You say you want a revolution…

A RE-CAP, AND A NIGHT CAP

April Fools Day, 2014

Our guest Prof. Oleg Kobtzeff opened the evening with an engaging history of the Ukrainian people that took us from the Middle Ages, when Tatars ruled and the Cossacks appeared, through the early and late twentieth century, focusing on Ukraine’s complicated relations with Russia, up until the collapse of the Soviet Union. He described post-Soviet Ukraine as a veritable Dodge City, where euphoria and freedom gave way to a general free-for-all and corruption.

With no strong leader (such as Putin) to establish a rule of law, the 2000s brought the Anti-Kuchma Revolt and the Orange Revolution, before climaxing with the events of this winter that spiraled into a larger geo-political crisis. It has entangled Russia, the United States, the EU and NATO, with ramifications for everything from the civil war in Syria to China sitting on the sidelines.

And then the hands went up!

The discussion ranged early on from the place of the oligarchs in Ukraine and Russia to how the tortured history of Nazi Germany in World War II still shapes Russian fears of fascism in Ukraine.

We were lucky to have among us a documentary filmmaker who made a film in 2008 about Crimea and the tense relationship between the Ukranian and Russian populations. He noted that for every two rallies supporting the Russian identity there was always a third supporting Ukraine, adding that the pro-Russian sentiment often waffles between an affinity for the motherland and a desire for distance and independence.

He felt that if Ukraine is to choose between Russification and Westerfication it should defintely choose Europe. Prof. Kobtzeff didn’t disagree, but also argued that it was EU that forced former President Yanukovich to choose between Russia and a less than ideal deal from Europe (thus sparking the protests) and that in fact Russia’s counter-offer last December was nothing to turn your nose at.

The conversation then turned around a wide range of issues, including Putin’s desire to be surrounded by a comfort zone of like-minded nations (à la the Soviet Union), the sharp rise in anti-Western propaganda on Russian TV, and the suggestion by one member that Russia simply offer to buy Crimea outright, just like the US did with the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Perhaps an auction on Ebay?

The US and Europe have cried foul over Crimea breaking free to join Russia but Prof. Kobtzeff reminded us that when Slovenia decided to break free from Yugloslavia the West was only too ready to say “Come on in!”. Similar story with Kosovo you might say, raising the ugle spectre of a Western double standard. Some mentioned the constant violation of international law by both the Russian and the US, while another member quickly debunked the very existence of international law, or at least in the context of international politics.

We took a short break and then quickly raised those two ugly but ever-present words: COLD WAR. Are we harking back to by-gone days or boldly seeking out a new world order? There was general disagreement on this point, with some saying if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a duck. On the other hand, there’s no overarching ideological conflict (Prof. Kobtzeff’s point), and there’s a very different geopolitical dynamic at play. Prof. Kobtzeff noted that the best strategy for Ukraine might be to align with neither side and play a strong neutral hand, à la Finland.

NATO quickly entered the discussion, and then things got hot and heavy. There was suggestion (and strong support) for the idea that NATO is past its prime, that it should have been dissolved after the Soviet collapse and that its continued existence is indicative of America’s Cold War mentality, starting with Clinton, relayed to Bush and the Neocons, and now embraced by Obama. There was then some disagreement over whether Russia is legitimately responding to America and the West’s Cold Warish aggressions seen through NATO’s eastward expansion, or whether Russia is equally at fault in keeping the Cold War alive through word and deed.

And then the sparks flew. One member stood up to argue that NATO is simply a front for American imperialism and should take the blame for military action in Kosovo and Libya. Another voice (in fact a former Marine) fired back, stating that the situations in Kosovo and Libya didn’t start because of NATO and that without NATO you risk having a set of pre-World War I alliances trying to maintain (or even destroy) the peace. This led one person to muse whether Russia and the West were simply two boxers re-fighting old battles, with China ready to rise when both of them fall.

Prof. Kobtzeff closed the evening by reminding us that his AUP colleague Prof. Hall Gardner has written extensively on the obsolescence of NATO, and he shared a few references.

• Dangerous Crossroads: Europe, Russia, and the Future of NATO (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1997)
• NATO and the European Union: New World New Europe New Threats (Ashgate, 2004)
• The New Transatlantic Agenda: Facing the Challenges of Global Governance (Ashgate, 2001)

In sum, Prof. Kobtzeff offered valuable insight into a fascinating and complicated situation.  But there is clearly more to the story, and although we were able to touch on many subjects, there is certainly more depth to be explored. Given what is now happening today – with NATO escalating its response to Russia and Russia withdrawing its NATO ambassador while leaving its troops on the Eastern border of Ukraine – the story will certainly continue well beyond the Pub, with great hope that grave consequences can be avoided.

– Peter