Ukrainian troops are withdrawing from Crimea. The Russian flag is flying everywhere in the region, and Ukrainian laws no longer hold sway in Crimea. Clocks there are being set two hours ahead - to Moscow time.
Yes, it seems clear that, at least for the moment, Crimea will rejoin Russia. For now, it has declared it's independence from Ukraine, but has not yet fully rejoined Russia.
Of course, these moves are being condemned by the West, and sanctions are being imposed.
But no military involvement. at least not directly.
The crisis goes on and, for the first time really since perhaps the Cold War, the West is not getting involved militarily due to the power of another nation. Oh, there have been other instances where the West, and the United Nations, have failed to act in a very meaningful way. Look at Rwanda, or Sudan or, more recently, Syria or the Central African Republic. Those have been perennial problems, but the situation in Crimea is very different. Russia, after all, could actually fight back.
So, what caused this sudden change, with Russia, a country that many westerners (particularly Americans) viewed with some measure of caution and skepticism but, generally, was seen as a vast improvement over the old Soviet Union, suddenly acting in such a way that many once again seem to view it as a reincarnation of the "evil empire" days?
Take a look at this opening paragraph to an article, "Analysis: Crisis shows Russia's post-Soviet anger" by Stephen R. Hurst:
The crisis over Crimea is more than a dispute over whether the strategic Black Sea peninsula should be considered Russian or Ukrainian. At its root is a deeper issue: Russia's simmering anger over its treatment by the West since the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union.
Putin is warning the West not to push Russia too far. Right or wrong, he is doing something that few who actually have power ever try to do: fight back. And, frankly, it seems like he is succeeding.
In a speech two days ago, he blamed the West for dousing gas into the fire, if not outright perhaps creating the fire to begin with. He explained that the de facto defection of Ukraine towards the Western sphere of influence was just one outrage that Russia was not prepared to simply allow. Here is some of what Putin said:
"They have constantly tried to drive us into a corner for our independent stance, for defending it, for calling things by their proper names and not being hypocritical. But there are limits. And in the case of Ukraine, our Western partners have crossed a line. They have behaved rudely, irresponsibly and unprofessionally."
This has been a weird situation indeed, because even if many Westerners do not agree with Putin's actions in Ukraine/Crimea, the fact of the matter is that it is easy enough to understand why he did it. Indeed, the Russian sphere of influence, which once was indeed an empire stretching well beyond even Soviet borders proper (particularly in Europe) was constantly shrinking, and former allies turned seemingly hostile. And Russia just kept being demonized by the West. Just take a look at the Western coverage of the Sochi games! It was ridiculously biased and harshly critical of anything and everything associated with Russia, and especially Putin. The games were never even given a chance to succeed, and then, they ended up being quite a huge success for Putin. The honeymoon did not last long, however, as the situation in Ukraine boiled over, and Putin decided to place troops there, leading to the current crisis. But indeed, you get the sense that the West simply just wanted to have it's way, has gotten used to having it's way, and never really knew how to react to Putin, an obviously strong willed leader who is not afraid to go his own way, and really anger the West in the process.
I mentioned in a blog entry yesterday that I felt part of the problem was American reaction - particularly among those who subscribe to American exceptionalism. Apparently, I am not alone in this observation. Here is a caption from the same article:
"The common assumption that the West forced the collapse of the Soviet Union and thus won the Cold War is wrong. The fact is that the Cold War ended by negotiation to the advantage of both sides," Matlock wrote on The Washington Post opinion page. Since the Soviet collapse, he said, the problem is that the U.S. has "insisted on treating Russia as the loser."
The thing is that many are comparing these events to World War II, since this is the first military takeover of a territory seen in Europe since the final days of World War II. And some would surely suggest that Putin is the aggressor (some have even begun to compare him to Hitler), and needs to be put in check.
But the thing is, the West (particularly the United States) has already showed a flaw in it's approach, and it has done so in a glaringly obvious way since the end of the Cold War. It not only treated Russia as the loser, but it seems to want to rub Russia's face in it. You could even argue that it has attempted to humiliate the Russians - and I'm not just talking about high-ranking government officials here. Americans in general pleasure in proclaiming victory in the Cold War. The big, bad Soviet "evil empire" had fallen, and Russia was on it's knees. In the meantime, we celebrated.
Now, Putin is making moves to strengthen Russia's hand, and he seems to know that there is not much the West (particularly America) can do about it. Suddenly, the West finds itself in a position of not only being challenged, but being unable to really meet that challenge head on, and people are pissed off.
Can we blame Putin? Perhaps we can. But at the very least, it is certainly understandable why he is doing what he is doing.
As for us in the West, perhaps it is time to learn our own lessons from the past - and present - and begin to understand that we have limitations, and not everything should serve as a confirmation of our own superiority and privileged status. That was the problem to begin with, and nowhere was this more evident than right here in the United States.
Yet, who will doubt that America will look to profit, that politicians will do like they did before, and give stirring speeches addressing Russian aggression and unfairness, and the need for America, as "leader of the free world" to meet the challenge. And you can bet that will mean we will once again profit from people's pain, and make money hand over fist by selling weapons to countries who, quite suddenly, feel that they need it. And we Americans will conveniently remain on the sidelines, and allow events to unfold, always looking for our opportunity to cash in, and for our corporate interests to be met.
Have we given Russia, or Putin, just cause for placing his trust in us? Historically, we forced Russia into difficult positions in the past. We opposed the very creation of the Socialist state, than did everything possible to undermine it. Some Americans felt that we should join Nazi Germany to fight against the Soviet threat. Hitler certainly expected it. And remember that the Soviet Union was begging the West to open up a second front during World War II, but Americans refused, with Truman wanting the Russians and Germans to bleed each other white. Russia, throughout it's history, has been invaded and threatened. The last outright military invasion of it's territory was from Nazi Germany, and it was more the Soviet Union, rather than the United States or the West, that beat back the Germans and, ultimately, defeated them. But it came at a high price, as over twenty million Soviets died. That's not something you simply forget. And whether Americans like to hear it or not, we were far more aggressive towards the Soviet Union in the post-war era than we would care to admit, even though we always systematically put them as the aggressors, as the bad guys. Even after the Cold War ended, we treated them more as an obstacle, if not outright a threat. Is it any wonder that they seem ready to stand up and lash out again?
Indeed, it seems that history does repeat itself. The more things change, the more they stay the same. That appears to be true with Putin and Russia. But it certainly also is true of us here in the West, and particularly in the United States.
Maybe Putin and Russia are acting in a way that reveals how "exceptional" they feel. Probably the Soviet Union was guilty of that, back in it's day. But if so, then this has since the end of the Cold War been not only matched, but far surpassed, by the arrogant sense of entitlement that the West has shown, and nowhere has this been as evident and transparent as it is right here in the United States. And if we begin to try to understand that, then maybe, just maybe, we can understand why Russians in general, and Putin in particular, might just have very good reason not to trust the West. And why the fault of the approach of Cold War II is at least as much, if not more on, the shoulders of the West (particularly the United States) as it is on Russia.
"Analysis: Crisis shows Russia's post-Soviet anger" by Stephen R. Hurst, March 20, 2014:
http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-crisis-shows-russias-post-soviet-anger-070943402.html
No comments:
Post a Comment