Gimme a break. What is this, 1853? Is the Sultan back on the throne? Is the Light Brigade saddling up? Are the Brits and the French sending their new ironclads? Is Major McClellan on his way as an observer to prepare for his undoubted future as the savior of the Union? But why is Crimea so much in the news now?
First, does anyone honestly think Russia would reconsider its 2014 reacquisition of a region which has been part of Russia since Catherine the Great and which contains the port of Sevastopol on the Black Sea? Russia may no longer aspire to be a world class naval power, which they almost accomplished before Lech Walesa, Ronald Reagan and Saint John Paul II bankrupted them. They'd still like access to the Mediterranean though.
In 1954 the Soviet Union transferred Crimea to Ukraine, both regions being then and staying within Soviet borders. That's sort of like giving Maryland to Virginia. Maybe it was a condition of Ukraine retaining its then preposterous seat in the U.N.;ahhh, just kidding.
An expert on Russia told a radio audience that a very high Russian official told him , prior to Russia's takeover of Crimea in 2014, that it was just a matter of time. I've gone on at length before on what I consider the importance of fully understanding Russia's cultural, economical, military and geographical relationship to Ukraine. After the breakup of the USSR a Russian officer was quoted: "I will never think of Kiev as a foreign city". If I understand what I know of the views of Dr. Stephen Cohen, former Professor of Russian History at NYU, I believe he maintains that we ignore these terribly and deeply historical ties at our peril. The transfer of Crimea should be viewed in that light, I think; its Russia's, Crimea's and Ukraine's matter, not ours.
Suppose Virginia were to depart the Union, taking Norfolk Navy Base with it? Would we not consider that our own matter, not Russia's? For that matter, what did we do about it in 1861?
Crimea may well be brought up at the conference between President Trump and President Putin but I hope and trust President Trump will be circumspect and diplomatic. Connected as it is to the Russia/Ukraine affinity this matter could have the gravest of implications for the U.S., should we be unwise. Fox News interviewed the CIA's former top man in Moscow today and asked him "what is Putin's worst fear?" He said " a free Ukraine inclined to the West and NATO". Ukraine's political evolution since independence has shown little to distinguish it from most other now free Eastern European countries and they certainly have "inclined to the West and NATO". Russia has, remarkably, tolerated that. But it has taken action with respect to Ukraine and we must pay very close attention to that fact in thinking about Crimea. Jack
2 comments:
Count me as a "Ditto-head" on this one, Jack. You put it very well. Crimea is none of our business. The best we can hope for is to help dissuade Russia from taking ALL of Ukraine. Crimea is a dead letter. Now, whether we RECOGNIZE Russia's annexation is another matter...and frankly not a very important one.
I would sound one note of caution, though. You say Ukraine has inclined more and more towards the West. I believe it's a bit more complicated. The westward movement has been fitful, and not always popular. Putin's antics have probably strengthened Ukraine's pro-Western bias, but the country will always be something of a political-cultural no man's land between east and west. That's all the more reason to tread carefully there.
Dr. Waddy: Good point on the unimportance of our "recognition" or lack thereof, of the annexation. I'm sure Russia is a little bemused by it all, except for the sanctions put on them as a result. I think had Russia sanctioned the U.S. after our reacquisition of the southern states, we would nonetheless have proceeded with reconstruction. We had our priorities, as does Russia.
You're right and I stand cautioned on Ukraine. There are alot of Great Russians there. I think "Ukraine" means "borderland" too.
Post a Comment