Paul
Goble
Staunton, September 25 – Many Ukrainians
and their supporters fear that the upcoming meeting of US President Barack
Obama and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin will be a disaster for
Ukraine, a sell-out by the West to Moscow equivalent to the Munich Agreement
between Hitler and Chamberlain in 1938.
But others are encouraged not only
by White House statements that Obama agreed to the meeting only after repeated
requests from the Kremlin (echo.msk.ru/news/1628794-echo.html)
and by the tough statement by the US Permanent Representative to the UN that
Russian Security Council vetoes threaten that body’s legitimacy (theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/23/russian-vetoes-putting-un-security-council-legitimacy-at-risk-says-us).
One
Ukrainian commentator who takes a more positive view of the scheduled meeting
is Vitaly Portnikov. He notes that Moscow
media are treating the session as “a diplomatic victory of the Kremlin” because
it supposedly shows that Obama had asked for it. But he didn’t, Putin did
repeatedly, and Obama only then agreed (grani.ru/opinion/portnikov/m.244522.html).
Washington “had never said that they
would refuse a request from Putin to occupy several minutes of the valuable
time of the president of the United States,” Portnikov says. Moreover, because “Putin
leads a state which is one of the chief destabilizers of the contemporary
world,” others will talk to him if he shows any willingness to behave better.
But the most important reason for
not being pessimistic about the meeting lies with diplomatic practice. And that
is this: “the side which agrees to a meeting defines its real order of the day.
And in this sense, the interpretation of the requester and the agreeing side
clearly do not coincide.”
“In the Kremlin, they want to talk
about Syria, but in the White House, about Ukraine,” as the White House has
made clear. Putin will undoubtedly try to hijack the agenda but “with regard to
the situation in Syria, Obama is interested in only one thing” – that Putin,
while defending his “little friend” Asad “not destroy opposition units battling
the radicals.”
The American government “understands
perfectly well that Putin’s participation in the Syria conflict is in no way a
contribution to the struggle with ‘the Islamic State’ but rather a
strengthening of Asad in his struggle with all his opponents” – and ISIS is not
“the first among these.”
For his part, Portnikov argues, “Obama
needs Putin to do not what he cannot do but what he can: end the war which he
himself unleashed.” Consequently, “the president of the United Staes will speak
with the president of Russia not about Syria but about Ukraine” and about what
the West will do if Putin doesn’t change course there.
The only thing left for Putin after
this meeting, the Ukrainian commentator says, is to decide whether he will show
a carrot or a stick to the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment