"If we can't persuade nations with
comparable values of the merits of our cause, we'd better reexamine our
reasoning."
Robert S. McNamara
John
Kerry, the US Secretary of State, recently visited Kiev, the besieged Ukraine
capital. From there he accused Russia “of making up reasons for
intervention in Ukraine, saying that ‘not a single piece of credible evidence
supports any one of these claims*." Kerry went on to
further refute Russia’s justification for amassing troops in Crimea based on
their assertion that “Russian-speaking citizens (were) under
siege…*" (*Source: CNNArticle).
At
face value I would be inclined to agree with Mr. Kerry. The people of Kiev
marched in protest of their elected government led by Russian strongman Victor
Yanukovich to overthrow him. It is true he was democratically elected (even though
there were numerous anomalies and allegations of voter fraud and vote rigging).
For our purposes let’s assume he was democratically elected. So while we can
argue that his government’s demise was un-democratic in that it did not
transpire at the ballot box, what cannot be argued is the fact that Mr.
Yanukovich completely lost the confidence of his own ministers, cabinet and
party. In the end he had no credibility, and therefore no legitimacy, left to
govern the people of Ukraine. It was just a matter of time before he would have
had to submit his resignation and hold new elections, which is why he fled.
What
surprises me most about the current crisis in Crimea is not the recent turn of
events but that nobody in NATO, the European Union, MI-5, State Department, CIA,
NSA or the White House saw this coming. In my estimation, Putin was always
going to take all necessary means to protect his substantial trade and
geopolitical investments in Ukraine. We were all aware that Mr. Yanukovich was the
Kremlin’s man in Kiev. Russia has historical ties to the region starting in the
18th century. Nikita
Khrushchev
gifted Crimea to Ukraine in 1954, but they still share the same language and
many Ukrainians work in Russia today. Most importantly Russia has billions of
dollars invested there. “Take Crimea, for
instance. More than half of its 2 million people are Russian, and Russia still maintains
a naval base there.” (Source: NPR Article). Did the Western
powers seriously expect Putin to walk away or agree to settle this matter with
meetings, phone calls and group hugs? Mr. Putin is ex KGB and a man who has long
portrayed a tough guy image. We have all seen the pictures of him wrestling a
bear and riding a horse shirtless. He is not going to go silently into the
night when there is a direct challenge to his authority and influence within
his geopolitical sphere and right on Russia’s doorstep.
Putin
claims that he was asked by Mr. Yanukovich to send troops to protect the
Russian speaking populations in the East and in Crimea; it is a pretty thin argument.
Even without a law degree one can see that there is no legal justification for
Russia’s action. Let’s for a moment forget Putin’s claims for amassing troops
in Crimea and go back to 2005 to another invasion of a sovereign country. Now consider John Kerry’s statement accusing Russia and substitute Ukraine for
Iraq - of making up reasons for
intervention in (Iraq), and that ‘not a single piece of credible evidence supports
any one of these claims;" funny how his statement still applies to the
Iraq invasion. To this day there is not proof of Iraqi links to Al-Qaeda, nor
any evidence they supported, funded or harbored any terrorist organizations. We
all know that there was never any credible evidence presented (only anecdotal
from exiles and dissidents; which were written off by German intelligence who
provided them to US and UK) of a stockpile of deadly chemical, biological and nuclear
weapons. There was never any imminent threat to the United States of America or
the world at large, as we were repeatedly told by Cheney, Bush and Blair. No
matter how you feel about the Iraq invasion there can be no dispute that there
was no legal justification for it within International Law. Perhaps this is why
the US was able to convince only one of the more than one hundred and ninety
countries in the world of its need to invade a sovereign nation.
There
is no question that Mr. Putin has no moral right or legal justification to
invade the Ukraine. The problem is that after the invasion of Iraq, the United
States lost its moral authority to stop Russia or any other country from doing
the same. It is a simple matter of International law; if the US can break it at
will, then why not another country? Bush and Cheney set a very dangerous precedent,
that too at a time when US economic dominance is in decline. Mr. Putin is well aware
of this fact and has taken a calculated but smart risk. He knows the US can no
longer take the high ground or afford another war. While the European Union can
take the high ground, they are averse to war. However, since Russia supplies
almost a quarter of their oil and natural gas, Putin knows that the EU is highly
unlikely to do anything too damaging in terms of sanctions or economic reprimands.
Perhaps, now Bush and Cheney can add this to the already high cost of their
Iraq war.
