An analysis article, carrying top billing in today’s read-by-millions Drudge Report, makes the standard naïve case for a compromise solution of the Ukraine crisis as follows:
Russia, Europe, the United States, and Ukraine all committed transgressions, miscalculations, and misunderstandings that culminated in the current crisis. Ukraine misunderstood the mandate of the Euro-Maidan revolution, Europe accepted Ukraine into association status with the European Union, thereby breaking its non-aligned status. Russia, having exploited disorder in Kiev to annex Crimea in a military-backed operation, is promoting unrest in eastern Ukraine with the possible intent of annexing those territories. We are all to blame (I guess an armed invasion in violation of international treaties is the same as the legal offering of EU association status); therefore, we must all work together to find a solution.
Compromise and “let’s all get along” sound good, but it depends on all parties being willing to compromise.
Today’s emergency meeting of foreign ministers in Geneva provides perhaps a last chance to reach a compromise solution before Ukraine spins out of control. Proposed compromises that have been tossed around include the “federalization” of Ukraine, assurances that Ukraine will not join NATO, Russian as an official second language, the withdrawal of Russian forces from southeastern Ukraine (but not Crimea, whose loss must be accepted), and the removal of sanctions from Russia.
Under such compromises, Ukraine could become, according to Henry Kissinger’s proposal, a kind of Finland – an unaligned crossroads between Europe and Russia. Everybody would be happy and the world a better place.
“Finland” has a good sound to it – a prosperous European country governed by a democracy and rule of law. What Ukrainian wouldn’t take that? A better parallel would be poverty-stricken, kleptocratic, and lawless Uzbekistan entrapped in Russia’s orbit but engaging in some cooperation with the west.
In a press conference before the Geneva meetings, the Ukrainian foreign minister expressed Ukraine’s willingness to accept constitutional reform and Russian as an official second language. In a saber-rattling press conference in Moscow, Vladimir Putin offered no word of compromise. He condemned attempts by Ukrainian forces to reclaim occupied facilities as a “major crime,” reserved the right to send troops into Ukraine, but hoped that a diplomatic solution could be found. Not a particularly encouraging message for the “let’s compromise” crowd.
Russia already offered its “compromise” (Lavrov, Itar-Tass News Agency) on March 30 to wit:
The May 25 presidential election must be declared “illegal” and stopped.
Ukraine must adopt deep constitutional reforms (when and how is not stated) so that they can have “a president supported by all.” (Quite a task in a country as divided as Putin would have us think).
Ukraine must become a “federalized” state that allows each autonomous region to:
“control of its economy, taxes, culture, language, education and external economic and cultural relations with neighboring countries or regions… Given the proportion of native Russians [in Ukraine], we propose this and we are sure there is no other way.”
Ukraine must pledge not to join the European Union or NATO. Instead it remains unaligned between East and West.
If this “compromise” is not accepted, Russia reserves the right to take appropriate (military) action.
In a word, Putin demands that Ukraine be partitioned into autonomous regions, with a figurehead national government in Kiev – the de facto breaking up Ukraine. There is no more “Ukraine” if each autonomous region controls its own economy, taxes, and external relations with other regions and countries. Under this scenario, each autonomous region could decide to join Russia, formally through secession or informally by taking its orders from Moscow. The quid pro quo is a promise that Russia will not invade.
The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry rejected Russia’s “compromise” on the same day:
“Under the barrels of its machine guns, this aggressor demands only one thing -- the complete capitulation of Ukraine, its dismemberment, and the destruction of Ukrainian statehood.
Each of Russia’s demands serves a particular Putin interest:
If the May 25 presidential election is held with international observers, a candidate from Yanukovich’s Party of the Regions, and few votes for the two right wing candidates (as expected), Putin’s narrative of an illegitimate and lawless Kiev government run by neo Nazis and extremists vanishes in thin air.
The “federalized” autonomous regions, basically independent from Kiev, allow Putin to control southeastern regions with puppets or to call for secession referendums at will. In either case, the result would be a de facto annexation of southeastern Ukraine. Even a “fair” federalization agreement would prove worthless, when it is violated by Russia, as it surely would be.
Keeping Ukraine out of the European Union insures that Ukraine remains a kleptocratic, dysfunctional, corrupt, and lawless country, like its Russian neighbor. The only former Soviet-bloc states that have achieved prosperity are those that joined the European Union, which forces them to become democracies, eliminate corruption, and follow a rule of law as a condition of entry.
A Europeanized Ukraine on the borders of Russia would spell the eventual end of the Putin regime. That is why he cannot allow it.
The European and U.S. foreign ministers must understand – as their Ukrainian counterparts already do – that Russia’s proffered compromise spells the end of Ukraine as a unified state, either immediately, or over time as Russia reneges on the agreement. If the United States were to fall into Putin’s compromise trap, there would be rejoicing in the Kremlin. The naïve U.S. president has fallen for it one more time. He still thinks Putin can be bought off by playing nice.
The compromise crowd must understand that compromise is impossible when one party’s notion of compromise is “take it our leave it” and we’ll invade if you don’t.
The foreign ministers of Europe and the United States are clinging desperately to the fig leaf that Russia has not invaded Ukraine (which requires them to ramp up sanctions that may be economically costly). To avoid taking meaningful action, they will be tempted to bully their Ukrainian colleague into accepting a “compromise” which, either immediately or after Russian machinations, spells the end of Ukraine as a unified state. They can return home waving a piece of paper that promises “peace in our time.” If so, Munich rather than Geneva would have been a better setting.
