Archive for the ‘History’ Category

The April 17 Geneva meeting on the Ukraine: Aggressor and appeasers on the road to Munich II

Wednesday, April 16th, 2014

As Russia, the U.S., the EU and Ukraine meet on April 17 in Geneva, it is useful to consider previous analysis and the latest commentary from Germany and the United States.

Essentially, Russia has already committed an “armed attack” against the eastern Ukraine by sending in forces and agents under its control who have conducted armed takeovers of government buildings in a number of cities, particularly in the Donetsk region. This is a flagrant violation of the prohibition against the threat or use of force contained in the bedrock principle of the U.N. Charter, expressed in Article 2 paragraph 4. It is no exaggeration to state that the entire postwar international military and security order rests on observance of this principle, and its vigorous defense whenever it is violated.

This is the second major Russian violation of the principle in the Ukraine, following the invasion of the Crimea and its annexation in March.

A third, ongoing violation of Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter consists in massing 40,000 combat-rady troops on the border with Ukraine, threatening invasion if the Kremlin’s conditions are not met.

The West and the international community have failed to respond with really serious economic sanctions, and as we write seem prepared to accept the Russian invasion and annexation of the Crimea. Leaders who support the actions that have led to this state of affairs have not thought matters through.

There is still one sanction whose logical basis is absolutely clear, and which the U.S. and the EU should still impose now:

A total ban on financial transactions and doing business with any entity in the Crimea, or with any non-Crimean company or entity engaged in financial tranansactions or doing business with such Crimean companies or entities. This should be a permanent sanction, to be lifted only when the annexation has been undone and the situation returned to the status quo ante.

The sad truth is that the West is now led by a generation of leaders who have little memory of Nazi Germany’s and the Soviet Union’s depredations in the 20th century. They have succumbed to a deeply-rooted pacifism and readiness to accept appeasement in response to aggression.

On April 17, they will sit down with the aggressor to essentially beg the aggressor to halt its offensive activities in the eastern Ukraine, while there seems to be little evidence that they will demand a return of the Crimea to the Ukriane and a withdrawal of Russian forces to the level at which they were in the status quo ante, before the invasion.

These Western leaders are unaccustomed to dealing with diplomats and presidents like Lavrov and Putin who repeatedly and shamefacedly tell blatant lies, orchestrate propaganda campaigns full of lies aimed at inciting civil strife and rebellion in the Ukraine, and launch Russian aggression by “stealth” with “little green men”, who are heavily armed and are in fact either Russian soldiers or directed and controlled by Russian soldiers, or both.

They couldn’t believe the true evil and atrocities they saw in Syria, involving the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity on a massive scale–with active Russian support, and were unable to formulate actions that would do anything to stop them. Russia learned from this experience.

There is no more reason to expect any progress in Geneva on April 17 than there was to expect any progress at the Geneva II conference on Syria last June, where all hopes proved to be illusory.

The pacifist leaders of the West who are prepared to accept the annexation of the Crimea and the takeover of regions of the Eastern Ukriane by Soviet military aggression, have already traveled well down the road to total appeasement of Putin and the Russian bear.

What the world will look like after that, nobody knows.

For background, see the following articles by The Trenchant Observer:

(1) Russia threatens further aggression against the Ukraine: The response of the West has been a bad joke; Putin must be stopped, April 8, 2014.

(2) The language of actions: Russia, the Ukraine, and the response of the West
April 10, 2014.

(3) Munich II: The meeting in Geneva between the U.S., the EU, the Ukraine and Russia, April 11, 2014.

(4) Kiev caves in to Russian military threats, offering far-reaching concessions in eastern Ukraine; Pacifism and appeasement grip Wasington and Europe; First signs of Russian military intervention appear, as troops on border are poised to strike, April 12, 2014.

(5) Ukraine: U.N. Security Council meeting, latest news reports, and opinion (with link to April 13 Security Council meeting webcast), April 13, 2014. Excerpts:

We should not be fooled by the faux outrage of Russia and its calling of an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council today, Sunday, April 13.

Everyone knows who the fox in the chicken coop is, and no one is fooled by the fox’s loud complaints that it is being attacked by the chickens.

While the statements made tonight in the Security Council were informative, they should not distract our attention from what is taking place on the ground, and the actions we need to take to effectively counter ongoing Russian aggression.

For these actions the United States should immediately impose broad and deep sanctions against Russia itself, not merely 38 targeted individuals and two companies (a Russian bank, and the seized gas company of the Crimea). As soon as they can reach agreement, the 28 states of the EU should adopt similar sanctions.

A good start would be an immediate ban on all financial transactions involving the Crimea or companies doing business in the Crimea, and all financial transactions or doing buiness with any companies that are engaged in such activities.

In the forthcoming meeting in Geneva on April 17 with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, the U.S., the EU, and the Ukraine should begin the discussions with an absolute demand for Russia to undo the annexation of the Ukraine and to return the situation to the status quo ante existing prior to the Russian invasion.

Latest Commentary from Germany and the United States

(1) Stefan Kornelius (Kommentar), “Moskau als Choreograf der Krise: Putins Druck auf die Ukraine ist übermächtig,” Süddeutsche Zeitung, 16. April 2014.

Es gibt nur einen Weg, eine Katastrophe in der Ukraine abzuwenden: Russlands Präsident Putin muss die Übergriffe seiner Spezialeinheiten und Agenten stoppen und den militärischen Druck von der Grenze nehmen. Die Indizien für den subversiven Einfluss Moskaus sind erdrückend. Die Ukraine soll keine Chance haben.

(2) Florian Eder (Straßburg), “Schwerwiegendste Krise in Europa seit 1945; Moskau, Kiew, die EU und die USA verhandeln am Donnerstag in Genf über eine friedliche Lösung der Ukraine-Krise; Russland rüstet propagandistisch weiter auf; Die Atmosphäre ist frostig,” Die Welt 16. April 2014.

(3) Olexander Motsyk, “Ukraine deserves international support in stopping Russian aggression, Washington Post, April 16, 2014 (5:23 p.m.). Motsyk is Ukraineś Ambassador to the U.S.

(4) David Ignatius, “The cost of Putin’s adventurism in Ukraine, Washington Post, April 15, 2014.

Ignatius reports on the current thinking of U.S. Analyst in Chief, Professor Barack Obama.

(5) Daniel Henninger, “Cold War 2.0, the Videogame: Obama’s uninterest in Ukraine forgets history,” Wall Street Journal, April 16, 2014 (7:13 p.m. ET).

The Trenchant Observer

Der Scharfsinniger Beobachter
L’Observateur Incisif
El Observador Incisivo

An Imagined Alternative Future History of the Ukraine

Sunday, April 13th, 2014

An alternative future history of the Ukraine might include the airlifting of Western troops to the Ukraine to aid in collective self-defense against ongoing and threatened Russian aggression, the provision of logistical support to the Ukrainian military and police to help them regain or maintain public order in the eastern Ukraine, and the immediate imposition of heavy sanctions against Russia for its continuing threats of further aggression, and as measures of collective self-defense.

In this imagined alternative future history of the Ukraine, these measures would enable the interim government of the Ukraine to restore and maintain public order in the East, hold national elections on May 25, and permit a freely-elected national government to decide on the Ukraine’s internal constitutional arrangements, and with which other nations and international organizations it wants to join, such as the EU or the Eurasian Economic Union backed by Moscow, or both.

In this imagined future history, the bubble of Putin’s delusions would have been burst, and a path would have been opened leading to return of the Crimea to the Ukraine, with naval base agreements for Russia granted in exchange for gas price concessions for the Ukraine, thereby upholding the postwar international political, economic and legal order.

In the short term, Europe and other countries may have had to pay a steep price in economic terms and in terms of a loss of gas supplies from Russia.

But the West remembered the Berlin Airlift of 1948-1949, and the other sacrifices its citizens had made over the previous 75 years to build a world free of military and economic aggression, where relations among states are conducted within the framework established by the U.N. Charter and international law, including the prohibition against the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

The Trenchant Observer

Kiev caves in to Russian military threats, offering far-reaching concessions in eastern Ukraine; Pacifism and appeasement grip Wasington and Europe; First signs of Russian military intervention appear, as troops on border are poised to strike

Saturday, April 12th, 2014

The Atmosphere in Washington

On Saturday, April 12, The New York Times did not have a story (or even a reference) on its front page on the Ukraine.

The Wall Street Journal, however, in a superb article by Adam Entous and Julian E. Barnes, published a penetrating account of the extent to which top U.S. civilian and military leaders are in the grip of President Obama’s pacifism and approach of appeasement.

See Adam Entous and Julian E. Barnes, “U.S. Tries to Help Ukraine, Reassure Allies Without Riling Russia; Obama Administration, NATO Face Quandary as They Plan Response to Moscow’s Annexation of Crimea, April 12, 2014.

Entous and Barnes offer a few illustrative examples:

(1) Seeking to demonstrate strong American support for Ukraine, U.S. military planners considered using Air Force planes to ferry food rations to outnumbered and underequipped Ukrainian troops facing superior Russian forces across the border.

Pentagon leaders settled instead for a less-conspicuous operation: They sent the promised meals-ready-to-eat, or MREs, in commercial trucks from storehouses in Germany.

(2) “Ukrainian forces got the MREs late last month, about two weeks after requesting aid. The White House says it is still reviewing other items on Kiev’s wish-list, including medical kits, uniforms, boots and military socks.

“‘You want to calibrate your chest-thumps,” a senior military official said of the step-by-step American response to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s military moves. “He does something else in Ukraine, we release the socks.’”

Yatsenyuk’s Offer on of Sweeping Concessions, and Escalating Unrest in the East

Meanwhile, in Donetsk on Friday, Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, in a move signaling a cave-in to Russian pressures and military threats–as few signs suggested that the West would support the Ukraine in defending its territory against a second Russian invasion–offered concessions so broad that they would undermine the unity and sovereignty of the Ukrainian state, if they were ever accepted and implemented.

Protesters, however, seem to be following a different script, dictated by Moscow. An escalating wave of seizures of government buildings by armed protesters continued on Saturday, promising to make the holding of Ukrainian national elections on May 25 all but untenable in the eastern parts of the country where the protests are centered.

The Guardian has provided an overview of the latest developments in the Ukraine, including the concessions offered by Yatsenyuk in Donetsk on Friday:

Protesters in Donetsk have called on Russia to deploy peacekeepers to facilitate a referendum on independence by 11 May.

Yatsenyuk did not agree to a referendum but suggested the system of regional administrations appointed by the president should be replaced by executive committees elected by regional parliaments, which would have “all financial, economic, administrative and other powers to control the corresponding region”.

He also recommended that the parliament approve legislation that would change the constitution to allow for local referendums, a move strongly supported by the leaders of the Donetsk occupation.

Yatsenyuk said changes to the country’s constitution should be approved before a presidential election planned for 25 May that the Kiev regime has said will fully legitimise the new government.

–Alec Luhn in Donetsk, Oksana Grytsenko in Luhansk and agencies, “Ukraine fails to break stalemate with pro-Russian protesters in east; Arseniy Yatsenyuk promises devolution to local government in hope of staving off demands for their independence from Kiev,” The Guardian, Friday 11 April 2014 (15.03 EDT).

The tactics being used are from the Crimea playbook, with reported escalations today (Saturday, April 12) involving military units not wearing military insignia.

See Gregory L. White and Lukas I. Alpert, “Pro-Russian Protests Spread in Eastern Ukraine; Armed Men in Military-Style Uniforms Move to Commandeer Government Offices, Wall Street Journal, April 12, 2014 (updated 7:23 p.m. ET) .

White and Alpert report:

Witnesses said the men who took over the buildings in Slavyansk weren’t the local activists who had led protests in the region in recent weeks.

Instead, they appeared better-equipped and trained, carrying military-style gear and weapons, but with no insignia on their camouflage uniforms.

Such descriptions were similar to the thousands of troops who moved into and took over Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula last month, leading quickly to Russia’s annexation. Those troops were later confirmed to be Russian, though Moscow never officially admitted that.

See also:

“Kämpfe in mehreren Städten der Ostukraine; Im Osten der Ukraine bekämpfen sich prorussische Aktivisten und Sicherheitskräfte. Präsident Alexander Turtschinow berief für den Abend den nationalen Sicherheitsrat ein,”Die Zeit, .”12. April 2014 (19:20 Uhr).

The growing protests and incipient violence appear to be setting the stage for Russian military intervention, by the 40,000-80,000 troops that have been mobilized in preparation for such action.

The Diplomatic Front

On the diplomatic front, Russia is playing the same delaying game it played in Syria, talking of diplomatic solutions and illusory “agreements”, while gaining time for other kinds of solutions produced by the use of military force on the ground.

The strategy has been successful in Syria, and it should come as no surprise that the Russians are following a similar script in their diplomacy vis-à-vis the Ukraine.

The near-constant diplomatic contacts between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Secretary of State John Kerry, and others, serve two important Russian purposes.

First, they allow the Kremlin to monitor with great precision the intentions and potential actions of the at times compulsively transparent Obama administration, and its Western allies.

Second, they offer excellent opportunities to divide the Western countries by planting false seeds of hope. For example, Lavrov offered earnest reassurances to Kerry that Russia had no intention of violating the territorial integrity of the Ukraine, only days before the Russian invasion of that country. Similarly, Russian President Vladimir Putin assured German Chancellor Angela Merkel that Russian troops on the border with Ukraine would be withdrawn (or significantly reduced). No such drawdown has occurred, and indeed the build-up has continued.

A similar hope, in all likelihood also illusory, has been offered that if the West does not anger Russian President Vladimir Putin by its responses to Russia’s actions, he will not invade the eastern Ukraine.

Under current circumstances, it is a very bad idea for the U.S. and the EU to meet with Russia on April 17 to discuss the Ukraine’s fate, even with the Ukraine also participating.

See The Trenchant Observer, “Munich II: The meeting in Geneva between the U.S., the EU, the Ukraine and Russia, April 11, 2014.

The meeting, to find a “diplomatic solution” to “the “Ukrainian Crisis” provides Russia with an excellent opportunity to continue its strategy of deception and delay, dividing the West and offering illusory hopes to defuse the momentum for the adoption of any serious responses.

John Kerry, Sergey Lavrov, Catherine Ashton of the EU, and the Ukraine will meet in a context in which only Russia can gain, either by securing “Munich II”-style concessions from the West at the expense of the Ukraine, or by sowing division and doubt among the countries of the West.

Yatsenyuk’s proffered concessions on April 11 suggest that “Munich II”-style concessions are already being crafted, probably under pressure from the U.S. and the EU.

The Costs of Further Delay in Imposing Really Significant Sanctions

Further delay by the West in taking military steps and adopting really meaningful “third-stage” sanctions (such as a ban on financial transactions with Russia and/or a freezing of Russian assets in the West) will enable Russia to proceed with its destabilization of the eastern Ukraine and what may be its plan to have local “referendums” held on May 9, Russia’s Victory Day (celebrating the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany in World War II). Demands for such referendums are now being heard from pro-Russian protesters.

The Russians are following Adolf Hitler’s playbook for the Anschluss with Austria and the annexation of the Sudetenland to the letter. The first took place on March 12, 1938. The second took place six months later, with the approval of France and Great Britain at Munich on September 30, 1938.

See
“Is Putin like Hitler?” The Trenchant Observer, April 4, 2014.

“Putin’s seizure of the Crimea and Hitler’s seizure of the Sudetenland: The comparison is accurate,” April 1, 2014.

Because of the complexity and time-consuming nature of EU and NATO decision processes (unanimity is required ,in both cases), only the U.S. is in a position to lead and to act quickly.

The additional sanctions announced by Obama on April 11, 2014 (adding seven individuals and a major Crimean gas company seized by the Russians to those on the list of targeted sanctions) represent small steps in the right direction. But no one should imagine for an instant that they are sufficiently serious to affect Russia’s decisions, including any which may have already been made to invade the Ukraine for a second time.

The United States and the West are speaking the language of peace and reason. Russia is speaking the language of war and military action on the ground.

If only Obama and his “groupthink” coterie could come to their senses, grasp these realities, and react with forceful actions that are executed, not threatened, much might still be salvaged from the current debacle. After the invasion and annexation of the Crimea one would think they might have learned a thing or two.

But the roots of pacifism grow deep, and it is not easy for those who are committed to appeasement to discern–much less react to–realities which are dramatically changing, hour by hour, on the ground.

The Trenchant Observer

Der Scharfsinniger Beobachter
L’Observateur Incisif
El Observador Incisivo

Munich II: The meeting in Geneva between the U.S., the EU, the Ukraine and Russia

Friday, April 11th, 2014

It is a very bad idea for the U.S. and the EU to meet with Russia on April 17 to discuss the Ukraine’s fate, even with the Ukraine also participating.

Under international law, Russia has no right to make demands about the internal constitutional arrangements of another sovereign state. The U.S. and the EU likewise seem to have forgotten that since the Yalta conference decided the fate of European countries as World War II was still raging, the United Nations Charter was adopted in December of 1945, and for nearly 70 years international law and legal institutions have progressively developed to govern world affairs, from arms control agreements to the regulation of trade through the World Trade Organization.

To sit down with the aggressor which has invaded and annexed the Crimea, and which has 40,000 combat-ready troops on the border poised to invade eastern Ukraine, is the height of folly. It is like going to negotiate with a criminal over illegal demands when the criminal has a gun pointed at your head.

The incompetence of the Obama administration in foreign policy seems to have no limits, as does that of the Europeans and NATO.

The meeting should be called off, period.

Certainly it should be called off if the 40,000 troops on the Russian border with Ukraine are not withdrawn prior to the meeting.

In 1938, Great Britain and France sold Czechoslovakia down the river at Munich, after earlier urging Czechoslovakia to enter into mediation with Germany. That deal was consummated on September 30, 1938, at the Munich conference. The meeting in Geneva on April 17 risks becoming the opening stage of a Munich II settlement, bringing once again “peace in our time”–but war looming far into our future.

When this riff of incompetence, pacifism and appeasement is over, the world will be a much more dangerous place.

National budgets will divert monies from health and education to defense. Nuclear arms will proliferate among a number of countries, from Saudi Arabia to Japan, as well as Iran. Instead of international order and striving to maintain international peace and security in the world, as mandated by the U.N. Charter, nations will increasingly look to weapons and armies which will have a growing voice in determining national boundaries, and the outcome of territorial disputes (e.g., as between Japan, China, Korea and nations in the South China Sea).

Nations may no longer feel bound to abide by the international law provisions that establish order in the world in matters of trade, finance, and international security.

The tragedy is unfolding before our eyes. The mere fact that the West has agreed to this ill-conceived conference in Geneva to resolve “the Ukrainian crisis” suggests that that the likelihood of resisting appeasement and upholding international norms against military aggression and annexation of the territory of another sovereign nation is subject to the most serious doubt.

What should be done?

The West should adopt strong economic sanctions before any meeting with Russia, both to punish Russia for threatening further aggression, and to create very powerful pressures on Russia to return the Crimea, restoring matters in the Crimea to the status quo ante, prior to the Russian invasion and annexation.

And if the Russians don’t withdraw their combat-ready forces from the border region, the meeting should simply be called off.

The Trenchant Observer

Der Scharfsinniger Beobachter
L’Observateur Incisif
El Observador Incisivo

Russia threatens further aggression against the Ukraine: The response of the West has been a bad joke; Putin must be stopped

Tuesday, April 8th, 2014

Updated and revised

Let me say quite frankly that it pains our hearts to see what is happening in Ukraine at the moment, see the people’s suffering and their uncertainty about how to get through today and what awaits them tomorrow. Our concerns are understandable because we are not simply close neighbours but, as I have said many times already, we are one people. Kiev is the mother of Russian cities. Ancient Rus is our common source and we cannot live without each other.

–Vladimir Putin, speech to Russian parliament (Duma), March 18, 2014.

The full text of the speech is found here.

The Russian Threat

Vladimir Putin made clear in his victory speech to the Russian parliament or Duma, on March 18, 2014, that he considers the Ukraine and Russia to be inseparable.

See:

Michael Thurmann, “Deckmantel der Geschichte; Wie Wladimir Putin die Vergangenheit missbraucht, um seine Politik der Gegenwart zu rechtfertigen,” Die Zeit, 4. April 2014 (18:35 Uhr).

Ulrich Speck, “Die Ukraine-Krise bedroht besonders Deutschland;
Deutschland muss empfindlich auf die Aggression Russlands reagieren. Es wird auf der Seite der Verlierer stehen, wenn wieder das Recht des Stärkeren gilt, Die Zeit, 7. April 2014.

The Response of the West

The response of the West to Russian seizure and annexation of the Crimea has been to adopt targeted personal sanctions against less than three dozen individuals in Russia, the Crimea, and the Ukraine (Yanukovych), and one Russian bank.

In response to these sanctions, Putin has ruled out any discussion of a rollback to the status quo ante before the Russian invasion and annexation of the Crimea, massed 40,000 troops on the eastern and northern borders of the Ukraine, and fomented separatist demonstrations and protests in major Ukrainian cities with a large Russian-speaking population, following the same script as was used in the Crimea.

Meanwhile, the West has continued to engage in diplomatic conversations with Russia, with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in constant contact with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. The U.S. has been practically begging Putin not to invade eastern Ukraine, while demonstrating a shocking receptiveness, as revealed in background conversations reported in the press, to acceptance of the Russian annexation of the Crimea as a fait accompli–with no further sanctions.

The same naiveté that was in evidence when the U.S. and other Western nations totally failed to anticipate Putin’s military intervention in the Crimea is, shockingly, still operating.

Minimal sanctions were adopted after the Russian military intervention in the Ukraine, with the hope that by not angering Putin and providing him with an “off-ramp”, he would not annex the Crimea.

Within days, Russia annexed the Crimea.

Now, the West with its second round of sanctions, which are tragically disproportionate to the aggression which they aim to undo, hopes that Putin will not send Russian troops into other parts of the Ukraine.

They are also making plans to make some minimal efforts on the military front to reassure front-line NATO member states, like Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, of their commitment to mutual defense under Article 5 of the NATO Treaty.

As for the Ukraine, they are planning to undertake some joint exercises with the Ukrainian armed forces, NOT NOW, but sometime in the summer.

The Western states congratulate themselves on the “strong” measures they have imposed in their first round and second round of sanctions against less than three dozen individuals and one bank.

They have done virtually nothing to inflict real pain on Russia as leverage to force a withdrawal of forces and an undoing of the annexation of the Crimea.

Is there anything in this mix that is likely to force Putin to restore the status quo ante in the Crimea?

Hardly.

Given the weak responses of the West, is there anything in this panorama that is likely to dissuade Putin from dispatching troops to the eastern Ukraine to “protect” Russian-speaking populations from persecution and abuses?

Hardly.

Russia itself, in a replay of the Crimean script, is doing everything it can to stir up disorder in Russian-speaking areas of the Ukraine.

The “Rational Actor Fallacy”

See “The “Rational Actor” Fallacy and Stopping Syria’s Atrocities—Obama’s Debacle in Syria — Update #8 (March 9),” The Trenchant Observer, March 9, 2012.

“The Rational Actor Fallacy” should also be borne in mind. The entire sanctions approach of the West is based on the assumption that Russia’s actions will be decided by the functional equivalent of a single rational mind, in an analytic paradigm in which costs to Russia–present and future–will be carefully weighed in reaching any decisions.

Putin, however, has unleashed forces which he may not be able to control. His propaganda machine has generated nationalistic passions in Russia, organizational processes within the government are operating, and personal commitments by bureaucratic leaders and decision makers have been secured, all of which may inevitably lead to military intervention in the Ukraine (whether by stealth or otherwise).

If this is true, the only thing which might reverse the current momentum of events could be sharp responses by the West that are sufficient in magnitude to force reconsideration in Russia, by all of the actors involved, of decisions already taken or well in progress–which will not otherwise be reversed.

In this context, the finely-tuned calculus of costs and benefits which Obama, the EU, and NATO believe will be decisive may simply be irrelevant. There is already persuasive evidence that Russia’s long-term interests, or even Putin’s, are not having an impact on Russian behavior.

The Real Choice for the West

The greatest question is whether it might prove easier to get Putin to withdraw his forces from the eastern Ukraine after a Russian invasion than it might be to dissuade him from such further aggression, by leaving no room for doubt in his mind about the consequences of such an action, including military consequences.

One measure which might focus the minds of the adventurers currently leading Russia would be to dispatch 20,000 Western troops to the Ukraine NOW–from NATO if possible, or from France and / or the United States if unanimity among the 28 member states of NATO proves unachievable. The troops could be dispatched in response to a request from the Ukraine, in exercise of the inherent right of collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, in full accordance with international law.

Ukrainian territory–the Crimean peninsula–remains under Russian occupation following its aggression against the Ukraine.

Moreover, having abrogated the treaty arrangements which granted Russia the right to maintain a certain number of troops and its naval base at Sevastopol (the terms of which to be sure were violated during the Russian invasion), if that termination is legally valid (which is dubious), there would be no legal basis under international law for the presence of any Russian forces in the Crimea.

Russia incidentally is committing economic aggression against the Ukraine by raising the price of gas above market levels, and insisting that the Ukraine repay $11 billion in discounts which it granted to the Ukraine in exchange for an extension of the naval base agreements.

The Russian legal argument for repayment of the discounts is ludicrous, in effect claiming that they don’t owe the Ukraine any discounts under the treaty because the Crimea is a part of Russia. In other words, if you have a lease and related agreements with another country for the use of certain assets, and you invade that country and seize those assets by military force, the original obligations are void. Unbelievably, that is the Russian position.

Not one independent court in the world, domestic or international, would uphold that argument. But then the Russians are not thinking in terms of independent courts, or international law as it might be determined by an independent international tribunal.

Urgent Measures to Stop Russian Aggression

It is quite possible that the invasion of Russian-speaking regions of the Ukraine will take place in the near future, within weeks if not days, long before Europe can develop a consensus on how to block such action. This is precisely what happened in the Crimea, and there is every reasons to suppose that Putin is similarly prepared to move quickly, before effective blocking measures can be adopted by the West.

Consequently, at this very moment the West may be facing its last chance to block a Russian invasion of the Ukraine. Before it is too late, NATO and the West should consider and adopt the following measures on an extremely urgent basis:

1. The first step, which should begin immediately, is for the U.S. and the EU to adopt new sanctions that would prohibit any U.S. or EU financial institution or company from handling transactions or doing business with any financial institution doing business in the Crimea, or any Russian or other company doing business in the Crimea, until such time as the annexation and military occupation have been undone, restoring the situation to the status quo ante prior to Russian military intervention.

The sanctions should be adopted as permanent sanctions which will not be lifted until the stated conditions are met.

The current EU sanctions are valid for only six months and must be renewed in order to be continued. Given this proviso, it is no wonder that Putin hasn’t taken them seriously.

Moreover, the precedent of only a six-month authorization, in Putin’s thinking and probably that of the EU nations, would also be used even if so-called “third-stage” sanctions are adopted by the EU in response to further aggression. That means that in six months Russia would only have to peel off one EU member state in order for the sanctions to lapse.

2. The second measure, which should be implemented immediately, is the dispatch to the Ukraine of 20,000 troops from NATO or individual Western countries to assist the Ukraine in its defense against current and threatened Russian aggression.

3. NATO should immediately issue a statement saying that in view of Russian aggression and the threat of further aggression against the Ukraine, its earlier statements that the use of force is not under consideration are no longer in effect, and that it will respond to any military aggression in the Ukraine in a manner which is appropriate under the circumstances.

4. Certain so-called “third-stage sanctions” should be progressively implemented over the next six months if Putin does not restore the Crimea to the status quo ante prior to the Russian invasion. The sanctions should be carefully planned, be meaningful, and progressively implemented in accordance with a time table which is made public. The message to Putin should be, loud and clear: The annexation of the Crimea will not stand.

Putin must be stopped.

The Stakes

Europeans and Americans should stop to think for a minute of the sacrifices their countrymen have already made to ensure that no further territories will be invaded or annexed–as in WW II, for example. Both the Korean war and the Gulf war were fought to uphold this principle. Many in the U.S. also believed that the Vietnam war was a response to invasion from the North (which in fact turned out to be the case, we now know).

If they do stop and think, they may come to understand that we are no longer in normal times, and that what is perhaps the greatest threat to international peace and security since the Korean war must be confronted directly, now, and if necessary by the defensive use of military force.

This is a tall order for the leaders of Europe, the U.S. and the West, who up until now have manifested strong pacifist inclinations and a willingness to consider appeasement in response to the Russian takeover of the Crimea.

But no less than this is required, if the postwar political, economic and legal order is to be upheld and maintained.

The Trenchant Observer

Der Scharfsinniger Beobachter
L’Observateur Incisif
El Observador Incisivo

Is Putin like Hitler?

Friday, April 4th, 2014

For a strong opinion on why Russian annexation of the Crimea cannot be accepted, see Jana Puglierin, “Wir dürfen die Annexion nicht hinnehmen,” Der Spiegel, 1. April 2014.

Die Akzeptanz für Putins Annexion der Krim ist erstaunlich. Der Regelbruch darf kein Präzedenzfall werden, sonst ist es mit dem Frieden nicht nur in Europa vorbei.

A German minister’s comment that Putin had used the same methods in seizing and annexing the Crimea as Hitler had used in annexing the Sudetenland has created much consternation in Germany and elsewhere in Europe.

See:

(1) “Hitler-Vergleich: Schäuble verteidigt Äußerungen zur Ukraine-Krise,” Die Zeit, 4. April 2014.

“Ich bin doch nicht so blöd”: Finanzminister Schäuble versucht die Diskussion um seinen angeblichen Nazi-Vergleich zu entschärfen. Die Empörung darüber hält allerdings an – Moskau beschwert sich offiziell über die “Provokation”.

Schäuble defended his comment as taken out of context by the media. The quote which caused the uproar is reproduced below:

“Schäuble hatte bei der Veranstaltung zu Wochenbeginn Parallelen zwischen Russlands Vorgehen auf der Krim und der Annexion des Sudetenlandes 1938 durch Nazi-Deutschland gezogen. Mit Blick auf ein mögliches Szenario hatte er den Schülern gesagt: “Das kennen wir alles aus der Geschichte. Mit solchen Methoden hat schon der Hitler das Sudetenland übernommen – und vieles andere mehr.”

(2) Jan Fleischhauer, “Außenpolitik à la Putin: Gebt uns das Elsass zurück!” Der Spiegel, 3. April 2014.

“Folgt man Putins Logik, sieht die europäische Landkarte bald ganz anders aus: Erst holen wir Deutschen uns die Siedlungsgebiete in Belgien zurück, dann reden wir ein ernstes Wort mit den Franzosen.”

(3) “Putin’s seizure of the Crimea and Hitler’s seizure of the Sudetenland: The comparison is accurate,” The Trenchant Observer, April 1, 2014.

Although the statement by Federal Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble is absolutely correct on the merits, the comparison of anyone with Adolf Hitler remains highly disturbing for many Germans.

There are still those in Germany who, if only at a subconscious level, do not want to be reminded of Hitler’s crimes, or of the fact that like Putin today Adolf Hitler gained popularity from violating international law and annexing the territory of other countries.

Demonstrating the point about Putin’s propaganda machine made below, Russia responded to Schäuble’s quoted statement by telling the new German ambassador in Moscow that the statement was an impermissible “provocation”. After invading the Crimea and annexing it to Russia, Putin and his propaganda machine know no shame.

Of couse, the actual comparisons that have been made have related to the methods used by Hitler to annex the Sudetenland. One might add the annexation or Anschluss with Austria in March, 1938.

The outraged responses to any comparison of Putin and Hitler serve an important purpose, however.

They open up the question, “In what ways is Putin like Hitler?”

Putin has actively supported Bashar al-Assad’s regime in committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria, thereby incurring international criminal responsibility as an accomplice to such crimes.

He has committed the international crime of launching an armed aggression against a sovereign state, the Ukraine.

He has annexed territory of another state seized through the illegal use of force in violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, and peremptory norms of international law (jus cogens) from which there can be no derogation even by agreement between states.

He is the “butcher of the Caucasus” responsible for the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Chechnya.

He has suppressed fundamental human rights in Russia, including the right to a free press and freedom of expression, and the right to a fair trial before an independent court.

He has invaded the territory of Georgia in 2008, and maintains Russian troops on Georgian territory today.

Finally, Putin is like Hitler in his use of propaganda. This includes “The Big Lie”. As Adolf Hitler is quoted as saying, “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”

Putin’s use of propaganda in relation to Russian aggression against the Ukraine and its seizure and annexation of the Ukraine has employed the tried and true techniques of Hitler’s and Joseph Goebbels’s propaganda machine, as further enhanced by Soviet leaders from Lenin and Stalin up to the days of glasnost under Mikhail Gorbachev.

As a formern KGB operative, Putin’s mastery of these propaganda techniques should not come as a surprise.

Nor should we be surprised by the lies being pedaled by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who assured John Kerry and the world that Russia had no intention of violating the territorial integrity or political independence of the Ukraine just days before its military takeover of the Crimea, or the repetition of the lies of Russian propaganda by U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin in the U.N. Security Council.

Russia has the propaganda toolbox, and has been using all of its tools in connection with Syria, first, and now the Ukraine. That represents a great similarity between Vladimir Putin and Adolf Hitler.

The Need for Further Inquiry: “Is Putin like Hitler, and how?

So, the comparison between Putin and Hitler is an interesting one, and one which merits both close examination and deep reflection.

Hitler tore up the League of Nations Covenant by invading other countries, symbolized by the seizure with German tanks of the grounds of the Permanent Court of International Justice in The Hague in May, 1940.

Putin, if his aggression against the Ukraine is allowed to stand, threatens to overthrow the postwar political and legal order based on the United Nations Charter of 1945.

Putin seeks to subordinate the sovereign will of the Ukraine by bargaining with other states over its internal constitutional arrangements, under threats of further aggression from an estimated 40,000 troops (or more) massed on the border with Ukraine and equipped for a rapid military incursion into that country.

Russia also seeks to subordinate the sovereign will of Ukraine by raising the price of gas exports in violation of existing concession agreements between the Ukraine and Russia, which provide for discounted prices as payment for an extension of the Russian lease on Crimean installations and the stationing of the Black Sea fleet on its territory.

The Russian rebuttal of this argument is particularly cute: Since the Crimea now belongs to Russia (as a result of its aggression!), it no longer needs to honor these agreements. In other words, a legal obligation in an agreement with another country can be extinguished by invading that country and appropriating the territory and assets which are being leased.

So, let the reader inquire and reflect on the question, “In what ways is Vladimir Putin like Adolf Hitler, both in the methods used to forcibly annex foreign territories, and in other ways?”

Whatever the taboos in political discourse may be in Germany, or elsewhere, at the end of the day readers should bear in mind the truth of an old aphorism:

“If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.”

The Trenchant Observer

Der Scharfsinniger Beobachter
L’Observateur Incisif
El Observador Incisivo

Appeasement, American-style: Kerry reportedly did not raise Crimea withdrawal in Paris talks with Lavrov on March 30

Tuesday, April 1st, 2014

If one wants to see what appeasement, American-style, looks like, one need look no further than the Kerry-Lavrov talks in Paris on Sunday, at which The Wall Street Journal reports U. S. Secretary of State John Kerry did not even raise the issue of Russian withdrawal from the Crimea and restoration of the status quo ante existing prior to the Russian military takeover of the peninsula.

See Jay Solomon and Stacy Meichtry, “Kerry’s Talks With Russia’s Lavrov Fail to Ease Ukraine Crisis; Kerry Pressed his Russian Counterpart to Pull Troops Back From the Ukrainian Border, Wall Street Journal, March 30, 2014 (updated 8:39 p.m. ET).

Solomon and Meichtry report the following stunning detail:

The question of Crimea’s future also appeared to be largely drowned out during the diplomacy Sunday. U.S. officials had only a few weeks ago been demanding Mr. Putin reverse his annexation of the territory and pull back his troops. Mr. Kerry on Sunday didn’t mention Crimea during his remarks—giving the impression that the U.S. has largely given up reversing the region’s absorption into Russia. But Mr. Kerry said he told Mr. Lavrov the “United States still considers the Russian actions to be illegal and illegitimate.”

If this report is accurate, it shows that America under Barack Obama is not only clueless, but totally lacking any moral compass.

The one demand from the West that should begin any conversation with the Russians is the demand that they undo their annexation of the Crimea, and withdraw their troops to positions they were in prior to the military seizure of the Crimea.

That is or should be our demand.

We should make it clear to the Russians that we, and international law, will never waiver in that demand.

We should also back that demand with economic sanctions that block any company doing business in the Crimea from participation in our financial system, or trade with the EU and the U.S.

The alternative is the road of appeasment, which leads to the collapse of the postwar political and military order. This postwar military, political and legal order has been guided by bedrock principles of the U.N. Charter and peremptory norms of international law (jus cogens) prohibiting military aggression and annexation through the use of military force. When a principle of jus cogens or peremptory law is involved, there can be no exception by way of agreement among states.

Under international law, any agreement among the EU, the U.S., and Russia to recognize the annexation of the Crimea, would be null and void.

In the U.S., Democratic leaders need to take control of foreign policy sufficiently to turn President Obama away from the path of pacifism and appeasement. If they don’t, as the consequences of inaction become clear, and the country awakes after Iraq and Afghanistan from its current war fatigue and stupor, the Democrats are likely to lose both the White House and the Congress to the Republicans in 2016.

The Trenchant Observer

Der Scharfsinniger Beobachter
L’Observateur Incisif
El Observador Incisivo

Putin’s seizure of the Crimea and Hitler’s seizure of the Sudetenland: The comparison is accurate

Tuesday, April 1st, 2014

After seizing the Sudetenland, Adolf Hitler began persecuting the Jews in the newly annexed territories. That Vladimir Putin has not done.

In other major respects, Putin’s military seizure of the Crimea is comparable to Hitler’s seizure of the Sudetenland. These include the “Big Lie” that citizens sharing the culture and language of the aggressor were being persecuted, the mobilization of local paramilitary forces to support the invasion, and annexation of the respective territories to that of the invading nation. One difference is that Hitler, through the threat of military force, secured the acquiesence of France and Great Britain and the support of Italy through the signing of the infamous Munich Pact on September 30, 1938, by Eduoard Daladier, Neville Chamberlain and Benito Mussolini.

Statements by German leaders denying the comparison between Putin and Hitler may be dictated by a perceived need not to antagonize the aggressor, who is actively threatening further aggression with tens of thousands of troops poised on the border with the Ukraine. They are, however, factually inaccurate.

Alternatively, reluctance to admit the comparison may have deeper causes rooted in German pacifism and a willingness to try to solve the crisis through appeasement.

Putin has indeed used Hitler’s tactics in the Crimea. His threat of further aggression, backed by troops on the Ukrainian border, must be taken very seriously, as he could quite possibly be planning to invade Ukraine proper just as Hitler invaded “rump” Czechoslovakia in March, 1939.

See:

Carsten Luther, “Diesmal hilft die Hitler-Keule (Kommentar), Die Zeit, Aktualisiert 31. März 2014 (19:46 Uhr)

Wolfgang Schäuble hat Putins Annexion der Krim mit Hitlers Verhalten im Sudetenland verglichen. Die Aufregung ist groß, doch die Parallele stimmt. EIN KOMMENTAR VON CARSTEN LUTHER, 493 Kommentare

The Trenchant Observer

Fear of Provoking the Aggressor: Obama, Putin, and the West

Saturday, March 29th, 2014

Washington’s difidence in responding to the Ukraine’s request for military equipment, out of fear of provoking Russia to engage in further military aggression in the Ukriane (or elsewhere), reveals how deeply pacificist beliefs have permeated from the top into U.S. military and civilian leadership circles. Or, alternatively, it has demonstrated how effective a pacificist President in the U.S. has been in checking the normal upward flow of analysis, options, and proposals from military and civilian leaders.

The absence of Secretary of State John Kerry from the inner group of decision makers in Washington has been remarkable, suggesting he has been relegated to a preipheral role of flying all around the world and meeting with leaders, without having a seat at the dining room table where major decisions are made. One consequence of his absence is that the analyses and options developed by the State Department have no powerful defender at the White House. This kind of influence cannot be exercised by teleconference.

So, after the military seizure of the Crimea by Russia, what does it tell us that Obama is so concerned about provoking the Russian aggressor that he won’t even send military equipment to the Ukraine in response to its urgent request, which has been placed “under study”.

To the Observer, it suggests that Obama has been cowed by Putin in terms of taking actions beyond the mild targeted economic sanctions so far imposed by Europe and the U.S.–aimed at less than three dozen individuals and one bank.

Obama solves problems with beautifully crafted torrents of words. Putin seizes opportunities by stealth, lies and the decisive movement of troops and tanks.

It’s clear now that the sanctions imposed by the West have been “too little, too late”. If so-called “stage three” sanctions (real trade and financial sanctions directed against Russia itself) had been imposed immediately following the Russian military seizure of the Crimea, it is possible that Putin might have hesitated before proceeding to annex the peninsula.

For that matter, maybe Putin has already decided to intervene militarily in eastern Ukraine, and to use military force to prevent Ukriane’s movement toward integration in the the European Union.

Thus, for the moment, like Nevellie Chamberlain and Èdouard Daladier at Munich in September 1938, the U.S. appears to feel there is no alternative other than to cower before the aggresor.

At that point, of course, the aggressor has already won half the battle, which turns decisively on the will and determination of his opponents to stand up against further acts of aggression, through effective means.

With Obama now willing to have his Secretary of State meet with the Russian foreign minister to seek agreements that will forestall further Russian aggression–while rolling back its military seizure of the Ukraine is off the table, we can see clearly how a pacificst president continues to lead his nation down the road of appeasement.

See Anne Gearan, “U.S. seeks detente with Russia over Ukraine with Kerry, Lavrov to meet in Paris,” The Washington Post, March 29, 2014.

The sad truth is that Obama and his foreign policy team are not capable of leading the West — alone — in the current crisis with Russia, following the latter’s seizure and annexation of the Ukraine.

To meet bilaterally with Russia at this time, on these implicit terms, reflects Obama’s pacificism and constitutes a total act of further appeasement. Putin astutely has tried to peel off the U.S. from Europe, two days before NATO foreign ministers meet to decide upon a stronger response to Russia’s aggression. Obama, clueless, plays right into Putin’s attempt to divide the Western alliance.

The U.S. should meet with Russia, if at all, only if it is joined by representatives from EU and NATO governments, and then only if the restoration of the status quo ante prior to the Russian military takeover of Crimea is on the table for discussion.

We have seen how ready Obama is to sell out his allies, particularly in the case of the agreement in Geneva with Russia to remove chemical weapons from Syria. That agreement let Obama off the hook in terms of military strikes against Syria after the latter’s use of chemical weapons. But it also sold out the Syrian resistance and the strongest allies of the United States in the Gulf, including Saudi Arabia.

See “The Leopard and the Impala: Putin astutely plays Obama for a chump,” The Trenchant Observer, September 12, 2013.

Europeans and other NATO members, to safeguard their own interests and those of the West, should insist that they participate fully in any discussions involving Russia and the United States.

The pacifist mind-set which reigns in Washington is completely revealed by the agreement to hold bilateral talks between Kerry and Lavrov on Sunday. The move starkly undercuts the actions German Chancellor Angela Merkel and foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier are taking to develop a strong European consensus to opppose Russian aggression.

Obama seems far too ready to let stand the Russian military aggression and takeover of the Crimea, and get back to business as usual.

He is quite prepared to negotiate with the aggressor over whether Russia will commit further acts of aggression, under continued Russian military threats represented by tens of thousands of troops menacingly poised on the border with the Ukraine.

The moral bankruptcy of Barack Obama and the Obama administration has never been more fully on view.

The Trenchant Observer

Der Scharfsinniger Beobachter
L’Observateur Incisif
El Observador Incisivo

REPRISE—Appeasement in the West: Clueless Obama assures Russia the U.S. rules out the use of force in Ukraine

Saturday, March 29th, 2014

First published on March 20, 2014

President Barack Obama and top military leaders in the U.S. know nothing of the “coercive diplomacy” which Stanford political scientist Alexander George persuasively demonstrated has helped the U.S. avoid armed conflict on a number of occasions.

In his efforts to influence Putin’s calculus, Obama does not believe it is useful to maintain doubt in Putin’s mind as to whether the U.S. or NATO might respond with military force if, for example, Russia were to invade the rest of the Ukraine.

Obama pursued the same course in Syria, repeatedly reassuring his opponents (in Damascus, Moscow and Tehran), through his own statements or those of top U.S. and NATO military officials, that the U.S. and NATO would not use military force to halt the atrocities in that country.

When pushed into a corner by his own rhetoric about his “red line” on the use of chemical weapons in Syria, and his own inaction in the face of smaller-scale attacks with chemical weapons in the months leading up to al-Assad’s attack at Ghouta on August 21, 2014, he made preparations to launch cruise missile and other attacks against Syria. In the weeks leading up to the point of decision, the press was full of leaks about the nature of the strikes being contemplated, including assurances that they would not involve major or extended military action.

When the moment came to launch even these self-described minimal strikes, Obama flinched, and did not order the strikes. Instead, without consulting his top military and civilian advisors, he threw the hot potato to Congress for authorization, which he had to know was unlikely, while grasping at the lifeline Russia threw to him to remove chemical weapons from Syria. The agreement brokered by John Kerry and Sergey Lavrov in Geneva and subsequently endorsed by the U.N. Security Counci, was reached in exchange for what has amounted to a policy of allowing al-Assad to remain in power and to continue his commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity on a very broad scale.

Obama apparently never heard of the old boxer’s maxim, “Never telegraph your punches.”

We are left with a leadership in the U.S, and Europe (except for France) of “hybrid” pacifists, who are unwilling to even think of the use of force to defend fundamental principles of the U.N. Charter and international law, and the Enlightenment values of individual freedom and respect for fundamental human rights (e.g., the right not to be tortured, or the right to trial by an independent judge), or indeed against the military seizure and annexation of the territory of another state.

They are “hybrid” pacifists because they will use force on a limited scale in Africa with Security Council authorization, but remain unwilling to consider the use of force in a major way to defend their most important national interests.

As the pacifists in Washington and Europe reassure Putin that they are not even considering the use of military force, no matter what he does, an entire civilization opens itself to the depredations of authoritarian rogue states like Russia, and a brutal reshaping of the political and economic order established and maintained for the last 70 years following plans for and the establishment of the United Nations.

Ronald Reagan in Berlin challenged the Soviet Union to “Tear down this wall!” Now Obama and the other pacifist leaders of the West reassure Putin and Russia (and China) that they will not even consider using force to defend their vital interests, no matter what Russia does, as new walls go up.

The sanctions for the miltary takeover of the Crimea hardly amounted to “a slap on the wrist”. The expansion of those sanctions to include additional targeted individuals and now a bank are more serious, but still unlikely to prevent Putin from further mischief in the Ukraine and with its economy over the next year or so, when the concentrated attention of the West has dissipated and things have returned to business as usual. There is no leverage to force Russia through negotiations to disgorge the Crimea. Thus, a military invasion and anexation of the territory of another state is likely to be left standing, in Europe.

Appeasement continues, as Russia and China urgently work on a treaty of alliance that would profoundly disrupt and reshape the postwar political and legal order. Meanwhile, the President of the European Parliament urgently warns of war in Europe if stiffer sanctions against Russia are not adopted.

Russian aggression. Tanks and rockets, and in the background rockets with nuclear weapons. Pacifist and clueless leaders in the West, determined to pursue–and to telegraph to Russia–a policy of appeasement in the face of Putin’s military threats.

The Trenchant Observer

Der Scharfsinniger Beobachter
L’Obervateur Incisif
El Observador Incisivo