So today, when there is talk in Ukraine, well inside of Russia's "sphere of influence, of joining NATO, should the Russians be alarmed? When the NATO countries tell the Russians that they have no intention of recruiting Ukraine, should the Russians be reassured?
Perhaps they should. But recall, I am not asking what the Russians should think, but what they probably do think, in the light of recent US and NATO behavior. That is the state of the Russian mind that Western diplomats must understand and deal with.
Concerning Crimea: Russian officials will tell us that the Crimea is traditionally Russian territory, and that the majority of Crimeans are ethnic Russians who desire union with the Russian Federation.. The attachment of the Crimea to Ukraine was due to an anomalous decision by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in 1954. It was regarded as trivial at the time, since in either case the Crimea would be inside the Soviet Union. The very idea that the Soviet Union would disintegrate was, at that time, unthinkable.
And yet it happened: the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. And so now the Crimean government has proposed to settle the issue in a referendum later this month
In response, the Ukrainians insist that the referendum is illegal, and they present a compelling case. But again, what we are seeking here is an understanding of the Russian mind, right or wrong. In any case, the Crimean issue may be moot: if Putin and the Russians want it, they can take it and the Ukrainians can do nothing about it. Such is the opinion, remarkably, of Khrushchev's granddaughter, Nina Khrushcheva, now a professor of international politics at New York's New School University.
Press reports tells us that the Russian public is solidly behind Putin in this dispute over Ukraine and Crimea. But, of course, the Russian public is reading and listening to the predominantly government-controlled media. On the other hand, the American public is overwhelmingly supportive of the new Ukrainian government. But that public is "informed" by the corporate media, which means primarily the five corporations that own 80% of the American media -- the same media which, at one time, convinced most Americans that Saddam Hussein was threatening all of us with weapons of mass destruction and had a part in the 9/11 attacks.
As for myself, desperate to find some accurate information about this issue, I am inclined to share my compatriots' condemnation of Putin's behavior. But there is much to blame on both sides. Neither Yanukovych's Ukrainian government nor its successor give us much to celebrate. What media sources, if any, are giving us an accurate account of just what is going on in Ukraine and Crimea? We just don't know. Which means, of course, that we are ill-prepared to make an informed and rational assessment. Such is the sorry state of our media.
Let us hope that our diplomats, and theirs, strive diligently to understand the perspective of their opponents. The Russians have concerns, some legitimate and some not. But both sides share an overarching interest that the conflict not escalate, and that we avoid a reinstatement of the cold war. It is time, in short, for cooler heads to prevail.
Meanwhile, on our side, the neo-con warriors -- McCain, Palin, Graham, Bolton, FOX News, etc. -- rant on, eagerly supported by the military-industrial complex. Some are even talking of "military assistance" to Ukraine. If this includes "boots on the ground," that would inevitably lead to a confrontation of US and NATO troops with the Russian military.
The very thought of which conjures in my mind a single word:
"Stalingrad!"
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
