Tag: Russia

Ukraine: expect worse

After many declarations of its intentions, Kiev is now trying to reassert by force its authority in eastern and southern Ukraine.  It is moving gradually and slowly, trying to avoid both a popular backlash and intervention by Moscow, which has massed troops and has threatened to use them to protect Russian-speakers inside Ukraine.

This map from the Washington Post illustrates the military deployments, which heavily favor Moscow in both quantity and quality:

Ukrainian and Russian force deployments

But those smooth curvy lines with arrows at the end are misleading.  A conventional force-on-force conflict has not started, yet.  Moscow is trying to achieve its purposes with more or less local forces, who have been setting up checkpoints and seizing government centers.  A clash at one of these Friday killed dozens of insurgents when their Kiev-loyal antagonists set the building they took refuge in on fire.  This followed the downing of two Ukrainian military helicopters, at least one by a surface to air missile not available at your local grocery, President Obama averred.  Another Ukrainian helicopter was shot down yesterday.

What we’ve got here are escalating low intensity clashes between the Kiev government’s forces and local insurgents backed by Russia.

What counts in a clash of this sort is legitimacy.  War is always politics by other means, but especially so when major conventional armed clashes are avoided.  Moscow is denying the legitimacy of the Kiev government, claiming it was installed in a coup (even if approved in parliament) and trying to demonstrate that it lacks control over the national territory.  Kiev is denying the legitimacy of Moscow’s complaints about treatment of Russian-speakers in eastern and southern Ukraine and trying to reassert territorial control.

The Odessa fire, which killed dozens, is significant even beyond the number of lives lost because it undermined Kiev’s claims that Russian-speakers are safe in Ukraine and supported Moscow’s complaints.  I have no reason to believe the fire was set by government authorities.  It seems to have been the act of people supporting Kiev, provoked by attacks earlier in the day.  But the inability of the government to protect all its citizens detracts substantially from Kiev’s claim of legitimacy.

Still, the situation of Russian speakers in Ukraine is nowhere near what would be required to justify foreign intervention.  Moscow has made virtually no effort to ensure their safety and security by non-military means.  The OSCE observers sent with that mission were held captive and not allowed to observe anything but the facilities they were held in against their will.  They have now been released, on orders from Vladimir Putin, which suggests how independent of Moscow the insurgents in Ukraine really are.

Kiev’s best hope for a restoration of its legitimacy may lie in the May 25 presidential election.  Petro Poroshenko, a billionaire “Chocolate King” who has served as Foreign Minister Minister as well as Minister of Trade and Economic Development and Chair of the central bank, is the current front runner in the polls.  With more than two dozen candidates, a second round may well be needed for someone to get over the 50% threshold.  Yulia Tymoshenko, a former prime minister, is trailing and thought to be trying to get the election postponed until the fall.

The Russians will not want a successful election in eastern and southern Ukraine that would confirm Kiev’s legitimacy.  We can expect a concerted effort to prevent it from happening, and to disrupt it where it does.  While the administrative apparatus of the Ukrainian state still appears to be operating in many Russian-speaking areas, Moscow has already shown that it can shut down what it wants pretty much when it wants.  It would be prudent to expect a crescendo of violence and disruption as the election approaches, with Kiev trying to use its forces to restore order and ensure the election can proceed and Moscow plus Russian-speaking Ukrainians trying to prevent it.

 

 

Tags : , , ,

The Israel we need is not the one we’ve got

Yoram Peri, an Israeli patriot who has fought in three wars for his country and now directs the University of Maryland’s new Institute for Israel Studies, gave a post-service talk Friday night at our local synagogue.  His family has lived in Palestine and Israel since the 1860s.  What he had to say about the collapse of the Israel/Palestine peace talks and Israel’s politics may interest readers.  Here is what I remember of his impassioned presentation.*

Contrary to what has been reported, Yoram understands that Mahmoud Abbas was prepared to make major concessions in the US-sponsored negotiations.  Palestine would be demilitarized.  Eighty per cent of the Jewish population living beyond the wall would remain in placed.  Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem would not be disturbed.  Israeli troops would remain in the Jordan River valley for five years and then be replaced by American troops for another five years.  Israel would decide how many displaced and refugee Palestinians would be able to return to Israel proper.

Abbas was asking in return that Israel specify within a few months exactly where the border would lie (presumably based on swaps for land in the West Bank kept by Israel).  Jerusalem would be Palestine’s capital.  If Yoram mentioned other important Palestinian requirements, I am not remembering them.

Netanyahu rejected this offer.  His coalition has too many hardline settler supporters to allow him to accept.  Nor is he himself interested in making peace.  He is more comfortable talking about the Holocaust.

But when Abbas made a strong statement on the Holocaust to mark Yom HaShoah, Netanyahu rejected it as public relations.  Likewise, Netanyahu has complained for years that Abbas can’t deliver on peace with Israel because the Palestinian Authority he leads does not control Gaza.  Now that Hamas, which does control Gaza, has pledged to join a Palestinian Authority government consisting of “technical” ministers, Netanyahu says he won’t negotiate because then the Palestinian government will include terrorists.

Yoram thinks Hamas, as part of a unity government, will have to accept the “Quartet” (US, Russia, EU and UN) conditions for participation in the peace talks:  mutual recognition, acceptance of previous agreements, and ending violence as a means of attaining goals.  Abbas has also said as much.  If Hamas does accept these conditions, why wouldn’t Israel negotiate with it?  Yoram suggests there is no harm in talking with them to see what is possible.

Israel’s reluctance to accept a good deal with the Palestinians is rooted in the evolution of its politics.  The weight of the ultra religious has increased enormously.  And what the ultra religious want has also changed.  Whereas traditionally Jews are prohibited from praying on the Temple Mount (they pray only at the Wailing Wall at its base), some ultra religious militants are demanding not only to pray there but also to destroy the Dome of the Rock mosque and rebuild the ancient temple.  Only a few years ago, only fringe lunatics held such views.  Now they are entering mainstream discourse.

Israel officially accepts only Jewish orthodoxy as legitimate.  There are few reform synagogues.  Most of Israel’s Jews are either orthodox or secular.  They know nothing of the more liberal Reform Judaism practiced in the United States.  What is needed is a reverse birthright program:  one that brings young Israelis to the United States to learn about modern Jewish practices.

Ultimately, Yoram suggests the problem for Israel is the one John Kerry made recent reference to:  if it holds on to the West Bank, it cannot remain both democratic and Jewish.  The demography will require it to deny equal rights to the Arabs who live there, thus eventually meriting the appellation “apartheid.”  This is an opinion many Israeli leaders have expressed, so it is hard to understand why it caused such a furor recently in the US.

Israel faces a difficult future.  A third intifada is a possibility, though the Palestinians seem weary of the violence associated with the first two.  A nonviolent one is possible, a well-informed Arab journalist told me recently, but only after dissolving the Palestinian Authority, so it would not be faced with the difficulty of repressing the rebellion.  Yoram suggested the BDS (boycotts, disinvestment and sanctions) movement will grow.  Israel will increasingly stand alone against a world that regards it as extreme and uncompromising.  Rather than being a beacon of hope, it will be isolated in a hostile environment.

Asked about the future of Israel’s Arabs, Yoram suggested that its national anthem “Hatikvah” (the Hope) could be amended to be more inclusive.  This is the current version:

As long as deep in the heart,

The soul of a Jew yearns,

And forward to the East

To Zion, an eye looks

Our hope will not be lost,

The hope of two thousand years,

To be a free nation in our land,

The land of Zion and Jerusalem.

I have my doubts any amendment will satisfy Israel’s more than 20% Arab citizens, but the Israel that would at least give it a try would also be one that signed up for the deal Mahmoud Abbas was offering.  That unfortunately is not the Israel we’ve got.  But it is the Israel we need.

*Virtually all of what Yoram said about what the Palestinians were prepared to agree has now been published, based on American sources:  Inside the talks’ failure: US officials open up.

Tags : , , , ,

Peace picks May 5 – 9

1. Russia in East Asia: History, Migration, and Contemporary Policy Monday, May 5 | 9 – 11am 5th Floor, Woodrow Wilson Center; 1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW REGISTER TO ATTEND This talk explores Russia’s ties with East Asia through the lens of migration and policy. Russia spans the Eurasian continent, yet its historic and present connections with East Asia are often forgotten. At the turn of the 20th century, thousands of Asian migrants arrived in the Russian Far East, spurring fears of a “yellow peril.” A century later, the recent influx of new Asian migrants to Russia has generated similar sentiments. The talk discusses Asian migration in the context of cross-regional attempts to strengthen trade ties and diplomatic relations in the 21st century. SPEAKERS Matthew Ouimet, Public Policy Scholar Senior Analyst, Office of Analysis for Russia and Eurasia, U.S. Department of State. Alyssa Park, Kennan Institute Title VIII Supported Research Scholar Assistant Professor of Modern Korean History, University of Iowa   2. The Democratic Transition in Tunisia: Moving Forward Monday, May 5 | 10 – 11:30am Kenney Auditorium, The Nitze Building, Johns Hopkins University; 1740 Massachusetts Ave NW REGISTER TO ATTEND Mustapha Ben Jaafar, president of the National Constituent Assembly of Tunisia, will discuss this topic. Sasha Toperich, senior fellow at the Center for Transatlantic Relations at SAIS, will moderate the event. Read more

Tags : , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The perils of Sonja and Jelena

Ratko Dmitrović, Director and Editor in Chief of Serbia’s daily Večernje Novosti, writes (translation courtesy of the Center for Euro-Atlantic Studies):

How are the views of Kristijan Golubović [a convicted armed robber, extortionist, drug and arms trafficker] and his biography more dangerous for Serbian society than the views and biography of Sonja Biserko?

What are Sonja Biserko’s sins?  This is what Dmitrović cites:

…she testified at the Hague in order to prove the genocidal proneness of the State of Serbia, making lists snitching Serbian intellectuals, professors, public figures…

Dmitrović  puts Jelena Milic in the same category.  Her sins?  According to him, she

…claims that Serbia should have been bombed in 1999. That was, as she explains, the only way to prevent Milosevic’s crimes in Kosovo in 1998/1999.

These allegedly odious views make the two women as morally repugnant to Dmitrović  as Kristijan Golubović, a notorious convicted criminal. Dmitrović can’t abide the two women having more access to the media than Golubović does.

Let’s leave aside whether Jelena and Sonja, both of whom I know and esteem for their courage and conviction, actually did and said what Dmitrović claims.  They can answer better on that score than I can.  The question is whether the editor of a major Belgrade newspaper is unable to distinguish between the moral effect of criticizing the (Milosevic) government’s behavior and the violent criminal activities of Golubović?

I imagine he can.  But he doesn’t want to.   He is using his freedom of speech–to which he is as entitled as Jelena and Sonja–to make their lives even more perilous than they already are.  The implications seem clear to me.  If they are endangering Serbian youth, shouldn’t someone do something about it?  If they are more corrosive to Serb values, as he suggests, than the Russian-killing Rambo, shouldn’t someone stop them?  Dmitrović is not alone in thinking this way.   The Serbian People’s Movement Naši (NSP Naši) lists them among the 30 greatest Serb-haters and traitors among public figures.

I’ll leave it to the Serbian government and courts to decide whether these particular uses of constitutionally protected freedoms violate Serbian law.  They certainly violate American sensibilities, which makes little difference under the circumstances.  But both the international community and the Serbian government should be stating clearly that they dislike what Dmitrović is saying and regard the safety of Sonja and Jelena, both of whom live and work in Belgrade, as paramount.

Serbia has come a long way in the 13+ years since Milosevic fell.  The recent election confirmed its future lies in Europe, where those who know Jelena and Sonja regard them as among Belgrade’s finest.  They should not be made martyrs to a European Serbia, or asked to sacrifice their homes in order to be safe and secure.

PS:  For more on what Jelena’s organization has to say about Serbia’s relations with Russia, see this.  I find it amusing that a former prime minister has forgotten about Russia sanctioning Serbia, but I understand those who take it more seriously.

Tags : , ,

Peace picks April 28 – May 2

1. American Energy Prowess in a Strategic Foreign Policy Perspective

Monday, April 28 | 12 – 4:30pm

12th floor, The Atlantic Council; 1030 15th Street NW

REGISTER TO ATTEND

The Atlantic Council and the Hungarian Presidency of the Visegrad Group invite you to an upcoming two-day conference titled American Energy Prowess in a Strategic Foreign Policy Perspective. The aim of the conference is to discuss and debate the strategic foreign policy aspects of the American shale gas revolution and its effect on the transatlantic relationship and the Central and Eastern European region. The Ukraine crisis has brought European energy security back into the forefront. The conference will bring together leaders from the US government, Central and Eastern Europe, and the energy industry to determine ways to strengthen European energy security and the transatlantic alliance through reinforced energy ties.

The conference begins with a luncheon discussion on Monday, April 28 at the Atlantic Council. The following day, participants will continue over breakfast on Capitol Hill to engage with key congressional decision-makers.

A full agenda of the event can be found here 

Read more

Tags : , , , , , , , , , ,

Booooogus

The Administration and its surrogates are trying hard to assure all concerned that its pivot to the Asia Pacific will not reduce attention to the Middle East.  They are also trying to minimize the impact of Vladimir Putin’s Ukraine maneuvers.  Meanwhile Bashar al Asad intends to hold an “election” June 3 and photographs have confirmed the Russian origin of supposed pro-Russian demonstrators in Ukraine.  Presidents may try to set their own agenda, but circumstances in the world don’t always comply.

The prospect of an election in Syria under current circumstances is bozotic.  While Asad will no doubt find some supposed “opposition” figure to contest him, the whole thing will be what the car guys call “booooogus.”  A good part of the Syrian population is living in areas outside government control, one-third or more of the population is displaced or refugees, violence threatens even more, and election observation is impossible.  Unfree and unfair is the best that could be said about an election occurring under these conditions.

The protesters taking over government buildings in eastern and southern Ukraine are no less bogus.  Russia inspires, equips and leads them to disrupt Kiev’s efforts to exert control.  Most may be Ukrainians, but that makes little difference.  For the Russian foreign minister to complain about Kiev’s failure to rein them in adds insult to injury.  Provoking unrest and then complaining about is downright evil.

The question is what the United States can and should do about such reprobate behavior. 

In Syria, only an effort to rebalance the battlefield will have a serious impact at this point.  That is apparently happening, with the shipment of anti-tank weapons to a selected few trained members of the opposition.  Hesitancy and reluctance still characterize the effort more than boldness and resolution.  Even with greater resolve, arming will not suffice.  There are other requirements:  strengthening the opposition politically by connecting the Syrian Opposition Coalition (SOC) with the fighters on the ground, enabling the SOC-connected administrations to govern more effectively in liberated areas, and convincing the Iranians that their assistance to Asad is damaging to their regional ambitions.

I wouldn’t waste any more breath on the Russians, who appear to have decided to support Asad to the bitter end.  Iranians I heard from recently show much more concern about the damage being done in Syria, not  least because sectarian warfare and the growing strength of Sunni extremists are seen as real threats in Tehran.  Asad’s use of chemical weapons and the increasingly serious attrition of Hizbollah forces also give Iran pause.  Tehran has more to worry about if Asad falls without a political arrangement for what comes next than Moscow does.

In Ukraine, the United States can do little more than insist on implementation of last week’s agreement to deescalate.  If this includes requiring the demonstrators in Kiev’s Maidan to disperse, as quid pro quo for an end to the occupation of government buildings in the south and east, so be it.  The key thing is to create the conditions for a decent election at the end of May, or soon thereafter, to legitimize a government in Kiev with democratic blessing.  The demonstrators in the east and south will try to prevent that, not least because the Russian annexation of Crimea has eliminated any chance the country’s Russophiles can win it.  They will be condemned to the opposition.  Their best hope for them to avoid such an election is to make Ukraine as chaotic as Syria.

Russia is relying on bogus protestors in Ukraine and a bogus election in Syria.  The best response right now would be a decent election in Ukraine and more serious support to a more unified opposition in Syria.  Neither will repair all the harm that has been done in both places, but the President’s prospects for convincing allies in Asia this week and next that they can rely on Washington depends on what he achieves in the places he would like to leave behind.

Tags : , , , , ,
Tweet