1.
Snyder: I think contrary
to appearances, what John has done is overestimated the West quite
considerably. There wasn’t a Western policy towards Ukraine in 2013 which would
have brought this about. There wasn’t support in Ukraine itself for NATO Enlargement.
All the polls showed that Ukrainians were against it until they were invaded by
Russia. The question of NATO Enlargement
is only a real one after the Russian Invasion rather than before it. I think
the crucial think when Americans discussed this, and we have two Americans here
now, is to remember that we actually are not at the center of this story. The People
who started this were the Ukrainians who were protesting for domestic reasons.
The reason the crisis turned into a change of Government is that the Russian Government
tried to pay off the Ukrainian Government to silence the protesters, which led
to mass shooting. Then the other thing which we
underestimate, and I think we fail to notice at times as Americans, is that
NATO is not actually the story here. The US is not the story here. That’s the
Russian Propaganda, but the actual Russian policy which has developed since the
summer of 2013 is to weaken and disintegrate the European Union. They’ve been quite open about that.
For them, the Ukraine is not about United States or NATO. For them, Ukraine is
about getting in the European Union and making European Union fall apart. That’s
the thing which I think everybody from Washington to Brussels has a hard time
getting their head around.
2.
Snyder: As far as I know, no one
has ever turned up any document in any archive from any Country which has
confirmed that there was such an understanding. Mark Kramer, who is one of the historians on this
subject, has written a long article which demonstrates, I think, that that didn’t
take place. But I think what’s more interesting is that it couldn’t have taken
place because in 1990, when the conversations you’re referring to were supposed
to have taken place, the Soviet Union had not yet fallen apart. Some of the Countries
in Eastern Europe were not yet sovereign Countries. The idea that Washington
and Moscow in 1990 could have been making sovereign choices for Countries which
were not yet sovereign doesn’t really make sense.
Again, I think we miss the
point when we concentrate too much on the History of NATO, because the present
Russian offensive is not about NATO. The present Russian offensive is about
weakening the European Union.
3.
Snyder: I think Nationalism
is a problem, but I think we have to be clear about what our terms are when we
talk about Nationalism. The normal desire for you to live in Australia or for me to live in
the United States, I wouldn’t call that Nationalism. The Idea that People are Citizens
and Borders are Borders is pretty standard. John is certainly Right that it matters what your [Region] is in,
but I think we have a real difference here about what kind of system leads to Peace
and Stability. It seems to me that the European system [the Grand Strategy] has
done a pretty good job after the Second World War in precisely preventing War.
It’s the largest Zone of Peace and prosperity in the History of the World. What Russia is doing is not reacting
to some Threat from Europe, what Russia is doing is initiating a Threat to
Europe. In so far as Nationalism is a problem in small Countries, it’s a much,
much bigger problem in big Countries. When Russia says, for example, that it has the Right to protect People
who speak Russian around the World or that it has a Right to expand Russian Civilisation,
it’s breaking precisely the Rules of Sovereignty in a way which History shows
is very dangerous. The turn to the Right
since we’re talking about Nationalism in Russia is far more pronounced. It’s on
the scale of very Bad things in the 1920s and the 1930s. There has been no turn
to the Right in Ukraine. Ukraine is governed by a chocolatier and an accountant.
4.
Snyder: I think that’s a brilliant question
because what’s changed in the last year has very little to do with Ukraine, and very little to do with
the West, and a lot to do with Russia. In the summer of 2013, and this is very important, the chronology
is very important. In the summer of 2013, Russian Foreign Policy took a very
substantial turn against the European Union. It categorized the European Union
for the first time as an adversary. In Russian Propaganda, Europe was defined
as decadent, where decadent means something that is falling apart. Europe is
supposed to represent a dying part of Civilisation, which Russia is going to
preserve. All of this is happening in the summer of 2013. It’s followed in the
fall of 2013 by something called the Eurasian Project, which is meant Ideologically,
politically and eventually militarily to replace and supplant the European
Union as an alternative from Portugal to Vladivostok. What’s changed in 2013, and we can ask
why, but what changed in 2013 was Russia’s Foreign Policy orientation. Unfortunately, Ukraine is a side
effect of this. There is no way therefore to settle this War inside Ukraine.
The only way for this to be settled is some kind of deal with Russia and the
European Union.
5.
Snyder: In a way, I wish
both Washington and Moscow were as rational as John suggests they are. Unfortunately, Putin is not
a great strategist. If he had been a great strategist, he would have acted in
such a way as to keep the Leaders in Ukraine who were pro-Russian in Power.
[That’s quite a statement.] Instead, he made a series
of mistakes beginning with opposing the Association Agreement with the European
Union and concluding with funding the Ukrainian Government to shoot its own People.
What Russia has done the last year has weakened its position catastrophically.
Strategically, what Russia had the whole time was a balance between the
European Union and China. They’ve tossed that away for Crimea, and now they’re
on the way to becoming a junior Satellite of China. We can’t save them from
that unfortunately. These are decisions that they’ve made by themselves.
6.
Snyder: You don’t get to pick your fights. Your
fights very often come to you. [This motherfucker’s crazy.] In this case, the fight is not
between Russia, and the United States or even between Russia and Ukraine. The chief fight is between
Russia and the European Union. I think that’s the most important thing to understand. Whether [the
United States] actually does intervene in Ukraine or whether Russian Propaganda
simply insists that it already has done. If you watch Russian Television, you realise
that the Russians are being told that we did this. We funded what Professor
Mearsheimer calls the Coup d’État, all of these things which simply aren’t the
case. There was no Coup d’État. This Government was overturned as a result
of massive popular unrest, which resulted from the mass shooting of People who
were assembled. They were assembled
because the Government of Ukraine, at that time, passed a series of Laws
denying them fundamental Freedom including Speech & Assembly, which it did
because of poor Russian Foreign Policy. Russian Foreign Policy was to pay
Ukraine to suppress its own People. That’s what set off the crisis, that’s what led to Russia invading
the Crimea. There was no precipitant
event which had to do with NATO or the EU there. The precipitant event
unfortunately was Russia’s Bad choices.
7.
Snyder: The whole Russian
miscalculation is based upon the idea that Ukraine was going to fall apart. The
reason this War is going on is that Things are just not that simple. They’re
now setting themselves up for a struggle with the European Union, which is
going to have the same Consequence. I might perhaps agree with John about
something fundamental, however. The Russians have to be given a way out. This is
a disastrous War for everyone concerned, perhaps above all, Russia. Regardless
of the brave face they put on it, this has been a disaster for them especially after
dropping oil prices. They will need a way out.
No comments:
Post a Comment