In a Saturday morning call with Mr. Lavrov, Mr. Kerry emphasized that Russian steps to annex Crimea would close the window for more diplomacy. Later that day, the State Department sent Mr. Lavrov a page-and-half document with a series of questions that were intended to see whether the Kremlin was receptive to the United States’ proposals before Mr. Kerry traveled to meet with Mr. Putin.
American officials wanted to know if Russia would cease its military advances in Crimea, rein in Crimean militias and also work with the contact group on steps like an International Monetary Fund program to stabilize the Ukrainian economy and a countrywide election. They also wanted Russia to halt moves to annex the Crimean Peninsula, and were looking for signs that Russia would be willing to return their troops to their barracks, allow international monitors to work in Crimea and, importantly, meet with new Ukrainian government, either directly or as part of a contact group.
Russia never responded officially to the questions. Yet an answer of sorts came on Monday when, to the surprise of the State Department, Russian television carried the short video clip of Mr. Putin and Mr. Lavrov.
Mr. Putin said that he had authorized Mr. Lavrov to invite Mr. Kerry to Russia. Mr. Lavrov responded that he had expected Mr. Kerry to arrive as early as Monday for talks that could involve Mr. Putin himself.
“But then on Saturday he called and said that he would like to postpone the trip for the moment,” Mr. Lavrov added, referring to Mr. Kerry.
The Russian foreign minister went on to complain that the paper Mr. Kerry had given him on Friday cast Moscow as a belligerent and treated the establishment of the new Western-backed government in Ukraine as a “fait accompli.”This appears in "U.S. and Russia Hit Diplomatic Roadblock Trying to Start Ukraine Talks" by Michael Gordon and Steven Lee Myers. As a first proposal, the Obama administration must know that it is a non-starter. For it to be anything but an intentional non-starter would mean that there is no one in a position of authority in the Obama administration who can interpret the obvious -- that Russia is deadly serious about what is going on in Ukraine and is not going to settle for some sort of accommodation with the putschists. This is from a good story by Ellen Barry, "Titans in Russia Fear New Front in Ukraine Crisis":
Russia’s tycoons have been silent since the crisis began, apart from approving messages on social media. Many inside Russia’s large corporations are no doubt supportive of Mr. Putin’s moves in Crimea, which are widely seen here as correcting a historical error made by the Soviet leader Nikita S. Khrushchev, when he transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Mr. Putin’s approval ratings are at their highest point since he returned to the presidency in 2012. If corporate leaders are complaining, they are doing it quietly.
“Of course they’re upset, but it doesn’t mean they are prepared to challenge Russia’s foreign policy,” said Mikhail E. Dmitriyev, an economist whose research group, the Center for Strategic Research, was originally founded to shape Mr. Putin’s economic platform. “This is a new reality. Even if somebody has reservations with regard to the policy’s effectiveness, I strongly doubt they would express it. This is a policy which, for the moment, is backed by the vast majority of the public. It’s not an exaggeration.”Kerry and Obama enjoy no such support. Citizens of the homeland see only more war games and billions spent overseas while their rents are raised and a couple bags of groceries add up to a $100. European allies have already made clear their reluctance to slap economic sanctions on Russia.
Then there is the unstable situation within the putsch government itself. It is a business-as-usual, Orange-Revolution-redux oligarchical structure that came to power by means of Svoboda and Right Sector muscle. At this point it is not clear that this pairing is anything more than an evanescent marriage of convenience. Right Sector has promised to reformulate itself as an electoral organization that will vie for power in upcoming elections. Right Sector, at least from what I have read, is to the right of Svoboda, does not support greater integration with Europe and its decadent values, and currently is riding a crest of popularity for its role on the Maidan.
In the near term, the United States continues to lose the information war. And the reason it is losing the propaganda battle is the insistence that the putschists are legitimately democratic. In order to make this stick, a tremendous feat in perception management is required, given that we are indoctrinated in the West from the time we learn how to read that democracy means elections. And Yanukovych was the legitimately elected leader of the country, who just happened to be run out of town by armed goons -- not what most normally consider to be a legitimate, democratic process.
As if to underscore this, today Yanukovych was trundled before the cameras. Steven Lee Myers has the story, "Ukraine’s Ousted Leader Urges Military to Resist New Government":
Mr. Yanukovych has mostly remained in hiding since he fled Ukraine, and his public role in the conflict has been so marginalized that he began his remarks by dismissing rumors of his ill health and even death. “I am alive,” he said, going on to dispute the legality of the actions the Parliament took after a European-brokered agreement on Feb. 21 collapsed. “And I have not been impeached, according to the Ukrainian Constitution.”This is a shrewd move by Moscow, preempting tomorrow's White House meeting between putsch president Arseniy Yatsenyuk and Obama. If there is any reporter worth his or her salt allowed to question the putschist and his sponsor, this question will be asked: "Was President Yanukovych impeached as set forth in the Ukrainian Constitution? And, if not, how is the current government legal?"
No comments:
Post a Comment