|
Zonie63 -> RE: Who drew this Red Line? (3/4/2014 6:01:12 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
If a red line has been drawn, it was drawn in Moscow and not the West.
Trying to see things from a Russian perspective, it may look like this:
Since the end of the cold war, the Russians have seen a relentless easterly expansion by the West in its areas of traditional influence. Areas of legitimate influence according to a Russiona POV. One by one, the countries of the old Warsaw Pact bloc have transferred their allegiance to NATO and the West, with the Russians unable to stop this dissolution of its influence due to internal disarray and economic bankruptcy. NATO has always seen itself ( and be seen by the Russians too) as primarily a defence against a Russian 'enemy'. Previously NATO's writ stopped in middle Europe along the lines of the Iron Curtain. Nowadays NATO is parked on Russia's doorstep.
I can see that the Russians would feel threatened by such moves, and they've traditionally viewed Eastern Europe as a buffer zone to forestall invasion from the West. But there's also a reason why the countries of Eastern Europe fell into the arms of NATO once they had the choice to do so. Some of these countries didn't like being ruled by Russia, and the Russians weren't exactly "benevolent occupiers" either. So, if their relationship with their former allies in Eastern Europe has deteriorated to the point where they're looking West for their protection, then the Russians really only have themselves to blame for that. (And it wasn't just during the Soviet period, as many of these countries also fell under the thumb of the Russian Empire, which they also didn't like too much.)
Sure, NATO took advantage of the situation, although I think the US missed a golden opportunity when the Soviet Union collapsed. It could have launched a new era in US-Russian friendly relations, since there was really nothing (other than ideology) to put us at odds with each other anyway. Curiously, even though Russia was no longer communist, the US continued to isolate them, while suddenly changing their attitude on China (which was/is still communist). Even after the Tiananmen Square massacre, our government still continued to kiss up to Red China, while still taking a hard line with non-communist Russia. That never made any sense, especially considering the ideological-based rhetoric they had been crowing in the decades before.
quote:
Russians do not see an end to the West's expansion towards the East. A few years an attempt by NATO to install itself in Georgia was thwarted only a conventional war with the Georgians (as Russians would see it). An alliance with Georgia would do precious little to enhance European security but it would provide NATO with another base from which Russia could be threatened (according to a Russian analysis).
It's hard to tell what the Russians actually see in regards to the West. I'm not sure that they see the West as expansionist, per se, but rather interfering within what they see as their legitimate sphere of influence. Even during the Soviet period, it was no secret that the Georgians weren't too thrilled with being part of the USSR. A NATO base could not only threaten Russia, but it could also threaten Iran, so I can see that NATO would be interested in that. However, I can also see that the Georgians would be more than happy to invite NATO in as a way of extending their middle finger towards Moscow. This is probably the one reason (I think) the U.S. should not get involved in that area.
quote:
Today, Russians would say they are facing a similar challenge in Ukraine. The notion that a resurgent Russia, financed by billions of energy $, would sit back and relax as the Crimea, an area of critical stategic importance to Russia, slipped into NATO's arms is naive to say the very least. Especially so given the success of Russia in thwarting NATO's expansion into Georgia according to a Russian POV.
Finding a way of resolving this crisis while retaining OTOH Ukranian political independence and territorial integrity and on the other easing Russian fears of encirclement and loss of strategic assets won't be easy. One thing is for certain - any attempt at conventional military intervention by the West would be disastrous, it seems doomed to inevitable failure.
The only possible way to resolving this crisis in a way that satisfies all parties is through negotiations. While condemning Russia's aggression in the Crimea, we need to recognise that the Russians have serious and valid interests at stake here, and that any resolution of the situation must take these into account.
I think that this is primarily an issue between Russia and Ukraine at this point. They have a long history with each other, and they know each other very well. They have a shared history, similar cultures, both Slavic, both Orthodox. If the issue is solely about the Crimea, then perhaps that can be negotiated. If the issue is about who the rightful ruler of Ukraine is, then that should be decided by a fair election, supervised by international observers.
On the other hand, now that Ukraine has enjoyed being independent for at least a couple of decades now, they're not likely going to be as cooperative or friendly to the idea of falling under Russian control. Despite whatever similarities they might have with each other, there's also centuries of bad blood between Ukraine and Russia, so this could get really, really nasty, no matter what the West does or does not do here. The only practical thing we can do right now is let Putin play his hand and see what happens.
I somewhat doubt that this will lead us into a new Cold War. Since Russia is no longer communist, there's no real ideological dispute here. This is something different, more a regional/territorial dispute which has a lot of history behind it. So, we're in somewhat murky waters here, diplomatically speaking. I don't think Russia has any right to take over Ukraine and turn them into a Russian province. I think the international community does have an interest in opposing an aggressive invasion like that, if that's what it is. But we're not really sure what it is just yet.
|
|
|
|
