Economic sanctions work both ways. Russia, the object of the latest round of sanctions, evidently suffers from its recent exclusion from Western financial markets, new restrictions on the transfer of technology and the drying up of foreign investment. The EU, which has imposed sanctions on Russia alongside the US, Japan, Canada and Australia, has also incurred losses, both from the fall in its industrial exports to Russia, and from Russia's counter-ban on importing European agricultural products.
The US and Russia share a common threat in the Islamic State. It is easy to see that the only beneficiaries from the lack of cooperation and coordination between Russia and the West in the Middle East are local extremists, who, for their part, make little distinction between Westerners and Russians.
Time and again, since the beginning of the Ukraine crisis, hopes have been raised about a de-escalation of the current tensions, leading to the easing and eventually lifting of sanctions. Yet, time and again, these hopes have been exposed as wishful thinking.
November 2014 will witness two major international summits, the APEC meeting in Beijing and the G20 event in Brisbane, Australia. Both gatherings will include US President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Is this a chance to reverse the tide? Will it be used?
The answer is probably no. The main reason for this sad conclusion is that Ukraine is not a cause, but a symbol of the serious and deepening crisis between the US and Russia. Essentially, Russia, in dealing with Ukraine, has broken out of the US-dominated international system. Moreover, it has materially challenged the global order that the US strives to uphold.
For both sides, the stakes are exceedingly high. For Moscow, it is the survival of the Russian state. For Washington, it is the continuity and credibility of the US hegemony. Given these conditions, a compromise is virtually impossible, because any compromise, by its very nature, will necessarily favor Russia, a nonstarter for the US.
It is likely that the US-Russian crisis, rather than being promptly resolved through some new reset, will become a permanent state. In the foreseeable future, Ukraine will be the geopolitical focus of the new confrontation, but much of the struggle will be waged elsewhere: in the realms of geoeconomics, information, culture, and cyberspace.
It is also clear that this confrontation has already expanded beyond the US-Russia relationship. Moscow's relationship with the EU, starting with Germany, is irreparably damaged, as are its relations with other US allies, from Australia to Canada to Japan.
Conflict resolution is not on the agenda. It is time for permanent crisis management. In contrast to the Cold War with which the present Russian-Western confrontation is often compared, the current situation lacks agreed, if unwritten, rules, is characterized by gross asymmetry in power, and is utterly devoid of mutual respect. There is also a near-universal lack of strategic thinking. It is thus more prone than the US-Soviet conflict to lead to a collision in the style of 1914. The Cold War, after all, stayed largely cold. There is no such certainty about the present situation.
Crisis management must ensure, at minimum, that there is no resumption of hostilities in eastern Ukraine. Should Kiev, with Washington's blessing or its acquiescence, attempt to retake Donetsk and Lugansk, the Kremlin may not confine itself to restoring the status quo. It may be that the Russian military will then receive an order to go for Kiev.
The best one can do now is to engage in practical steps to make life less miserable for the people directly affected. The trilateral Russia-Ukraine-EU agreement on gas supplies to Ukraine finally concluded at the end of October is a useful first step. Ukraine will get gas, Russia will get the money, and Europe will have to support Ukraine. Russia, of course, will have to support Donbass on its own: fair enough.
Ukraine and Europe, then, should not overreact to the November 2 elections in Donbass. They would be wise to engage with newly elected leaders of the region. Talking with people, including adversaries, and dealing with them does not imply recognition of an entity, but can be useful in managing important practical issues.
Europeans need to find a way to relate to Russians, even if, in Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel's memorable phrase, Putin may "live in another world." If Europe and Germany want to be a serious player, and they need to become one, for their own security, they have to build a relationship with Russia on a new foundation of realism and pragmatism, without the sweet illusions and false expectations of the past.
Comments(7)
The Ukraine is to Russia, what the West Bank (historic Judea) is to Israel. In the absence of iron-clad regional security structures in both Europe and the Middle East, Russia faces the same existential threat from its hegemonic neighbors as Israel does from Iran and the Palestinians. WWII did happen and the geopolitical and psychological effects on both the Jews and the Russians are real. Germany cannot hide its past aggression behind a mask of altruistic good intentions, while partnering with NATO's expansive designs. The countries of Western Europe are equally obtuse when it comes to Israel's lack of strategic depth. After the events of the Holocaust, Europe would now have the Jews of the Middle East return to the "Auschwitz lines" of pre-June 1967. One would hope that Russia would have a greater understanding of security imperatives. Either way, the world is a very dangerous place and war becomes an even greater threat when history is shunted aside. Shame on the West for its policy of division and half truth in Europe. Shame on the Germans and all Europeans who refuse to acknowledge the real perpetrators of aggression in the Middle East's 1967 war. All this should be another lesson for everyone (but especially to the Russians and the Israelis) -- that the prospect of war is real, and nations would be foolish to ignore the hegemonic designs of others. The only true antidote to hegemony is regional and global cooperation. In this regard, the Obama administration has been, and continues to be, a nightmare.
is good for both sides: one side for the monsters called "westerners god's - a very corrupt very well armed and rich organization that is oppressing the entire world" and the other side is the side were one man alone (not organization) is having under its boots an entire population (very poor, week, not at all armed, starved to death, cold and sick)! the confrontation is good for the sake of future without the two . but the main problem is that they are controlling everything and everybody and the heavy wastes will be on the majority of the populations (both sides) with the winner a nobody who will get the whatever will be left after ..you know ...
100 countries voted against the Crimea annexation in the general assembly. This is not a US-Russia stand-off or the challenging of the US hegemony. It is Russia's violation of the basic norms of the international system - you don't invade and annex the territory of your neighbours.
It is necessary to understand the history of Crimea, which was donated to Ukraina in 1954. As Crimea was given as a gift, it was retaken as such. Russia also needed to secure their own presence, including their military presence, on the Crimea, to avoid warlike operations and to protect the Russian majority living on the Crimea. Turkey did the same when invading the north of Cyprus, to secure the life of Turkish people living there. Endless is the count of cases where the USA invaded foreign countries, with and without a good reason. What I miss is the understanding of Russia, and what is to criticize is the reckless behavior of the US, always demanding from foreign countries but never giving...
The Crimea, was taken and retaken throughout history - this is not an excuse now. The truth is that many do sympathise with Russia and would have understood had Russia lobbied Ukraine for some kind of joint suzerainty over Crimea. But this was an annexation - there is no getting away from this fact. We still don't actually know what the people of Crimea would have wanted - we comfort ourselves with the fact that, a majority Russian population would have probably sought to join Russia, but as the plebiscite was such a farce we will never know. Neither is it comparable to say the US has intervened a lot abroad, so Russia can to. The US may behave badly at times but it is not annexing territory - this almost the only red-line in international politics.
The Crimea, was taken and retaken throughout history - this is not an excuse now. The truth is that many do sympathise with Russia and would have understood had Russia lobbied Ukraine for some kind of joint suzerainty over Crimea. But this was an annexation - there is no getting away from this fact. We still don't actually know what the people of Crimea would have wanted - we comfort ourselves with the fact that, a majority Russian population would have probably sought to join Russia, but as the plebiscite was such a farce we will never know. Neither is it comparable to say the US has intervened a lot abroad, so Russia can to. The US may behave badly at times but it is not annexing territory - this almost the only red-line in international politics.
the oppressors of the world now they think that somebody will pay attention to the "profound" words of the money they get by everyday slavery of the world or by the "GOD" "prays" they are pretending to believe in !
Comment Policy
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.