“An example of the West’s recklessness”

Yet another summit of the European Council, held in Brussels on August 29 with President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko participating in it, has not brought any surprises. As expected, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has been elected President of the European Council, and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Italy Federica Mogherini has become chief of the European diplomacy. On the other hand, Europe has not imposed yet any new sanctions against Russia, even as its regular troops have invaded the Ukrainian territory, and once again promised to impose them if the situation in the east of Ukraine escalates.

We have seen again that Vladimir Putin has friends in the EU, which according to media reports are Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Cyprus that opposed the imposition of  new, more stringent sanctions. Strangely, at least two countries on this list ought to remember the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956 and of the Czech Republic in 1968 and understand, better than any other nation, the situation which Ukraine now finds itself in as a result of Russian aggression, which is only exacerbated by the inaction of Europe as it declares its commitment to peace, prosperity, and stability. It turns out that the abovementioned countries, and especially their leaders, assign no importance to the EU values.

There has been some inconsistency as well in the position of Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel, as she has ruled out the possibility of Germany supplying weapons to Ukraine. As the news agency dpa reported, she said after the summit that arms supplies could make a wrong impression that the conflict in Ukraine could be resolved by military means.

American political scientist and diplomat Strobe Talbott commented on Twitter on the chancellor’s statement that “Merkel’s mantra that ‘conflict can’t be solved militarily,’ hence rules out arms to Kyiv, increases Putin’s ability to ‘solve’ it militarily.”

Meanwhile, an analyst with the Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security, Erik Brattberg believes that the West has to use sanctions to influence Russia’s actions, rather than simply react to them.

It should be noted that in contrast to the US president, who in a recent interview ruled out providing military assistance to Ukraine, his party in the Senate is more assertive. In particular, chairman of the US Senate Committee for Foreign Affairs Democrat Senator Robert Menendez urged the presidential administration to help Ukraine by arming it. Speaking on CNN, he explained that it would help Ukraine to  resist a “direct invasion” by Russia. “We should be providing the Ukrainians with the type of defensive weapons that will impose a cost upon Putin for further aggression. This is no longer the question of some rebel separatists, this is a direct invasion by Russia. And we must recognize it as that,” Menendez was quoted as saying by the AFP news agency.

Meanwhile, the 57-year-old Tusk, who will preside over EU summits from December 1, called for a tough response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Tusk delivered his speech in Polish, mentioning solving the crisis in Ukraine as one of his main objectives. Responding to a question, he said that the EU should use Eastern European energy. Tusk promised to polish his English by December 1 and try to reach a “reasonable compromise” when solving a series of crises facing the EU.

Commenting on the new appointments, deputy editor of The Economist, author of The New Cold War: How the Kremlin Menaces Both Russia and the West, Edward Lucas tweeted: “Despite Mogherini’s shortcomings, the choice of Prime Minister Tusk as the new President of the European Council underlines the arrival of Poland as a European heavyweight.”

The 41-year-old Mogherini’s main rival in the race for the post of High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy was Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski. By the way, Sikorski specifically studied French last year to qualify for the post, but it did not work, as French President Francois Hollande still supported Mogherini because “she is a social democrat.” Mogherini has only recently entered public office, as she has headed Italian Foreign Ministry only from the end of February 2014. Eastern Europeans were opposed to her appointment because of the pro-Russian position of the Italian Minister.

Mogherini, who will start work on November 1 simultaneously with the new European Commission, said in an interview with Corriere della Sera on September 1 that “Russia is currently not a strategic partner.” She also stressed that the Kremlin never respected the commitments made at different times “in Geneva, in Normandy, and in Berlin” and not valued the opportunities to make a difference, “by influencing the separatists in connection with the downing of the Malaysian aircraft.” Still, Mogherini agrees with Merkel as they urge a political solution to the crisis. But the question arises as to how Europe will force Russia to implement the internationally-endorsed Poroshenko peace plan.

Experts have long discussed sanctions against gas and power sectors, including Gazprom, as effective means of influencing Russia. The UK proposed EU partners to jointly disconnect Russia from the SWIFT international banking system in the next phase of sanctions. According to analysts, disconnecting from the SWIFT will not block major trade agreements now in force, but it will cause problems for international money transfers, which would disrupt trade flows. It is another question whether EU leaders have enough courage to show real solidarity and to resort to this or some other steps that would really affect the position of Russia and force Putin to back down.

By Mykola SIRUK, The Day

COMMENTARY

John HERBST, former United States Ambassador to Ukraine, member of Atlantic Council, Washington:

“It would be much harder for Mr.     Putin to pursue aggression in Ukraine if       the West had a clear understanding of his intention and responded quickly to his provocations. Unfortunately, this has not happened. The response from the US and especially the EU to each Putin provocation has been late and weaker than necessary.

“To understand the problem, it is not necessary to focus on individuals or even countries, although it is recognized that by and large Poland has had a much more realistic appreciation of the danger posed by Russian aggression than many of its allies and partners to the west.

“The decision to delay strong sanctions after the recent introduction of regular Russian troops into Ukraine is another example of Western folly. Mr. Putin knows that the West has the means to exact a very high cost for his aggression against Ukraine; but he has so far bet correctly on Western reluctance to use those means. And when he sees Western hesitation, he escalates his intervention in Ukraine. For example, in June, G-7 leaders said Russia had 30 days to stop its aggression in Ukraine. June 30 passed, the West levied no sanctions and Russia provided advanced anti-missile equipment to its surrogates in Ukraine (leading to  the shot down of the Malaysian airliner) and Russian artillery from Russian territory began to bombard Ukrainian military positions. In mid August, Western leaders said that it would be ‘unacceptable’ for Russia to send in a ‘humanitarian convoy’ without Ukraine’s permission and Red Cross participation. Russia sent in the convoy, the West did not respond and shortly thereafter, Moscow sent in regular troops to fight Ukraine’s security forces.

“Putin’s contempt for the Western inability to defend its principles is so large that he sent in his troops two weeks before the NATO summit.

“The Obama Administration has had a much clearer vision of the Putin problem than its European partners; and has worked closely with Europe to levy sanctions in tandem, because coordinated sanctions are more effective than unilateral ones. But is has been frustrated by the slow pace of European responses to Moscow’s aggression. Conceivably, the Administration may act alone, but that will not happen in the immediate future.

“It is a failure of principle and strategic understanding that the West has not helped Ukraine resist the Russian invasion by providing arms. (And Paris’ insistence on selling the Mistral to the aggressor is a parody worthy of Rabelais.) The West should provide anti armor, anti aircraft, and anti missile equipment to Kyiv. The West has denied Ukraine’s request under the vaguous excuse that it would lead to an escalation of the conflict. Since Russia has repeatedly escalated its aggression since seizing Crimea, this doctrine really boils down to the notion that Ukraine cannot defeat the much larger and better supplied Russian military. So why bother? This near-sighted view ignores the fact that the Russian people do not want their military fighting in Ukraine and if Ukraine is able to resist the Russian invasion for some time and inflict serious casualties on the aggressor, Mr. Putin might need to reconsider. It also fails to understand that if the Kremlin enjoys a low cost, successful invasion of Ukraine, it will be more likely to conduct aggression in other countries with large numbers of Russian speakers.

“It is unclear whether the Obama Administration will reconsider its knee jerk opposition to providing military aid to Ukraine.”