Ukraine, Independence, Yorktown and France

 President Trump, Vice-President Vance, and prime minister without portfolio Elon Musk have all said, in one way or another, that President Zelenskiy of Ukraine does not want peace.

Of course not.  That’s why they are fighting.  The victim of aggression can usually have peace, of a kind, by surrender.  But Ukraine is fighting for other values that Americans hold dear: independence, freedom, democracy and prosperity.  As a sovereign nation, Ukraine has a right to pursue trade associations and political alliances of its own choice, not the choice of its larger neighbor to the east.  This is true regardless of the historical ties (and historical conflicts) between Russia and Ukraine.  In 1991, Ukraine voted for independence by a 92% to 8% margin, in an election with 84% turnout.  Those numbers put most American elections to shame.  At that time, Ukraine became a sovereign and independent state.  In 1994, Ukraine agreed to give up its Soviet-era nuclear weapons in an agreement with Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom.  In exchange, the other parties agreed to respect Ukraine’s 1991 borders, to seek redress in the UN Security Council if Ukraine’s borders were violated, and to refrain from economic coercion of Ukraine.  

From 1991 until 2014, there was extensive meddling by Russia in Ukrainian affairs, including elections.  My company maintained an office in Kiev for about a decade, working with Ukrainian authorities to establish a legal framework for oil and gas production in Ukraine, without success.  Our company representative told me that these efforts were sabotaged in the Ukrainian parliament by Russian interference, as Russia wanted to keep Ukraine dependent on Russian energy exports.

The crisis between Russia and Ukraine developed after Ukraine signed a free trade and association agreement with the European Union, in 2013.  The agreement came after two decades of rapprochement with the EU, and a year of detailed negotiations.  The agreement was overwhelming approved in the Ukraine parliament, but pro-Russian President Yanukovych refused to sign the deal.  President Yanukovych was deposed by the parliament in the ensuing crisis.  Russia invaded the bordering provinces and Crimea the following year.  European negotiators expressed complete shock that the Russians reacted as they did to the free trade agreement.  The time since the original Russian invasion has been marked by cease-fire agreements, each later broken by Russia with new military action.  

Ukraine has been a vassal state to Russian since Tsarist times.  It was robbed and starved in the Holodmor famine of the 1930s.  Its independent energy development was stifled in the 1970s, following the discovery of natural gas in the Donbass, and again through Russian political meddling after independence.  

Before peace, Ukraine wants independence, freedom, and the opportunity for prosperity through independent association with Europe.  After these are secured, then Ukraine will be ready for peace, with Western guarantees of security.  These are the same things that a fledgling United States wanted in 1776.  

In 1781, after five years of grinding war with Britain, George Washington was marching his army south to confront General Cornwallis in South Carolina.  At Philadelphia, the entire army threatened to desert, unless they were paid in coin, instead of Continental paper money.  The French representative paid the American soldiers in gold coin, using half of his monetary reserve.  The French also provided 10,800 foot soldiers, a larger force than the American army.  A fleet of 29 warships fought and defeated the British fleet, and blocked reinforcement of Cornwallis’ army.  After a month-long siege, General Cornwallis surrendered to Washington, and the Revolutionary War was over.  

Without the assistance of the French, there would have been no Revolutionary War victory.  There would be no July 4th, no Star-Spangled Banner, no American government.  No one can say what the future would have been, but we would not have achieved independence on our own.  

Let there be no doubt that Russia is a tyrannical country.  Russia is a country where investigative journalists and opposition politicians are brazenly murdered with the apparent complicity of the secret police.  Russia is a country where high-level business executives are flung from high-rise windows, or hacked to death with axes, along with their wives and children.  Russia is a country where children are separated from their parents because a child expresses a desire for peace at school.  Russia is a country where perceived enemies are hunted down in exile and murdered.  Russia is a country where other politicians are poisoned, imprisoned or murdered in prison.  Russia is a country where lawyers are imprisoned for simply representing an opposition or anti-corruption client, or suffer fractured skulls during police interrogation.  Russia is a country without free media, where all messaging is controlled by the government, and where alternative sources of information on the Internet are banned.  Russia is a country without a right to free speech, where even carrying a blank sign can result in a prison term.  Russia is a country whose closest allies are North Korea, Iran, China, Cuba and Venezuela, all of whom are antithetical to American values and American interests.  

Ukraine is in a similar fight for its independence, freedom, territorial integrity and sovereignty.  Ukraine has a sovereign right to choose between freedom, democracy, free speech and free and fair markets, or to submit to Russian tyranny.  We owe it to the people of Ukraine to help them defend their lands, their people, and their independence from Russian tyranny, just as France assisted the newborn United States gain our independence from Britain.  

The Consequences of Civil War

In recent years, America has supported or encouraged rebellions in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria and Ukraine.  Americans and their government cheered the events of the “Arab Spring” in 2011.  The consequence of these rebellions has been civil war, death, and great human suffering.  The conflicts have created millions of refugees, taxing humanitarian resources and causing social instability in receiving countries.  The poverty and misery from these wars will cause problems for decades, much as the poverty following the first World War contributed to the second World War. 

The unrest leading to these rebellions existed before the involvement of the United States.  The rebellions may have occurred anyway.  But the United States voiced support for these rebellions, and in some cases contributed money, training, supplies, and military action in support of the rebellions.   The consequence of these rebellions is still an unfolding tragedy.

Any policy which could lead to such consequences is seriously misguided.  The rebellions which were encouraged and supported by the United States are spreading terrorism and the risk of war to other countries – including the United States.

Let’s agree on one simple thing.  Civil wars are bad.

In the American Civil War (1860 – 1864) about 700,000 people died, over 2 percent of the population, or about 8 percent of white adult men.   In the Russian Civil war (Nov. 1917 – Oct. 1922), following the Bolshevik Revolution, an estimated 9 million people died, mostly civilians, from famine, disease, and violence, out of a population of 185 million people (also about 2% of the population).   Since 1945, civil wars have resulted in the deaths of 25 million people and the displacement of many millions more.  Civil wars often destroy the fabric of a country, and leave a legacy of poverty and violence for many years past the end of the war.

During the Cold War, the United States condemned the Soviet Union for encouraging communist uprisings around the world.  Communist regimes were established in China, North Korea, Cuba, and Vietnam.  Unsuccessful insurgencies occurred in Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Venezuela, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and Angola.  Civil wars followed in a number of countries.  While some of these countries have established stable governments, most continue to suffer from poverty and instability.

At the same time, the United States pursued its own cold war goals.  The United States toppled the government of Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Brazil in 1964, and Chile in 1973.  Further civil instability followed most of these for decades, and these countries also continue suffer from continuing poverty and instability. 

In recent years, the United States has done exactly what it condemned 40 years ago.

Neoconservative Foreign Policy Becomes American Foreign Policy

In the 1990s, the neoconservative political movement became dominant in American foreign policy.  Neo-conservatives include both the senior and younger Presidents George Bush and prominent members of their administrations.   The neoconservative movement advocates aggressive promotion of democracy and American interests around the world.  This aggression includes the use of military force and inciting rebellion against regimes oriented against American interests.   The intellectuals of the neoconservative movement seem to have missed the irony of using military force to achieve democracy.  They are also unfazed by the general failure to achieve a viable democracy through military intervention.

The neoconservative movement originated in the Republican Party.  It is surprising to me, then, that the  goals of the neoconservative movement have been adopted, by mainstream Democrats, including Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton.  Even the Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders does little to condemn the foreign policy of earlier administrations.

During the Obama administration, and under the Secretary of State (foreign affairs) Hilary Clinton, the United States encouraged revolutions in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, and Ukraine.  Anti-government movements existed in these countries, independent of the United States.  But the United States offered encouragement at a minimum, and in some cases, direct military action.

The policy has been described as “covert intervention”, allowing the United States to fight small wars, with little direct involvement.  Democratic Party politicians are reluctant to directly invade other countries with American troops, but they show little hesitation in encouraging rebellions, by providing weapons, advisors, covert action by the CIA, and active bombing by US aircraft.

The Human Cost of Recent Wars

Casualties

Libya – 30,000 killed, 50,000 wounded.

Egypt – 846 killed in the 2011 revolution; more than 2600 killed in post-coup unrest.

Syria – 270,000 killed.

Ukraine – More than 6000.

Iraq – Estimates vary widely, from 115,000 to 500,000.

Refugees

Refugees are an inevitable consequence of civil war, and the most wide-scale tragedy.  Refugee’s families and lives are shattered.   Refugees suffer from poverty, disease, rape, loss of housing, employment, and education.  It is human tragedy on a massive scale, greatly exceeding the number of those killed and wounded. 

The United Nations High Commission on Refugees reported earlier this year that the number of people displaced by conflict and persecution was at an all-time high.  About 60 million people are now counted as refugees, or almost 1% of all the people in the world.

There are now about 11 to 12 million refugees from the civil war in Syria, representing about half of the pre-war population of 22 million people.  That number is rapidly growing as the war escalates.  Over 4 million people have fled the country, with most finding refuge in Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordon.  Other Middle Eastern countries hosting large numbers of refugees include Egypt and Iraq.  An estimated 825,000 refugees from Syria have entered Europe, with 459,000 arriving by sea in 2015 alone.

In 2015, there are approximately 4 million refugees from war in Iraq.  This is the same number as reported in 2007.  About 3.5 million refugees are internally displaced within Iraq.  Nearly 500,000 refugees and asylum-seekers are now in other countries. 

In Ukraine, there are about 1.4 million internally displaced refugees, and about 900,000 who have fled to neighboring countries.  About 1 million people lack access to safe water.

There are about 800,000 internally displaced people in Afghanistan, and about 2.7 million people who have fled the country.

The conflict in Libya has displaced over 360,000 people within the country. 

The Failed Foreign Policy of “Regime Change”

There are countries on earth with governments that are undemocratic.  There are countries on earth with leaders who are corrupt and tyrannical.  There are countries on earth that actively work against the interests and welfare of the United States.  It might be that the people in those countries would be better off with a different government.  And in those countries, there are probably citizens who deeply desire change.

By what right should one country intervene in the affairs of another country?  There are certain circumstances, such as genocide, where the history of the last 70 years shows that intervention is sometimes necessary to confront evil.  But when the problem is simply bad government, there is little justification for encouraging a rebellion against an established government. 

In cases of violence against civilian populations, as happened under Saddam Hussein and Bashir Assad, there is an impulse to charge to the rescue.  But in each of these interventions, the lives of the people at risk are now immeasurably worse, than if they had continued to live under the repression of these dictators.

The process of regime change is never simple.  There are few examples of a peaceful transition from one system of government to another.   In Iraq, American leaders have imagined that regime change would be quick, painless and inexpensive.  But the war which toppled Saddam Hussein spawned sectarian violence, spread beyond the borders of Iraq and encouraged the formation of the most violent Islamic organization of modern times.   Thirteen years after the American invasion, the situation continues to spiral out of control.  There is a very real threat that the Syrian war could ignite the next world war. 

No one is better off as a result of the rebellions and revolutions in these countries.  If you regard the situation from a humane viewpoint, the people of these countries were better off under their repressive and corrupt former leaders.  If the strategists in the State Department are only looking at the cold geopolitical analysis of Western interests, it is still clear that America and Western Europe would be better off if these revolutions had not happened.  The flood of refugees will cause social chaos and is a breeding ground for terrorists.

America’s policy of encouraging rebellions and overturning dictators has been disastrous to the people of those countries.  These rebellions produced violence and social instability, and are spreading terrorism and the risk of war to other countries – including the United States.

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War#Casualties

http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm

http://www.tacitus.nu/historical-atlas/population/russia.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Communist_revolutions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_revolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_American_crisis

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa074.html

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/2011/06/23/whats-a-neoconservative/

https://berniesanders.com/democratic-socialism-in-the-united-states/

Libya

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/07/libya-intervention-daalder_n_6809756.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/30/america-s-secret-libya-war-u-s-spent-1-billion-on-covert-ops-helping-nato.html

The US performed the largest role in the NATO’s military action to depose Ghaddafi. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

US spending of about $1 billion on military action, the second highest of any nation.  Major military resources committed.

Ukraine

http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/2013/dec/218804.htm

Victoria Nuland speech admits 5 billion dollars of investment to encourage association with Europe.

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2015/february/02/obama-admits-us-role-in-ukraine-overthrow/

Obama quoted as saying the United States “brokered a power transition in Ukraine”.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

Victoria Nuland phone conversation discussing abilities of Ukrainian leaders, and which leaders would be acceptable to the United States.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/15/john-mccain-ukraine-protests-support-just-cause

John McCain encouraging Ukrainian revolution.

Egypt

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2013/07/06/us-backed-coup-hijacks-egypts-revolution/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-is-supporting-oppression-in-egypt/2014/02/07/10a4c8fc-8f66-11e3-b227-12a45d109e03_story.html

Syria

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Syria

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2011/0418/Cables-reveal-covert-US-support-for-Syria-s-opposition

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10283758/First-Syria-rebels-armed-and-trained-by-CIA-on-way-to-battlefield.html

Willful Ignorance in the Age of Misinformation

This post is a departure from my usual presentation of quantitative, objective data in the form of charts.   This post is more personal, less quantified, and possibly more important.

This post is about truth.  It is about misinformation campaigns in the media.  It is about people who believe in propaganda, and people who create an alternate, irrational reality. 

This post is about how news media have been subverted by political interests in the United States, and by state interests in other parts of the world.  It is about how news media use human psychological weaknesses to manipulate public opinion.

This post is about people who believe in nonsense.  It is about those who believe the Apollo moon landing was faked in Hollywood.  It is about people who don’t believe in climate change.  It is about those who believe President Barack Obama plans to mobilize the U.S. Army to declare martial law in Texas.  (And about the Texas governor who gives credence to such nonsense).  It is about those who believe President Obama was born in Kenya, or is a Muslim, or would in any way betray the United States.  It is about those who believe anti-American propaganda in Russian state-owned media.

It is about people choosing to believe nonsense instead of documented truth.   It is about people choosing to live in deliberate and willful ignorance. 

------

Willful Ignorance

Not long ago, I had an altercation on Facebook. 

A friend posted something about American astronaut Buzz Aldrin, the second man to step on the moon.  I commented that my uncle, a former military pilot and aerospace engineer, had designed the antenna on the lunar lander.  My uncle’s antenna allowed the lunar lander to communicate across 250,000 miles to earth, sending mechanical parameters, voice and video signals across that vast distance.   My uncle was quietly proud; he never spoke about the work, but a plaque hung in the hallway of his house.

Someone commented that he didn’t believe that men had landed on the moon. 

I was astonished.  I was outraged.

We argued.

I wrote about the tens of thousands of people, like my uncle, who worked on the program.  I mentioned 4 billion-year-old moon rocks, which were analyzed at my university while I attended graduate school.  Such rocks could not have been counterfeited.  I wrote about the cost of the program, representing 0.5 % of America’s GDP during the Vietnam War.   There is physical evidence.  There are photos of the abandoned landing modules made by NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.  There are laser reflectors placed on the moon by Apollo astronauts which are still used for precisions measurements of the moon’s orbit. 

All of my words were futile.  My antagonist was unmoved.  His arguments became more absurd; his comments became more insulting.  He suggested that robots had landed on the moon in the 1960’s – ridiculous, as the required computer technology did not exist in the 1960s. 

Words cannot express my anger.  With unbelief, this apparently intelligent person dishonors one of the greatest accomplishments of mankind.  He dishonors those who accomplished the feat.  This person chooses to reject all reasonable evidence of truth and to believe something nonsensical. 

I call that willful ignorance.

--

Misinformation

We live in an age of misinformation. 

In America, commercial interests with a political agenda have taken control of many of the major news services in the country. At best, these commercial interests have abandoned the idea of objective reporting, in favor of “news-ertainment”, anything that produces better ratings and advertising revenue.  At worst, these interests have deep political objectives and are manipulating the news for political gain.  Journalistic ethics are failing, and objective reporting has been replaced by advocacy journalism, or in simpler terms, propaganda.  Reporting is relentlessly biased, opinionated, incomplete, and constructed for the purpose of manipulating public opinion.

In many countries, the government or government-controlled organizations have taken control of new services.  Governments are increasingly aggressive in censoring the internet and censoring the news.  Some nations have hired armies of shills (“trolls”) to write commentary on the Internet, and funded false “independent” websites dedicated to spreading government lies.  Currently, Russian state-owned media is engaged in propaganda campaigns against America, western Europe, and to justify Russian intervention in Ukraine.  This propaganda uses distortion across a wide spectrum from fascism to homosexuality to impugn the character of the west.  The strangest accusation that I encountered in Russian media was that American psychologists approve of pedophilia.  Social media is used to spread such lies and deception; I just watched an anti-American video posted on You-tube.  The video is a fraud; the events it depicts did not happen.  But the video allegedly attracted 500,000 views on the first day.

Misinformation is generally not in the form of outright lies.  Rather, the general technique in America is more subtle.  Misinformation consists of innuendo, irrelevant negative associations, selective and incomplete evidence, pejorative photography or reporting, etc.  Many of these techniques are based on well-known psychological phenomena, such as those discussed by Dan Ariely in Predictably Irrational (http://danariely.com/the-books/), and Daniel Kahneman in Thinking, Fast and Slow (http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555).  It is disturbingly easy to manipulate the human mind and modern news organizations are ready to do it. 

Techniques of Opinion Manipulation

News organizations are increasingly manipulating public opinion for political gain.  Here are some of the techniques used to influence the public perception of a story.

Confirmation Bias

One of the strongest techniques of manipulation is self-induced by viewers.  People invariably favor evidence that reinforces existing beliefs, and tend to discount or discredit evidence that opposes their existing beliefs.   

Anchoring

Anchoring is the technique of providing a reference point to the viewer.  The viewer is biased by the reference point in weighing deviations from that point.

Emotional Arousal

Emotional arousal is used to influence viewers.  Typically, something of highly negative emotional content is used to smear a political opponent.  I sometimes call this “pushing the ‘outrage’ button”.

The Halo Effect

An irrelevant positive or negative trait is associated with a target, in order to bias the viewer’s perceptions about unrelated traits.

The Endowment Effect

People value things they possess higher than things they do not possess.   Suggestions of possession are used to promote nationalism.

“Expert” Opinion

Disproportionate or illegitimate “expert” testimony is broadcast to influence viewers, regardless of whether the expert opinion actually represents the mainstream expert viewpoint. 

These techniques can be seen every day on Fox News (with its Orwellian motto “Fair and Balanced”), on MSNBC, on RT (Russia Television) News, in the opinion pages of The Dallas Morning News and other papers, and sadly, the newest acquisitions of Rupert Murdoch’s NewsCorp, the Wall Street Journal and Barron’s magazine.  These formerly had the highest standards of journalistic integrity, and are now corrupted.   It is becoming more and more difficult to find objective news.

Integrity in Journalism

I intend to write further about integrity in Journalism.  Truthful information is the lifeblood of every society.  Propaganda is a cancer which will destroy the society.  There should be a Hippocratic Oath of Integrity for journalists, binding them to truthful, complete and accurate reporting.  But in the current, real world, such a thing does not exist.  And it becomes the duty of the citizen to become informed, and to make reasoned judgments about truth while being bombarded by propaganda.  It will not be easy.

Conclusion

We live in an age of misinformation.  Misinformation and political propaganda are found on state-sponsored media, commercial media, and social media.  Our laws restrict untruthful claims about simple products, but allow truth to be trampled in political discourse under the protection of free speech.  (But I will defend free speech unto death.)

 Author Nate Silver (The Signal and the Noise, http://www.amazon.com/The-Signal-Noise-Predictions-Fail-but/dp/0143125087) compared the early age of the Internet to the early years following the invention of the Gutenberg printing press.  The new media removed the barriers to publication, and enabled both good and bad material to be published (including this blog).  What followed Gutenberg was a period of chaos in publishing, until society developed standards which ensured the quality of books.  A similar process may be unfolding now.  But the power of state and commercial interests will be difficult to overturn.

In an environment of misinformation, people will believe the damndest things.  I don’t know why.  People realize that the news is unreliable, and grasp at straws to make sense of the world.  Some people accept propaganda as truth.  Some people recognize that media cannot be trusted, and fall back on crackpot conspiracy theories as an alternative set of beliefs.  In part, irrational beliefs represent confirmation bias, running wild.  People believe crazy things because they want to believe crazy things.  People reject uncomfortable truths because they don’t like the consequences of those truths. 

People have a responsibility to think rationally and truthfully.  To live in a world of propaganda, of half-truths, of irrationality is chaos and madness.  For a society, the prevalence of such beliefs can only bring about chaos and destruction.  People need to think critically about the news presented in the media, and choose rationality instead of willful ignorance.

------

References

Apollo moon landing conspiracy theories:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

Dan Ariely, 2008, Predictably Irrational, 349 p., http://danariely.com/the-books/.

Daniel Kahneman, 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow, 499 p., http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555.

Nate Silver, 2012, The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail, But Some Don’t, 534 p.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Signal-Noise-Predictions-Fail-but/dp/0143125087

About FOX News

Gabriel Sherman, 2014, The Loudest Voice in the Room, 560 p.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Loudest-Voice-Room-News/dp/0812992857

David Brock, 2012, How Roger Ailes Turned a Network into a Propaganda Machine, 336 p.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0307279588/ref=rdr_ext_tmb

Joe Muto, 2014, An Atheist in the FOXhole; A Liberal’s Eight-Year Odyssey Inside the Heart of Right-Wing Media, 336 p.

http://www.amazon.com/An-Atheist-FOXhole-Eight-Year-Right-Wing/dp/0142181013

Russian State-Sponsored Propaganda

http://www.buzzfeed.com/maxseddon/documents-show-how-russias-troll-army-hit-america#.hblD5D9Yj

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-inside-russian-troll-house

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/the-kremlins-troll-army/375932/

http://www.rferl.org/content/how-to-guide-russian-trolling-trolls/26919999.html

News website seemingly representing Russian state media:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/

American Weapons for Ukraine: the Wrong Direction for Peace

Paula Dobriansky and other conservative foreign policy advisors advocate sending American weapons to Ukraine, to assist the Ukrainian government in the war against separatists in Eastern Ukraine. Such an action would be seen as a provocation by Russia.  President Putin, as his history shows, would respond with disproportionate force.  Any American intervention in Ukraine would invite an openly full-force Russian invasion, which would be devastating to the people and country of Ukraine.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Mission Statement for the United States State Department is:  “Create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community.”

Someone might wonder if the actions of the State Department, accurately reflect those values. Someone might wonder if the results of American foreign policy are often the opposite of our stated goals.

In 1998, members of the institute “Project for the New American Century” wrote a letter to President Clinton, urging him to use the American military to overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq.   Paula Dobriansky was among the very high-profile signatures on the letter.   Most of the signers of the letter later occupied high positions in the second Bush administration, and conducted the war against Iraq.  The war did devastated Iraq, cost thousands of American lives and perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives.  The current situation is far from stable, democratic, or prosperous. The war against Iraq resulted in the emergence of the Islamic State in the Levant, a genuine threat to Americans and the world.

Paula Dobriansky appears to be ready to repeat this mistake in Ukraine.

Presentation by Paula Dobriansky, “Ukraine, Peril and Opportunity”

I recently heard a presentation at the Alaska World Affairs Council by Paula Dobriansky, former United States Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs.  Ms. Dobriansky is an experienced diplomat with gold-plated credentials  who has worked at the highest levels in American foreign policy.  Ms. Dobriansky’s talk was titled “Ukraine, Peril and Opportunity”.  

A Voice of America interview with Paula Dobriansky addressing the situation in Ukraine can be found here:  http://www.voanews.com/content/q-and-a-with-paula-dobriansky-ukraine-crisis-upends-international-order/1890889.html

In her presentation, Ms. Dobriansky acknowledged the bleak situation and poor prospects for peace in Ukraine.  She advocates the hardest possible sanctions on Russia in response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine.  Despite well-documented evidence, Ms. Dobriansky avoided any discussion of responsibility that Western diplomats may hold in inciting the current conflict.  As an aside during her presentation, Ms. Dobriansky called for providing American weapons to the Ukrainian government to fight pro-Russian separatists and the Russian military in eastern Ukraine.  She added that this measure would come before the United States Congress in March, when the current round of economic sanctions expires.

After the program, I asked Ms. Dobriansky what possible good would come through delivering weapons to the Ukrainians.  She responded, that she believed that weapons shipments from the United States would give the Ukrainians “psychological support”.

The United States is currently providing non-lethal support to Ukraine.  Ukrainian president Poroshenko directly requested military support from the United States, saying, “You can’t win a war with blankets.”

Bennett Ramberg, a former State Department official in the G.H.W. Bush (senior) administration echoes Dobriansky’s opinion that the United States should provide lethal military support to Ukraine.  Ramberg cites the “successful” strategy of providing military aid to Afghan militants during the Soviet occupation, seemingly oblivious to the long-term results of that action.

Disproportionate Retaliation; Vladimir Putin’s Personal Style in Response to Conflict

The conflict in Ukraine began in a dispute about a proposed trade agreement between the European Union. 

As in many conflicts, the Ukrainian conflict developed according to a well-worn pattern of offence and retaliation.  What began as a simple trade proposal between Ukraine and the European Union was perceived by Russia as an expansion of NATO and an existential threat.    Each action by Western governments has been met with a response in kind by Russia.  President Putin has been reactive throughout the entire Ukrainian crisis, responding and retaliating to perceived offenses by the West.

President Putin has done much to consolidate power in Russia, eliminating opposition in the media, in politics, in business and in government.  His authority is now unquestioned, and it is clear that he is personally invested in the Ukraine conflict.  We can judge the likely actions of Russia based on the personality of its solitary leader. 

There is a pattern to Putin’s actions and decisions.  Putin responds to any perceived offense with a disproportionate retaliation, and usually in kind with the original offense.  Putin’s response to the European trade deal was a bigger trade deal; his response to a pro-Western insurrection is a bigger pro-Russian insurrection.  Putin’s response to the Ukrainian military campaign was a bigger military campaign.  This is a predictable style for President Putin. 

Vladimir Putin has used disproportionate retaliation as a response to conflict since childhood.  Biographer Masha Gessen recounts stories of Putin, a small boy, fighting and beating anyone who would dare to insult him, including much larger boys.  Putin established a tough reputation.  That pattern of behavior has persisted throughout Putin’s life, and as president, Putin has used it effectively to gain power and intimidate his opponents.

When Mikhael Khordokovsky dared to make a minor contribution to an opposition political party, he was jailed for ten years, and the company Yukos was dismembered.  Yukos lawyers, including a young mother, were jailed and beaten for daring to perform their duties in defense of the company.  In the Chechen war, the disproportionate response was the razing of the city of Grozny.  The examples are endless, including attacks and murders of opposition journalists, and the imprisonment of blogger Alexei Navalny’s brother.  President Putin is a vindictive man, who has shown that he will violently punished offender and innocent alike in retaliation for an insult.

Putin is a judo master, who has said “Life is judo”.  He is an opportunist, using his reprisals as opportunities for gain.  When Yukos, Russia’s largest oil company, was taken apart, the assets were largely distributed to Rosneft and Gazprom, from which the Russian government and Putin profited greatly.  From Yukos, to the confiscation of 50% of Shell’s Sakhalin Island project, to the annexation of Abkhazia and Crimea, Putin has shown he will use provocation as an excuse to take what he wants.

Likely Consequences of Sending American Weapons to Ukraine

So, let us consider again the prospect of providing American weapons to Ukraine.  

There is no doubt that providing American weapons would be perceived by Russia as a dramatic escalation of the conflict.  There can be no doubt that Russia’s response would be a disproportionate, violent, and acquisitive.  At present, observers have estimated that Russia has about 1000 soldiers in eastern Ukraine.  I expect the response to shipments of American weapons would be a massive invasion, with 80,000 to 100,000 troops, expanding the conflict to all of eastern Ukraine.  I expect the goals would be to establish a land corridor to Crimea, control of the infrastructure providing power and water to Crimea, and to acquire the lands east of the Dneiper River, including the coal, oil and natural gas resources of the Dneiper-Donets Basin.

Figure 1.  Oil and Gas Fields of the Dneiper-Donets Basin

Ukraine, since the breakup of the Soviet Union, already existed as a scattered collection of local authorities, with a weak and corrupt central government in Kiev.   In the state of war, local oligarchs have formed private militias to protect their own interests, which do not necessarily align with the interests of the central government.   These private militias are growing more powerful.   If America sends weapons to the Ukrainians, there is no accountability for the ultimate disposition of those weapons, and against whom the weapons will be used.  As has been seen in Iraq and Syria, many weapons supplied by the United States are ultimately acquired by our enemies, and used against our interests.

There is no winning this kind of war.  Russia is close to the conflict, can mobilize a much larger military response than Ukraine, and has many supporters in the population.  Russia is willing to destroy or displace any resistant native population.

Ms. Dobriansky, your house will not burn if the U.S. Congress approves sending weapons to Ukraine.  Your life will not be cut short with dreams unfulfilled.  Your sons will not die.  You will not feel the burn of bullets or shrapnel; you will not see the horror of a limb torn from your body.  But these things will surely happen to many people, if Congress follows through on your advised path of military support for Ukraine.   Nearly 5000 people have already died as a result of this unnecessary conflict.   About 600,000 people have been driven from their homes, and cities have become smoldering ruins.   And, as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, small conflicts become large conflicts.  War does not bring stability, nor peace, nor democracy; rather, military intervention becomes a crucible for hatred, violence and terrorism for decades.  If you have any compassion at all for your fellow human beings, you would not suggest sending weapons to Ukraine.

As I write, the situation in Ukraine is again in flux.  Fighting has intensified in the area of the Donets airport.  Additional tanks have appeared among the Donets rebel forces.  Russia is again massing soldiers on the border, in possible preparation for a full invasion.   In the event of a full Russian invasion, those advocating shipment of American weapons to Ukraine will have a stronger argument before the United States Congress.

About Paula Dobriansky

Ms. Dobriansky  has an extensive resume; she is currently Senior Fellow at Harvard University’s J.F. Kennedy School of Government, and has served as a diplomat under five U.S. presidents, both Democratic and Republican  She briefly served as an high-level executive of the news agency Thomson Reuters.  She has multiple academic honors and honorary degrees, and honors from the United States and a number of Eastern European nations, including Ukraine.  She is the author of influential opinion pieces on the editorial pages of major newspapers.  She has worked on a number of critical global issues, including women’s rights, human trafficking, human rights, oceans, health and climate change.  She is the daughter of a noted Ukrainian-American economist and anti-communist of the past generation, and she is considered an expert on Eastern Europe.

References

Dobriansky, Paula; Alaska World Affairs Council; Ambassador Paula Dobriansky on "Ukraine: Peril and Opportunity", December 10, 2014.

http://www.alaskaworldaffairs.org/events/paula-dobriansky-ukraine/

Dobriansky, Paula; “Q&A with Paula Dobriansky: Ukraine Crisis Upends International Order”, Voice of America Interview, April 10, 2014

http://www.voanews.com/content/q-and-a-with-paula-dobriansky-ukraine-crisis-upends-international-order/1890889.html

Letter to President Clinton by members of “Project for a New American Century”; January 26, 1998.

https://web.archive.org/web/20131021171040/http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Ramberg, Bennet; Op-ed piece by Bennett Ramberg, former State Department official in the G.H.W. Bush (senior) administration.  Ramberg echoes Dobriansky’s opinion that the United States should provide lethal military support to Ukraine.  Ramberg cites the “successful” strategy of providing military aid to Afghan militants during the Soviet occupation, seemingly oblivious to the long-term results of that action.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1120-ramberg-arm-ukraine-20141120-story.html

Karatnycky, Adrian, January 2, 2015; “Ukraine’s Rising Warlords”, blog post on GulfNews.com (Dubai).

Out-of-control private militias, right-wing militants, and oligarchs are becoming a problem for new Ukrainian government.    Private military groups have kidnapped and threatened government officials, and obstructed officials from carrying out their duties, unless actions are approved by the private militia.

http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/ukraine-s-rising-warlords-1.1435189

Golinkin, Lev, January 2, 2015, “Kiev’s Brutal Strategy in Eastern Ukraine”; blog post, Los Angeles Times.

Ukrainian policy of depriving separatist regions of basic necessities is inhumane and likely to create deeper conflict.   Private militias in eastern Ukraine are interdicting aid convoys from Russia.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-golinkin-ukraine-humanitarian-crisis-20150102-story.html

Gessen, Masha, 2012, The Man Without a Face – The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin,  Riverhead Books, First Edition, ISBN-10 #1594488428.

Ukraine – A Nation on the Edge, Update #2 – Differing Perspectives from East and West

The crisis in Ukraine has been the subject of two previous posts on this blog. 

Fifty years ago, as an eight-year old playing with older boys, I learned the name "Ukraine" in a board game called "Risk".  It was a war game, and the goal was global domination by building military empires.  The most important place on the map was Eastern Europe, stretching from the Barents Sea to the Middle East.   This large block, half the size of a continent, controlled the expansion of empires from east or west.  That crucial geopolitical place, the key to success in this boys' game, was given a single name: Ukraine.  (Strangely, the name of Russia did not exist on the map; perhaps this was some artifact of the cold war.  

Status of the Ukrainian Crisis

The Ukrainian crisis is unfolding with the inexorable logic of a slow-motion train wreck.  I wrote those words about a month ago, but failed to finish this post.    I originally wrote that outright war was unlikely…then still unlikely… and now would say increasingly likely.  Considerable violence will occur before the crisis is resolved. 

Russia has annexed Crimea, and cities of eastern Ukraine are in turmoil.  Separatists in these cities have created an ungovernable climate, using the same tactics used by rebels to overthrow President Yanukovich.  It is clear that Russian special forces are organizing the opposition, and performing the takeover of strategic infrastructure before handing control of these assets to local militias.

Perspectives on the Crisis

From the Russian perspective, the turmoil in Ukraine is a result of Western meddling.  Western interests attempted to pull Ukraine into the economic orbit of the European Union, and provoked a revolution, unseating a democratically elected president.   Further, Russia’s  annexation of Crimea is simply the settlement of a long-standing territorial dispute.  Most Russians of this generation regard Crimea as part of Russia, separated from Russia in 1958 by an arbitrary administrative act by Nikita Khrushchev.  In the post-war Soviet Union, Crimea was a popular resort destination for citizens of the Soviet Union.  Russians regard Crimea much as Americans would regard Florida.  It is a traditional resort and vacation land, a place of pleasant memories for today’s generation of Russians, their parents and grandparents.  

From the Western perspective, Russia’s actions are a war of territorial expansion, an unimaginable return to the predatory aggression of World War II.  Western diplomats regard Crimea is an integral part of Ukraine.  Ukraine’s border were established two generations ago, and guaranteed by a treaty in 1994.  In that treaty, Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, in exchange for the guarantee of security of its borders.

Each perception contains partial truth.   But reality goes beyond either perspective.   Western interests did provoke this crisis.   Europeans pursued economic integration with Ukraine, in a genuine, well-meaning attempt to improve the lives of people.   American diplomats promoted the Western-leaning opposition in a geo-political game of domination, and undermined the existing democratic government.  Russia, for its part, is over-reacting, to its own detriment.  Vladimir Putin is using this crisis to demonstrate that he has no tolerance of such interference in satellite countries.   Russia does not regard Ukraine as an equal sovereign state, but rather like a vassal, a little brother bound to Russia politically, economically, and militarily.  Russia will not tolerate the disloyalty and insubordination of Ukraine pursuing a different destiny.

When protests in Kiev reached a tipping point, Russia acted opportunistically, implementing a well-defined plan to dismember Ukraine.   After Russia annexed Crimea, the next steps were predestined.  Despite reassurances by Putin, diplomats and news media, Russia never intended to stop after the annexation of Crimea.  Crimea is dependent on the Ukrainian mainland for water, for power, and for natural gas.  To obtain a secure border for Russian territory, it was immediately necessary to control Kherson province.   And secure control of Kherson province requires control of the Black Sea coast, and the roads and infrastructure of eastern Ukraine.    At this point, Russia cannot back away.   Russia will continue its well-practiced process of local insurrection, military acquisition of strategic infrastructure and annexation until it has acquired all of Eastern Ukraine and the Black Sea coast to Moldova.  Russia's goals will be to obtain a secure border, separation of Russian-speaking regions from Ukraine, control of critical infrastructure, and ownership of prospective petroleum resources within Ukraine.   These petroleum resources exist in the Donets basin of Eastern Ukraine, and the offshore areas of the Black Sea.  The Black Sea coast of Ukraine is a highly prospective but mostly unexplored petroleum province.

Economic and Political Systems

Here’s my political theory. 

The political organization in a society must match the economic organization in that society.  Political structures which do not match the economic structure of the society are unstable, and will not endure.

When the economic unit consisted of a city and surrounding farmland, the political unit was the city-state.   As trading between cities increased, the level of political organization grew to principalities or small kingdoms.  Larger economies, such as ancient Egypt, carried correspondingly large political systems.  Empires sometimes arise as a result of aggressive leadership, but unless supported by widespread trade (e.g, the circum-Mediterranean trade of the Roman Empire), empires divide and die over the course of a few generations.   And so, the main political unit of the 20^th century has been the nation-state.   In recent decades, the increasing scale of trade caused more consolidation.  The European Union represents the next scale of political organization, reflecting economic integration across an entire continent, spanning many nations, languages, and cultures.  North America is awkwardly adjusting to the integration of Mexican and American cultures.

The Soviet Union was perhaps the first economic super-state.  The Soviet economy spanned 15 countries, and was continent-wide in political and economic union.  But this first experiment as a super-state failed, due to the flawed paradigm of strong state control, micro-managed economic planning, single-party political rule, and disregard for human liberty. 

The conflict in Ukraine is a conflict at the border between two expanding economic systems, each striving to improve lives through improved efficiency and economic integration.  But for the people with the misfortune to live in this torn country, there is no benefit. 

Consequences

As usual, there will be no winners in this conflict.

Russia will consolidate its influence in Eastern Ukraine and the Black Sea coast; the only question is how much violence will occur.  Western Ukraine will adopt an economic alignment with the European Union.   The West will need to provide substantial economic support to Western Ukraine for many years.   The people living in the disputed territories will suffer from local conflict for years to come.   Russians living in other satellite countries may be subject to prejudice or expulsion, as the principle rationale for Russian incursions into Crimea, S. Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Eastern Ukraine is that Russians are living in these places, and need protection.  Satellite countries that wish to preserve their autonomy may decide to preempt this process by expelling ethnic Russians, as occurred in several former Soviet Republics, following the breakup of the Soviet Union.  Russia will see the departure of Western investment, jobs, and technology.  The Russian economic growth was already slowing before the Ukrainian crisis; economic sanctions are likely to push the economy into recession. 

Vladimir Putin’s vision of Russia is that of a self-contained and self-sufficient society.  But the world is moving toward greater economic integration.  Every industry is benefiting from innovation and investment that is only possible in a world without economic borders.  Russia is shutting the door to participation in that world.

Putin’s Russia would be the center of an economic and political super-state, along the lines of the Soviet Union.   But Putin’s Russia has not corrected the flaws of the Soviet system.  And Russia lacks the wealth and technology to create a 21st century super-state.  Because of these actions in Ukraine, I believe Russia will become less wealthy, less influential, and more politically unstable in the coming decades.

And the question remains whether the adults and political leaders of the 21st century can hold the lives of people and the prosperity of society in higher regard than boys playing a game of world domination, fighting for control of a piece of territory called Ukraine.

Ukraine -- A Nation on the Edge: Update March 1, 2014

The Ukrainian crisis that I wrote about in early January has become critical.   As I attempt to write an update to my previous post, events unfold faster than I can research, and understand, and write.
Here is my first post on the topic:  http://dougrobbins.blogspot.com/2014/01/ukraine-nation-on-edge.html

Tampering by the United States in Ukrainian politics became evident in early February in a leaked telephone call between top US diplomats.  After increasingly aggressive actions by anti-government protesters occupying government buildings, the Ukrainian police began to violently repress the rebellion.  About one hundred Ukrainian civilian protesters died.  In a backlash against the violence, President Yanukovych was deposed by the Ukrainian parliament, and is wanted on charges of mass murder.   He has taken refuge in Russia.  The present focus of Russian resistance to the coup is in Crimea, the idyllic resort peninsula on the Black Sea.  Crimea, with historic allegiance to Russia and a majority Russian population, will soon become a break-away province, further dividing Ukraine and intensifying the conflict.  Vladimir Putin has now requested and received approval from the Russian Duma for a military intervention in Ukraine.

--

There is an old Russian joke that features President G.W. Bush, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.  (Russians considered President Bush and Secretary Rice intrinsically funny.)  Bush calls the Secretary of State, and with despair in his voice, asks her if there exists any country in the world where life is peaceful, where things work, where society is good.  Secretary Rice responds, “Yes, Mr. President, I’m sorry, but we’re working on that.”

Indeed, Condoleezza Rice was one of the architects of neoconservative foreign policy during the Bush era.   Neoconservative foreign policy is based on “assertive” promotion of democracy through military or political intervention in other countries, American “exceptionalism” (egotism, as political philosophy) and American nationalism. 

Following President Bush, President Obama kept much of the neo-conservative structure in the U.S. State Department.  One of those holdovers from the Bush Administration is Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, and wife of prominent neoconservative theorist Robert Kagan.   A phone call from Nuland to Ukraine Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt on an unsecured cell phone was intercepted and placed on YouTube.  The call reveals Nuland expressing preferences about which leaders among the Ukrainian opposition should take power in a new government, and reveals Nuland’s disdain for the European Union, for its careful and diplomatic approach to the Ukraine crisis. 

The text of Nuland’s conversation is appalling (see first link below).  Nuland and Pyatt discuss who should be included and who should be excluded in a new government of Ukraine, In their conversation, they plan to call leaders of the Ukrainian opposition to settle the leadership of a new government. 

I would like to note that this is not democracy.

The details of US support for the Ukrainian opposition are unclear, but it appears that there has been significant effort in promoting this coup.  Victoria Nuland was conspicuous in Kiev during December, handing sandwiches to protestors in Kiev.  Russia has claimed that the US has spent $20 million per week in support of Ukrainian opposition.  The American Ron Paul Institute says that Nuland herself claimed spending of $5 billion over two decades for Ukrainian democratization.

Democracy does not grow out of chaos.   America’s neoconservative diplomats have promoted exactly the opposite of what they claim to espouse.  What were they thinking?

In a democratic Ukraine, voters elected president Yanukovych.   If they disapproved of his decision to revoke the trade agreement with the European Union, they should wait until the end of his term, and elect a new president.  Shutting down the government through massive protests, occupying government buildings, and a government coup are not the process of democracy!  By inciting such actions, America and its diplomats carry significant blame for the horror that follows.  To me, America's involvement in this misery is shameful.  

At this point, I do not believe that Ukraine can continue as a united country.  Crimea, and parts of Eastern Ukraine will most likely be returned to Russia.  Civil unrest, civilian deaths, and economic hardship will follow for all parts of Ukraine for a long time to come.  Ukraine could have become a bridge between the West and Russia.  Instead, it has become a battleground.

In Syria, in Egypt, and now in Ukraine, the neoconservative vision of foreign policy has led to chaos and destruction that will last for decades.  When will America learn to keep its place in the world, and allow other countries and cultures to find their way to democracy through self-determination and peace?

-----------------------------------------------------

Text of the conversation between Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt can be found here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2014/0206/Amid-US-Russia-tussle-over-Ukraine-a-leaked-tape-of-Victoria-Nuland

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26089450

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2014/february/09/victoria-nulands-ukraine-gate-deceptions.aspx

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/02/23/neocons-and-the-ukraine-coup/

Maps:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26387353

Ukraine -- A Nation on the Edge

The word Ukraine –  Україна or Украина –  derives roughly from the words «У край» (phonetically: "oo-krai"), meaning something like “near the edge”, usually translated as the borderland or frontier.  «У край» provides an appropriate alternative meaning, “on the precipice”.

Ukraine, on the eastern border of Russia, has historically been part of Russia, and part of Russian culture.  Major figures in Russian literature, politics and music were born or lived in Ukraine, particularly in Kiev, the ancient capital.  But the country lies between Russia and Western Europe.  It is divided in culture, language, economy and politics between the ties to East and West.  

Kiev - City of cathedrals and chestnut trees

Ukraine today is in a deep crisis -- financially, politically, and of national identity.  This crisis was entirely predictable, even ten years ago.  There is great risk of civil war, or a separatist conflict such as enveloped the Georgian separatist provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia only a few years ago.    Navigating this crisis will require statesmanship and a commitment to peace by Ukrainians, their leaders, Russia and the West.

Dnieper River, ancient cathedrals, and a modern city.

History and Culture

In a sense, Russia was born in Kiev.  Kiev was the principal city of the Rus, around 1000 AD.  Under Vladimir the Great, Orthodox Christianity was adopted as the principal religion of Russia in Kiev, in 988.   Russian law was consolidated by his son Yaroslav the Wise, and the Russian political sphere expanded northward to the Baltic, southward to the Black Sea, and eastward along the vast territory of the Volga River.

Yaroslav the Wise

 As the center of Russia moved eastward, Kiev retained its importance and contribution to Russian culture.   Novelists Nikolai Gogol and Mikhail Bulgakov are two of many prominent Russians born in Ukraine.  From Mussorgsky’s “Night On Bald Mountain” to Bulgakov’s “Master and Margarita”, to Gogol’s “Night Before Christmas”, artists have used Ukrainian folklore, witchcraft and mysticism in their work, adding a distinctive Ukrainian flavor to Russian culture.

Saint Michael's Cathedral

Ukraine has its own language, its own alphabet, its own people, but is a divided country.  Eastern Ukraine is predominantly ethnically Russian, with Russian-speaking people.  Western Ukraine is ethnically Ukrainian, speaking the Ukrainian language.   Names of distinctly Ukrainian origin (for example, anything ending in …-shenko) can be recognized, and distinguished from Russian names.

Friendly natives, during a street fair, 2010; in Ukrainian, "Let's Hug"

Ukrainian Economy and Natural Gas

Ukraine is economically dependent on Russia.  For decades, Ukraine has depended on subsidized natural gas from Russia as fuel for its heavy industry.  Heavy industry is located in eastern Ukraine, where iron ore from the vicinity of Belgorod, across the border in Russia, is brought into eastern Ukraine, where coal and natural gas provide the energy for steel-making.  Ukrainian steel production declined substantially due to the economic decline of 2009, contributing to the country’s financial crisis.

Natural gas is still the country’s largest import, and the cause of its persistent trade deficit.  The low cost of subsidized gas allowed Ukraine to continue as one of the world’s least energy-efficient countries.  Since 2004, Russia has gradually raised the price of gas to Ukraine, resulting in recurring trade disputes over stolen gas, gas pricing and non-payment of debts.  Ukraine still imports most of its gas.   However, consumption has fallen by more than 50%, from 118 billion cubic meters in 1991, to 80 bcm in 2005, to 55 bcm in 2012.  Ukrainian domestic production is about 20 bcm. 

Ukraine has substantial and under-developed resources of natural gas.  Proved reserves are more than 1.1 trillion cubic meters, or 50 years of supply at current rates of production.  Gas is located in the eastern part of the country, in the deeper parts of the Dneiper-Donets basin.  The gas was originally discovered in the 1970s, but was left undeveloped.   This gas is high-pressure, high-temperature, and difficult to drill and produce using older equipment.  Old drilling equipment was all that was available in the country, even into the 2000s.  Import restrictions on modern drilling equipment, and the lack of a coherent petroleum laws have been serious obstacles to the exploration and development of Ukraine’s domestic gas resources.

The potential for new gas discoveries in Ukraine are significant.  Modern seismic techniques would certainly reveal additional drilling targets in the deep Dnieper-Donets basin; production of gas from the Black Sea has begun, and is growing; and there is good potential for unconventional gas from shale and coal within shallow stratigraphy of the Dnieper-Donets basin in eastern Ukraine.  Ukraine has the geological potential to become energy independent.

Dnieper-Donets Basin, Figure from OGJ

Ethnic and Cultural Division

Eastern Ukraine is predominantly populated by ethnic Russians, speaking Russian as their native language.  Eastern Ukraine is economically tied to Russia through its heavy industry, supplies of natural gas and iron ore, and markets.

Western Ukraine is predominantly populated by ethnic Ukrainians, speaking Ukrainian as their native language, although most speak Russian fluently.  The economy of western Ukraine involves agriculture and trade with Western Europe.  The capital, Kiev, is a vibrant and beautiful city where these divisions meet in sharp, but so far peaceful, contrast. 

Political Environment and Prominent Figures

For years, Ukrainian politics have been plagued by allegations of corruption, press censorship, political fraud and attempted assassination involving all players in the political stage.   Massive street demonstrations have become the process of political dialog rather than orderly elections.

It is worth noting brief biographies of three of the major political figures in Ukraine.  

Former President Victor Yuschenko is a Ukrainian nationalist, and was a leading opposition figure prior to the Orange Revolution of 2004.   During the campaign for presidency of Ukraine following the revolution, he was allegedly poisoned in an assassination attempt.  Yuschenko was disfigured, and blood tests repeated showed extraordinary levels of dioxin in his body.  Nevertheless, there is still dispute in Ukraine regarding the veracity of the assassination attempt and medical tests.  Yuschenko served as president from 2004 to 2010, but his term was marked by political division and in-fighting.  Little was accomplished in governmental or policy reforms.  In 2010, Yuschenko received a meager 5% of the vote in a new presidential election. 

Former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko has an extensive history of corruption in her early political career.   During this time she and her family became extremely wealthy as a result of dealings in Ukraine’s natural gas business.  Dark-haired and a shrewd self-promoter, she re-invented her appearance as a blond Ukrainian doll as she rose to prominence in national politics.  Yulia Tymoshenko is currently in prison, serving a seven-year term for corruption.   

Viktor Yanukovych has served as President of Ukraine from 2010 to the present.  He served as Prime Minister of Ukraine from 2002 to 2004.  Generally regarded as a loyalist for ties with Russia and Ukrainian business, he has stated “Ukraine’s integration with the EU remains our strategic aim”, while advocating a balanced policy between Russia and the West.   In Yanukovych’s youth, he was twice imprisoned for crimes of assault and robbery, spending a total of 3 ½ years in prison by the age of 22.    Substantial voting irregularities are alleged in Yanukovych’s electoral victory as President in 2010.    Numerous complaints also exist regarding political censorship of the media.

Prospective Trade Agreements

Ukraine appears to be at a crossroads with regard to trade orientation between east and west.   Ukraine has been in negotiations with the EU regarding a prospective trade deal for five years.   At the eleventh hour, and apparent in response to objections from Russia, President Victor Yanukovych vetoed the trade agreement.  In exchange for canceling the trade agreement with the EU, Russia promised to provide substantial economic assistance (roughly 15 billion dollars of low-interest loans) to Ukraine, and discounts on future natural gas deliveries.  The agreement with Russia was concluded on December 17. 

The EU, for its part, has demanded political reforms from Ukraine as terms to secure the trade agreement.  In particular, the EU has demanded the release of Yulia Tymoschenko from prison, regarding her punishment as political repression. 

According to the latest news, the trade agreement with the EU, which was vetoed by President Yanukovych late last month, is still in play.   At this time, according to statements by Prime Minister Mykola Azerov, there is the possibility of three-party talks, involving the EU, Russia and Ukraine. 

Ukraine – A Nation on the Edge

On December 29, at the close of 2013, NBC News published an article called, "World in Turmoil: Seven Countries to Watch in 2014".    NBC's list of troubled countries included Afghanistan, Brazil, China, Iran, Russia, South Africa, and Syria.  While not diminishing the difficulties and risks faced by other countries, I would suggest that the country most at risk for turmoil and tragedy in 2014 is Ukraine.

The situation in Ukraine brings to mind unpleasant reminders of the August 2008 war in the separatist Georgian provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.   Ethnic divisions and ineffective government threaten to divide the country, which in the extreme case could descend into violence.

Pragmatically, in the near term, Ukraine should turn toward Russia.  The synergies of Russia resources and Ukrainian industry are significant, and the EU is unlikely to match the level of economic aid that has been promised by Russia.  In the longer term, Ukraine must develop its own resources, and trade that is aligned according to economic benefit, rather than political principles.

Ukraine has every possibility of becoming a prosperous country.   However, substantial reforms are necessary before Ukrainians can realize and enjoy real prosperity.  Ukraine has not yet established effective policies for its economy, effective government, or a credible democracy.    Ukraine must establish a coherent policy for the development of its natural resources to attract investment and technology from modern oil companies.  Ukraine must establish a rule of law which protects the integrity of business, media, and politics.   The political process in Ukraine must change from democracy by barricades to democracy by ballots, in free and honest elections.   And the leadership of Ukraine must stop behaving like Mafia gangsters, and start behaving as statesmen serving in the best interest of their nation and their people.

Mosaic of Ukrainian Easter Eggs, "The Gaze Into Eternity"

---
An update to this post was published on March 1, 1014.

http://dougrobbins.blogspot.com/2014/03/ukraine-nation-on-edge-update-march-1.html