http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/08/31/do3101 .xml
[Allusions to the Crimean War of 1854-56 are rife in the British press since Foreign Secretary David Miliband's recent trip to Kiev where he, attempting to ape Winston Churchill, called for a 'world coalition against Russian aggression.' Attempts to turn the Black Sea into NATO's mare nostrum and to 'defend' Ukraine currently have the same intent as the Crimean War did: To drive Russia out of the Black Sea, prevent it from entering the Mediterranean, and deny its navy any warm water ports. This is what in the Anglo-Saxon universe is called 'confronting the new Ivan the Terrible.' (See below.)] Sunday Telegraph August 31, 2008 Europe must stand up to the Russian bully By Malcolm Rifkind Sir Malcolm Rifkind is MP for Kensington and Chelsea and was foreign secretary and defence secretary, 1992-97 -A tough reaction by the United States and Europe over Georgia and South Ossetia is necessary not because changing the frontiers in the Caucasus will directly affect our security but because, if Russia sees the West as weak and indifferent, it will be emboldened to repeat its behaviour in Ukraine - and in Crimea, in particular. -Russian-speakers in Crimea are now citizens of Ukraine, and Moscow has no right to control its so-called "near abroad". -European leaders - not just Britain and France - when they meet tomorrow, must resolve to develop a much more substantial military capability for the difficult years ahead. And they must be willing to share their military experience and capability in a more substantial way. France's stated intention to return to full membership of Nato is very much to be welcomed. -Nato is able to intervene with military force if it wishes to do so, even on behalf of non-members. This is what it did, rightly or wrongly, in Kosovo.... -Putin - who remains the real power in the country - is no new Lenin waging ideological war. He is more like a 19th-century tsar trying to extend Russian power, like all tsars since Ivan the Terrible. "The policy and practice of the Russian Government has always been to push forward its encroachments as fast and as far as the apathy or want of firmness of other Governments would allow it to go, but always to stop and retire when it met with decided resistance." So said Lord Palmerston during the Crimean crisis 150 years ago. If the United States and Europe are not careful we may end up with a new Crimean War in the not-too-distant future. European Union leaders, meeting in emergency session in Brussels tomorrow, therefore have an awesome responsibility when deciding on future relations with Russia. They cannot leave it all to Washington. Russia is part of Europe. Russia is Western Europe's neighbour. Recent events in the Caucasus are not the start of a new Cold War. But Russia's behaviour in Georgia marks the worst deterioration in its relations with the West since the end of the Soviet Union. However, Russian aggression against Ukraine that would be the deepest crisis for the international community. We are right to back the democratic government of Georgia but our strategic interests in that country are only slightly greater than our interests and support for the struggling people of Zimbabwe or Tibet. A tough reaction by the United States and Europe over Georgia and South Ossetia is necessary not because changing the frontiers in the Caucasus will directly affect our security but because, if Russia sees the West as weak and indifferent, it will be emboldened to repeat its behaviour in Ukraine - and in Crimea, in particular. Such a crisis would cause massive instability in Europe. Ukraine is a major country with a frontier with the EU. While it is true that parts of Ukraine - including Crimea - have a largely Russian-speaking population, that is far from unique in Europe. Dare I say it, Russian minorities in Ukraine, Latvia or elsewhere are like the Sudeten Germans in pre-war Czechoslovakia. [Rifkind fails to mention that Ukraine and Latvia, the latter on and off but more on than off, were part for Russia for centuries, hence the Russian-speaking populations there. The Sudetenland had never been part of a German state prior to 1938.] Demanding the absorption of the Sudeten Germans into the Third Reich was the prelude to the Second World War. Russian-speakers in Crimea are now citizens of Ukraine, and Moscow has no right to control its so-called "near abroad". Nor would it be entitled to demand changes of international boundaries on ethnic or national grounds. The US and EU must be tough. But can the EU meet such a challenge or must it be left to the US? The Russians are not going to be impressed by rhetoric from Brussels.... The truth is that Europe remains terribly weak militarily. Only Britain and France are significant military powers and they are both overstretched, with inadequate defence budgets. Furthermore, on oil and gas, Europe is deeply divided, with Germany too dependent on Russian gas to be prepared to fight for a really tough European energy policy. There has also been a disinclination by the EU to consider the use of hard power to achieve political ends. The EU has seen itself as the champion of "soft diplomacy" just as Russia has reverted to its historic role as an expansionist empire. Washington has few illusions as to what Russia respects; the Europeans are more ambivalent. So European leaders - not just Britain and France - when they meet tomorrow, must resolve to develop a much more substantial military capability for the difficult years ahead. And they must be willing to share their military experience and capability in a more substantial way. France's stated intention to return to full membership of Nato is very much to be welcomed. But calling for a tougher European strategy is not the same as saying that Nato membership for Georgia and Ukraine is part of the answer. I do not doubt that if Georgia had been a member of Nato it is less likely that Russia would have behaved in the way it did. But that is precisely the point. It is less likely; not unlikely nor impossible. For Russia, the Caucasus is a crucial area: vital, as they see it, to their southern security. The Russians are not naïve. They would have known that the US, Britain and France would not go to war with them to force South Ossetia back into Georgia against the wishes of its own people. So if Georgia had been a member of Nato, President Saakashvili would have invoked Article 5 and demanded military intervention by the rest of the Alliance. This would have been refused and Nato, and its members, would have responded much as they are doing now. The real damage, however, would have been to Nato's credibility and to the security of the UK and other European countries, which have relied on Article 5 for over half a century. A member state would have been attacked without Nato rushing to its defence. Some in the US may be fairly relaxed if Nato becomes more of a political alliance and less of a mutual defence pact. After all it is the US that provides most of the military guarantee. But for the Europeans, including Britain, the weakening of Article 5 would require major increases in defence expenditure and force the British Government into a more substantial common European defence policy, probably under the EU. This would suit some, but the Conservative party, in particular, must be alert to this risk. The alternative to Nato membership is not to throw Ukraine or Georgia to the Russian wolves. The main prize they should and can be offered is membership of the EU - bringing economic benefits and greatly increasing their political security. Finland, Austria and Sweden are no less secure from Russian aggression than Lithuania or Latvia, despite not being members of Nato. In any event, in a real crisis, Nato is able to intervene with military force if it wishes to do so, even on behalf of non-members. This is what it did, rightly or wrongly, in Kosovo. The difference is that Nato had choice. It had no treaty obligation. So Europe must be tough but also realistic with Russia. Putin - who remains the real power in the country - is no new Lenin waging ideological war. He is more like a 19th-century tsar trying to extend Russian power, like all tsars since Ivan the Terrible. It is not the end of history, but the Russians must be made to realise it is the end of empire. Sir Malcolm Rifkind is MP for Kensington and Chelsea and was foreign secretary and defence secretary, 1992-97 ------------------------------------ =============== Group Moderator: [Е-ПОШТА ЗАШТИЋЕНА] page at http://magazine.sorabia.net for more informations about current situation in Serbia http://www.sorabia.net Slusajte GLAS SORABIJE nas talk internet-radio (Serbian Only) http://radio.sorabia.net Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sorabia/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sorabia/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[Е-ПОШТА ЗАШТИЋЕНА] mailto:[Е-ПОШТА ЗАШТИЋЕНА] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [Е-ПОШТА ЗАШТИЋЕНА] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
