WHAT HAPPENS FROM HERE ?

I was directed by my friend Charles Nabet to a round table discussion, concerning the situation in the Ukraine, on YouTube at the ICES (Institut Catholic d’Enseignement Supérieur) in the Vendée, which took place last evening at 5:30 PM - UK time. Participating in the discussion were: Eric Pomès, Dean of the Faculty of Law and Management Economics; General Frédéric Blachon, Dean of the Faculty of Political Science and History; Matthieu Grandpierron, director of the political science license; Dominique Souchet, diplomat and politician, lecturer at ICES;’ Richard Sindelar, professor of the international department of Saint Thomas in Texas, American university partner of ICES. 

 

Unfortunately the speakers were not specifically identifiable as there were no captions; however, an interesting discussion followed. The introduction, provided by two students at the University, was a precis of the history of the Ukraine vis a vis Russia, and a number of charts detailing the demography, ethnicity and agricultural makeup of the current state of affairs in that country. I decided to take a closer look. 

In brief, here is an entry from Wikipedia:

 

The territory of modern Ukraine has been inhabited since 32,000 BC. During the Middle Ages, the area was a key centre of East Slavic culture, with the loose tribal federation Kievan Rus’ forming the basis of Ukrainian identity. Reaching its height in the mid-11th century, during which it was among the richest and largest realms in Europe, Kievan Rus' gradually declined until its collapse from the Mongol invasion in the 13th century. Over the next 600 years, the area was contested, divided, and ruled by a variety of powers, including the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and Tsardom of Russia.. The Cossack Hetmanate emerged and prospered during the 17th and 18th centuries but was ultimately partitioned between Poland and the Russian Empire. In the aftermath of the Russian Revolution, a Ukrainian national movement for self-determination emerged, forming the internationally recognized Ukrainian People’s Republic on 23 June 1917. The short-lived state was forcibly reconstituted by the Bolsheviks into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, which became a founding member of the Soviet Union in 1922. Ukraine was the most populous and industrialised republic after the Russian Soviet Republic, until regaining its independence in 1991, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. 

In one way or another, over the centuries the Ukraine has been connected to Russia and the various Slavic states within its purview. The Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine was adopted by the Ukrainian Parliament on the 24^th August 1991.

It immediately declared itself to be a neutral state, but maintained strong ties with the Russian State. It was initially part of the Commonwealth of Independent States – mainly composed of the Soviet satellite states – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan with Russia, and in 1994 was establishing a sort of partnership with NATO. It joined the Ukrainian-European Union Association Agreement which then President Viktor Yanukovych suspended in 2013 in favour of closer ties with Russia. This resulted in mass protests and demonstrations which led to the overthrow of Yanukovych, the establishment of a new Government, and this prompted Russia’s annexation of Crimea in March 2014 and the troubles in Donetsk and Luhansk from April 2014.  That is a very simple explanation of the sequence of events. 

What has in fact added to Mr Putin’s current behaviour is the United States’ questionable behaviour during what has become known as the Revolution of Dignity or Maidan Revolution which took place from February of 2014 and led to the annexation of the Crimea and the following declarations of independence by the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Indeed developments in the Ukraine between February 2014 and the 2^nd Minsk Agreement on 12 February 2015 are a complex series of events difficult to follow or even understand. The surreptitious push and pull between the western governments and the Russian government over the Ukraine and its future have the makings of one of the more obscure John le Carré plots. 

There is an entry in Wikipedia at: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity, 

which provides some clues to the debacle. There is an interesting chronology of events. 

Putin must see the situation and developments in the Ukraine as a squeeze against Russia by the west, using a country with an extremely close historical connection with Russia, many of whose citizens are Russian speaking and still seek a closer association with Russia than with Western Europe and NATO. 

 

Had the European Union, the United States, and its NATO allies but stated from the start of Mr Putin’s build-up of forces along Ukraine’s borders, that the Ukraine would remain neutral and would not be encouraged to join either NATO or the EU, then the invasion might never have happened. 

At least that was the view of one of the members of the panel discussion in the Vendee. The panellist felt that the refusal of the United States to bend on the matter of assurances that the Ukraine would not be allowed to join NATO, now or in the future, was the sticking point from which Russia would not step back. But then nor would the United States and its allies, commit to imposing its guarantees and dictate for the actions of an independent sovereign state, now or in the future. The lead on this point was effectively seen as being within the authority and power of United States foreign policy. Again a simplistic view of what has been going on in the Ukraine since February of 2014. 

Other views have been expressed about events since 2014. One analyst’s view is as follows:

After the US coup of 2014, that installed a puppet regime, the Russian dominated Eastern Ukraine regions broke off.
Crimea went to Russia after a vote / referendum and Donetsk and Luhansk declared independence.
A LOC was formed, and entire Donetsk and Luhansk was under rebel control.
Minsk agreement happened between Ukrainian regime and the rebel states. But the Ukrainian regime continued to violate the understanding for 7 years. 13000 Russian speakers died due to Ukrainian aggression in the rebel controlled regions.
Russia wanted Ukraine to keep to the Minsk agreement and wanted Ukraine not to consider joining NATO: a red line that Russia was serious about.
Nothing happened and the puppet regime of Ukraine started to prepare for military operations on the rebel states with the help of CIA trained neo-Nazis and NATO controlled Ukraine army.
Russia had to act; so she did.
Russia recognised the rebel states and signed treaties with them.
Now it has gone into Ukraine to get rid of puppets / neo-Nazis and secure Ukraine as a neutral state and secure the Russian dominated East Ukraine.

 

Therefore, in the light of the opposing and clearly complex views of the situation, Mr Putin has opened the floodgates. 

Mr Putin’s style of diplomacy however leaves a lot to be desired. By his constant refrain that he had no intention whatsoever of invading Ukraine, that it was only a military exercise; his apparent agreement with President Macron that he would be withdrawing troops, whilst in fact increasing them; his claim that he was supporting Russian Ukrainians from genocide by Ukrainian neo-Nazis, and recognising their rights as citizens of the independent countries of Donetsk and Luhansk and that he would only send in a peace keeping force; are statements that the turn of events has shown to be blatant lies.  His full scale attack on the country is nothing less than an invasion and one that has been planned for some considerable time. 

In doing this he has alienated almost the entire world. He has lost any credibility he might have had had he carefully explained his misgivings over what had been going on in the Ukraine from the Euromaidan protests beginning in November 2013. Proper and considered diplomatic dialogue and compromise would more likely have improved the situation rather than a build up of suspicion, fear, resentment, anger and revenge. 

The cold war was meant to have ceased in 1989, with the coming down of the iron curtain, but for some obscure reason, there seems to be a shatter belt running between middle and eastern Europe from Narva in Estonia weaving its way through the regions all the way to Istanbul. It is like a new net curtain slung across the continent, and because it is flimsy is open to periods of aggression. 

What Mr Putin has achieved is turn himself into a monster and a simple comic president into a hero fighting for world democratic freedom.

Not a good look on the world stage for Putin, but as to Zelensky: