He's Living In The Past

For quite some time, I have suspected that Putin was living in the past - quite specifically, the Cold War. His "State of the Nation" speech today confirmed that.  

Most news outlets are pointing out two major features of the speech:  

1.  Putin blaming "The West" for the war in Ukraine

2.  The suspension of Russia's participation in the "New START" nuclear arms treaty.

There are other dimensions to his speech, a lot of it being pretty much classic, old school propaganda tropes. Playing to the notion of "Russia the Great", and boasting about the regions of Ukraine that Russia annexed (but doesn't really control at this point).  

For those of us who grew up during the Cold War, this is all old hat. Not a single part of this pattern of propaganda is surprising - it's all happened before with different Soviet leaders at one time or another.

Chilling Words

Ever since Putin started massing troops along Ukraine’s eastern border, I’ve been wondering exactly what Russia’s objectives really were. 

Put aside the propaganda from Russia about Ukraine posing some kind of threat, and one is left wondering exactly what Putin’s goals are in invading Ukraine. Russia’s claim is that Ukraine hasn’t lived up to its commitments in the Minsk Protocol. I’m not really close enough to what’s going on to assess that, but that seems to me rather a contrived excuse at best. 

Putin’s foreign policy has long struck me as being filled with barbs intended to re-ignite the Cold War that formed much of Putin’s early career. He’s made a number of feints in that direction, the most blatant in my opinion was the annexation of Crimea, but there have been others. 

The military picture in this case bears paying attention to. As part of the former Soviet Union, Ukraine forms part of the border buffer between what was Soviet Russia and its arch rival Western Europe. It is entirely possible that Putin’s current goal is to re-establish the boundaries of the old Soviet Union by once again occupying a line of states that run from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea, and operating them as puppet governments.

It’s possible, that those are his goals, but somehow I think it’s far more pernicious. On the news this morning, the Soviet Foreign Minister was quoted as saying “Russia won’t stop until the Western threat is removed” (I’m paraphrasing here - it was on the radio).  This is classic Cold War rhetoric - but it sheds a glimmer of light on Russia’s unstated goals here. 

It’s far more likely in my opinion that this is a “war of honour” in Putin’s mind. It’s the fight to re-establish Russia’s “greatness” on the world stage after the humiliation of the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1980s.  If this is true, then the only way this ends is when Putin either breaks NATO, or Putin’s ambitions exceed what his oligarch allies can support.

Harper: A Decade In And He Still Doesn't Get It

Stephen Harper has been in power for the high side of a decade.  That's a long time.

Most Prime Ministers by this point in their careers have figured out that the foreign affairs portfolio is a tricky one.  When you are a smallish nation like Canada, you get much better results by influencing rather than playing the puffed up pugilist.

Harper hasn't figured this out.  Does he really think that Putin notices his pronouncements in the wake of sanctions?  Is he really daft enough to believe that his military posturing is going to convince Putin to back out of Crimea?

It seems to me that Harper is following his usual hyper-partisan instincts.  He isn't actually trying to influence Putin.  He's not interested in that.  He is much more interested in playing the foreign policy cards in his hand as part of a propaganda campaign aimed at getting re-elected next election.

No doubt, Harper's base loves the idea of a foreign policy that they don't have to think about.  A world which is cast in stark tones of good and bad.  Israel is good, Russia is bad.  The US is good, Iran is bad and so on.  It seems easy to grasp.

Yet, it is also not so simple.  In reality the world is a subtle place, shaded mostly in degrees of grey.  No country is essentially good or bad.  The days of looking upon Russia as "the other", shrouded in secrecy behind the old "Iron Curtain" are long past.  Globalization has dissolved those mythologies.  Russia is a nation led by a man who wishes to revive the old Cold War tensions, and Harper is fool enough to believe that this is to his own benefit.

Harper has been tone deaf on foreign affairs from day one.  Just as Putin is in fact a fool to try and resurrect the old "Soviet Empire", Harper is an even greater fool for playing to Putin's tune.  

On The Crimea Referendum

Okay, Crimea has had its referendum, and apparently over 95% of those who voted, chose to align with Russia.

I don't know the full context of the politics in Crimea.  I do understand that Kruschev signed control over Crimea over to Ukraine back in the 1950s, so I'm sure that there is quite likely some sense of tension in Crimea with respect to being part of Ukraine.  There are also a number of ethnic minorities on the peninsula who no doubt have their own unique concerns.  Whether Crimea is "legitimately" part of Ukraine, or merely as a matter of Soviet-era political expediency is no doubt a matter of some discussion.

As a Canadian, I've lived through two referendums on Quebec independence from this country.  All of those have been quite lengthy debates - practically speaking, on the order of years really - over the merits of Quebec separating from Canada.

A referendum on such a matter held in a mere two weeks seems to me one in which there has not been an adequate discussion of the issues.  How can you reasonably discuss that kind of change over two weeks?  It isn't a trivial discussion - there are pros and cons to be weighed on both sides.  I just cannot imagine that it has been openly discussed fully in the time allotted.

A second concern with the Crimea referendum is the fact of undertaking such a referendum when the region has been under the direct military control of the Russian Army, I find it very difficult to believe that this is an open vote.  Military occupation, of any sort, inherently distorts the local political landscape.

Third, there are questions around the ballot question itself.  In Canada, the separatists have long played some very strange games with semantics.  The ballot options themselves seem to be somewhat loaded, and that is also questionable.

The referendum offered voters the choice of seeking annexation by Russia or remaining in Ukraine with greater autonomy. After 50 percent of the ballots were counted, more than 95 percent of voters had approved splitting off and joining Russia, according to Mikhail Malishev, head of the referendum committee.

This strikes me as something of a "loaded question" - it essentially appears to be a matter of "Join Russia or Separate From Ukraine".  That seems deeply problematic to me as well.  Again, this speaks to a problematic execution of the referendum.

I won't go so far as to declare the referendum invalid, but I am profoundly concerned that the referendum itself is likely more political theatre than it is a valid piece of statecraft. 

Thoughts on the Ukraine Situation

There has been an enormous amount of speculation around the Ukraine situation on social media today.

First, let me be abundantly clear:  I do not support the Russian actions towards Ukraine in recent days.  Russia would be far wiser to allow the Ukraine to have an open election or referendum focused on the issues that started the riots in Kiev (or Kyiv - I've seen both spellings and I'm not sure which is more correct).

My personal speculation is that Putin is working to do two major things.  First, he wants to reignite the old cold war hostilities.  He knows full well that the western powers are unable or unwilling to intervene directly in a conflict with Russia, and the fact that he has very successfully embarrassed the US on both Syria and Iran in the recent past has bolstered his ego.

Second, I suspect that Putin is trying to rebuild what we often referred to as the "Iron Curtain" from the Soviet era.  This has been quite apparent in the way that he has gone after conflicts in several former Soviet republics in recent years.  As much as possible, he will try to make these "bloodless" takeovers.  He wants nominally friendly "puppets" in place for now.  That's all he needs.

Putin knows full well that the spectre of the cold war era has not been forgotten in the west.  If he can push things back to their old cold war footings, it allows him to play on a field that he knows very well.  The cold war situation serves Putins immediate and long term interests quite nicely.  It gives an enemy that he can "demonize" in much the same way that the Bush II presidency went after "terrorism" - the enemy is so abstract that you can accuse it of anything and nobody will call you out for it.  That allows Putin to "shadow box" with this enemy and look as if he is being a hero, which plays fairly well in Russia itself.

Rebuilding the "Iron Curtain" is another hero moment for Putin.  He can claim that he is taking Russia back to its grand status as the anchor of an empire, returning it to its former glory.

Is he likely to try invading across the north pole into Canada or Alaska?  I seriously doubt it.  The logistics of doing so are enormously complex, and there would be little to be gained compared to the costs of such an invasion and occupation.  The threat will be present, but for the same reasons that the old Soviet Union regularly flew heavy bombers over the pole.  It's easier for Putin to gain control over the old satellite states of the Soviet Union, and there is more political gain to be had for doing so.

In terms of the Ukraine itself, I expect Putin will end up splitting it, keeping the eastern third of the country which borders Russia itself, and allowing the remainder to align with the EU for now.  The one thing that will stay Putin's hand in this matter will be the political cost of trying to put down the uprising that has already begun in western Ukraine.  He can make an argument for taking control of the eastern portion of the country that would be at least moderately palatable to his allies on the world stage, and what he is taking over isn't something that the western powers would be terribly interested in trying to do anything about.