Donetsk? Do tell!

[lookin]

Next, Putin Will Seize Donetsk and Kharkiv

Editorial in The Moscow Times

By Josh Cohen - Mar. 02 2014

As Russian troops consolidate their hold over Crimea, it seems clear that President Vladimir Putin will soon have troops in eastern Ukraine as well. The Federation Council passed a law giving Putin broad authority to use the country's armed forces on "the territory of Ukraine," and this, in combination with pro-Russian demonstrations now spreading across major eastern cities, provide Putin a fig leaf necessary to move into eastern Ukraine.

While many Western analysts — and even U.S. intelligence agencies — predicted that Putin would not move on Ukraine, they have clearly not understood Putin's worldview. Russia looks at Ukraine in the same way that China looks at Taiwan: as an existential issue in which lines must not be crossed. The West has missed four crucial points:

For Russia, Ukraine is the birthplace of Russian civilization and a close Slavic brother. The idea of Ukraine as an independent country aligned with the West is anathema to Putin. Many Russians refer to Ukraine as "little Russia." This is best encapsulated by an April 2008 conversation Putin had with then-U.S. President George W. Bush in which Putin reportedly said: "You don't understand, George, that Ukraine is not even a state. What is Ukraine? Part of its territories is Eastern Europe, but the greater part is a gift from us." In Putin's view, Western support for the anti-Russian protests in Kiev is part of a Western plot to tear Ukraine away from its proper place next to Russia's cultural, political and economic bosom. The West should have understood that there was no way Putin was ever going to allow Ukraine to slip away.

The West has grossly underestimated the extent to which Russia was humiliated by NATO expansion toward Russia's borders in the 1990s. From Russia's perspective, NATO's eastward expansion evoked deep-seated Russian fears of being both encircled and shut out from Europe. Russia has suffered numerous invasions from the West, and in Putin's mind even a European Union association agreement is a possible precursor to eventual NATO membership. Ukraine is Putin's line in the sand.

It is often said that with Russia is an empire as long as Ukraine is in its camp, but without it, Russia is just another regular country. The reality is that for centuries, Russia has been an empire, and an expansionist one at that. While we can debate the reasons for this, the reality is that Russia has never seen itself as just a regular country, and for that reason Russia will always ensure that Ukraine is firmly within its orbit.

Finally, Putin has decided to move on Ukraine now simply because he can. Putin knows that there is little that the U.S. or NATO can do to prevent him from having his way with Ukraine, and he is right. Short of risking war with a nuclear Russia, Putin is fully prepared to ignore any Western threats of "costs" that Russia must pay for seizing parts of Ukraine.

For these ideological, historical, military and geopolitical reasons, it is natural that Putin will not stop at the borders of Crimea. Putin will almost certainly not move into western Ukraine, but in the south and east where the population identifies strongly with Russia, there will never be a better opportunity than now to reclaim what Putin considers to be lost Russian territory. By next weekend, we very well might see Russian troops patrolling Kharkiv and Donetsk, and they won't be leaving anytime soon.

Josh Cohen is a former U.S. State Department official who was involved in managing economic reform projects in the former Soviet Union. He currently works for a satellite technology company in the Washington area.

[ihpguy]

Not sure why I expect Minsk and Pinsk to be up next for reconquest by Putin.

[lookin]

Not sure why I expect Minsk and Pinsk to be up next for reconquest by Putin.

Minsk or Bust!

[lookin]

And why stop there?

[MsGuy]

Here's a BBC article that nicely illustrates many of the problematic aspects of large minorities of ethnic Russians living in the states carved out of the former Soviet Union. Notice that official Latvian government figures show a 26.2% Russian minority while an unofficial private survey shows around 42%.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-26720549

You can see why Russia might be concerned over the treatment of Russian speaking folks now trapped across the rather arbitrary borders of the new countries. You can also see why Mother Russia's assertion of a right to supervise the welfare of Russians living outside Russia proper sends a chill down the spines of diplomats around Europe.

By the way, part of the state ideology of Czarist Russia was the very similar notion that Russia was the protector and guarantor of the welfare of fellow Slavs living in the Balkans (this was a direct cause of WWI).

[lookin]

Here's a BBC article that nicely illustrates many of the problematic aspects of large minorities of ethnic Russians living in the states carved out of the former Soviet Union. Notice that official Latvian government figures show a 26.2% Russian minority while an unofficial private survey shows around 42%.

The article also says that, after World War II, Soviet policy was to 'resettle' Balkan areas with non-native speakers from elsewhere in the Soviet Union in a deliberate attempt to 'water down Baltic culture and destroy local national sentiment'.

Seems like the Soviets were as much the carvers as they were the carvees. And, as is often the case, who 'belongs' and who is an outsider depends on who you ask. And when.

Interesting that these 'settlers' were not automatically given Latvian citizenship after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. They have to take a test to get it and learn to speak the language.

Hmm. Where have I heard that before?

[MsGuy]

Lookin, the rule applies not only to Russian 'settlers' but to their Latvian born children and grandchildren also. The reason Russian speaking folks can now take the test (after they're fluent in Latvian) is that the European Union clamped down the Latts for blatant racial discrimination. Initially citizenship was granted strictly on ethnic lines. Hmmm...no path to citizenship. Now where have we heard that before?

The problem of stranded Russian speaking minorities runs through all the post-Soviet states. They're almost always discriminated against politically and to some extent socially and economically. It's a damned difficult situation to resolve and the local chauvinists don't make it any easier when they jack the resident Russians around.

Remember when the radical nationalists took over in Kiev, the first thing they did was to pass a law repealing Russian as an official language. Yeah, under intense Western pressure, the interim president later vetoed it but what does that bill say about the attitude, good will (hell, or even good sense) of the folks running Kiev?

Notice too that opinion polls show intense support for Putin's actions so far in Russia. Russian nationalism is not dead. I read the latest Russian diplomatic initiative as saying Putin will settle (for now) for annexation of the Crimea, considerable autonomy for the eastern provinces and suppression of ultra-nationalists (anti Russians?) in the western provinces. That sounds like the next best thing to a Russian protectorate to me.

[RA1]

I am not sure why the Letts (not Latts) are being singled out in this and other threads. I think there are many current countries that feel like any Russians within their borders are either invaders or potential provokers of political and civil unrest. Just as a matter of curiosity, are you a big fan of Hispanics marching around CA and other places carrying a Mexican flag, with some suggesting CA should be ceded or sold back to Mexico? Isn't the best way to assimilate and become a useful and productive citizen of any country include learning the language and customs thereof? I know if I moved to Costa Rico I would certainly get my Spanish into high gear. I do the same in England and New Zealand.

Best regards,

RA1

[MsGuy]

"Letts (not Latts)" oops, my bad. (blush)

Not trying to single out the Letts, RA1, I just happened to run across an article about Latvia that touched on many of the issues associated with the presence of large Russian minorities in most of the new post-Soviet nation states.

----

To get a better feel for the situation in Eastern Europe, try the following thought experiment:

1) The USA falls into a cataclysmic political, social and economic convulsion. In the confusion, California, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico set themselves up as independent countries with Spanish speaking majorities. Twenty to forty per cent of their populations are English speaking Anglo minorities.

2) OK, 20 years pass and things settle back to normal, more or less, in the USA.

3) Will the Anglo majorities in North and East Texas be real happy being told to get with it and learn Spanish (& a Mexican version of Texas history) before they can vote? Will the Anglos in Cali get cranked about the agreement among the Mexican based parties to exclude any Anglo based party from any coalition government?

4) More importantly will the new government in Washington keep a hands off attitude toward these new statelets? Or will it feel like they're not really legitimate countries. Wouldn't politicians in D.C. be tempted to intervene to stop harassment of Anglos? Wouldn't a large majority in the USA support the notion that cousin Mary Beth and her kids shouldn't be discriminated against just because they moved to San Diego 60 years ago?

5) To put it bluntly, wouldn't an old gay pilot living in MEM get pissed when he saw a Mexican mob in Texas pull a coup against an elected government in Austin that was friendly to the Anglos and the USA and pass laws barring the use of English in schools, courts or legal documents?

6) And if the good folks of East Texas said fuck this shit and asked America to allow them back in the Union, wouldn't that same pilot be inclined to grant them their wishes? Even if it pissed off China and Russia? (Maybe especially if it pissed off China and Russia )?

[RA1]

The US is in a political, social and economic convulsion but apparently not cataclysmic as yet, at least not to the point of secession. We have been through that before and I hope it is somewhat settled for the foreseeable future. The Monroe Doctrine only barely or somewhat applies any longer and is not or should not be part of Russia's political strategy or so I think.

If Hispanics are about to be the majority population of the US and I think they are sooner or later, I can only hope they discover and appreciate what has gone on before. At least the good things. Anything we all can do to make them and us better citizens is all good.

Best regards,

RA1