American politician, diplomat, and political analyst Henry Kissinger is considered to be one of the most influential contemporary foreign policy strategists in the US and worldwide in general. No wonder that his articles draw attention all over the world. In his latest piece, “How the Ukraine Crisis Ends,” published in The Washington Post on March 5, he offers his vision of settling this conflict. (The full version of the article is available on the newspaper’s website). Here we only quote the principles, which, according to this American diplomatic patriarch, can help settle the Ukraine-Russia conflict in Crimea.
1. Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including those with Europe.
2. Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I took seven years ago, when it last came up.
3. Ukraine should be free to create any government compatible with the expressed will of its people. Wise Ukrainian leaders would then opt for a policy of reconciliation between the various parts of their country. Internationally, they should pursue a policy comparable to that of Finland. That nation leaves no doubt about its fierce independence and cooperates with the West in most fields but carefully avoids institutional hostility towards Russia.
4. It is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. But it should be possible to put Crimea’s relationship to Ukraine on a less fraught basis. To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea. Ukraine should reinforce Crimea’s autonomy in elections held in the presence of international observers. The process would include removing any ambiguities about the status of the Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol.
The Day addressed diplomat and publicist Yurii SHCHERBAK with a request to comment upon Kissinger’s article on the current situation in relations between Ukraine and Russia and the possible ways of settling the crisis.
“THIS IS A MESSAGE TO PUTIN: THOSE WHO STARTED WARS NEVER KNEW HOW TO FINISH THEM”
“First of all, I want to remind about Kissinger’s fundamental principle which was created many years ago about America’s European policy. In particular, he stresses that having the experience of two world wars in Europe, the US must do its best to prevent the rise of a country on the European continent that could infringe on its military and political domination over Europe, as it was in case with Germany and Hitler, and Soviet Union and Stalin. I think that in this article Kissinger adheres to this principle, even though the wording is not as sharp. Kissinger’s latest text is a most masterly tightrope dance, where through the author’s undisclosed desire to be fancied by the Kremlin one can see a number of stereotypes on the history of Ukraine and Russia, on Khrushchev’s gift of Crimea to Ukraine, or references to Solzhenitsyn and Brodsky instead of Shevchenko and Vynnychenko. And we could ask our historian Shporliuk from Harvard University to tell Kissinger that it was not an act of defending Russia’s freedom that took place near Poltava in 1709, but an act of enslaving Ukraine despite all previous agreements between Bohdan Khmelnytsky and the Russian tsar.
“Despite all of Kissinger’s curtsies to Russia and Putin, it is unlikely that an article by the US foreign policy patriarch will bring much joy to dictator Putin. The sharp claws of the American doctrine on the inadmissibility of domination of any power over Central and Easter Europe, including Ukraine, rip through the soft rhetoric of the article, which contains clauses unacceptable for Ukrainians.
“Kissinger, the grandmaster of geopolitics, formulates the main theses of the article in his conclusions on the inadmissibility of annexation of Crimea by Russia, that is, on what is happening today in the plain view of the whole world, on Ukraine’s right to choose the direction of its development, its relations with the EU, and joining the EU. And on the other hand, the article contains things that might be unacceptable for today’s sentiments of Ukrainians, that Ukraine should not join NATO, because Ukraine remains a “gray” zone of safety and an unprotected country. And also, on the Finlandization of Ukraine. All these points are highly debatable. But I understand that a desire to find some kind of balance between the interests of Ukraine and Russia motivated Kissinger to resort to such suggestions. As for cooperation with the West and non-hostility with Russia, I think it has been the postulate of our foreign policy. And there is nothing for us here.
“What he said, the balanced dissatisfaction, is really a principle of compromise, when neither of the sides will consider itself a complete winner and when such a compromise is achieved, which is to some extent unpleasant for both parties. Of course, it is about a compromise between the West and Russia.
“As for Kissinger’s reference to him being a witness of four wars, I think it is a message to Putin that those who started the wars never knew how to finish them.”
Can these principles stop Putin in his desire to subjugate Ukraine?
“Putin has three options of the plan and he will execute them when he sees there is no active resistance. Firstly, he has occupied Crimea. But for how long will he manage to keep the troops there? The time will come when some hot Crimean heads who welcome this will see that living under foreign occupation is not that comfortable. This period will be over. And the longer the troops are there, the more frustrated and irritated the Crimean population will become.
“That is why I think Putin will not be able to keep troops there forever. Although, there is no way he will give up the base in Sevastopol.
“The second plan, to occupy whole Ukraine, is obviously impossible to complete, it is clear Putin will not do it in the current conditions.
“The third plan is the occupation of a number of oblasts or a part of east and south Ukraine and creation of a belt of instability and aggression all the way to Transnistria. And it is up to Ukraine and the Western states and their determination to see that this scenario be disrupted. The only thing that Putin might succeed at is the seizure of the peninsula. But it is a Crimean venture. It is unknown what this might turn into for him, because theoretically, there is a possibility that Japan might take over the Kuril Islands. This situation has a lot of weak spots for Russia.”
“PUTIN LOSES THE INTERNATIONAL AND DIPLOMATIC BATTLE TO THE WEST”
Can the United States influence the settling of the crisis by using its energy weapon? The Congress is already considering a draft law on gas export, thanks to which Europe will be able to receive cheap liquefied natural gas from America, instead of Russia.
“Everything depends not exclusively on Ukraine, which can stop the supply of gas. As the events show, Ukraine has sharply reduced the consumption of Russian gas and moreover, is ready to receive a certain proportion of gas from Europe. But Germany is the main factor of influence on Putin in Europe. Berlin’s standpoint in this situation today is rather vague, despite Steinmeier’s resolute statement. Firstly, Germany has made huge investments in Russia and it does not want to lose them. Secondly, Germany depends on gas supply from Russia. Berlin’s stand might become stricter if Germany manages to get rid of its dependence on Russia.
“By the way, an absolutely new element appeared in this situation, which was a total surprise for Putin. It is France’s stand. And it was clear from the uncompromising, tough, and brilliant speech of France’s representative at the UN Security Council. A similar stand was taken by the French president and foreign minister. A great role in the situation was played by chief of French diplomacy Laurent Fabius, who visited Ukraine a few years ago. And when he saw the whole situation during negotiations with Yanukovych, his rhetoric became very harsh and Putin did not expect this at all. Basically, Putin loses the international and diplomatic battle to the West. Even though this battle is not over yet, and we do not know what happens next. I think that Kissinger’s conclusions might be used as a foundation for negotiations, but there must be a very broad discussion around them. Various amendments are possible on Russia’s as well as Ukraine’s parts, because many things there are far from implicit. By the way, Kissinger himself says those are mere principles, but not instructions. It is clear that after such undisguised cruel military aggression against Ukraine, Russia wants to gain solid ground for the negotiations and forcefully dictate its terms to Ukraine.
“I think that only the legitimate democratic elections of a president, who must be recognized by all democratic countries as a choice of the Ukrainian people, can influence the shaping of Ukraine’s strong position in the negotiations.
“TAKING OVER CRIMEA WILL NOT GIVE RUSSIA THE BENEFITS IT DREAMS ABOUT”
But Crimea might belong to Russia by then. Today the so-called government of the Autonomous Republic announced that referendum on whether Crimea should join Russia or stay with Ukraine is to take place on March 16.
“I think they will receive 60 percent for Russia, and 40 or maybe 30 for Ukraine. And it all will be done in democratic disguise. But we can imagine what the annexation of a whole peninsula that belongs to Ukraine will mean on the international scale. It will remind Germans seizure of the Sudetes or of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in 1940. That is why taking over Crimea will have grave international consequences for Russia, since it is far from being so untouchable and invulnerable as one may think. There is a lot of internal antagonism in this country, and taking over Crimea will not give Russia the benefits it dreams about.”
