After “The West” actively supported
insurgencies in Libya, Egypt and Syria (while they covered similar protests in Bahrain, Jemen and
others with self-serving silence), causing much human suffering in the process,
they now intend to support democracy in Ukraine.
People in the street know that our own implementation of democracy is almost
fatally flawed, and that massive enrichment by, and around, the political elite
and their entrenched power structures is happening via the opaque maze of our ‘democratic
institutions’. During the coming decades, with decreasing wealth and increasing
competition with other parts of the world, this practical brand of western democracy
will come under much pressure and, undoubtedly, new forces will shape new
structures – hopefully for the better, at least for a while.
Meanwhile ‘The West” throws its weight behind democracy
in Ukraine. Apart from any geopolitical factors that play, one wonders how and
where our political leaders perceive democratic saplings in Ukraine. Surely there
are legitimate complaints about abhorrent corruption and surely a majority of protesters
in Maydan spontaneously rose against their last government, as they did against
others over the last twenty years. They deserve change.
The “power facts” on the ground are less rosy. A hard core of
hoodlums, supported by subversive elements financed by “Oligarchs & Friends”,
have created street warfare in Kiev and brutally forced the fall of the
government. In the mayhem of this revolution of sorts, they took over the government
by means of a quasi-legal process, appointing a new president (a figurehead, as
it turns out) and a new prime minister. Because no ‘experienced’ Ukrainian politician
can claim any kind of neutrality, let alone honesty, the new government team looks
less than legitimate democrats: 4 ministers are ultra-rightists, and known
oligarchs have been given governorships over regions. That does not immediately reflect the
change that people in the street are entitled to.
So, who and what is “The West” supporting? The
principle of sovereignty, they say. Of course, they have a point. From that
perspective the (c)overt ingression of Russian soldiers, guards and/or
policemen is, at its very roots, a transgression of international law. When exclusively focusing
on that fact-on-the-ground, one can mount a strategy, obviously also reflecting
self-interest, that includes all kinds of warfare (for now, short of its
military variants) in order to make the incursor change its mind. No matter how
that warfare is conducted, it must be obvious that, in essence, all parties
stand to lose quite a lot. Russia and The West will definitely lose
economically and politically, with repercussions in the rest of the world as
well. The Ukrainians will lose much more, no matter whether they are
pro-Russian or pro-Western.
Aassume now, just for a moment, that Russia withdraws its forces from
Crimea. Understand, simultaneously, that the Crimeans, of their own volition, irrespective
of any foreign pressure and irrespective of the quasi-illegitimate Kiev
government forbidding it, will organize a secession referendum. Know that,
meanwhile, the Kiev government has decided to create a “National Guard” to
defend and protect the nation. (It is hard to imagine how such a guard can
represent all the people of Ukraine; instead it has all the markings of a Praetorian
Guard).
Those Western leaders who believe that, under the
above circumstances, there will be no more (and bigger) bloodshed in Ukraine,
must be truly incompetent, insensitive or hyper-cynical. After having witnessed the violence of
the street protests, the actions of a newly constituted army in regions that
are deadest against the central authorities, are not difficult to imagine: they
will have the right ideology and the best weapons to overcome popular
resistance. The next step, without a shred of doubt, has to be that Russia
invades all of Eastern Ukraine, and explains it as a humanitarian action to
protect innocent Russians living abroad (very much like, most notably, France
does in Africa). There is no chance that Russia will wait until the UN gives the
green light.
In view of the above, it would serve “The West” well to
help Ukrainians come to terms with the predicaments that they have created for
themselves, politically and economically. The presence of Russian forces is
actually a protector of the peace: it strikes (hopefully) fear in the hearts
and minds of Praetorian Guards, and it pacifies and polices protests of the
local population (while giving them a sense of security which, understandably,
any so-called national troops would not).
Resolving the quagmire that Ukraine, in fact, will
take longer than the few months to the ‘next elections or polls’, no matter who
organizes them. It does not, at this point, serve any Ukrainian or, indeed,
European citizen for their politicians to act in the name of some hollow-sounding
democratic principles or, even, interpret international law without allowing
for humanitarian concerns. Such a constructive view may be too much to ask for,
because one of the causes of international conflict is often that shaky leaders
of countries in trouble, similar to what we have throughout Europe these days, are power-hungry
and cynical enough to exploit foreign ‘opportunities’ to deflect attention from
internal problems.
In conclusion then, one might argue that Russia seeks,
from a geopolitical perspective, to gain more control over Crimea. And it is
obvious that a Russian occupation force is a transgression of international
law, which needs to be addressed in due course. It is equally evident that this same force
has prevented that the Crimea (and maybe even other eastern regions)
experienced violent clashes. Until there is a game plane for saving Ukraine, agreed by all players and preferably under supervision of international
institutions, it behooves “The West” to work together with Russia for one
great humanitarian goal: avoid more bloodshed and, by extension, avoid any kind
of warfare that will kill many more innocent people.
Grimburger, March14th 2014
