Reports suggest that former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has sought to advise President-elect Donald Trump on a rapprochement between the United States and Russia, and that a key aspect of that is encouraging Trump to accept Crimea as part of the Russian Federation.
Crimea has a long complicated history, but has long served as the base of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. After the Ukraine Maidan Revolution ousted the pro-Russian government, Crimea seceded from Ukraine in 2014, and sought and gained accession into the Russian Federation. The Obama Administration vowed the US would never accept Crimea as part of Russia.
While Trump is eager to differentiate himself from Obama, such a reverse on Crimea would likely lead to a major backlash from Republican hawks, particularly in the Senate, who have been some of the leading proponents of a new Cold War. Kissinger, by contrast, is seen trying to prevent such a Cold War.
Those familiar with the effort say Kissinger’s effort centers on Ukraine, and would involve a “master plan” that he is drawing up on Ukraine, which would aim to end the ongoing Eastern Ukraine civil war, resolve the status of Crimea, and end the tensions at the Ukraine-Russia border.
That’s a tall order, and Ukraine’s Poroshenko government isn’t necessarily going to be on board, with the government seeking to blame “Russian aggression” for everything that goes wrong with Ukraine’s economy and international standing. Their government is so heavily built around the idea that World War 3 is imminent that such a rapprochement would be a major shock to every part of their policy.
There is still a lots of unnecessary spin associated with Crimea. The territory is Russian on the basis of the law and historic fact. It was Russian ever since Russian prince accepted Christianity on Crimea — and by ethnicity much earlier. It was conquered many times in history by Mongols, Tatars and Turks. It was liberated by Russia in 18th century. During times of foreign rule Russians and other Slavs were sold into slavery from Crimea for ten centuries with periodic breaks. Tatars excelled as slave hunters and the practice flourished until Crimea was liberated. Soviet bureaucratic arrangement transfered the Republic of Crimea to Soviet Ukraine, with the constitutional right to determine its future in case of Ukrainian secession from Soviet Union. Ukraine did not fulfill its obligation when Crimea voted to remain within Soviet Union. Yet, Russia was flexible and did not chose to challenge Ukraine on illegality of keeping Crimea. Russia was paying rent for its naval base. The coup — or a revolution, as per Ukraine — allowed Crimea to return to Russia. Ukraine chose to reneign on many treaties and contracts with Russia, as a result of rejecting obligations signed by pre-revolutionary regime. This, of course, invalidates Russia’s obligations and treaties. It has been rather dangerous for Ukraine to take such position, as there are many more regions — not just Lugansk and Donetsk — that are Russian speaking and interested in seceeding. Russia has kept their ambitions in check, as the best solution for all of them is to remain in Ukraine. But unless Kiev implements Minsk II, the process of reintegration cannot be implemented. For as long as Ukraine is being encouraged to avoid implementation, there is going to be no progress.
The entire US policy is based on Russia bashing — and while it may give pleasure to some — US has lost a great deal of prestige and money. And Ukraine simply has to order us to pay — and no questions asked. Yet, the longer the unresolved issues of Donetsk and Lugansk remain, other regions –heavily disappointed in both economy and politics — may be next. The problem with neonazis of Galicia is unresolved. And the future of pipelines –unresolved. This is US big money pit, as well as a potential moral hazzard. The sooner US fixes this Victoria Nuland mess — the better.
The misconceptions that tend to flloat out there is a myth that Russia will give up Crimea. Too much history and millions of Russian dead are at the heart of Crimean question.
The other persistent misinformation is the state of Russian economy. It is easy to pick measures that prove anyones point of view. But indicators in the export of grains as well as import substitution on various European imports — point to different picture. The success in those areas as well as the stock market, tell of a major growth. The question of Crimea has always been in MSM represented as taking Ukrainian territory — which is not the case. Not by facts, history, or by law. Referendum was denied at the time of secession, and the revolutionary zeal of Maidan revolution insured that Crkmea took the referendum step.
Thanks for your analysis and historical background. May I add a military-political one? Against all promises NATO has steadily crept Eastward in Europe. When the Nuland mess started the following shores of the Black sea were already NATO territory: Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania. Georgia distinctly unfriendly. Moldova controls the mouth of the Dniester. Add Ukraine with Crimea to that association and Russia only controls the shore from Rostov on Don to Soci. The Black Sea would have become de-facto a NATO-EU lake, the Russian fleet would be commanded to leave Sevastopol for the inferior port of Novorissisk, and Crimea would become a NATO base for planes and rockets.
The Baltic is already a NATO lake. Adding the Black Sea to it would amount to encirclement. Unacceptable for Putin then and now.
Only NATO megalomaniacs cannot accept this obvious fact.
The problem we have is our culture if lying. I do not know how it came to be — but increasingly, and with greater acceptance — we turn all our agressive behaviour into a story of victimhood. Thus Russia is being agressive if it in any way interferes and disrupts the agressive plans and acts. Being victim is a distinctly liberal trait. Not that conservatives are any nicer, but at least they are not portraying themselves as victims. But as lies are not having many takers globally — some in the globalist circles of Soros ideology came to think that supressing views outside their ortodoxy must be countered by laws, offices for controlling propaganda, and like.
What is wrong with thiis picture? Neither legislative branch nor executive should attempt to control media, let alone protect some media against other. If there is such a problem as fake news, let media address it. Let there be more freedom not less in information sharing. Let arguments fly, and let people decide. We have always had in history vitriolic partisan attacks in media, we had yellow journalism. We learn how to observe and judge for ourselves. If they think RT is propaganda — let media expose it, let media counter with the perspective that is not being addressed. The problem is, alternative sources of information are disrupting the cozy cartel of 6 companies that control all the information across US, and they are accustomed to be quoted globally. With the immense amount of lying and deception — from domestic to foreign affairs — many media outlets have started to provide information from both Western sources and alternwtive sources. And with it — perceptions and perspectives globally began to change. The next step in alternative media world is now taking hold. Not only that different sources were offered, but also, the world of opinion making has altered. New perceptions, new information — all that giving rise to an entirely different narrative.
While most of the contemporary affairs are now subject to opposing views not controlled by the Western narrative — the past is often left unchallenged. Many people still think that Tatars are the natives of Crimea, and are conflating WWII expulsion of Tatars with the overarching false idea that the Russians never lived in Crimea until Tatars were expelled. Such very deliberate lies are part and parcel of the strategy of using minorities to prevent majority from being a uniiter and achieving political and social harmony.
How many people know that the largest slave trade in history spanning a period of (at least) ten centuries were hunted was conducted from Crimea. And that the slaves were predominantly Slavic people, mostly Russians. And that it is the Slavic ethnicity of the slaves that became the root of the name for slavery in German, French and English. I am sure that with a little bit more research, evidence could be found in pre-eight century for slave frade from Crimea, going back to Roman and Greek periods. The historians are still acting ignorant of the fact that Slavic people did not “come” from anywhere but were the natives of the region under whatever indoeuropean tribal names they were recorded. And with the willfull ignorance and arrogance — continue until today to spin the tale of lies. Their problem is that Russia will never again allow anyone to wage wars on its territory. It has yet to recover demographically from WWII and Yeltsin’s robber barron period. The persistent degradation and deliberate humiliations coming out of the Western political elites is relentless. But it will not suceed to shake the self esteem of Russian population for as long as their elite defends population against the attitudes that are reminiscent of the tone used by the masters to their slaves. It is amazing for any historian to see how attitudes do not change easily with the passage of time. They just morph into our wordly affairs. But we need to see them for what they are.
wrong
rubbish
I would hope that any sane person — even Donald Trump — would not base US foreign policy decisions on whether they might displease a small nation which says that WWIII will break out unless the US conforms with that nation’s desires. That “small nation” could be Ukraine, or Israel.
Looking back when Georgia attack South Ossetia and Russia . And Russia repelled this attack . Dick Cheny wanted to entice NATO to attack Russia . Medevdev was President of Russia at this time and he got very nervous when NATO war ships raced into the black sea storming for Georgia . He telephoned his commander and said now what can we do ? His commander was likely in Crimea and his answer was” don’t worry If those boats cause trouble here I can make them disappear” .We listened in on this telephone call . None ot the other North American Terrorist organization members wanted to go along with the USA into a black sea war . The European NATO members said it was because Georgia attack Russia first . That’s rather strange they all went along to attack Yugoslavia and destroyed that country Yugoslavia never attacked any one first . No I think it is the reason of the fire power they expected Russia come with out of Crimea . This is when the world said the bear is back . It would be easier to pull teeth out of a grizzly bear than to take Crimea from Russia
Some clowns in the US government only understand force.
Trump maybe able to make friend with Putin But not even Milena Trump could get Putin to give up Crimea it would like Delilia cutting Sampson’s hair
If kissinger can’t talk Trump into forgetting about Crimea ? There is not much hope for us or Trump . There maybe a few war hawks in our government but there are damn few that voted for Trump . When Obama consulted congress when his red line was crossed . my congrssman said he his letters came almost a 100 % against bombing Syria . There are no war hawks left in the population ,Our last three presidents killed them all ,by bring us into war after war and always on the wrong side too . Oh we might still want to go to war But not with any foreign country but rather our own countries government .
That great and all, but how about we adopt a policy of staying out of **** that’s not our business half a world away?
January 19 could not come soon enough!!
Like in Syria, the only reason the US has made covert and political moves in Ukraine / Crimea is to take away a Russian strategic asset. The US has bases almost everywhere, Russia has few, and these two are very critical.
Will this war criminal ever go away?
Isn’t it Bizarro? Never thought I’d see the day when Kissinger would be a voice of reason and sanity in foreign relations. Tells you how wacko our leaders are these days.
All he wantsvto do is take advantage of his elder statesman status to get involved in the Trump administration in some capacity related to Russia. He is no less a Russio-phobe then George Soros, but is not that exposed that he cannot make it into inner circles of those he needs to asses and whose plans he needs to understand. If I were Trump, I will give him all honors, but keep ignorant of real intentions. Missinger is the man who gloated over the fact that non-state actors are becoming more important in international relations. Trump wants yo reverse it, by making sovereignty of nation states to the center of global affairs, to insure that population has direct relationship with those that rule them. Be that democracy of monarchy, a dictatorship or an oligarchy, for as long as the state manages its affairs in peace, world can return to stability, trade and development. Kissinger’s world is the world of disolving sovereignty, stronger international controls and undermining nation states via support of oposition, rebellions, terror and crime groups. All that in the name of some better future –a recognizeable communist appeal to hopefull and ignorant masses.
His reasonable approach is a Trojan horse, to infiltrate the dangerous new Trump world order and learn its vulnerabilities from the inside. But atrump is in no danger. He understands the stakes.
Good for Kissinger. Who would have thought.
Someone should be locking up this war criminal instead of publishing his thoughts on world politics…
Trump will go with this. Recognize Crimea and let the Eastern provinces of Ukraine self-govern. Sorry, Porky.
“Ukraine’s Poroshenko government isn’t necessarily going to be” there much longer, or have the slightest importance to the US policy makers. It was a creature of the liberal interventionists and neocons-gone-Democrats with Hillary. Past. Very past. Losers.
Categorically NO WAY
Whatever the short term press is, Kissinger’s long term plan is oppression and evil.
I fear that Kissinger, in exchange for US recognizing Crimea as part of Russia, will insist that Trump oppose Russia’s alliance with China.
That would likely guide Russia back toward US vassalship, and weaken China’s ambitions in the South China Sea
I’m not sure one should be fearsome of attempts to avoid other parties joining to oppose you. Kissinger doesn’t appear to support antagonism against China, if you read for instance this http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/12/the-lessons-of-henry-kissinger/505868/ , so it seems he prefers reasonable relations with both China and Russia. Which is good.