Sucks to Be U(kraine)

Ukrainian leadership must be very weary these days.

It was reported yesterday that Russia has again escalated its conflict with Ukraine by threatening (again) to cut off gas supplies within the next two days if Ukraine cannot pay Gazprom, the Russian energy giant, what it owes. As fighting rages on in the east, winter rages on throughout Ukraine and Europe - natural gas is literally vital to the survival of many throughout the next several weeks. The natural gas dilemma also constitutes a severe economic threat to Ukraine, who has banned the purchase of foreign currency as its own continues to slide. Ukraine's economy is hanging on by a thread these days; any disruption in energy supplies would be catastrophic. Europe, too, is not in the most secure of financial positions - particularly the eurozone. With much of Western Europe's natural gas supply coming from Russia in pipelines that run through the Ukraine, they stand with as much to lose as Ukraine itself.

Courtesy of Telegraph

Perhaps most frustrating about Russia's threat is that the Ukraine alleges it prepaid months ago a sum large enough to cover their natural gas supply through the whole winter. So where is the discrepancy? It lies in Eastern Ukraine, which has been controlled by pro-Russian separatists for months. Russia has been pumping gas directly to the separatists through different pipelines in order to keep them warm as they serve as proxies in the fight to shatter Ukraine's sovereign borders. Russian President Putin is calculated in doing this: he can support those loyal to him across the border, without having to financially support them. All he has to do is argue that the region is technically part of Ukraine, so the energy supplied there comes out of Ukraine's budget.

Meanwhile, most likely according to Putin's plan, all of Europe is slowly destabilizing. Lithuania yesterday reintroduced conscription, out of fear of Russian aggression spilling over into its borders the way it did Ukraine's. Lithuanian leaders estimate adding 3,500 or so additional soldiers to their army each year, at least for the next five years. While not instituting a compulsory policy like their neighbor, Latvia has also pledged to ramp up its military spending and bolster its armed forces in the event of Russian aggression. If nothing else, the conflict in Ukraine has put the entire former Soviet bloc on edge as it creeps closer to an all-out armed engagement. Russia's unpredictability has only exacerbated anxieties.

And yet, the separatists in Eastern Ukraine march forward, this time to the port city of Mariupol. Should this be their destination, it would mark a significant shift in the conflict - Mariupol is on the way to Crimea, and it would indicate that the separatists are making an effort to carve out a path connecting their stronghold farther up north to the annexed Crimea. France's foreign minister has already warned Russia that this would be a red line, suggesting a retaliation of some sort, although this is a weak threat considering the fact that the conflict has lasted months without any direct military intervention from the U.S. or any European country. Should Ukraine fail to secure Mariupol, it's hard to see any real, effective response from the west.

Courtesy of Reuters

So what is Ukraine to do? For starters, it's time to give up the east.

This is a frightening suggestion, one that seemingly defies the logic that has kept the developed world relatively conflict-free in the 21st century. And there are major downsides - most notably, that it will be giving Russia what they want, and incentivizing similar action in other corners of the former Soviet bloc. But it is a necessary action, one that will mostly free Ukraine from conflict while stabilizing their economy.

As mentioned earlier, Russia has effectively equipped rebels in eastern Ukraine and enabled them to successfully fend off Ukrainian soldiers, while placing the entire financial burden of the roughly three million who live in the east on the shoulders of Ukraine. This is too large a burden for a country that is just barely remaining out of the grip of default, and undermines their military's position in the region. By ceding the region to Russia, the separatists will become Russian citizens; the three million that live there will look to Russia for financial support, and it will no longer be possible for Russia to wage conflict in Ukraine under the thin veil of the separatists being "Ukrainian citizens". Now, this is one belligerent nation attacking another - something that would garner a much swifter, and severe, response.

Ukraine will also be able to slowly allocate their meager finances elsewhere, such as industrial development (importantly, development that no longer relies on the fossil fuels Russia has stockpiles of), economic development, and independent energy supplies. This will be a long and difficult journey, but with the proper finesse, Ukraine can shift its economy and reach a modest stability that will allow for job growth and better ties with the eurozone. When (if) the conflict dies down entirely, foreign investment can accelerate this growth.

Courtesy of BBC

This is not a panacea, however. In the meantime, Ukraine and the rest of Europe must find alternative sources of energy in an effort to release themselves from the influence of Russian energy. Winter is far from over, and if Russia makes good on its promises to stanch the flow of natural gas, no amount of territory Ukraine cedes will save it from a humanitarian epidemic of unfathomable proportions. Energy must be sourced from Scandinavia, the U.S., and, if possible, the Middle East.

And finally, Europe and the U.S. must ramp up their support for Ukraine. There is a difference between neoconservatism and the war-mongering associated with it, and a calculated approach at how to support a struggling military that is defending itself against a truly existential threat. Great Britain pledged 75 military advisors to Ukraine, which is a great start. But until more arms are provided, and, more importantly, there is more humanitarian support from those who can afford it, Ukraine will continue to be on what appears to be the losing side of this conflict.

Ukraine has been at a crossroads for some time now. This conflict has killed thousands and is emerging as one of the greater crises Europe has seen since the breakup of Yugoslavia decades ago. The status quo is decidedly not working. Without a dramatic change in the strategy and overall goals of Ukraine and western Europe, nothing but a bleak 2015 (and probably longer) awaits, as Russia fortifies their foothold in Ukraine, potentially expands their aggression elsewhere, while the economies of the west erode.

Crisis Time for Ukraine

There is a new sense of urgency in Ukraine this week, as a major rebel offensive has shattered the five-month ceasefire agreement and brought the death toll up over 5,000 since the conflict started some nine months ago. Ukraine finds itself in a difficult position, as it struggles on two separate but completely related fronts: their floundering economy, and their military-occupied sovereign territory. Without major successes on both fronts, Ukraine may find itself in a dangerous position in weeks to come.

Earlier this week, the United States made headlines on the subject when President Obama suggested that he was considering delivering defensive weapons to Ukraine in order to assist in their fending off rebel onslaughts. This is a major new development, and indicates that there are very real concerns on the part of the Western world when it comes to the security and the stability of Ukraine. Months ago, there wouldn't even have been a debate on whether military assistance was necessary; today, it is a very real possibility.

Russia is understandably unhappy with President Obama's musings. The Kremlin has stated that any military support of Ukraine by Western countries would be perceived as a direct threat to Russia - a hypocritical statement from a country that used its military force to "liberate" part of Ukraine's sovereign territory just months ago, instigating the entire ongoing conflict. However, Russia's warnings should be taken with more than a grain of salt. Despite ramped up sanctions, Russia's ruble has stabilized, and while oil prices remain at unusual lows, it seems as though Russia may actually be able to weather their financial malaise.

The Ukraine, on the other hand, is having serious economic troubles. The hryvnia plummeted earlier today following decisions by the Ukrainian Central Bank to raise interest rates. Foreign reserves are at virtually an all-time low, and with the war raging on, Ukraine's bank accounts are draining. They need to stabilize their currency and get their finances in order quickly if they have any chance at avoiding a major default or forfeiting the war due to lack of money.

Because of this, there has been a renewed effort from the rest of Europe to broker a peace deal, and fast. Leaders from France and Germany were in Kiev today laying out the conditions of a new peace agreement that would hopefully put an end to the conflict - at least temporarily. Secretary John Kerry was also present, and while not an author of the peace deal, put American support behind it. This peace deal may be a last-ditch effort, and the significance of it is not lost on Ukraine. Without some sort of renewed ceasefire in the coming weeks, should the conflict intensify, Ukraine will find itself gasping for air and desperate from support from the U.S. and others that perhaps may never come.

This Means War?

A pro-Russian separatists looks at the crash site.
Courtesy Reuters/Maxim Zmeyev.

When I looked at my computer yesterday afternoon, I couldn’t believe my eyes. I thought something had gone terribly wrong with the BBC’s servers, or I was suffering from some serious déjà vu, because there was no way another Malaysia Airlines plane had crashed. There was definitely no way that it crashed over the Ukraine, or that it had been deliberately shot down. But as the afternoon wore on, it became apparent that the nightmare was, in fact, reality: a plane flying from a NATO member country to Malaysia had been downed with what looked like a surface-to-air missile strike, killing the almost 300 people on board and setting the stage for World War III.

Tensions are high, but rhetoric (with the exception of good old Uncle Joe) has remained relatively low-key as countries wait to find out who launched the attack. Calls for investigations by an international body, or by the Ukrainian government, have come from every corner. The UN Security Council will hold an emergency meeting today to discuss how the international community can move forward. Yet for a few hours yesterday, it looked, and felt, like NATO was about to go into Ukraine, and Russia would inevitably follow, and the world would be left to watch in horror as another global war broke out.

That the missile used to strike the plane was likely Russian-made is the one of the most dangerous aspects of this latest crisis. The Ukrainian government has been accusing Russia of supplying the rebel separatists in the east with advanced weaponry, including antiaircraft missiles, for weeks, and has been met with staunch Russian denials. Despite the accusations that the rebels or the Russians shot down the plane, representatives of the People’s Republic of Donetsk deny they can shoot down planes over 10,000 feet, and the Malaysia Airlines plane was shot down from 32,000. The rebels (and Pres. Putin) have accused the Ukrainian government itself of shooting down the plane, in an effort to earn the separatists international condemnation.

Yet one of the rebel leaders posted on social media Thursday that they had shot down a Ukrainian military transport, a suspected misidentification due to the similar colors in the Malaysia Airlines logo. Once the news broke that the plane was a passenger jet, the post was removed. The attack also came just one day after the US confirmed that Russia had fired its first missiles into Ukraine, and had imposed further sanctions on Russia as a result.

Given the climate of heavy suspicion against Russia and its separatist proxies in Ukraine, one can understand Putin’s call for peace talks this morning, as well as his direct request to the rebels that they lay down their arms. Yesterday, he had accused the Ukrainian government of the attack; today, he appears to have moderated his stance, but “did not address the key question of whether Russia gave the rebels such a powerful missile.”

Buk missile system, the suspected culprit.

One guess is, as has happened many times before in the US-Russia geopolitical struggle, Russia simply didn’t consider the consequences of arming a proxy war. Rebels often go against the wishes of their supposed masters, and it is difficult to control what inexperienced separatists will do with advanced weaponry once it has been given to them. It appears at this point that if the rebels did shoot down the plane, they did so believing that it was a Ukrainian military transport, of which they’ve already shot down two in recent weeks.

What is certain is that determining responsibility, while the first item on the international community’s agenda, will be difficult given the lack of access to the area. AP reports that to get to the crash site from rebel-held Donetsk, one must pass through five checkpoints with document checks at each. The confusion of the rebels who are currently grappling with an international incident with very little, if any, experience doing so, is apparent in the differing statements given by their representatives. While one reported this morning that no black box had been found, another said that eight of twelve recording devices from the plane had been recovered.

Compounding the tragedy are the three hundred lives that were senselessly lost in a conflict that most, if not all, had nothing to do with. More than collateral damage, their deaths represent the danger of arming proxy groups with such advanced and dangerous weapons, only to let them loose in another country. The victims included a large contingent of high-level AIDS researchers en route to an AIDS conference in Kuala Lumpur, and their deaths have caused an torrent of grief in the scientific community.

Whoever is responsible, the greatest danger now is that miscommunication or the lack of communication between the US and Russia will allow this international incident to spiral into regional armed conflict, one that would likely include Russia and NATO forces. Yet if Russia disavows the rebels, coaxes them into a cease-fire or peace deal, or even helps Ukraine to suppress them, this could be an opportunity to improve frosty US-Russian relations. If cooler heads are allowed to prevail, and a solution for the situation in the Ukraine can be found out of this tragedy, then the 300 lives lost will not have been completely in vain.

Obama’s Foreign Policy (or “Lack Thereof”?)

My colleague Colin Wolfgang recently addressed the perceived shortcomings in Pres. Obama’s foreign policy, many of which speak to legitimate concerns. He suggests that the Obama administrations failures on foreign policy have not come from policy itself, but a lack of clear vision for America’s position in world affairs. Yet in doing so, he uttered a telling phrase about Obama’s “inability to project American dominance on the rest of the world in the same way his predecessors have done before him.” This history of American power projection and its detrimental effect on America’s credibility, coupled with the changing nature of the global balance of power, have resulted in the Obama administration’s current perceived inability to negotiate a better position for the United States. The administration’s policies, however, reflect both the wishes of the American citizenry and a new paradigm in international relations, one that places primacy not on power but on peace, not on the winning of wars but the avoidance of war by other means.

Pres. Obama riding a velociraptor. Because reasons.

 As he took office in January 2009, Pres. Obama was faced with a global financial crisis largely brought on by the policies of prior administrations, two unpopular and unsuccessful wars in the Middle East, and an increasing threat of Islamic extremism throughout the world. Despite these obstacles, for many observers Pres. Obama’s first term was a success in terms of his foreign policy initiatives, and foreign policy was considered one of his strengths vis-à-vis Mitt Romney in the 2012 election. He oversaw the final withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, established a timeline to wind down the Afghan war, attempted to close down Guantanamo Bay, and pursued a policy of limited drone warfare against terrorist groups. As his second term dawned, however, increasing political violence in Iraq clouded the success of troop withdrawal, a political stalemate with the Afghan government hindered the creation of a comprehensive transition plan, Guantanamo remained open (and still does), and the policy of drone warfare came under fire as the civilians affected by drones as well as drone operators spoke out about the program’s human costs.

Obama's Foreign Policy (Or Lack Thereof)

In his commencement speech at West Point on Wednesday, President Obama addressed much of the criticism that has been thrown his way recently regarding his inability to project American dominance on the rest of the world in the same way his predecessors have done before him. Most people would agree that Obama has been leery of armed conflict since taking office in 2009, and justifiably so, after the two costly wars former President Bush thrust the U.S. into in the early 2000s. And certainly in certain contexts, isolationism can be an overarching framework that helps shape a country's foreign policy decisions - one has to look no further than the United States leading up to the Second World War, after World War I left such an awful taste in its mouth. However, President Obama has not used isolationism as his foreign policy framework; rather, he has no framework. And as his tenure as Commander in Chief winds down over the next few years, it's that very lack of framework that will come to haunt his legacy, and possibly set the global political arena on a path the United States will wish it had avoided.

Getty Images

Did Diplomacy Win in Ukraine?

Not with a bang but a whimper, international tensions appear to have shifted away from the Ukraine, leaving regional powerhouse Russia and the interim government in Kiev to deal with what are most-definitely-not-but-kind-of-look-and-talk-like Russian forces in the east. Though the conflict certainly is not over, it looks like it will not be the likely cause of World War III anytime soon.

Russian-speaking troops are still occupying several areas in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea is firmly in Russian hands, but the US, EU, and Russia as well as Ukraine’s interim government came to an agreement to peacefully “defuse” the situation last week in Geneva. Yet Russia has not yet fulfilled one of its primary commitments to call on separatists in the East to surrender the buildings that they’ve occupied, and is now contemplating further military action.

Russia and the Erosion of Contemporary Geo-Political Norms

The powderkeg that is the northern Black Sea right now has been thoroughly reported on recently. As it stands this week, Russia has situated reinforcement troops on the predominantly pro-Russian Crimean peninsula, which is under Ukrainian sovereignty. Furthermore, with Russia’s highly valuable “Black Sea Fleet” located in Crimea, the peninsula holds significant value both culturally and logistically for Russian President Vladimir Putin. It’s no surprise, then, that he has more or less ignored calls for de-escalation from the Western world; some may argue that he has in fact done the opposite and escalated the situation further. Thursday, amidst fresh sanctions from the U.S. restricting visas for Russians and Ukrainians found to be exacerbating the tension, it was announced that Crimea would be holding a referendum on whether or not to secede from Ukraine and officially become Russian territory. U.S. President Obama has declared this referendum outside of the realm of international legality; however, its legitimacy in the eyes of the international community shouldn't be of significance. More alarming is the fact that it is happening at all, and that Russia appears to have the upper hand. Thursday’s referendum starts a very slippery slope that ends with last-century showmanship and a renewed emphasis on “spheres of influence,” things the United States cannot afford nor wants at this stage. While the past several weeks have brought about numerous developments, both positive and negative, the worst development is perhaps the notion that Russia is in the process of effectively deteriorating universal geo-political practices of the post-Cold War era, returning the international community to the much darker period of the second half of last century.

Crimean War Redux

By Guest Contributor Joel Klein
MA Candidate in International Affairs, Boston University

Kerry and Lavrov face off

Recently my fellow graduate student at BU and editor of this blog Vicky wrote an excellent piece on Russia’s invasion of Crimea. While a self-admitted non-expert on Europe or the Former Soviet Union her piece has some excellent analysis and is well worth the read. However as someone who aspires to be an expert on Russia and the Former Soviet Union I wanted to add my 2 cents partly as rebuttal but mostly to inform especially considering our media’s awful coverage. In many ways Vicky and I agree on the many of the United States foreign policy failures and problems in President Obama’s second term. I agree with Vicky’s Meta analysis, our grand strategy is non-existent and the second term National Security process is a disaster. I blame much of this on Obama’s poor second term national security team which possess few independent strategic thinkers.

What many are accurately calling Europe’s most dangerous crisis since the Cold War is a direct result of issues unsettled after the end of that particular “War”. This process along with recent blunders by the EU in particular, but also the United States and Russia, has brought us to this point. For this article I do not comment on these wider international relations issues but analyze the interests of Russia in initiating the Crimean crisis and the potential Western response.

Obama's No-Good-Very-Bad Week

As the crisis in Ukraine enters its fifth month since ousted President Viktor Yanukovych turned down an EU association deal in November, Russian troops have left their bases in Crimea and occupied the peninsula. Russian President Vladimir Putin claims the move is essential to protect ethnic Russians, who are allegedly at risk from militant nationalist, anti-semitic, and otherwise violent groups. While this claim is shaky at best, given Crimea’s strategic importance to Russia (whose Black Sea fleet is stationed at Sevastopal), it is not altogether shocking that Russia would move to secure the region in the face of growing instability in Ukraine.

What remains less clear are the options now open to US President Barack Obama in responding to the crisis. Wishy-washy and inexact condemnations and threats have left much to be desired, and many are already claiming that foreign policy is at an all-time low in Obama’s second term. One side of the aisle points out his weakness, while the other calls attention to the irony of this rhetoric. Yet few of these voices offer any tangible actions the President could take to diffuse the crisis, if not end it altogether. The following are some of the options the Obama administration has when it comes to confronting Russia on its recent incursion.

Are We There Yet? Revolution in the Ukraine

By Colin Wolfgang

Many saw last week’s deposition of Ukrainian President Yanukovich as a triumphant display of positive change stemming from a revolution of the masses. Obviously, this has been a topic of discussion on the Global Atlas for several weeks – even months – as Ukraine strayed from their Western ambitions to foster closer ties with the E.U. and leaned even farther into Russia’s nefarious embrace. As a brief recap, mass protests ensued, eventually dwarfing the previously colossal Orange Revolution protests of 2004, and the situation deteriorated into widespread violence in Kiev and the eventual ouster of President Yanukovich. To many, including myself, last week’s events seemed a harbinger for imminent peace in Ukraine and, hopefully, the integration into the E.U. that Ukraine’s economy so desperately needs.

The Maidan or Independence Square in Kiev, before and after protests. Courtesy Feeldesain.

Unfortunately, the story doesn’t end there – in fact, last week may simply have been the eye of the storm. Former President Yanukovich turned up in Russia yesterday, which should not be a surprise to anyone. His allegiance to the former Soviet empire was hardly masked during his wheeling and dealing with Russia over the past several weeks, and after being overthrown by his people, he has sought refuge in Moscow. With the Sochi Olympics being over, Russian President Putin likely has less deference for Western opinions on the matter, and will have no qualms about openly protecting a man who is being sought after by the transitional government in Ukraine for his role in the deaths of over 100 protestors.

American Media and the Protests of the World

Foreign policy priorities and powerful interests oftentimes play out in the media (1). Broadly speaking, from the selection of news stories to the particular angles they may take, the U.S. media’s account of foreign events can give readers an interesting glimpse into the interests of America’s powerful. It is no coincidence that media attention focuses much more on matters that relate directly to U.S. national and corporate interests even though similar events around the world go underreported. Four case studies—the protests in Ukraine, Venezuela, the West Bank, and Thailand—help demonstrate this relationship.

Ukraine

By a wide margin, the mass anti- and pro-government protests and accompanying political crisis in Ukraine have received a majority of the news coverage. Dozens have been killed and pictures of fires and violence from the protests have gone viral. While many may know of Ukraine only for its Chernobyl nuclear disaster, the former Soviet satellite has vast geostrategic importance to the United States. The U.S. has given over $3 billion to Ukraine since its independence in 1991, mostly for pro-market reforms and strengthening civil and political institutions. The billions of dollars in aid are intended to help orient Ukraine away from Russian influence through economic and political alignment with the West. Since 1995, Ukraine has also been in consultation with NATO to explore the possibility of membership. These developments have in part helped shape the current media portrayal of anti-government demonstrations there as a kind of post-Cold War tug-a-war between Western and Russian influences, since the now-disposed prime minister made an eleventh-hour rejection of talks with the European Union over Ukraine’s possible membership, a decision that became the very spark of current unrest. Indeed there are decades of economic, political and military interests at play between the West, Ukraine and Russia, and the media’s reporting has certainly reflected this.

Venezuela

Venezuelan protests, too, have found their way onto the media’s main stage—or at least its orchestra section. Mass demonstrations erupted two weeks ago with grievances including rampant crime, high inflation, food shortages and general economic stagnation over the past 15 years. The country’s oil wealth and proximity to the United States add to the media’s interest in Venezuelan protests, however the two countries have a bitter history. Under Hugo Chavez’s presidency, the Venezuelan leader was not shy about his disdain for the United States and particularly its leaders. He and current President Nicolas Maduro have both blamed the U.S. for demonstrations against their leaderships, most recently when President Maduro accused the C.I.A. of attempting a coup. The story is only now beginning to reach a mass audience.

Thailand

Obtaining moderate news coverage is the

steady flow of demonstrators since protests first gripped Thailand back in November 2013. As I’ve written before, the mostly-peaceful protests have occasionally turned violent by unknown assailants. Just this past weekend, a bomb killed four people—three of them children—during an anti-government protest in Bangkok. On Sunday, 34 people were wounded and one girl killed by gunmen who open fired on demonstrators. Political leaders on all sides have signaled to their constituents to eliminate violence while those in power see their legitimacy evaporating in the eyes of thousands of demonstrators. Despite the fact that Thailand is party to the Southeast Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO)—a security pact signed by Thailand, the United States and six other nations—bilateral relations with the U.S. are generally poor. One of the biggest points of contention are the food subsidies given to American farmers by the federal government, which are seen as giving growers an unfair price advantage, especially in the rice market. While not a perfect comparison, Thailand's current political crisis is not too different from Ukraine’s, the only crucial difference being Ukraine’s higher geostrategic value to the West.

West Bank

While Israeli-Palestinians peace talks are at the heart of the Obama Administration’s Middle East policy, scant media coverage has been attributed to a demonstration of a different flavor that embodies one obstacle to peace: “thousands” (2) of Israeli youth joined protesters gathered in the West Bank city of Ma’ale to protest the freeze on construction of new settlements in the contested E-1 region. On the surface, the gathering was a one-day affair. Scores assembled in the city to show solidarity with and support for Jewish settlements in the West Bank during peace talks that would—if ever ‘successfully’ concluded—probably require the transfer of some settler lands to Palestinian ownership. What makes the gathering significant is the fact that members of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s own Cabinet attended the rally and that the international community roundly condemns Israel’s settlement expansion and points to it as the number one impediment to peace. The crowd’s zeal to promote the settler movement coupled with high-profile government supporters in attendance throws doubt on how acceptable a peace deal would be to the Israeli public and political spheres. Highlighting these bits in the U.S. media wouldn’t be good for the dimming hope surrounding the talks.

_______________________________

(1) Edward Herman, and Noam Chomsky, Manufactured Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, (New York: Pantheon Books, 1988).

(2) Israel’s Haaretz news publication. Note that the youth gathering in the West Bank was almost entirely ignored by the American media.

Disappointment in Ukraine

Ukraine finds itself in a precarious situation these days. For weeks, there have been protests even bigger than those during the 2004 Orange Revolution, which was actually successful in calling for the ouster of (fraudulently) newly elected Victor Yanukovych. He came back into power, and until now enjoyed relative stability and burgeoning Ukrainian pride from people desperate to escape from the shadow of the former Soviet Union.