Paul
Goble
Merkel’s comment,
coming after the “Normandy Four” meeting with Putin and as some are saying she
should receive the Nobel Peace Prize for her work on Ukraine, suggests that for
all its brave words, the West will ultimately accept the Crimean Anschluss if
Putin appears to live up to the Minsk Accords (qha.com.ua/ru/politika/vipolnenie-minskih-dogovorennostei-vosstanovit-suverenitet-ukraini-no-bez-krima/148983/).
Putin clearly went to war in Syria
for many reasons: to show his contempt for Barack Obama, to demonstrate that “Russia
is back” and can do what it wants, to create a crisis in the Middle East that
may push up the price of oil, to save his fellow dictator Bashar Asad, aBut nd
to distract attention from his policy failures at home and elsewhere.
But as several Russian commentators
have pointed out, he also went to war in Syria to force the West to recognize
his annexation of Crimea by creating a situation in which he can offer a trade:
Russian cooperation with the West’s anti-ISIS effort, however duplicitous he
may be about really engaging in that, in exchange for the West’s agreement on
Crimea.
Dmitry Travin, a professor of St.
Petersburg’s European University, put it bluntly in his analysis of Putin’s
moves in New York. The Kremlin leader came to the UN and to his meeting with US
President Obama in order to “trade” Syria for Crimea on the basis of the
principle “Crimea is ours and we will give you Asad” (rosbalt.ru/blogs/2015/09/29/1445593.html).
When he didn’t get
such a craven deal in New York, Putin launched his attacks on Syria, something
Travin anticipated as part of the same process. At some point, when the West
recognizes that Russian involvement in Syria will only strengthen ISIS, it will
hand Crimea over to Moscow on a plate.
Merkel’s comment shows that Putin
may have the West’s number on this issue, given that, as Lithuanian analyst
Darius Sadkovski points out today, Syria is “an ideal war” for Putin because Russian
involvement will last “only as long as the Kremlin wants it to” (nr2.com.ua/blogs/Novyj_region_Baltija/Voyna-v-Sirii-eto-idealnaya-voyna-dlya-Rossii-107430.html).
In many ways, this was the likely
outcome as soon as the US and other Western countries refused early on to
articulate a serious non-recognition policy about Crimea of the kind that they
did regarding Soviet occupation of the Baltic states and allowed themselves to
be drawn into a Russian-structured process that ignored the Anschluss or even
treated it as a fait accompli.
To suggest that the German leader
should be given the Nobel Peace Prize for taking part in this sell-out of Western
principles and commitments seems more than a little excessive -- although to be
sure in the past that prize has been given for even less.
No comments:
Post a Comment