The Ukraine drama began in November 2013 with protests in Kiev's Maidan Square calling for the resignation of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych. According to some sections of the Western media, those at the forefront of protests and attacks on government buildings were not lily-white idealists but far-right nationalists and fascists. Many ordinary Ukrainians too joined them to vent their anger at corruption, inequality and poverty prevailing in the country as well as police brutality. All were backed by Western powers and media. The West would have liked the curtain to come down on Feb. 2 with the ouster of Yanukovych from office and the installation of a government by a mob at gunpoint. But Russia was not prepared to leave the scene empty-handed. Instead, it chose to rewrite the script, shifting the flashpoint of the crisis to Crimea. Some in the West blame Russian President Vladimir Putin's paranoia for the latest developments. They are wrong. To the extent there is paranoia, it arises from Russian fears of encirclement by the West. Both the West and the Ukraine revolutionaries or provincials have played their hand badly. One of the first acts of the new government in Kiev was to pass a repressive law eliminating Russian as Ukraine's second language. This harshly offensive law only inflamed Ukraine's large Russian-speaking population. Ukraine is deeply divided into an eastern side, populated by Russians, and a western side whose people speak Ukrainian.To fuel Russian anger, the West insisted on direct talks between Russia and the new government in Kiev. We should remember that Russia was already feeling aggrieved at the eastward expansion of NATO and the European Union which it felt threatened its security. Russians have painful memories of the massive invasion from the West in 1941 during World War II. Western Ukraine borders countries like Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania. None of them are friendly with Moscow and harbor feelings of hostility toward Russia dating back to the Soviet days. Crimea may be a forgotten part of Ukraine, but for Russia it is home to Black Sea Fleet. No Russian government can think of allowing Crimea to fall into pro-Western hands. As Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, Crimea meant more to Russia than the Falklands did to Britain.This was a reference to the British annexation of the Falklands and a justification for the swift, bloodless seizure by Russia of strategic locations across Crimea after Kiev was engulfed in unrest. Moscow also held a farcical referendum in Crimea yesterday to ascertain the “will of the Crimean people” as to whether they want to leave Ukraine and join the Russian Federation. This will only harden positions on both sides. There are already signs indicating that the West and East are slipping into the Cold War mentality. This is the only explanation for the failure of the March 14 talks between US Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart Lavrov in London. The two sides did not share "a common vision," Lavrov said after the talks. This is unfortunate, since both sides have huge stakes in regional stability. To reduce tension, the West should address Russian concerns over the continual eastward expansion of NATO, which forms the crux of this conflict. Russian fears of NATO stem all the way back to the beginning of the Cold War and were the motivation behind the 1955 formation of the Warsaw Pact. NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen made matters worse by saying, “Ukraine is a valued partner for NATO.” This was not the only instance where deft diplomacy gave way to Cold War posturing. Instead of comparing Putin with Hitler and raising cries of another Munich, the West should let the parties to the Ukrainian crisis resolve their future in a practical fashion. But what we see is blustery rhetoric and sickening hypocrisy. US President Barack Obama said, “Russia is on the wrong side of history.” Maybe. But Putin seems to be more concerned with not placing his country on the wrong side of NATO's firing range.
