of Yavonovitch’s expressions to Kiev officials, separate clauses indicate how difficult it has been for United States sponsors who have tried to achieve the introduction of “Western reforms,” and have tried to curb the corrupt habits of officials and politicians of the regime.
The U.S. ambassador praised the Ukrainian forces for their ability to reach NATO standards, as well as their participation in the military actions in the Donbass. She furthermore did not raise the question of Ukrainian membership to NATO. In this way, Yovanovitch again demonstrated that Washington pushes its customers to carry “chestnuts out of the fire,” meaning it coaxes others to achieve its wishes.
Actually, Yovanovitch also indicated this by displaying Washington’s shift on the issue of Crimea.
The ambassador’s main thesis is symptomatic: The United States, like most in the West, believe in the return of Crimea to Ukraine, but they see this process as analogous to the examples of the Baltic states. For many years these states remained parts of the Soviet Union, but the United States did not recognize their “annexation.” In Washington, the ambassador recalled, they continued to negotiate a “diplomatic mission” of the Baltic states and in the end they again “regained their independence.”
Crimea became Russian; the West already accepted this fact. American friends, exemplified by the new ambassador Yovanovitch, call on Kiev to accept this reality.
The U.S. attitude changed in regard to the actions of the Kiev authorities in the Russian sphere, which is likely related to the proposal to Kiev to postpone the Crimean question for decades. It is possible that the recent Crimean incident when several spies infiltrated Crimea from Ukrainian territory showed the Americans that Kiev will take drastic measures to conduct anti-Russian provocations.
After the Crimean incident, it apparently became clear to Washington that leaving further freedom of action in Crimea to Kiev is — dangerous. Actions of Kiev authorities may provoke an armed conflict with Russia, with catastrophic effects for most of the Kiev regime, and consequently, for the American influence in the region. Washington does not need this. Therefore, the Crimean issue related to Kiev’s adventures have already become a problem for Washington, and in this sense, Kiev authorities indicated their place.
Washington’s recent experience with Mikhail Saakashvili shows what happens to the puppets if they are not stopped in time. Then, in 2008, Saakashvilli and his regime survived, but Washington cannot help but realize that such a gift of fate will not come to fruition pertaining to the Kiev.
With that, any serious conflict of Ukraine with Russia is almost guaranteed to seriously complicate relations between the United States and Russia. This apparently is not part of the United States’ plan.
Presumably, the American ambassador cannot express her true opinion about the fate of Crimea. Likely, it reflects that the end result is most disastrous to Kiev authorities.
Mary Yovanovitch, as a specialist on the Russian world, is likely to fully see the true attitude of Crimean people and all the fundamental differences between the Baltic situation and the Crimean situation.
Currently, the U.S. ambassador’s proposal is for Kiev to postpone the question of Crimea for decades, which actually means to postpone it forever. Against this background, it is not fundamentally important that the U.S. recognize the peninsula as part of Russia, or the application for non-recognition votes to the State Duma on the territory of Crimea.
Knowledge of recent history helped Yovanovitch choose the Baltic example, in order to reassure the Kiev authorities not to grow too agitated due to the loss of Crimea.
Apparently the ambassador also fully recognizes that Crimea already found freedom in accordance with the full will of the population of the peninsula.
The new United States ambassador to Ukraine, Mary Yovanovitch, begins to surprise.
In her first extended interview with one of the pro-Maidan Ukrainian internet publications, the ambassador essentially suggested that Kiev authorities need to forget about Crimea over the next decade.
But it’s her positive evaluation of the situation for free speech in Ukraine that shows that the U.S. will not disregard the ugly scenes of violence against the Russian citizenry, who came on Sunday to vote in the elections to the parliamentary elections (to the State Duma) in the Russian consulate in Kiev.
In her interview, Yovanovitch distinctly repeated that the United States will make sure that the “Crimean question” is not dropped out of sight of the “international community.” Against the background of the example is the long history of the Baltic countries achieving their own independence. Their experience, in particular, appealed to the ambassador of the United States. The comparison sounds like a statement to Kiev: “Calm down and don’t interfere, we ourselves will handle the problem.”
At first view, Mary Yovanovitch repeated all the overused arguments in support of the Kiev regime together with criticism and excuses to justify the need for external control of Kiev. However, she took into account the sensitivity of Ukrainian colleagues and still tried to soften the tone and add positivity.
She diluted her criticism of the lack of state reform and lack of success in fighting corruption with compliments to the citizens of Ukraine on their energy and desire for change.
In accordance with the friendly American tradition, Yavonovitch ignored the frequent instances of violence in Ukraine, which journalists exposed as a result of their professional activity. The situation with free speech since 2014, according to the ambassador, has significantly changed for the better. It’s difficult to say the accuracy of such an evaluation. Yovanovitch failed to consider the assassination of Pavel Sheremet, the burning of the TV channel “Inter” building, and prior to that, in 2015, the killing of Oles Buzina, along with hundreds of lesser-known famous cases of violence, the intimidation of journalists in Ukraine as a means of intelligence gathering and the neo-Nazi gangs.
Despite the accuracy of Yavonovitch’s expressions to Kiev officials, separate clauses indicate how difficult it has been for United States sponsors who have tried to achieve the introduction of “Western reforms,” and have tried to curb the corrupt habits of officials and politicians of the regime.
The U.S. ambassador praised the Ukrainian forces for their ability to reach NATO standards, as well as their participation in the military actions in the Donbass. She furthermore did not raise the question of Ukrainian membership to NATO. In this way, Yovanovitch again demonstrated that Washington pushes its customers to carry “chestnuts out of the fire,” meaning it coaxes others to achieve its wishes.
Actually, Yovanovitch also indicated this by displaying Washington’s shift on the issue of Crimea.
The ambassador’s main thesis is symptomatic: The United States, like most in the West, believe in the return of Crimea to Ukraine, but they see this process as analogous to the examples of the Baltic states. For many years these states remained parts of the Soviet Union, but the United States did not recognize their “annexation.” In Washington, the ambassador recalled, they continued to negotiate a “diplomatic mission” of the Baltic states and in the end they again “regained their independence.”
Crimea became Russian; the West already accepted this fact. American friends, exemplified by the new ambassador Yovanovitch, call on Kiev to accept this reality.
The U.S. attitude changed in regard to the actions of the Kiev authorities in the Russian sphere, which is likely related to the proposal to Kiev to postpone the Crimean question for decades. It is possible that the recent Crimean incident when several spies infiltrated Crimea from Ukrainian territory showed the Americans that Kiev will take drastic measures to conduct anti-Russian provocations.
After the Crimean incident, it apparently became clear to Washington that leaving further freedom of action in Crimea to Kiev is — dangerous. Actions of Kiev authorities may provoke an armed conflict with Russia, with catastrophic effects for most of the Kiev regime, and consequently, for the American influence in the region. Washington does not need this. Therefore, the Crimean issue related to Kiev’s adventures have already become a problem for Washington, and in this sense, Kiev authorities indicated their place.
Washington’s recent experience with Mikhail Saakashvili shows what happens to the puppets if they are not stopped in time. Then, in 2008, Saakashvilli and his regime survived, but Washington cannot help but realize that such a gift of fate will not come to fruition pertaining to the Kiev.
With that, any serious conflict of Ukraine with Russia is almost guaranteed to seriously complicate relations between the United States and Russia. This apparently is not part of the United States’ plan.
Presumably, the American ambassador cannot express her true opinion about the fate of Crimea. Likely, it reflects that the end result is most disastrous to Kiev authorities.
Mary Yovanovitch, as a specialist on the Russian world, is likely to fully see the true attitude of Crimean people and all the fundamental differences between the Baltic situation and the Crimean situation.
Currently, the U.S. ambassador’s proposal is for Kiev to postpone the question of Crimea for decades, which actually means to postpone it forever. Against this background, it is not fundamentally important that the U.S. recognize the peninsula as part of Russia, or the application for non-recognition votes to the State Duma on the territory of Crimea.
Knowledge of recent history helped Yovanovitch choose the Baltic example, in order to reassure the Kiev authorities not to grow too agitated due to the loss of Crimea.
Apparently the ambassador also fully recognizes that Crimea already found freedom in accordance with the full will of the population of the peninsula.
Next article![]( "The Night the Wind Changed")
