[aaus-list] The Crisis in Georgia is Really About Ukraine

[Kravchuk, Bob]

Dear Colleagues:

 

The following comments appear in the August 31, 2008 Ukrainian Weekly.

 

-Bob Kravchuk

 

The Crisis in Georgia is Really About Ukraine

Viewed in the context of European security, in the dispute over the
Georgian breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Ukraine's
territorial and political integrity are very much at stake. Russian
rhetoric has long emphasized Moscow's concerns over the ethnic Russian
populations in the "near abroad." But Russia's flagrant violation of
Georgia's frontier is the first serious indication that Moscow will not
respect the international borders established with the 1991 Soviet
breakup. To the Putin-Medvedev duo, the Russian incursion into Georgia
serves multiple economic and political objectives. It severs a
non-Russian-controlled energy pipeline from the Caspian Sea, frightens
the NATO allies that admitting Georgia (and Ukraine) would put the
alliance on a collision course with Moscow, and puts the former Soviet
countries on notice that they are within its sphere of influence.
Ukraine has been justifiably alarmed by statements by Russian Prime
Minister Putin that he would "dismember" the country, rather than see
Ukraine join the NATO alliance. After the invasion of Georgia, these
must be regarded as fighting words.

 The West should be wary, too. Conflict with Russia over Ukraine is not
outside the realm of realistic possibilities. It would be far easier for
Russia to find a pretext to enter Ukraine, than it was to enter Georgia.
The Kremlin could easily incite provocations in Eastern Ukraine, or
Crimea, as an excuse for intervention to "protect" the rights of
Ukraine's ethnic Russians. That would almost certainly trigger a Polish
advance eastwards in support of the Ukrainian Army, which is a
contingency that both countries have considered at length, and are
prepared for. Moscow, no doubt, reasons that a rump Ukraine would be a
far less threatening NATO ally than a full-bodied country. It is
speculative, of course, but it is at least plausible that a Ukraine
minus Kharkiv, Luhansk and Donetsk may be a more reliable European ally,
precisely because it would be a more homogenously Ukrainian country. But
let us hope that it does not come to that.

 As to their immediate objectives, it would appear that Putin-Medvedev
are desperate to avoid moving the NATO boundary east to coincide with
the Russian-Ukrainian border. Ukrainian membership in NATO would put
Kyiv beyond Moscow's reach, perhaps permanently. Moscow would find the
new relationship with Kyiv most difficult to stomach, at least for
awhile. This actually would be very good therapy for Russian democracy,
however. One can think of little that would bolster the efforts of
Russia's democratic forces more than Moscow having to give up on its
dreams of empire. That is precisely why Ukraine should work in concert
with the Bush administration to accelerate NATO accession. It is a vital
objective of American foreign policy to deprive Russia of possessing
Ukraine. It is high time that the NATO allies act to secure Ukraine's
permanent independence. That road is difficult, and would entail risk.
But the alternative is almost unthinkable. 

Robert S. Kravchuk

Professor and Chair

Department of Political Science

440 Fretwell Hall

University of North Carolina-Charlotte

9201 University City Boulevard

Charlotte, NC  28223-0001

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.brama.com/pipermail/aaus-list/attachments/20080903/179d106a/attachment.html