Obama’s silly talk of intervention in Crimea, and Kerry’s blatherings in Kiev are so ignorant that one wonders if there’s some hidden and terribly clever agenda that will emerge later. Sadly I think not.
All this serves only to underline our powerlessness. Furthermore, there’s no way the West will give the Ukraine government enough money to avoid them defaulting on their debts. That muppet Kerry wasn’t offering nearly enough.
The Russians were at least supporting Ukraine with sufficient money to keep them going. As for now… well, who knows?
But the reality is that all parties involved are corrupt – except for the people who voted yesterday. Unless of course you think the vote was rigged – but why should that be?
And what do we think of the views of the majority in the Crimea – or at least of those who voted, who appear to constitute a majority – to become a separate entity to Ukraine? Should they be ignored?
The Argentine representative to the UN Security Council, Maria Cristina Perceval voted in favour of the US resolution condemning the March 16 referendum. She “had voted in favour of the resolution because it asserted the principle of territorial integrity and would have contributed to constructive dialogue towards a peaceful solution involving all political actors. While urging refraining from actions that would hamper such a solution, it was indeed for Ukrainians to decide their own affairs. It was not for the Council to define the situation, but rather, to maintain international peace and security. Argentina hoped all countries would respect the principle of non-interference in State affairs.”
Of course Argentina’s definition of territorial integrity with regard to the Falklands is well known. The mild, non-contentious wording of the USA’s UN resolution allowed Argentina and many other countries to support the motion. But as in Syria, and notably in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Americans seek to go much further than UN wordings…
When it comes down to the wording – as these things always do, then I’m at a loss to see what so far Putin has done to interfere with Ukraine democracy – such as it is. In view of the corruption of both the Ukraine’s previous president and the new regime, it could be argued that the Russians are providing security at a time of potential danger. If the UN was to take on this role, a posse of Nigerian, Swedish and Canadian troops would fly into Simferopol as the swallows fly south for the winter. The Americans won’t deploy – except perhaps for killer drones flown from the Nevada desert. So who else is there who can help keep things calm in the Crimea?
And how is whipping up emotions in the rest of the Ukraine – as Kerry has been doing – going to help? There are unpleasant factions across the country, looking for excuses to even out old scores.
It’s said that Putin has territorial aspirations for other other former Soviet states with Russian populations. But this just isn’t credible. He may be sinister, corrupt and overly keen on posing bare torso’d with guns and wild animals, but he is realistic.
The Russians couldn’t find a solution to the Chechnya problem, which cost them much blood and treasure. So how on earth could they cope with ‘integrating’ any of the other places that feel “threatened” by this little crisis? And does anybody really believe that the Russians would invade any of these places?
As for Poland and all its protestation…! (The Poles hate Russians. They have a word for ‘rifle” that translates as “weapon to kill Russians”. One cannot blame them for this, but we all move on in life.)
To me this whole saga exposes a line in western hypocrisy that I think rightly annoys the Russians. But worse, it’s coming over now as being barking mad as well as ill-informed. The EU suffers the influx of Eastern European workers and Britain NHS tourists; while Nato flies F16’s around Polish airspace burning up to 7000 gallons an hour each – for what exactly?