The Putin Problem
When the Berlin wall fell, and the Cold War came to an end, Russia appeared to begin developing the institutions of a democracy.
It was not unreasonable at that time to hope that, although the process of building a stable democracy takes time and usually involves some bumps along the road and geopolitics would inevitably lead to some disagreements with the West, the days when Russia had to be seen as a hostile power were coming to an end.
While Boris Yeltsin was President of the Russian Federation, there was more evidence for this view than against it. And while Vladimir Putin is clearly no Gorbachov or Yeltsin, it did not seem impossible at first to do business with him.
But over the past year, the number of warning signs have been increasing that, if Putin ever was a leader we could deal with amicably, he is such a leader no longer.
In the days of the Warsaw Pact one of the ugliest features of the Cold War was the fact that assassination was sometimes used against those who were regarded as having chosen the wrong side. This month one of the ugliest aspects of the new freeze in Anglo-Russian relations has been the evidence presented at the inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko that being a Russian who speaks out against Putin's regime is dangerous even if you live in Britain and have become a British citizen.
Fifty years ago the "divide and rule" tactics of Stalin's regime deliberately shifted people and borders around between the notionally independent "Soviet Socialist Republics" which comprised the USSR. Stalin's policy of confusing these borders laid the foundations for dozens of horrendous national and ethnic disputes which have exploded with lethal consequences in the post-Soviet generation. Putin cannot be blamed for the deadly legacy of hate which his predecessor left behind, but he can be blamed for following policies which have exploited and inflamed that hatred rather than trying to damp it down - most recently in Ukraine but before that in Georgia, Chechnya, and the Baltic states.
Which brings us to the Ukraine.
Whatever other arguments may exist about the rights and wrongs of the situation in the Ukraine, the fact that Putin's Russia has so far got away with dismembering that country and the western powers have been unable to stop him has been an absolute disaster for the entire world because of its' implications for nuclear non-proliferation.
In December 1991 more than 90% of the electorate of Ukraine voted for the Declaration of Independence of Ukraine. Later that month the leaders of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine formally dissolved the Soviet Union. After the dissolution of the USSR, about one third of Soviet nuclear arsenal remained within Ukrainian territory.
Ukraine agreed to renounce those weapons and become a non-nuclear state on the basis of the guarantees given to the country by Russia and other major powers that the territory of a non-nuclear Ukraine would be respected.
On December 5, 1994 the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Britain and the United States signed a memorandum to provide Ukraine with security assurances in connection with its accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state. The "Budapest Memorandum" signed by the four countries reads as follows:
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as non-nuclear-weapon State,
Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,
Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces.
Confirm the following:
1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.
2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of[2] an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.
5. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm, in the case of Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclearweapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State.
6. Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America will consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments.
France and China also provided Ukraine with assurances similar to the Budapest Memorandum.
Nobody in their right mind can suggest that any claim by Vladimir Putin to have honoured that commitment is anything other than a sick joke. This is not just a tragedy for Ukraine: it means that no other country considering whether to acquire nuclear weapons is going to regard any potential assurances by the international community to protect its' territory as being worth the paper they are written on.
The shooting down of flight ML-17 was almost certainly a ghastly mistake, and as investigations are still continuing one should perhaps withhold judgement until they are complete, but it shows the lethal nature of the ongoing conflicts which have been stirred up between Russia and its' neighbours.
This morning's papers reported that the cease fire in the Ukraine had been ignored by pro-Putin rebels who claim to have killed "thousands" of Ukrainian troops.
If this sort of escalation continues it could lead to World War Three, most probably through the kind of miscalculations on most sides which produced World War One a hundred years ago.
The best way to reduce the risk of such a series of miscalculations is to make it as clear as possible to Russia that any attack on any NATO member will be treated by the whole of NATO as an attack on every member of NATO, and to make sure we have the necessary war material to successfully stop any such incursion.
The words of Vegetius more than fifteen hundred years ago which I gave as today's quote of the day - If you want peace, prepare for war - look only too horribly relevant to the West's situation in respect of Putin's Russia.
If NATO cannot show that we would be ready, willing and able to defend ourselves, an accidental war for which we are entirely unprepared may be exactly what we get.
It was not unreasonable at that time to hope that, although the process of building a stable democracy takes time and usually involves some bumps along the road and geopolitics would inevitably lead to some disagreements with the West, the days when Russia had to be seen as a hostile power were coming to an end.
While Boris Yeltsin was President of the Russian Federation, there was more evidence for this view than against it. And while Vladimir Putin is clearly no Gorbachov or Yeltsin, it did not seem impossible at first to do business with him.
But over the past year, the number of warning signs have been increasing that, if Putin ever was a leader we could deal with amicably, he is such a leader no longer.
In the days of the Warsaw Pact one of the ugliest features of the Cold War was the fact that assassination was sometimes used against those who were regarded as having chosen the wrong side. This month one of the ugliest aspects of the new freeze in Anglo-Russian relations has been the evidence presented at the inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko that being a Russian who speaks out against Putin's regime is dangerous even if you live in Britain and have become a British citizen.
Fifty years ago the "divide and rule" tactics of Stalin's regime deliberately shifted people and borders around between the notionally independent "Soviet Socialist Republics" which comprised the USSR. Stalin's policy of confusing these borders laid the foundations for dozens of horrendous national and ethnic disputes which have exploded with lethal consequences in the post-Soviet generation. Putin cannot be blamed for the deadly legacy of hate which his predecessor left behind, but he can be blamed for following policies which have exploited and inflamed that hatred rather than trying to damp it down - most recently in Ukraine but before that in Georgia, Chechnya, and the Baltic states.
Which brings us to the Ukraine.
Whatever other arguments may exist about the rights and wrongs of the situation in the Ukraine, the fact that Putin's Russia has so far got away with dismembering that country and the western powers have been unable to stop him has been an absolute disaster for the entire world because of its' implications for nuclear non-proliferation.
In December 1991 more than 90% of the electorate of Ukraine voted for the Declaration of Independence of Ukraine. Later that month the leaders of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine formally dissolved the Soviet Union. After the dissolution of the USSR, about one third of Soviet nuclear arsenal remained within Ukrainian territory.
Ukraine agreed to renounce those weapons and become a non-nuclear state on the basis of the guarantees given to the country by Russia and other major powers that the territory of a non-nuclear Ukraine would be respected.
On December 5, 1994 the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Britain and the United States signed a memorandum to provide Ukraine with security assurances in connection with its accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state. The "Budapest Memorandum" signed by the four countries reads as follows:
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as non-nuclear-weapon State,
Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,
Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces.
Confirm the following:
1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.
2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of[2] an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.
5. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm, in the case of Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclearweapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State.
6. Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America will consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments.
France and China also provided Ukraine with assurances similar to the Budapest Memorandum.
Nobody in their right mind can suggest that any claim by Vladimir Putin to have honoured that commitment is anything other than a sick joke. This is not just a tragedy for Ukraine: it means that no other country considering whether to acquire nuclear weapons is going to regard any potential assurances by the international community to protect its' territory as being worth the paper they are written on.
The shooting down of flight ML-17 was almost certainly a ghastly mistake, and as investigations are still continuing one should perhaps withhold judgement until they are complete, but it shows the lethal nature of the ongoing conflicts which have been stirred up between Russia and its' neighbours.
This morning's papers reported that the cease fire in the Ukraine had been ignored by pro-Putin rebels who claim to have killed "thousands" of Ukrainian troops.
If this sort of escalation continues it could lead to World War Three, most probably through the kind of miscalculations on most sides which produced World War One a hundred years ago.
The best way to reduce the risk of such a series of miscalculations is to make it as clear as possible to Russia that any attack on any NATO member will be treated by the whole of NATO as an attack on every member of NATO, and to make sure we have the necessary war material to successfully stop any such incursion.
The words of Vegetius more than fifteen hundred years ago which I gave as today's quote of the day - If you want peace, prepare for war - look only too horribly relevant to the West's situation in respect of Putin's Russia.
If NATO cannot show that we would be ready, willing and able to defend ourselves, an accidental war for which we are entirely unprepared may be exactly what we get.
Comments