Paul
Goble
Staunton, January 5 – Vladimir Putin
has no interest in the deal Thomas Graham suggests he now wants, Vitaly
Portnikov says; and consequently, if Washington pursues the course the former
US diplomat and current Kissinger associate proposes, it will only embarrass
itself but not achieve any of the goals he says the West wants.
In an interview with the Voice of
America that has attracted widespread attention, Graham argued that the
outlines of a deal with Moscow over Ukraine and the Russian presence in the
Donbass and Crimea are becoming clear (golos-ameriki.ru/a/mg-interview-with-thomas-graham/3661615.html).
With regard to the Donbass, the
former diplomat says, Washington should approach Moscow with a plan to cut back
its sanctions “in exchange for concrete steps” by the Russian side, an approach
that German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier proposed some time ago.
According to Graham, “at present,
Moscow would find such an approach attractive.” Moreover, it “would be a signal
to Kyiv that Ukraine cannot use” its problems with Russia as an excuse “not to
take domestic decisions needed for the development of security and the economy”
of that country.”
Today, Ukrainian commentator Vitaly
Portnikov argues that Graham’s “main mistake” is thinking that the Kremlin has
any interest in agreeing to such an approach, given that it argues Russia “does
not have any relationship to the ‘civil conflict’ in the Donbass (ru.espreso.tv/article/2017/01/05/lyco_v_gryazy_pochemu_rossyysko_amerykanskogo_prymyrenyya_ne_budet).
“Putin simply
doesn’t need the approval of the West,” he continues. “And when Graham says
that one must not simply cut back sanctions but do this in exchange for
specific actions,” he fails to recognize that there are compelling reasons why
the Kremlin can’t take the kind of “specific actions” he apparently would like
to see.
According to Portnikov, “in the
Kremlin they perfectly well understand that any concession on the Donbass – and
the Minsk accords presuppose among everything else the withdrawal of Russian
forces from the occupied territories and return of control over the borders
would be the end of Russian influence in the region.”
Putin will thus never implement even
if he says he agrees to any “’step by step’ fulfillment of the Minsk accords in
exchange for the step by step reduction of sanctions,” the Ukrainian analyst
says.
But Graham shows himself “even more naïve”
about Russian plans when he talks about Crimea.
The Kissinger associate considers, Portnikov says, that “Moscow is
interested in the legitimation of its control over Crimea. But Putin says, ‘Crimea
is ours and we will not discuss this issue.’”
But instead of challenging Russian
aggression and its Anschluss of Ukrainian territory, Graham talks about how the
West might arrange with Moscow to “legitimize” Russian control, possibly by
means of “the payment of compensation to the Ukrainian side or the conduct of a
second referendum considering doubts about the legitimacy of the first.”
The American analyst makes a serious
error when he considers that “Russia is interested in ‘legitimation’” of its
action, Portnikov says. “From Putin’s point of view, everything has been
legitimated long ago, and neither Graham nor trump can force the Russian
president to change the Constitution, in which the Crimean Republic and
Sevastopol are mentioned.”
“Putin will never agree to a second referendum
or to ‘monetary compensation,’” the Ukrainian analyst says. “Still more comic” are Graham’s words about Moscow’s
supposed interest in “the development of the economy of Crimea,” as if he “doesn’t
know who the economy in Russia is developed and what the investment climate in
that country is like.”
Neither Graham nor Kissinger nor
many others who “would like to see the normalization of relations with Russia
are dilettantes.” Instead, they are people who are prepared to “close their
eyes to the war in the Donbass and the occupation of the Crimea on behalf of
cooperation with Russia.”
All that they need, Portnikov says, are
“guarantees that the Kremlin will not move further and then they are ready to
agree to a ‘neutral status’ for Ukraine. And they also need that Putin give
them the chance to save face” about what they are surrendering to him. Unfortunately for them but fortunately for
Ukraine, Putin isn’t going to do that.
“Putin will not give them the chance
to save face simply because he cannot withdraw,” Portnikov says. “For him,
withdrawal is the end of his regime. And Putin will move further simply because
his power rests on this imperial movement and on opposition to the West.”
Putin, the Ukrainian analyst points
out, “is fighting with America and not with Ukraine. And his victory over
America will consider not in ‘the neutrality’ of Ukraine. Prior to 2013,
Ukraine was already a state outside of any bloc. [Instead, Putin seeks] the
restoration of the Russian Empire and its zone of influence in Soviet borders
at the least.”
Therefore, no one should expect “compromises
from Putin.” Plans that suggest otherwise like the ones Graham offers should be
assessed, Portnikov concludes, “not from the point of view of morality” as some
may be inclined to do. “They should be evaluated in terms of how realistic they
are” or in fact are not.
No comments:
Post a Comment