THOUGHTS ON THE CRISIS IN UKRAINE

Putin's Poker Face

I.

We have all come across it, the chillingly blank expression, the unblinking stare, the cold hard look as you are told lies; the poker face. Though never having played the card game I am certainly familiar with the concept of the bluff. Looking at the face of Vladimir Putin you know he would be a perfect poker player, it is impossible to read his intentions.
I wrote as recently as two weeks ago that I thought it unlikely that Putin would move quickly on Eastern Ukraine, I was not the only one. We were all wrong. It seems that Putin calculated that his best move was the one least expected. He also appears to have calculated that time is not on his side. From his perspective it is important that the new government in Kiev not be allowed to stabilise and facilitate open and free elections that will then create a legitimacy that the current regime in the Ukrainian capital lacks. He also calculates that the west will hold back from acting too firmly, a consequence of splits between the EU and US and within the EU itself, with Germany in particular being cool about serious sanctions. As it happens he may have miscalculated. I have been pleasantly surprised by Angela Merkel’s solidity. I worry more about lobbying from the City of London, which will seek to dilute any sanctions likely to damage the wealth of financial institutions and individuals in the City.
Putin is gambling and has consciously raised the stakes, he also has a gun under the table and is likely to use it if the alternative to using it is losing face.

We are now in the most dangerous situation in Europe since the collapse of the Soviet Union, times like these have the capacity to spiral out of control and it is hard to resist the parallels with 1914. History though far from teaching us not to make mistakes just ensures that any mistakes we make will be fresh ones.
A Pro Russian Member of the Defence Militia?

It is also worth keeping an eye on China during this period. The men in Beijing have irredentist claims of their own and they will be watching carefully as to how much Putin is allowed to get what he wants.

The Moral Bankruptcy of the Far Left

II.

For the sake of this piece your correspondent visited the so called Stop the War Coalition website [StW]– greater love hath no man. It is a site worth keeping an eye on since it provides a window on the thinking of those who seem to imagine themselves to be on the revolutionary left. Unsurprisingly you find there that the crises in the Ukraine is all the fault of western governments in general and Britain and the US in particular. (Rather comically the only people who still believe Britain to be a great imperial power are senile old generals sitting in the House of Lords and the far left).
It can be difficult, and unpleasant, to try to make sense of the mind-set of these people, not least the notion that they imagine they are offering a radical critique. Thus we have:-

‘But the United States and NATO broke their word to Russia, by adding most of Eastern Europe and the Balkan states to their own military alliance, and by building military bases along Russia's southern border. Ever since the end of the Cold War in 1991, the European Union (EU) and NATO have been intent on surrounding Russia with military bases and puppet regimes sympathetic to the West…’[1]

Leaving aside the disgusting smear on countries like Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Bulgaria as ‘puppet regimes,’ and the fact that in these democratic countries citizens voted for governments who stood on a platform of entry into the EU and NATO,[2] the writer here presents in unadulterated form the 19th century doctrine of ‘spheres of influence.’ This doctrine in which ‘great powers’, carve up regions of the world irrespective of the wishes of local populations, being extolled on a website pertaining to be of the left!

But the most revealing passage comes later on, and uncovers the real betrayal of the historic doctrine of left wing solidarity by the vacuous, jargon spouting zealots of StW:-

‘Those who demand anti-war activity here in Britain against Russia are ignoring the history and the present reality in Ukraine and Crimea. The B52 liberals only oppose wars when their own rulers do so, and support the ones carried out by our governments. The job of any anti-war movement is to oppose its own government's role in these wars, and to explain what that government and its allies are up to.’’[3] [My emphasis]

This disgusting doctrine, wrapped up in slurs, lies and misrepresentation owes a great deal to none other than Noam Chomsky, and has been brilliantly dissected by Nick Cohen. Thus Chomsky presents his governing principle:-

‘The ethical value of one’s actions depends on their anticipated and predictable consequences. It is very easy to denounce the atrocities of someone else. That has about as much ethical value as denouncing atrocities that took place in the 18th century.’[4]

As Nick points out:- 

 ‘…It is not courageous to protest in a Western country against the actions of a Western government when Western societies protect your rights to protest, and to speak and to write freely…consider the isolationist view conveyed by that glib little phrase “the atrocities of someone else”, which slips from his lips like a sneer.’’[5]

The moral bankruptcy of the Chomsky position, now adopted as the template by much of the far left is as exposed as the King in the Hans Christian Andersen story. What would Chomsky have said to the left of the 1930's who offered solidarity  with those fighting Franco in Republican Spain, or opposing the growing persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany? Well he would say:-

“It is very easy to denounce the atrocities of someone else. That has about as much ethical value as denouncing atrocities that took place in the 18th century.”

Putin's Dilemma 

II.
Victims of Ukraine's man made famine of the 1930's


Few countries suffered as much in the 20th Century as Ukraine.[6] The catalogue of atrocities visited upon the inhabitants of a country the size of France is truly incomprehensible. Immediately following on from the disasters of the First World War and the Civil War the Bolshevik rulers in Moscow turned their attention to Ukrainian nationalism.  Beginning in 1929, over 5,000 Ukrainian scholars, scientists, cultural and religious leaders were arrested after being falsely accused of plotting an armed revolt. Those arrested were either shot without a trial or deported to prison camps in remote areas of Russia. There then followed the elimination of the wealthy peasants, ‘the Kulaks’ and the forced collectivisation of Ukrainian farming and seizure of grain, which was to be sold overseas to pay for industrialisation. The famine resulting from these actions has been estimated by Robert Conquest at 14.5 million--more than the total number of deaths for all countries in World War I.
Kharkiv Under German Occupation 
Still devastated by the famine and the years of the Stalinist Great Terror the country was then invaded by Nazi Germany in 1941. After the famine and the Great Terror some Ukrainians certainly welcomed the Germans as liberators, some even fighting for the German army.
Hitler’s however intended that the Ukraine be completely ethnically cleansed of Jews and all the rest of its Russian and Ukrainian inhabitants. The country was to become a German colony to be named Goth-land. A few Ukrainians might be permitted to remain as servants or slaves.
German Propaganda poster
presenting Hitler as the liberator
of Ukraine
It is hard to calculate the exact number of Ukrainians who died during World War 2, since no separate figures were ever kept, the Ukraine simply representing merely one constituent part of the Soviet Union; however it can be safely stated that it ran into many millions.
Ukrainian collaboration with the Nazi’s still rankles in Russia, whilst Ukrainians remember the famine and the attempts made to destroy Ukrainian language and culture. That said the relationship between Russia and the Ukraine is a multi-layered and complex one that has developed over the centuries. The Western region, incorporated as it had been into the Austro Hungarian Empire, leaning more towards the West than the Eastern districts bordering Russia. Indeed the roots of Russian civilisation lie in Kiev and Kievan Rus and many Russians regard Russia and Ukraine as one and the same. Fewer Ukrainians see things this way.
The central point being however that it is neither possible nor desirable to break the interwoven relationship between the two states, a relationship as strong and complex as that between England and Scotland.*
The roots of the current crisis can be firmly found in Moscow and the regime of Vladimir Putin, for whom the thought of a ‘stable democratic and independent Ukraine seeking prosperity through closer links with the EU, keeps him awake at night. Precisely because there is such strong cultural and historical ties with the Ukraine Putin cannot countenance Ukraine developing a healthy democracy. What a model that would provide for Russian citizens?

*Not even the fiercest Scottish Nationalist  envisage a hostile relationship with England should they achieve independence; indeed part of their case seems to be that on a day to day level little will change.   



[2] These countries often having been on the receiving end of Russian aggression understandably were reluctant to rely solely on Russian goodwill and the continuance of largely benign administrations in Moscow, -with the advent of Putin how right they were.
[4] Quoted in http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/03/chomsky-in-the-crimea/ I really do recommend reading this article in full

[5] Ibid
[6] The suffering of Poland was perhaps as great, that of Russia almost equal in such a hideous top ten. 



Having visited this page I would be grateful for your feedback, either tick one of the boxes below or make a comment via the comments button.

Popular posts from this blog

NESRINE MALIK AND THE UNSUNG VIRTUES OF HYPOCRISY

INTERVIEW WITH TOM VAGUE

LONDON BELONGS TO ME PART ONE