![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nedosionistНесколько статей, близких между собой и представляющих реалистский взгляд на украинскую (а точнее на российскую) проблему. Наибольшее внимание к теме в серии статей op-ed в WaPo и National Interest.
Stephen Walt @ Foreign Policy, "No Contest":
The Obama administration was clearly taken by surprise when Russia decided to seize Crimea by force. The real question, however, is why Obama and his advisors thought the United States and the European Union could help engineer the ouster of a democratically elected and pro-Russian leader in Ukraine and expect Vladimir Putin to go along with it? ... the taproot of the debacle in Ukraine was a failure to distinguish between power and interests....
Dmitri Simes @ New Republic:
And essentially the United States and the European Union have decided to side with the protesters...any Russian wrongdoings should not be used as an alibi for the incompetence of the Obama administration. European and American steps that contributed to this unfortunate outcome, and quite remarkably, nobody in this administration even seems to have been thinking about what the consequences of their previous actions could be. That’s how we got to our current predicament... We are speaking very loudly. We are carrying a small stick.
Stephen Cohen @ NewRepublic (рус), @TheNation "Distorting Russia":
... American media on Russia today are less objective, less balanced, more conformist and scarcely less ideological than when they covered Soviet Russia during the Cold War....I began warning everyone in 1990, in the 90s when Clinton began to move NATO towards Russia, that this was going to lead to exactly what it’s led to. ... Ukraine is the prize, but they’ve gone too far and now we’re in a horribly dangerous situation. ... Whether this longstanding Washington-Brussels policy is wise or reckless, it....is deceitful. The now exceedingly dangerous confrontation between the two Ukraines was not “ignited,” as the Times claims, by Yanukovych’s duplicitous negotiating—or by Putin—but by the EU’s reckless ultimatum, in November, that the democratically elected president of a profoundly divided country choose between Europe and Russia. Putin’s proposal for a tripartite arrangement, rarely if ever reported, was flatly rejected by US and EU officials.
The White House view, widely shared by Beltway insiders, is that the United States bears no responsibility for causing the current crisis. In their eyes, it’s all President Vladimir V. Putin’s fault — and his motives are illegitimate. This is wrong. Washington played a key role in precipitating this dangerous situation, and Mr. Putin’s behavior is motivated by the same geopolitical considerations that influence all great powers, including the United States....Mr. Obama would be advised to stop talking to lawyers and start thinking like a strategist. ...The taproot of the current crisis is NATO expansion and Washington’s commitment to move Ukraine out of Moscow’s orbit and integrate it into the West. The Russians have intensely disliked but tolerated substantial NATO expansion. ... Because there is no world government to protect states from one another, major powers are acutely sensitive to threats — especially near their borders — and they sometimes act ruthlessly to address potential dangers. International law and human rights concerns take a back seat when vital security issues are at stake... Washington has a deep-seated interest in ending this conflict and maintaining Ukraine as a sovereign buffer state between Russia and NATO.
Graham Allison @ NatInt, “A Belgian Solution” for Ukraine?:
...An appropriate way to do this would be a “Belgian solution:” internationally-guaranteed neutrality for Ukraine. .... When Belgium declared independence from the Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1830, its future was uncertain. France proposed a partition of Belgium in which it would annex the strategic city of Brussels. But others had a better idea. In the Treaty of London, the UK, France, Prussia, Russia, Austria and Holland agreed to respect Belgium's territorial integrity and permanent neutrality. As a result, Belgium enjoyed nearly a century of peace that ended only with the outbreak of World War I. ... Empires never collapse without leaving in their wake divided populations, disputed borders, and decades of simmering grievances. When compared with the dissolution of other recent former empires, the most remarkable thing about the Russian story is how peaceful it has been—so far. ... Given the reality that is Ukraine today, an internationally-recognized neutral state within its current borders would be a victory for all. By treaty, it could not be a member of NATO or the EU, or Russia’s pale imitations of both; it would give Russia a 100-year lease on the base for its Black Sea Fleet; it should internationalize ownership of the pipelines that take Russian gas to European consumers; it would guarantee minority rights in accord with European standards.
Rajan Menon @ NatInt, "A Ten-Point Plan for Ukraine":
But this crisis is not about constitutional law. It’s about power, prestige, security, and fear—the stuff that has pitted polities against one another for millennia....Here’s the ten-point plan—a package deal—designed to preserve both presidents’ dignity and to calm the crisis.
И второй уровень: несколько менее интересно, более агрессивно, и ликбез:
R. Gates @ WaPo, G. Will @ WaPo, H. Kissinger @ WaPo (но см. также A. Motyl @ WorldAffairs), Brzezinski @ WaPo, Kucinich @ HuffPo (12.13), C. Krauthammer @ WaPo, Ron Paul @ RPI. Статья в tDB идеологически альтернативная, но хорошо иллюстрирует, в чем полемика.
А также позиция российского МИДа (3/17). Кажется, "нейтральным военно-политическим статусом" они имеют в виду исключить лишь членство в НАТО, но не в ЕС - это по-прежнему, после всего произошедшего! Что подчеркивет их (Лаврова-Путина) слепоту в этом (см. Непонимание-п3, Империя). Можно бы еще предложить восстановлениe Януковича в должности до выборов (отчасти, чтобы было чем торговаться).
Stephen Walt @ Foreign Policy, "No Contest":
The Obama administration was clearly taken by surprise when Russia decided to seize Crimea by force. The real question, however, is why Obama and his advisors thought the United States and the European Union could help engineer the ouster of a democratically elected and pro-Russian leader in Ukraine and expect Vladimir Putin to go along with it? ... the taproot of the debacle in Ukraine was a failure to distinguish between power and interests....
Dmitri Simes @ New Republic:
And essentially the United States and the European Union have decided to side with the protesters...any Russian wrongdoings should not be used as an alibi for the incompetence of the Obama administration. European and American steps that contributed to this unfortunate outcome, and quite remarkably, nobody in this administration even seems to have been thinking about what the consequences of their previous actions could be. That’s how we got to our current predicament... We are speaking very loudly. We are carrying a small stick.
Stephen Cohen @ NewRepublic (рус), @TheNation "Distorting Russia":
... American media on Russia today are less objective, less balanced, more conformist and scarcely less ideological than when they covered Soviet Russia during the Cold War....I began warning everyone in 1990, in the 90s when Clinton began to move NATO towards Russia, that this was going to lead to exactly what it’s led to. ... Ukraine is the prize, but they’ve gone too far and now we’re in a horribly dangerous situation. ... Whether this longstanding Washington-Brussels policy is wise or reckless, it....is deceitful. The now exceedingly dangerous confrontation between the two Ukraines was not “ignited,” as the Times claims, by Yanukovych’s duplicitous negotiating—or by Putin—but by the EU’s reckless ultimatum, in November, that the democratically elected president of a profoundly divided country choose between Europe and Russia. Putin’s proposal for a tripartite arrangement, rarely if ever reported, was flatly rejected by US and EU officials.
The White House view, widely shared by Beltway insiders, is that the United States bears no responsibility for causing the current crisis. In their eyes, it’s all President Vladimir V. Putin’s fault — and his motives are illegitimate. This is wrong. Washington played a key role in precipitating this dangerous situation, and Mr. Putin’s behavior is motivated by the same geopolitical considerations that influence all great powers, including the United States....Mr. Obama would be advised to stop talking to lawyers and start thinking like a strategist. ...The taproot of the current crisis is NATO expansion and Washington’s commitment to move Ukraine out of Moscow’s orbit and integrate it into the West. The Russians have intensely disliked but tolerated substantial NATO expansion. ... Because there is no world government to protect states from one another, major powers are acutely sensitive to threats — especially near their borders — and they sometimes act ruthlessly to address potential dangers. International law and human rights concerns take a back seat when vital security issues are at stake... Washington has a deep-seated interest in ending this conflict and maintaining Ukraine as a sovereign buffer state between Russia and NATO.
Graham Allison @ NatInt, “A Belgian Solution” for Ukraine?:
...An appropriate way to do this would be a “Belgian solution:” internationally-guaranteed neutrality for Ukraine. .... When Belgium declared independence from the Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1830, its future was uncertain. France proposed a partition of Belgium in which it would annex the strategic city of Brussels. But others had a better idea. In the Treaty of London, the UK, France, Prussia, Russia, Austria and Holland agreed to respect Belgium's territorial integrity and permanent neutrality. As a result, Belgium enjoyed nearly a century of peace that ended only with the outbreak of World War I. ... Empires never collapse without leaving in their wake divided populations, disputed borders, and decades of simmering grievances. When compared with the dissolution of other recent former empires, the most remarkable thing about the Russian story is how peaceful it has been—so far. ... Given the reality that is Ukraine today, an internationally-recognized neutral state within its current borders would be a victory for all. By treaty, it could not be a member of NATO or the EU, or Russia’s pale imitations of both; it would give Russia a 100-year lease on the base for its Black Sea Fleet; it should internationalize ownership of the pipelines that take Russian gas to European consumers; it would guarantee minority rights in accord with European standards.
Rajan Menon @ NatInt, "A Ten-Point Plan for Ukraine":
But this crisis is not about constitutional law. It’s about power, prestige, security, and fear—the stuff that has pitted polities against one another for millennia....Here’s the ten-point plan—a package deal—designed to preserve both presidents’ dignity and to calm the crisis.
И второй уровень: несколько менее интересно, более агрессивно, и ликбез:
R. Gates @ WaPo, G. Will @ WaPo, H. Kissinger @ WaPo (но см. также A. Motyl @ WorldAffairs), Brzezinski @ WaPo, Kucinich @ HuffPo (12.13), C. Krauthammer @ WaPo, Ron Paul @ RPI. Статья в tDB идеологически альтернативная, но хорошо иллюстрирует, в чем полемика.
А также позиция российского МИДа (3/17). Кажется, "нейтральным военно-политическим статусом" они имеют в виду исключить лишь членство в НАТО, но не в ЕС - это по-прежнему, после всего произошедшего! Что подчеркивет их (Лаврова-Путина) слепоту в этом (см. Непонимание-п3, Империя). Можно бы еще предложить восстановлениe Януковича в должности до выборов (отчасти, чтобы было чем торговаться).
