______________________________
Tell me your Ukraine and I’ll tell you who you are. The Ukrainian crisis is a political Rorschach test, not just for people, but also for states. What it reveals to us isn’t encouraging for the West. It turns out that Vladimir Putin has more admirers around the world than you might expect for someone using a neo-Soviet combination of violence and the big lie to dismember a neighbouring sovereign state. When I say admirers, I don’t just mean the governments of Venezuela and Syria, two of his most vocal supporters. Russia’s strongman garners tacit support, and even some quiet plaudits, from some of the world’s most important emerging powers, starting with China and India.
During a recent visit to China, people kept asking me what was going on in the Ukraine, and I kept asking in return about the Chinese attitude to it. Didn’t a country which so consistently defended the principle of respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of existing states (be they former Yugoslavia or Iraq), and which itself has a couple of prospective Crimeas (Tibet, Xinjiang), feel uneasy about Russia simply grabbing a chunk of a neighbouring country? They replied, “Well, that’s a slight concern, but the Ukraine’s a long way away and, frankly speaking, the positives of the crisis outweighed the negatives for China. The USA would have another strategic distraction (after al-Qaeda, Afghanistan, and Iraq) to hinder its “pivot” to the Asia-Pacific region and divert its attention from China. Cold-shouldered by the West, Russia would be more dependent on a good relationship with Beijing. As for the Ukraine, which already sells China higher-grade military equipment than Russia has so far been willing to share with its great Asian ally… why, the new Ukrainian authorities already quietly assured the Chinese authorities that Beijing’s failure to condemn Crimea’s annexation wouldn’t affect their future relations. What’s not to like in all that?”
Beside this realpolitik, some told me that there’s also an emotional part. Chinese leaders such as Xi Jinping, who grew up under Chairman Mao, still instinctively warmed to the idea of another non-western leader standing up to the capitalist and imperialist West. One well-informed observer said, “Xi likes Putin’s Russia”. Chinese media commentary became more cautious since Putin moved on from Crimea to stirring the pot in eastern Ukraine. The nationalist Global Times, which last month spoke of “Crimea’s return to Russia”, now warns, “The Ukraine’s eastern region is different from the Crimea. The region’s secession from the Ukraine strikes a direct blow to territorial integrity guaranteed by international law” (but then, Putin isn’t aiming at outright secession… just a Finlandised Greater Bosnia, a neutral country with a “federalism” so far-reaching that the eastern regions would become Bosnia-style entities, within a Russian sphere of influence). However, this growing concern didn’t apparently cool the warmth of the welcome given to Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Beijing on Tuesday. President Xi said that relations between China and Russia “are at their best” and played “an irreplaceable role in maintaining world peace and stability”. The Chinese Foreign Ministry pronounced China-Russia to be the “major-country relationship that boasts the richest contents, the highest level, and the greatest strategic significance”. Cry your eyes out, USA. Beijing looks forward to welcoming President Putin for a major summit next month.
It isn’t just China. A friend of mine has just returned from India. He noted that, with the likely electoral success of Narendra Modi and the growth of India’s own “crony capitalism”, liberal Indian friends fear that the world’s largest democracy might be getting its own version of Putinismo. In any case, so far, India effectively sides with Russia and not the West over the Ukraine. Last month, President Putin thanked India for its “restrained and objective” stance on Crimea. India’s postcolonial obsession with sovereignty, and resentment of any hint of Western liberal imperialism, plays out… rather illogically… in support for a country that’s just dramatically violated its neighbour’s sovereignty. An Indian satirical magazine even suggested that India hired Putin as “the chief strategic consultant to bring a once-for-all end to the Kashmir issue”. Oh, and by the way, India gets a lot of its arms from Russia. It isn’t just India. Russia’s two other partners in the so-called BRICS group, Brazil and South Africa, both abstained on the UN General Assembly resolution criticising the Crimea referendum. They also joined Russia in expressing “concern” at the Australian Foreign Minister’s suggestion that Putin might be barred from attending a G-20 summit in November. The Russian ambassador to South Africa expressed appreciation for its “balanced” attitude.
What the West faces here is the uncoiling of two giant springs. One, which has been extensively commented upon, is the coiled spring of Mother Russia’s resentment at the way her empire shrank over the last 25 years… all the way back from the heart of Germany to the heart of Kievan Rus. The other is the coiled spring of resentment at centuries of Western colonial domination. This takes very different forms in different BRICS countries and members of the G-20. They certainly don’t all have China’s monolithic relentless narrative of national humiliation since Britain’s Opium Wars. However, one way or another, they do share a strong and prickly concern for their own sovereignty, a resistance to North Americans and Europeans telling them what’s good for them, and a certain instinctive glee, or Schadenfreude, at seeing Uncle Sam (not to mention little John Bull) being poked in the eye by that pugnacious Russian. ¡Viva Putinismo!
Obviously, this isn’t the immediate issue on the ground in the Ukraine, but it’s another big vista opened up by the East European crisis. In this broader geopolitical sense, take note… as we go deeper into the 21st century, there will be more Ukraines.
Editor:
Note this:
Putin isn’t aiming at outright secession… just a Finlandised Greater Bosnia, a neutral country with a “federalism” so far-reaching that the eastern regions would become Bosnia-style entities, within a Russian sphere of influence.
I think that this is what VVP wants… but the American intervention may lead to the Ukraine breaking apart because the Kiev junta won’t compromise due to American “support”. The junta doesn’t realise that the USA isn’t going to commit serious military forces or aid, and that it isn’t going to go to war over the East Bank. It’ll refuse to recognise the 11 May referendums… that’ll lead to the eastern regions seceding. In short, the USA will bring about the very situation that it claims that it wants to avoid. Of course, that leads to the question, is it a matter of incompetence or it is a matter of not wishing to put more assets into an unthrifty entity? I think that it’s a combination of the two… that means confusion and bloodshed in the near term. Mark this down well… Nuland, Zbig, Biden, Kerry, and all the neocons will sleep very well. It doesn’t affect their pay packet and status quo, so, it doesn’t matter…
BMD
21 April 2014
Timothy Garton Ash
Professor of European Studies at Oxford University
Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University
B92
http://www.b92.net/eng/insight/opinions.php?nav_id=90054
Voices from Russia 
You must be logged in to post a comment.