In a detailed and fascinating analysis of Vladimir Putin’s speech marking Russia’s seizure of the Crimean peninsula, geopolitical analyst Gerald Toal (Gearóid Ó Tuathail) assesses five competing theories about Russia’s move.
“Why did Russia seize Crimea, and why did it do so when it did? These are questions scholars will debate for some time. There are competing hypotheses:
“1. The Geostrategic Explanation.
In “Dangerous Liaisons: Ukraine and the Western Slavists,” Rossen Djagalov calls for “a certain minimum of political hygiene and scholarly honesty” among observers of the Ukraine crisis. The article provides an example of the kind of nuanced reflection that navigates the terrain between the perspectives of Snyder and McGovern (see previous post).
A few excerpts:
While it does not contain much new information, this debate on Democracy Now stages two very contrary views on the Ukraine crisis prevalent among observers in the western (especially U.S.) left.
On one side is historian Timothy Snyder, whose detailed articles have been mentioned several times on this blog. On the other side is former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, who presents the left-wing critique of U.S. “meddling” in other countries. The stark contrast between the two makes for an easy opportunity to judge and evaluate the two sets of views. Read the rest of this entry »
Question: The European Union has started a game that it is not able to finish. It (EU) couldn’t predict the reaction of Moscow?
People have sometimes been asking me, “So, what do you think about Ukraine?” as if I can summarize that in 30 seconds or less. Readers of this blog know that such a summary is impossible, and that any attempt will be laughably partial, biased, and rapidly outdated by developing events.
But, for what it’s worth, here is the 2-minute version of my current response:
The Maidan was a popular revolt that turned into a revolution. It successfully overthrew an unpopular, elected but increasingly authoritarian president, who fled the capital when he saw the opposition was too strong and his supporters were abandoning him.
The core of Maidan aims for a democratic transformation of a politically corrupt, oligarchic order. While the opposition included Ukrainians from the entire country and from all across the political spectrum, it was more strongly supported in western and central Ukraine, and the nationalist right wing took advantage of it to gain prominence and legitimacy. Read the rest of this entry »
Writing in Foreign Policy, Alexander Motyl presents a most reasonable idea: an internationally monitored referendum on secession in all the southeastern provinces of Ukraine.
If Russia is wrong about how “threatening” the central Ukrainian government is, this would call Russia’s bluff. And if they are right, well, then many of us will be surprised.
In “Ukraine is Stuck in a Post-Soviet Condition,” Yakov Feygin provides a very perceptive and interesting analysis of the country’s situation based on the relationship between economic realities and political affiliations.
Some excerpts:
Timothy Snyder continues his series on Russia and Ukraine for the New York Review of Books.
A few excerpts:
While this interview is two weeks old, it adds depth and content to some of the claims made in Volodymyr Ishchenko’s analysis. Both come from a radical left perspective.
Some interesting quotes:
Of all the political analysts I trust in Ukraine, Volodymyr Ishchenko has been the most critical of the Maidan and the new government. While his views should be contextualized among others (some of which I have shared on this blog), he expresses concerns that should be taken seriously. The following is his summary of the “new order.”
Ukraine has not experienced a genuine revolution, merely a change of elites