Tag: crimea
Can Biden And Putin End The Ukraine Crisis Without Shots Fired?

Can Biden And Putin End The Ukraine Crisis Without Shots Fired?

A 19th-century Mexican president once summarized his country's plight: "So far from God, so close to the United States." Ukraine has the same problem, but with Russia. And its geographic proximity is particularly worrisome right now.

President Vladimir Putin, who annexed Crimea from Ukraine in a 2014 invasion, has raised fears he is planning another attack. He has massed troops near the border of the former Soviet republic, demanding that NATO renounce the possibility of Ukraine ever joining the alliance or providing bases for its forces.

The U.S. foreign policy establishment and its allies in Congress have taken this opportunity to remind us that they have no new ideas and that all their old ones are bad. They claim that American credibility is on the line and warn the Biden administration not to show insufficient resolve.

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) said any accommodation on our part would "embolden Vladimir Putin and his fellow autocrats by demonstrating the United States will surrender in the face of saber-rattling." Retired Adm. James Stavridis, a former commander of NATO forces, declared, "Appeasement does not work any better now than it worked for Neville Chamberlain in the late 1930s."

There are a couple of flaws in their reasoning. The first is the gap between their fierce rhetoric and their mild remedies. Even McCaul and Stavridis don't think the U.S. should go to war if Russia invades Ukraine. Our support for Ukraine does not extend to putting our troops in harm's way. In case of a Russian invasion, whatever we might do to help Ukraine or punish Russia will not make much difference.

The second is that credibility is a false idol. President Joe Biden's critics accuse him of damaging ours with his chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. If Biden doesn't respond appropriately on Ukraine, they insist, China will assume it can swallow up Taiwan without paying a price.

But just because the U.S. leaves one conflict or avoids another doesn't mean it will follow the same course in another place or at another time. Bill Clinton pulled out of Somalia but intervened in Bosnia.

George W. Bush was forced to issue a meek apology to China in 2001 after an American military plane collided with a Chinese fighter and crash-landed on a Chinese island, where its crew was held hostage. But that didn't stop him from invading Afghanistan or Iraq.

As for "appeasement," diplomacy requires compromise, and not every compromise is the moral equivalent of surrender. When Ronald Reagan signed a 1987 treaty banning intermediate-range nuclear missiles from Europe, angry conservatives compared him to ... Neville Chamberlain. Two years later, though, the Berlin Wall came down.

Putin's posture is hardly evidence of Hitler-like ambitions. Suppose that Mexico were to enter an alliance that put Russian or Chinese troops on its soil to deter U.S. bullying. We would never tolerate it, any more than President John F. Kennedy was willing to tolerate Soviet missiles in Cuba.

The Russian president has indicated that, in parallel fashion, he is not willing to tolerate NATO troops, tanks, missiles and warplanes in Ukraine. The Kremlin is following "the NUPIMBY principle — No Unfriendly Powers in My Backyard," says Stephen Van Evera, an international relations scholar at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "States almost universally resist the close approach of hostile powers and alliances toward their borders."

Michael McFaul, a former U.S. ambassador to Moscow, scoffed at such concerns, tweeting: "NATO has never and will never attack Russia." But in a dangerous world, nations can't count on the benign intentions of other nations — not in the short term, and certainly not in the long term. What counts is capabilities.

In this crisis, the U.S. wants to ensure the security and independence of Ukraine. Russia wants to eliminate the prospect of another NATO ally on its border. Fortunately, there is a solution that achieves both objectives without war: an agreement that Ukraine will be a neutral country, in exchange for Russia's commitment to back off and leave Ukraine in peace.

There is a good precedent for this solution. In 1955, Austria had to commit itself to neutrality in the Cold War to get the Soviets to end their military occupation of one zone of the country. As a result, wrote historian Tony Judt, Austria soon emerged as "a model Alpine democracy: neutral, prosperous and stable."

Ukraine has not been so lucky. But with a recognition of reality and some creative statesmanship, it could be.

Follow Steve Chapman on Twitter @SteveChapman13 or at https://www.facebook.com/stevechapman13. To find out more about Steve Chapman and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

The Art Of The Deal: Why Putin Needs One More Than Trump

The Art Of The Deal: Why Putin Needs One More Than Trump

MOSCOW (Reuters) – In his book, Art of the Deal, Donald Trump said the best deals were ones where both sides got something they wanted. His credo, applied to a potential U.S.-Russia deal, flags an awkward truth for Vladimir Putin: He wants more from Trump than vice versa.

As aides try to set up a first meeting between the two presidents, the mismatched nature of their respective wish lists gives Trump the edge, and means that a deal, if one is done, may be more limited and longer in the making than the Kremlin hopes.

“What the two countries can offer each another is strikingly different,” said Konstantin von Eggert, a commentator for TV Rain, a Moscow TV station sometimes critical of the Kremlin.

“The U.S. has a stronger hand. In biblical terms, the U.S. is the three kings bearing gold, while Russia is the shepherds with little apart from their good faith.”

Appetite for a deal in Moscow, where parliament applauded Trump’s election win, is palpable. The Kremlin blames Barack Obama for wrecking U.S.-Russia ties, which slid to a post-Cold War low on his watch, and with the economy struggling to emerge from two years of recession, craves a new start.

Trump’s intentions toward Moscow are harder to discern, but seem to be more about what he does not want — having Russia as a time-consuming geopolitical foe — than his so far vague desire to team up with the Kremlin to fight Islamic State.

Trump has hinted he may also push for a nuclear arms deal.

Putin’s wish list, by contrast, is detailed, long and the items on it, such as getting U.S. sanctions imposed over Moscow’s actions in Ukraine eased, are potentially significant for his own political future.

He is looking to be given a free hand in the post-Soviet space, which he regards as Russia’s back yard.

Specifically, he would like Trump to formally or tacitly recognize Crimea, annexed from Ukraine in 2014, as Russian territory, and pressure Kiev into implementing a deal over eastern Ukraine which many Ukrainians view as unpalatable.

The icing on the cake for him would be for Trump to back a Moscow-brokered Syrian peace deal allowing President Bashar al-Assad, a staunch Moscow ally, to stay in power for now, while crushing Islamic State and delivering regional autonomy.

For Putin, described in leaked U.S. diplomatic cables as an “alpha-dog,” the wider prize would be respect. In his eyes, a deal would confer legitimacy and show Russia was a great power.

But, like a couple where one side is more interested than the other, the expectational imbalance is starting to show.

Trump spoke by phone to five world leaders before talking to Putin on Jan. 28 as part of a bundle of calls. The White House readout of the Putin call was vague and four sentences long; the Kremlin’s was effusive and fifteen sentences long.

Nor does Trump seem to be in a rush to meet. Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s spokesman, said the two might only meet before a G20 summit due to take place in July.

Trump has good reason not to rush.

‘A HUGE BONUS’

With U.S. intelligence agencies accusing Moscow of having sponsored computer hacking to help Trump win office, a deal would hand fresh political ammunition to Trump’s opponents, who say he has long been too complimentary to the Russian leader.

A delay would have the added advantage of postponing a chorus of disapproval from foreign allies and Congress, where there is bipartisan determination to block sanctions relief.

For Putin though, in his 17th year of dominating the Russian political landscape, a deal, or even an early symbolic concession such as easing minor sanctions, matters.

Expected to contest a presidential election next year that could extend his time in the Kremlin to 2024, he needs sanctions relief to help lift the economy out of recession.

U.S. and EU financial sector sanctions have cut Russia’s access to Western capital markets and know-how, scared off foreign investors, and — coupled with low global oil prices — have exacerbated an economic crisis that has cut real incomes and fueled inflation, making life harder for millions.

Since Putin’s 2012 election, consumer prices have risen by 50 percent, while a fall in the value of the rouble against the dollar after the annexation of Crimea means average salaries fell by 36 percent from 2012-2016 in dollar terms.

Official data puts inflation at 5.4 percent, but consumers say the real figure is much higher, and fear of inflation regularly ranks among Russians’ greatest worries in surveys.

An easing of U.S. sanctions could spur more foreign investment, helping create a feel-good factor.

“It would be a huge bonus if it happened,” said Chris Weafer, senior partner at economic and political consultancy Macro-Advisory Ltd, who said he thought Putin wanted to put rebuilding the economy at the heart of his next term.

The economy matters to Putin because, in the absence of any more land grabs like Crimea, greater prosperity is one of the few levers he has to get voters to come out and support him.

With state TV affording him blanket and favorable coverage and with the liberal opposition still weak, few doubt Putin would genuinely win another presidential term if, as expected, he decided to run.

But for the win to be politically durable and for Putin to be able to confidently contemplate serving out another full six-year term, he would need to win big on a respectable turnout.

That, an election showed last year, is not a given.

Around 4 million fewer Russians voted for the pro-Putin United Russia party in a September parliamentary vote compared to 2011, the last time a similar election was held.

Although the economic benefits of a Trump deal might take a while to trickle down to voters, its symbolism could boost turnout, helping Putin prolong a system based on himself.

“It would be presented to the Russian people as a huge victory by Putin,” said von Eggert. “It would be described as a validation of his strategy to go to war in Ukraine regardless of the consequences and to turn the country into Fortress Russia.”

(Additional reporting by Andrey Ostroukh; Editing by Peter Graff)

IMAGE: A woman passes a billboard showing a pictures of US president-elect Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Danilovgrad, Montenegro, November 16, 2016. REUTERS/Stevo Vasiljevic

Putin Defends Trump’s Virtue — And Trump Serves Putin’s Interests

Putin Defends Trump’s Virtue — And Trump Serves Putin’s Interests

Here’s a thought exercise: What do you suppose would happen if Russian strongman Vladimir Putin decided to clarify remarks he reportedly made about Donald Trump during the election campaign?

“I never said Trump was ‘brilliant,’” he might say. “That was a poor translation. I said he was ‘colorful,’ which nobody denies. Unfortunately, he is also an ignorant buffoon with no greater understanding of international relations than the average Moscow prostitute, of which he has known many.”

Would Trump confine himself to mocking Putin’s short stature and bare-chested TV appearances on his Twitter account? Or would the United States and Russia go to war footing overnight?

Fortunately, we can all relax. Everybody understands that Trump lives so deep in Putin’s pocket that no such exchange seems possible. When it comes to foreign affairs, the only constant in our new president’s pronouncements is that he has never yet said anything—not one single thing–that the Russian dictator would find objectionable.

It’s really remarkable. On everything from the invasion of Crimea to the obsolescence of NATO and the breakup of the European Union, Trump’s remarks may as well have been crafted in the Kremlin. Trump’s Secretary of State designee had a medal pinned on his chest by Putin himself; his national security advisor Gen. Michael Flynn had a paid gig on the Russia Today TV network, and has dined publicly with the Russian leader.

Weakening NATO, the military alliance that has brought stability and prosperity to the West since 1945, is the number one priority of Putin’s foreign policy, exposing Eastern Europe to the tender mercies of the Russian army. One needn’t yearn for a new Cold War to realize what a terrible thing that would be.

As for the European Union, here are some relevant numbers: In 2016, total U.S. trade with the EU was roughly $650 billion. It’s our most important economic partnership by far. Total trade with Russia totaled $20 billion.

Economically speaking, the EU is more than thirty times more valuable to the United States than Russia. Any questions? Russia occupies a vast landmass and has a formidable military, but its economy is smaller than Italy’s.

The Russians are a great, long-suffering people; we couldn’t have won World War II without them. But does anybody want to buy Russian cars, computers, or TVs? No, they do not.

The last thing the world needs is Russia looming over once captive nations such as Poland and Lithuania like a bear at a picnic table. A Democrat who proposed such things would be accused of treason.

So anyway, here’s what it’s come to: In the course of defending Trump from scurrilous accusations in Buzzfeed, Putin also praised the beauty and skill of Moscow prostitutes, who he proclaimed “the best in the world.”

Back in 2013 when the president-elect visited Moscow for the Miss Universe pageant, Putin alibied, “He wasn’t a politician, we didn’t even know about his political ambitions. Do they think that our special services are hunting for every U.S. billionaire?”

Actually, Vladimir, yes they do. Even Trump knows that. During his recent press conference, he said he warned friends to behave themselves, “Because you don’t want to see yourself on television. Cameras all over the place.”

In Moscow, they even have a word for it, “kompromat”—a combination of the Russian words for “compromising” and “information.” Luring public figures into proverbial “honey traps” or manufacturing scandal against troublesome individuals is a common practice of authoritarian regimes everywhere—but nowhere more than in Russia.

It’s well known that Putin got his big break in politics when, as a young intelligence officer, he affirmed that a murky videotape of a man cavorting with hookers was indeed a foe of Boris Yeltsin’s. Today, sleazy videos of public figures are a regular feature on Russian TV. The sheer coarseness of political dialogue can be hard to believe.

I got a small taste of it last summer after unmasking a pair of Russian trolls that I called “Boris” and “Natasha” after the cartoon characters: all scatology, sexual insults, and veiled threats clearly based upon Internet misinformation. Some foreign journalists have had kiddie porn installed on their computers by such unknown parties.

That said, apart from one lurid detail I won’t repeat, none of the naughty bits in the dodgy Trump dossier struck me as shocking. Trump has long boasted to radio shock jock Howard Stern and others about barging into beauty contestants’ dressing rooms, copping feels, etc. He’s also on record about the supposedly loose morals of Russian women.

Yet whatever Putin has on Trump, I doubt it’s sexual—everybody’s favorite distraction. The real purpose of kompromat isn’t necessarily blackmail, but the promotion of discord, cynicism, and widespread disbelief in such “liberal” values as the distinction between truth and make-believe.

And when people come to assume that everybody’s crooked and nobody can be believed, the strongman always wins.

IMAGE: Flickr/DonkeyHotey

How Trump Plans To Make The ‘Best’ Nuclear Arms Deal With Russia

How Trump Plans To Make The ‘Best’ Nuclear Arms Deal With Russia

LONDON (Reuters) – U.S. President-elect Donald Trump will propose offering to end sanctions imposed on Russia over its annexation of Crimea in return for a nuclear arms reduction deal with Moscow, he told The Times of London.

Criticizing previous U.S. foreign policy in an interview published on Monday, he described the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 as possibly the gravest error in the history of the United States and akin to “throwing rocks into a beehive”.

But Trump, who will be inaugurated on Friday as the 45th U.S. president, raised the prospect of the first big nuclear arms control agreement with Moscow since the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty signed by President Barack Obama in 2010.

“They have sanctions on Russia — let’s see if we can make some good deals with Russia,” the Republican president-elect was quoted as saying by The Times.

“For one thing, I think nuclear weapons should be way down and reduced very substantially, that’s part of it. But Russia’s hurting very badly right now because of sanctions, but I think something can happen that a lot of people are gonna benefit.”

The United States and Russia are by far the world’s biggest nuclear powers. The United States has 1,367 nuclear warheads on deployed strategic missiles and bombers, and Russia has 1,796 such deployed warheads, according to the latest published assessment by the U.S. State Department.

Under the 2010 New START treaty, Russia and the United States agreed to limit the number of long-range, strategic nuclear weapons they can deploy.

Trump has said he will seek to improve relations with Moscow despite criticism that he is too eager to make an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The United States and other Western powers imposed sanctions on Russia in 2014 over its annexation of the Crimea peninsula from Ukraine and its support for pro-Russia separatists in eastern Ukraine.

Asked whether he would trust German Chancellor Angela Merkel or Putin more, Trump said: “Well, I start off trusting both –but let’s see how long that lasts. It may not last long at all.”

His relations with Moscow have faced renewed scrutiny after an unsubstantiated report that Russia had collected compromising information about Trump.

The information was summarized in a U.S. intelligence report which was presented to Trump and Obama this month.

The report concluded Russia tried to sway the outcome of the Nov. 8 election in Trump’s favor by hacking and other means. It did not make an assessment on whether Russia’s attempts affected the election’s outcome.

Trump accused U.S. intelligence agencies of leaking the information from the unverified dossier, which he called “fake news” and phony stuff.” Intelligence leaders denied the charge and Moscow has dismissed the accusations against it.

RUSSIAN RELATIONS

In the interview with The Times, Trump was also critical of Russia’s intervention in Syria’s civil war which, along with the help of Iran, has tilted the conflict in President Bashar al-Assad’s favor.

“I think it’s a very rough thing,” Trump said of Russian intervention in Syria. “Aleppo has been such a terrible humanitarian situation.”

The war has killed more than 300,000 people, created the world’s worst refugee crisis and aided the rise of the Islamic State militant group.

On NATO, Trump repeated his view that the military alliance was obsolete but said it was still very important for him.

“I took such heat, when I said NATO was obsolete,” Trump told The Times, referring to comments he made during his presidential election campaign. “It’s obsolete because it wasn’t taking care of terror. I took a lot of heat for two days. And then they started saying Trump is right.”

Trump said many NATO member states were not paying their fair share for U.S. protection.

“A lot of these countries aren’t paying what they’re supposed to be paying, which I think is very unfair to the United States,” Trump said. “With that being said, NATO is very important to me. There’s five countries that are paying what they’re supposed to. Five. It’s not much.”

Trump said he would appoint his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to try to broker a Middle East peace deal, urged Britain to veto any new U.N. Security Council resolution critical of Israel and criticized Obama’s handling of the deal between Iran and six world powers including the United States which curbed Tehran’s nuclear program.

On Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, Trump said: “Brexit is going to end up being a great thing” and said he was eager to get a trade deal done with the United Kingdom.

(Editing by Peter Cooney and Timothy Heritage)

IMAGE: U.S.President-elect Donald Trump gestures to people in the lobby after speaking to the news media with television personality Steve Harvey and businessman Greg Calhoun after their meeting at Trump Tower in New York, U.S., January 13, 2017. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton