Vladimir Putin concocts a new story on Ukraine, leaving the West wondering what he is up to
IN THE original instalment of the “hybrid war” that it launched against
Ukraine last year, Russia’s propaganda machine depicted its neighbour as a
neo-Nazi state whose soldiers burnt villages and crucified children in the
Russian-speaking east. But after the vast military parade Russia staged on May
9th, marking its victory over German (and by implication Ukrainian) fascism, a
new story-line started to take shape. Ukraine is now portrayed as a failed
state. It has defaulted on its debts and violated every international norm, and
its Western sponsors are panicking. A new Maidan revolution could happen at any
time—the smell of burnt tyres is in the air.
Western leaders, the story goes, have realised their mistake and are
flocking to make amends with Vladimir Putin, the magnanimous Russian leader who
tried to warn them against supporting Ukraine. First it was Angela Merkel, the
German chancellor, who sought an audience with Mr Putin. Then it was John
Kerry, America’s secretary of state, who flew all the way to Sochi to pay his
respects. “America has realised that Ukraine is not worth spoiling its
relationship with Russia,” proclaimed Channel One, Russia’s main television
station. Russia’s military might and its alliance with China, the channel
implied, had forced America back to the table.
The images of war which dominated Russian television for the past year
have been supplanted by tales of diplomatic victories and Ukraine’s failures.
If war resumes, according to Channel One, it will be launched by the desperate
Ukrainians. This new narrative is not meant only for a Russian audience. No
sooner had Mr Kerry left Sochi than Russia sent its emissaries to Kiev to tell
Petro Poroshenko, Ukraine’s president, that America and Europe had dumped him.
The other intended audience was the European Union, which on June 22nd will
decide whether to prolong its sanctions on Russia. If America is willing to
make amends, Moscow is asking, what is the point of spoiling good business with
us?
In fact, American sources insist Mr Kerry’s visit was meant not to make
amends but to ascertain Mr Putin’s thinking on several issues. Will Mr Putin
work against America on Iran? Is he willing to co-operate in Syria? Will he
stop meddling in Ukraine? The answer to all three questions seemed to be no. Mr
Kerry also delivered a message in response to Mr Putin’s nuclear
sabre-rattling: do not go too far in testing NATO’s military resolve, as it
will backfire. Mr Putin spun Mr Kerry’s visit as a diplomatic triumph, but he
now faces the question of what to do next.
The situation in Ukraine has reached a stalemate. Although Mr Putin
endorsed the Minsk peace agreement last September, his goals are the opposite
of those of Ukraine and the West. He wants the separatist Donbas to remain
inside Ukraine, but as an open sore which Russia can prod when needed to
control the country. Only once he has this “political settlement” will he
discuss closing the border with Ukraine. The West wants Russia to secure the
border and withdraw its forces from Ukraine, so that local elections in Donbas
can pave the way for its reintegration. That would defy the purpose of Mr
Putin’s exercise.
Yet the conflict cannot be frozen without a permanent Russian military
presence and financial support for the rebels. After a year-long war, people in
Donbas are not prepared to be governed by Kiev, but many are starting to resent
the fighters who have seized power in their region, and who divide Russia’s
humanitarian aid among themselves. If Russia withdraws, the rebel governments
could fall. This may explain the fresh buildup of Russian troops and weaponry
reported by observers along Russia’s border with Ukraine.
The infighting among the separatists has already started. On May 23rd
Alexei Mozgovoi, a rebel commander who challenged the Moscow-backed government
in Luhansk and insisted on “the struggle for independence”, was blown up in his
car. His killing coincided with Russia’s abandonment, at least for now, of its
project to create a large Russian enclave in Ukraine.
“The Kremlin wanted to conduct this war on the cheap,” says Alexander
Baunov of the Carnegie Moscow Centre, a think-tank. The cost of restarting the
war would be high. Russia would probably be hit with a fresh round of
sanctions, which could bring down its banks. It would also have to send large
numbers of regular troops to Ukraine, which most Russians do not support. The
Kremlin’s hope is that Ukraine will simply implode under the weight of its
economic problems.
But as Mr Kerry has learned, Mr Putin will not leave Ukraine alone. If
all else fails, Russia will escalate, as its wargames in the region are meant
to show. A full war would require greater mobilisation of the Russian public,
control over all spheres of social life and broader repression. The Kremlin has
already suppressed all independent political activity in the country. In the
past week it has moved beyond politics.
On May 23rd Mr Putin signed a law on “unwanted foreign organisations” in
Russia. Two days later, the justice ministry listed two of the country’s most
respected foundations for science and education as “foreign agents”. One, the
Liberal Mission, is led by Yevgeny Yasin, an 81-year-old former economics
minister. The other, called Dynasty, supports natural science and education. It
is financed by Dmitry Zimin, an 82-year-old scientist, philanthropist and
founder of the country’s most successful telecommunications company, Vimpelcom.
Dynasty steered clear of politics, seeing its goal rather as fostering a class
of enlightened, independent-thinking men and women. The message from the
Kremlin could not have been clearer: no activity independent of the state is
welcome in Russia any longer.
No comments:
Post a Comment