At Root with the Situation in Eastern Ukraine

At Root with the Situation in Eastern Ukraine

   In public conversations with Vladimir Putin, Barack Obama has made it clear that what Russia wants is an understanding and respect on the part of the West for Russia's regional interests.  Fair enough, I suppose, but the prevailing logic may live in the cliche, "you can't always get what you want, but you can get what you need most of the time." Russia, obviously feels threatened by the prospect of Nato enlargement and has been disappointed by the limited regional support for an Eurasian Trading bloc.  Ukraine has long been a consumer of Russian Natural Gas and reportedly has a $7 billion dollar bill to pay resulting from their usage.  Interestingly, Ukraine is capable of substantially improved energy independence if it makes use of its massive coal deposits.  Here's the kicker, around 90% of Ukrainian Coal Reserves are in the Donets Basin, where Russia claims it needs a land route to its naval installations in Crimea.  What Russia wants to do is prevent Ukraine from making use of those coal deposits in an effort to achieve energy independence.  The real impetus for Russian sponsored rebels lives here, and has little to do with ethnicity, nationality or language.  It's a zero sum calculus over energy, with Russia reasoning that by controlling the Donets basin, Russia can keep western Ukraine dependent on Russian Natural Gas.  If there is to be a thaw in tensions over Ukraine, control over the Donets Valley is going to be the key piece to any peace.

   I would enter into mediation with both sides clear on three matters,

1. Russia is going to end up keeping Crimea, the rest of Ukraine will remain united with some special autonomy relating to education, cross border trade/travel and law enforcement.

2. Ukraine is going to need to pay its gas bills to Russia.

3. Ukraine will join the EU but not NATO.

   Ukraine has given up its nuclear weapons and so the US has some responsibility to help provide for Ukraine's security, otherwise, why would any country give up nuclear weapons in the future?

    Improving ground to air and anti-tank capabilities are the easiest way to boost Ukraine's defensive capabilities, escalating the costs of any deeper incursions into Ukrainian territory on the part of Russian proxies.  I've argued for the implementation of a Sweedish ground to air system that is state of the art and helps maintain a certain sense of impartiality in the provision of Ukraine's basic defense needs.

   Anti-tank capabilities are also an option, as is the sale of refurbished older tanks, that Israel is likely to bid on as well.   Any bids should undergo a fair, competitive bidding process.

   In the negotiation of peace, the EU and their Nato allies may need to look at making debt payments to Russia a prioritized payment as aid money is released.  Not only talking about this, but doing such successfully will go a great ways to easing Russian posture over Ukraine.  This could be done in conjunction with an ease of sanctions on Russia, if they follow through on deescalation or in compliance with sanctions by arranging payments into non-military accounts such as schools and universities or accounts geared towards providing services to the elderly, sick or poor.  

   I'm not an expert in coal, but do not believe that wide scale re-nationalization of industry is the answer for Ukraine's future, so some involvement with Russian coal companies maybe an appropriate point of bargaining where they are capable of placing competitive bids against other Euro, US or Ukrainian companies.

   There is also a need for the Obama administration and its NATO partners to clearly delineate what they would expect from Russia in order for sanctions to be relieved and if Russia follows these steps, a vote to end sanctions would need to be quickly held.  This is an issue I'd rather not comment on because I am not entirely clear on the higher ups attitude on the matter and do not want to undermine US positioning (but will do some more research into the matter).

   I'll conclude, however, with a more profound vision.  Signatures on the Trans-Atlantic Trade Agreement and a 5 year plan to bring Russia and Belarus into the EU and the agreement, with a commitment not to expand Nato farther unless Russia itself is joining the NATO alliance.

   The US and the Euro are fine, with increased energy production from the US, dependence on Russian Natural Gas in Germany and Eastern Europe is fading.  Our governments and economies are performing and solvent, Russia has everything to gain from integration into the Western system, but it is only going to be able to enter if it also opens its economy.  The US and Euro, are going to need to involve and value Russian intelligence relating to regional matters of expertise, since they were at least in part correct, over Syria and gave us the advanced warning about the Chechnyan born suspects attached to the Boston bombing attacks.  The US and allies would also love to have unanimity amongst the security council and key regional players such as Israel and the Arab League, not only as it relates to ISIS, but also over Iran's nuclear program and clear commitment to intervene militarily to stop them from attaining nuclear weapons.  Unfortunately, in today's world, rights towards national self-determination require a qualifying clause, "when security conditions permit." While the US unequivocally recognizes and supports the democratic aspirations of all people, there are necessary pre-requisites for democratic success.  The future focus of US foreign policy needs to center-around the economic development and educational achievement necessary for solvent governance and flourishing civil societies to emerge and blend with religious institutions.