Joe Biden's been to Ukraine and is now headed for Georgia. What's up with the former Orange Revolutionaries? NATO membership, Russian relations.. what's it all about?
The Ukrainian majority decisively rejected Russian political influence in the "Orange revolution" lead by President Yushchenko and Prime Minister Tymoshenko. They've sought closer connections with the EU and west, including membership in NATO, the organization that was once a military alliance and is now increasingly a "US Fan Club" for ex-communist countries wanting to give Russia a poke in the eye.
But I believe the circumstances of their NATO bid has changed a lot in the last two years since Bush and Yushchenko started pushing for it. Here's an explanation of how.
What's in it for us?
With Yushchenko in charge, the Neocons of the Bush administration, stuck in their cold-war thinking (something I diaried about before), saw their chance to deliver a giant military-strategic blow to Russia. It's not only about having NATO countries on their borders (something Russia has made it clear they will not accept). NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia would cost Russia one of their main naval bases and seriously diminish their power on the Black Sea. This is why Cheney and McCain courted them so diligently.
A substantial portion of Russia's navy, the Black Sea Fleet is stationed in the former Soviet port of Sevastopol in Crimea, shared with the Ukrainian Navy (their share of the Soviet Black Sea Fleet). The ownership of the port, as well as the entire city - is an issue of strong dispute between Russia and Ukraine. The current administration has little intent of renewing Russia's lease on the port when it expires in 2017, but Russia will almost certainly put up some sort of fight for it.
Georgia
The European NATO countries, not as enthusiastic about provoking Russia, nor equally interested in the Neocon goals, stopped a fast-tracking of Ukrainian and Georgian membership. The Neocons suffered a major fiasco in last year's Georgian conflict, when their friend Saakashvili overplayed his hand. Despite McCain's best efforts, US and World opinion landed at seeing both parties as more or less equally guilty. The European allies previously skeptical of Georgian membership are likely entirely opposed now. I don't expect the Obama administration to openly reject the idea of Georgian membership, but I'm inclined to believe they too, would rather postpone it indefinitely until the South Ossetian and Abkhazian disputes are resolved.
What Biden said
Biden's comments in Ukraine were relatively neutral, as the WaPo reported:
"We do not recognize...anyone else's right to dictate to you or any other country what alliance you will seek to belong to or what bilateral relationships you have," he said in apparent reference to Russia's influence on Ukraine, which wants to join NATO.
He also said that if a democratic country wants to join NATO, the US will not refuse, a fairly neutral statement. Why would we mind? (Except for the fact that many of us feel NATO is largely unnecessary since the Cold War)
But when you're talking about Ukraine.. there's a bit of a democratic problem: Most Ukrainians don't support Yushchenko's push for NATO membership. (Something rarely reported in US media, but it's mentioned in this AP story) Should we really be supporting Ukrainian NATO membership when it seems that a majority of Ukrainians do not? At the very least, it'd be a cause for caution.
The background is of course that Ukraine has an 'unbreakable bond' with Russia. Many Ukrainians are ethnic Russians or speak Russian as a first or second language, Russian and Ukrainian are somewhat mutually intelligible. They share the same faith, much of the same culture. They have close trade ties. It's entirely understandable that a substantial number of the population aren't too keen on estranging Russia.
But there are more reason to be skeptical of Ukraine's bid...
Biden's real reason?
Yushchenko is on his way out. Presidential elections are next January, and PM Tymoshenko, who's been at odds with Yushchenko for quite a while now, will run. The other leading candidate is the pro-Russian Yanukovych - the one defeated in the 'revolution'. Recent polls give Yanukovych 20.5%, with Tymoshenko at 17.2%. With a whopping 24% against all candidates and 20% undecided, it could really go any way, but no other candidate is as of yet close to the two. Yushchenko clocked in at less than 2%, his support has plummeted with the economic crisis and he's almost certain to lose.
It'll likely to go to a run-off between the two top candidates, Yanukovych and Tymoshenko.
Tymoshenko is the 'pro-west' candidate of the two, but not on par with Yushchenko. As far as I know, she has not declared either support or opposition to NATO membership - it's an open question, and it's not at all unlikely Biden was there to find out her opinion, and in general, size up the election candidates.
Yushchenko has also been fighting a prolonged court battle, initiated by the "pro-Russian" opposition on whether or not a referendum should be held on NATO membership. Earlier this month, a verdict upheld that Yuschenko is obliged to hold a referendum on the matter, ending the NATO bid if current public support holds.
Will the Obama administration push for Ukrainian entry into NATO? Will the Ukraine? It all seems very much in the air right now. It's my hope that the Obama administration (and our other NATO allies) will take a wait-and-see approach and not push for (or against) Ukrainian membership.
A lesson from history?
Just short of a month ago, Ukranians, Russians and Swedes gathered in the town of Poltava, Ukraine to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the Battle of Poltava, June 28, 1709. A decisive battle in Great Northern War, where Sweden fought an alliance of Peter the Great's Russia, Denmark-Norway, Poland-Lithuania and Saxony. After a string of Swedish victories had caused all to withdraw except Russia, Swedish King Charles XII lead an army of 50,000* men in a march on Moscow, an act repeated only by Napoleon and Hitler - with equally disastrous results.
Russian scorched-earth tactics and winter forced the Swedish army south into Ukraine, where they met with Ivan Mazepa, leader of the Ukranian cossacks, who ruled the country as a semi-autonomous Russian state. Mazepa had fallen out with Peter the Great over the latter's refusal to send troops to defend against Polish forces. He allied himself with the Swedes, in a gamble for creating an independent Ukranian (but cossack-ruled) state.
However, Mazepa's forces abandoned him when he betrayed Peter and elected a new leader (hetman). He did not have the support of the populace. Only 3,000 troops (he had hoped for 40,000) stayed with him. The Swedish army, then lacking strength for a continued march on Moscow, settled for laying siege to Poltava, in order to provoke a decisive battle there. Peter the Great won a decisive victory - and the invading army was forced to retire to the city of Bender now in Moldova, then part of the Ottoman empire.
Mazepa died there. Charles XII returned to Sweden and continued the war, dying while leading his troops in battle 9 years later. Peter the Great founded a fortified city - Saint Petersburg, in conquered Ingria, to keep the Swedes at bay.
For most of the next 300 years, Ukraine would be under Russian political control and their history would consider Mazepa little more than a traitorous rebel. But he's now considered by Ukranians to be a Father of the Nation of sorts, for having (before his treason) unified the country, and for having asserted Ukrainian independence against Russia. He's on their money, now. (picture above)
Hero of Ukrainian independence? Or an example of foolishness of allying with the 'enemy' without popular support?
(* A huge invasion force for that time. For comparsion, that's more than twice the size of the entire Continental Army at its peak during the Revolutionary War)