Imperial Putin

In two days’ time, Vladimir Putin covered Crimea with the Russian flag, in an operation so well-crafted that it reveals extensive preparation. His coup even returned a catalog of gesticulations in a reaction from the West.

If Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President François Hollande, British Prime Minister David Cameron, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other leaders had the firm conviction that the territorial integrity of Ukraine deserves something other than a string of words, then they would have ordered what their predecessors had ordered in the summer of 2008 after the Russian Army was prepared to amputate Georgia: Order Turkey, an important NATO member, to close the Dardanelles through which pass thousands of tons of goods to Russia. The leaders of the day had accompanied this request with insurance: If Russia intimidates Turkey, the fact that Article 5 of the NATO charter stipulates that every nation will benefit from military involvement of all allies will be observed.

Like Russian leaders who claim to be acting to protect the Russian-speaking Crimea, their Turkish counterparts might argue that locking the Dardanelles, the effects of which would be obvious on Russian ships, is a response to abuses to the Tatar and Muslim minority. What else? Obama and others could ensure that the specifications of proposed sanctions would be a carbon copy of those imposed on Iran. For now, this is not the case and it is not likely [to be] the case.

If the reaction of Europe, the United States and Canada was conceived in terms of restraint, it was because everyone realized that the offensive decided by Putin was prepared with meticulous care. In fact, we have above all noticed that the willingness with which the Kremlin led his attack kept pace with an inordinate ambition to rebuild the Russian empire. “The implosion of the Soviet Union was the worst disaster of the 20th century,” said Vladimir Putin. And this empire will not be an empire except for the sine qua non condition that Russia secures Ukraine within its sphere of influence.

According to the analysis recently signed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, head of the U.S. National Security Council during the Carter administration, “Russia without Ukraine ceases to be an empire, but Russia with Ukraine subordinate to it automatically becomes an empire.”* This analysis is a reminder that a contingent of observers share it. If we had to put it another way, Lenin’s words would be perfectly appropriate: When Russia loses Ukraine, she loses her head. In other words, the head of the Kremlin does what, in this corner of the world, the others cannot do. Yet again? “Every state is condemned to follow a policy dictated by its geography,” Napoleon observed.

It is perhaps in the realm of possibility that the annexation of the Crimea is the first chapter of a goal whose purpose is the Balkanization of Ukraine, or more precisely, an issue such as that found in the former Czechoslovakia or the separation between Czechs and Slovaks, or the separation between predominantly Russian-speaking Eastern Ukraine and a motley West mostly inclined to join Europe.

This objective, which cannot be overemphasized, is intimately linked to the formal establishment of Eurasia in 2015 to which Putin is fixated. This should bring together the nations of Central Asia and the Caucasus. Oddly, so far, no response from Beijing has been heard, while a close neighbor dreams of rebuilding an empire analogous to that which made the Chinese tremble until its implosion in 1991. In a word, when history repeats itself, it remains tragic — no joke.

*Editor’s Note: The original quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.