A Visit with Accusations
Published in PolitCom
(Russia) on 20 November 2014
by Oleg Gorbunov (link to original)
The U.S. administration is sending Vice President Joseph Biden and Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland on an official visit to Kiev in order to determine what to do with the Minsk Protocol regarding a truce, and in general whether or not to continue a conciliatory line in the Ukrainian conflict. Judging by the latest statements from the White House and representatives of the State Department, the scales are tilted towards a conflictual scenario.
The situation in the southeast at the moment is such that both Kiev and the militants are concentrating significant military forces in the conflict zone, thus increasing the likelihood of a renewal of active hostilities. However, after the elections in the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics on Nov. 2, and the incipient legitimization of state apparati in the southeast (albeit without the Kremlin’s official recognition), Moscow does not want a full-scale war, insofar as that would not allow the establishment of normal political life and state-building.
Kiev, watching the actions of Moscow, understands that simple informational pressure on its northern neighbor and the Russian-supported militants will not resolve the situation. Therefore, Kiev is desperately seeking weapons and new credit from the West for rebuilding its armed forces and supporting the economy, which in large part has gone onto a war footing. For now, these initiatives are merely being discussed. In the U.S. Congress, the Republican majority has already seriously raised the question of rendering assistance to the Ukrainian military in the form of armored vehicles and other types of weaponry.
The danger for the United States in changing its form of cooperation with Ukraine and participating in the conflict in the southeast lies in the fact that, just as with the situation in Syria, there is a lack of preparedness for radical scenarios of conflict escalation. After Barack Obama’s statement about his readiness to bomb the positions of Bashar Assad’s military forces after the alleged use of chemical weapons against Syrian rebels and peaceful civilians, after a short time the American leader had to walk back from his own words when implementing Putin’s plan for the destruction of chemical weapons. What’s more, the U.S. had to create an international coalition against the Islamic State group, whose existence was nurtured by the United States' own politics in Syria, when they began to threaten the sovereignty and territorial integrity not only of Syria, but also neighboring Iraq. Activation of a conflict might bring the situation to a standstill – more specifically, on the threshold of a third world war, just as it was in August.
However, viewing the intransigence of President Vladimir Putin and the escalation of the Ukrainian crisis into a “frozen” stage, Western leaders fear that the “southeast problem” is turning into a long-term hindrance for Ukraine’s integration into the Euro-Atlantic space. Hence the attempts of the American leadership, as an initiator of the politics of containment of Russia on the new stage, to develop a new vision of Russian-American relations in the context of the Ukrainian crisis. To put it more simply – what will the Americans do, knowing that Putin will not let go of the “people’s republics,” while at the same time [understanding] that without these territories Ukraine is not a fully-formed state? Mr. Biden will most likely speak about this on his visit to Kiev. Experts predict that the vice president might provide programmatic direction to the Ukrainian leader. Judging from recent statements by Obama regarding the “equivalence” of the threats posed by the Ebola fever and Russia in the international arena, Biden’s visit will not be conciliatory. More likely, one must expect sharp critiques of Moscow’s actions and new forms of assistance to Ukraine, which independently will not be able to resolve the crisis. This does not signify immediate war; however, the logic of the situation’s development suggests that war will be difficult to avoid.
The situation in the southeast at the moment is such that both Kiev and the militants are concentrating significant military forces in the conflict zone, thus increasing the likelihood of a renewal of active hostilities. However, after the elections in the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics on Nov. 2, and the incipient legitimization of state apparati in the southeast (albeit without the Kremlin’s official recognition), Moscow does not want a full-scale war, insofar as that would not allow the establishment of normal political life and state-building.
Kiev, watching the actions of Moscow, understands that simple informational pressure on its northern neighbor and the Russian-supported militants will not resolve the situation. Therefore, Kiev is desperately seeking weapons and new credit from the West for rebuilding its armed forces and supporting the economy, which in large part has gone onto a war footing. For now, these initiatives are merely being discussed. In the U.S. Congress, the Republican majority has already seriously raised the question of rendering assistance to the Ukrainian military in the form of armored vehicles and other types of weaponry.
The danger for the United States in changing its form of cooperation with Ukraine and participating in the conflict in the southeast lies in the fact that, just as with the situation in Syria, there is a lack of preparedness for radical scenarios of conflict escalation. After Barack Obama’s statement about his readiness to bomb the positions of Bashar Assad’s military forces after the alleged use of chemical weapons against Syrian rebels and peaceful civilians, after a short time the American leader had to walk back from his own words when implementing Putin’s plan for the destruction of chemical weapons. What’s more, the U.S. had to create an international coalition against the Islamic State group, whose existence was nurtured by the United States' own politics in Syria, when they began to threaten the sovereignty and territorial integrity not only of Syria, but also neighboring Iraq. Activation of a conflict might bring the situation to a standstill – more specifically, on the threshold of a third world war, just as it was in August.
However, viewing the intransigence of President Vladimir Putin and the escalation of the Ukrainian crisis into a “frozen” stage, Western leaders fear that the “southeast problem” is turning into a long-term hindrance for Ukraine’s integration into the Euro-Atlantic space. Hence the attempts of the American leadership, as an initiator of the politics of containment of Russia on the new stage, to develop a new vision of Russian-American relations in the context of the Ukrainian crisis. To put it more simply – what will the Americans do, knowing that Putin will not let go of the “people’s republics,” while at the same time [understanding] that without these territories Ukraine is not a fully-formed state? Mr. Biden will most likely speak about this on his visit to Kiev. Experts predict that the vice president might provide programmatic direction to the Ukrainian leader. Judging from recent statements by Obama regarding the “equivalence” of the threats posed by the Ebola fever and Russia in the international arena, Biden’s visit will not be conciliatory. More likely, one must expect sharp critiques of Moscow’s actions and new forms of assistance to Ukraine, which independently will not be able to resolve the crisis. This does not signify immediate war; however, the logic of the situation’s development suggests that war will be difficult to avoid.