Posted on 04/15/2015 3:25:05 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
The Ukraine crisis served as a trigger for a broader crisis in the West-Russia relationship. Today, a year and a half after it started, what are the stakes and the bets?
Firstly, the declared objective of the EUs Ukraine policy is to have it firmly integrated in a Greater Europe, represented by the EU. Thus, it would influence Russias development in the right direction. We have no problem with that, all the more so that Ukraines transformation is long overdue and in everybodys interest.
But why acting secretly and unilaterally, rather than openly and multilaterally? We had always been told by the EU, that a routine Association Agreement with Ukraine was in the works. We never minded. But then, all of a sudden, it turned out that a Deep and Comprehensive FTA was going to be part of that. When we enquired, we were told that it was none of our business. Though it was obvious, and recognized later on, that such an FTA was not compatible with Ukraines membership in the CIS FTA.
It took a year for the Financial Times (on 7 April) to admit that in Ukraines case, the ENPs mechanical approach blinded EU policy makers in 2013. The paper called on Brussels unaccountable bureaucracy to avoid such mistakes. The British House of Lords in its February report also concluded that the EU sleep-walked into the current crisis. Alfred Tennysons line Someone had blundered comes to mind. In any case, the EU made a risky foray into old geopolitics with disastrous results. Why lay the blame for ones blunders at Russias door?
Secondly, the US and NATO have enough technical capabilities to know what was really happening in the Crimea. It equally applies to Eastern Ukraine. They either cannot provide evidence to support their allegations of Russias involvement or cannot manage their alleged truth.
We will never put up with a war by proxy on our border. When we get the response from NATO generals mouths, rather than their guns muzzles, it would be laughable, had it not been for the death and destruction caused by Kievs Orwellian anti-terrorist operation (ATO). The New York Times was right when in its editorial (July 3, 2014) it described Kievs decision not to extend the June truce, but conduct the ATO, as a fateful step.
[excerpt]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.