Time to end the bloody Ukraine conflict

[bemildred]

By Katrina vanden Heuvel September 9 at 8:41 AM

If the United States and Europe were thinking rationally, the NATO summit in Wales last week would have been an opportunity to discuss a lasting resolution to the violent crisis in Ukraine, which has claimed thousands of lives and crippled the country’s economy. Instead, amid a fragile cease-fire agreement between Kiev and pro-Russian rebels in the east, the assembled world leaders used the summit for more belligerent talk and reckless saber-rattling, with their ultimate goal increasingly unclear. The goal seemed more preparing the NATO alliance for a new Cold War with Russia than exploring how to make peace, even as Moscow was helping to bring about the cease-fire agreement.

The meeting was just the most recent disturbing example of how cavalierly and cynically the NATO leaders — including President Obama — have escalated tensions, while dismissing opportunities to bring the conflict to a reasonable conclusion quickly. Absent from the discussion in Wales, among other things, was any recognition of NATO members’ own roles in triggering the crisis. Despite the dominant narrative that Russia is to blame for Ukraine’s uncertain future, history tells a different story — one in which the West’s provocative behavior has had predictable repercussions.

There would have been no civil war if the European Union’s leadership had not insisted on an exclusive association agreement that prejudiced Ukrainian industry in the east and trade with Russia, or if the United States and European nations had used their influence with the demonstrators to abide by the Feb. 21 agreement then-President Viktor Yanukovych signed, which would have handed more power to parliament and called for elections in December, or if the United States and Europe had been willing to work with Russia to restore the Feb. 21 agreement and calm worries in Crimea and the east about the rights of Russian-speaking Ukrainians.

Instead the U.S. and E.U. have encouraged the most radical elements in the Kiev government in their campaign to subjugate the east with military force — to seek a military solution to what is essentially a political problem in a deeply divided and economically fragile Ukraine.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/katrina-vanden-heuvel-nato-passes-the-blame-on-crisis-it-triggered-in-ukraine/2014/09/08/2841f35a-378a-11e4-9c9f-ebb47272e40e_story.html

[Tommy_Carcetti]

1. Yanukovych had already been packing to leave before the Feb. 21st agreement was reached.

He wasn't going to stick around regardless. I don't know why people are so fixated on that as being the flashpoint of the current Ukrainian crisis.

[meMeMEEEE]

2. there should be a FAQ or something to stop the same BS from getting recycled

1. 'U.S. and E.U. have encouraged ..to seek a military solution to what is essentially a political problem' - Ukraine's military was not active until 1) the Crimea has been annexed 2) Russians have occupied government buildings in the East, in other words, an invasion (Putin confirmed the use of the Russian military in Crimea in March). The initial operation did not commence until after Presidential elections in May and was a logical response to an invasion (not sure how it can be termed a 'political' problem). The premise of the article is flawed

2. the article talks about how the West is to blame, ignoring Ukraine's right to self-determination as a factor. The fact is that the majority of the population wants to be with Europe, so the country has a right to align itself with Europe, that is just how democracies work. If it inconveniences Russia, tough luck, Ukraine has a right to choose its own path, which is hopefully not something that is up for debate

3. 'While there is no question that Russia at times has contributed to tensions in the region, what has unfolded was predictable..' - only if you maintain that a permanent member of the Security Council in the 21st century is capable of going back on its own assurances (Budapest Memo) and changing European borders by force, hardly predictable to any sane person

4. 'These demands [harsher sanctions] seem to increase regardless of what Moscow does' - unclear, to date Moscow has done nothing to deescalate the situation, instead it has been building up military presence in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Seriously do not understand what this statement is referring to in opposing harsher sanctions

5. 'Never mind that Putin has just helped broker a long-sought cease-fire...we have the cease-fire to build on' - misleading, following the cease fire on Friday, there have been numerous offensives by the Russians including an attack on Mariupol and at least five Ukrainian soldiers have been killed. There is no cease fire

6. 'First and foremost, any possible membership of Ukraine in NATO or the stationing of NATO forces on Ukrainian territory must be firmly excluded' - point 2 above

7. 'Second, Ukraine should adopt a federal system that provides more autonomy for the eastern region and protects the rights of its Russian-speaking population' - the federal system is perceived by Ukraine as a way for Russians to gain greater political control over regions in the East. Given what has already happened to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea earlier this year, they have a case. Furthermore, Ukraine already has a law protecting minority language rights (no, it has not been repealed) modelled after an equivalent EU piece of legislation

[Dems to Win]

3. K&R. Katrina's one of the best, whether she's writing for The Nation or

The Washington Post

[geek tragedy]

4. This is the same nonsense her husband has

been publishing for months now, wherein everyone is to blame except the country that invaded its neighbor and was complicit in the downing of a civilian airliner. Anyone who holds Putin 100% blameless for his own crimes is barely rising above Fox. & Friends.

Armed militias in the east declared that part of the country part of Russia. But in her household that is somehow the US's fault.