Throughout history, Russia has been known as the “Russian bear.” Recently, the Russian bear suddenly roared again, after a hiatus following the end of the Cold War and the fall of communism.
The Russian bear, in the guise of Vladimir Putin, reclaimed the Ukraine territory of the Crimea and annexed it to “protect the Russian-speaking population.” This happened, in spite of the fact that the fledgling democratic government of the Ukraine is a sovereign country and no longer a part of Russia or the old Soviet Union. There appear to be obvious reasons why President Putin wanted to annex the Crimea, including rebuilding the Russian sphere of influence in an area which was leaning to an affiliation with the West and more democratic forms of government.
Then there was the fleeing of the puppet president of the Ukraine, who was doing the bidding of President Putin and the oligarchs in Ukraine. With the Ukrainian president’s flight, Putin lost his significant influence in Ukraine.
Then there are the host of natural resources found in the Ukraine, including vast quantities of shale gas in the Crimea. Not to mention the only warm water port near Russia, Sevastopol. Geopolitically and economically, Putin could not afford to lose these vital national assets. Ukraine has estimated that the Crimean annexation by Russia will cost the country over $10 billion in natural resources, including oil reserves of 47 million tons and 165.3 billion cubic meters of gas. Any wonder why Putin just signed a large energy deal with China?!
The circumstances in Ukraine and in many other parts of the world call into focus the foreign policy of the United States, or lack thereof. Since President Obama took office, our country has had a spotty, vacillating foreign policy. Make no mistake, foreign policy has been run out of the White House. That policy has included drawing red lines that were never pursued, not strongly supporting the wish for democracy in the Ukraine, not making real progress in the Middle East peace process, and the apparently failing attempts to remove nuclear materials in Iran. These are but a significant few of the dismal failure of the current administration’s foreign policy.
Regarding the Ukraine, failure to adequately engage and challenge Russia may well lead to economic chaos, more political instability, and even civil war in a struggling democratic country that was becoming westward leaning.
Again perhaps, a democracy is lost. This time not to the philosophical ideals of communism, but to the political machinations of Vladimir Putin, and the lack of strong, decisive American action.
The restive Russian bear has roared once again. Who will answer?
Ed says
The Law of Unintended Consequences Redux
The implication of Mr Hall’s commentary is that every diplomatic shortcoming in the world can be laid directly on the doorstep of Obama’s White House, and Obama is single-handedly to blame for it all.
I, for one, don’t buy that. Others more erudite than I do not buy it either. Mr Hall seems to fault the President for running foreign policy from the White House…that is exactly where the Constitution lays that responsibility…on the President. (Of course, with the roles of the State Department and the Senate)
Some of the most astute political analysis on the Ukraine issue can be found here: https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/us-opts-ineffective-sanctions-russia This essay covers just one aspect of the greater topic of what the US can and cannot do. It is nowhere as simple as Mr Hall implies.
Re unintended consequences: Nikita Khrushchev transferred Crimea to the Ukraine after it had been a part of the Russian Empire since the time of Catherine the Great. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_transfer_of_Crimea At the time of the transfer, it didn’t really make much difference to Moscow, since it was all part of the Soviet Union. Now that the USSR no longer exists, it is easy to see how any leader in Moscow would regret Khrushchev’s decision, and a claim that it was all illegal in the first place would find eager ears…I really fail to see how what is basically an internal affair and decision taken in another country over which we have no control can be considered a “dismal failure” by this or any other administration.
Re the Middle East peace process…years ago when I was working in Saudi Arabia, I was discussing the never ending topic of the Israelis versus the Palestinians with a very good Lebanese friend… we were watching Al Manar TV, the Hezbollah satellite TV channel which shows Israeli bad behavior towards West Bank residents 24 hours a day, and he said to me, “When do you think it will end?” I answered, “Never.” He said, “Why do you say that?” I said, “Because neither side really wants peace…and there will always be a more extremist group on either side accusing their leaders of selling out.” Reluctantly, he said, “I think you are right.” So, about the only thing any administration can do is to try to facilitate the peace process. I don’t regard bringing two horses to water and not getting them to drink as a “dismal failure”.
It was somewhat amusing, too, in these discussions in Saudi Arabia, because my Arab/Muslim friends would always say, “We do you take Israel’s side?” and my Western friends would always say, “Why do you defend the Palestinians so much?” I wasn’t saying anything different…it was all in the ear of the beholder.
Re Iran’s nuclear capabilities…this is one area where there seems to be general optimism that a deal can be worked out…it may not happen, but if it does, Obama will just happen to be in the right place at the right time. The story of US-Iranian relations is a whole library in itself going back to Operation Ajax under Eisenhower, up through Bush’s misguided inclusion of Iran in the Axis of Evil.
To wit, in the days after the 9/11 attacks, Ambassador Ryan Crocker and other senior U.S. State Department officials flew to Geneva to meet secretly with representatives of the government of Iran. For several months, Crocker and his Iranian counterparts cooperated on capturing Al Qaeda operatives in the region and fighting the Taliban government in Afghanistan. These meetings stopped after the “Axis of Evil” speech hardened Iranian attitudes toward cooperating with the U.S.
It is also little known that after 9/11, while Palestinians were dancing in the streets, Iranians were having spontaneous candle-light vigils on the streets in sympathy.
Re the Red Line in the Sand…every president says something that he wishes he had not said or had phrased differently. This may be one of those. But at the time it sounded pretty good. As things developed, it became obvious that that the US was in no way going to war over Syria. Since the “red line” had to do with the use of chemical weapons, Putin, working with the US, got Al Assad to give them up, which in essence saved face all around. How is that a “dismal failure”?
What would be really nice is for Mr Hall to conduct serious research and present concrete, realistic solutions to his litany of generalized “woe is us” comments.
Ed Plaisance
Joe Lill says
Editor,
Well said, and written on the same day as the democratic election in the Ukraine!
Ed Plaisance says
Thanks…and the election winner is…an oligarch…the Chocolate King https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petro_Poroshenko
See also https://www.stratfor.com/sample/analysis/ukraines-oligarchs-will-play-decisive-role for more enlightenment on “democracy” Ukrainian style.
Ed
Kevin Shertz says
Ed,
Fletcher doesn’t like Obama… doesn’t like O’Malley… and there’s no situation or event that’s going to happen that changes that.
The rest of us — that use critical thinking skills to guide us through events instead of relying on partisan dogma — will continue to stay off of his lawn.
Best Regards,
Kevin Shertz
Ed Plaisance says
Editor,
Gee…never would have guessed he doesn’t like Obama..:)
Wonder how he would rate Bush’s foreign policy…the one that brought us the Iraq invasion when we should have gone after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Saddam was a nasty guy, but of the banana republic type…he was a terror for his own people, but had nothing to do with 9/11. The ultimate irony of this for me is: guess who the big winner is? IRAN. Where does that rate on the “failure scale”? 😉
Gren Whitman says
Thank you, Mr. Plaisance, for your factual, informative thoughtful, and interesting commentary, as is all-too-often the case with a spy reader’s comments after a Fletcher Hall piece.
Ed Plaisance says
And thank you for your positive feedback…I rather enjoy composing a response to such pontification…and doing the research keeps the brain cells young…plus I learned a lot more along the way.
Ed
Edward B Plaisance, Jr says
A “Democracy” Is Lost?
The more I read about the Ukraine, the less I feel I would lose much sleep if it were “lost”. It is certainly not something worth the life of a single American.
These articles are well worth reading
https://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-popular-uprising-for-democracy-or-fascist-putsch/5373207
https://www.newrepublic.com/article/117505/ukraines-only-hope-nationalism
and this excellent piece from the somewhat oxymoronic “imaginative conservative”
https://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2014/03/democracy-and-ukraine-really-want-die-democracy.html
Ed Plaisance
Joe Lill says
Editor,
My stepson, a former Army Paratrooper deployed along the Afghan/ Pakistani border and now in the National Guard, has asked if anyone could tell him why a war in the Ukraine fought by American troops has anything to do with the United States.
We didn’t send American troops to Georgia six years ago when Russia invaded that country during the Bush Administration and we shouldn’t send them now.
Ed Plaisance says
Further footnote…virtually no one I know is aware of this.
One more item I had forgot about re pressure on Iran.
US pressure on the SWIFT organization was instrumental in getting them to cut off Iranian banks from the world system.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/world/middleeast/crucial-communication-network-expelling-iranian-banks.html?_r=0
I remember when I heard this announcement on the radio, I said to myself, “If anything can bring them to the negotiating table, this is it.”
There are obviously other factors involved, such as a new administration in Iran, but I would wager that this move more than anything else has brought them to the negotiations going on now.
Ed