That there are quite lively things going on in the Ukraina, well, that we all know meanwhile. But what I want to write about are some impressions from some information session which was organized by Svenska Bildningförbundet r.f. on Ti 4.03.
They had invited one Ukrainian who was able to report some impressions from the Maidan, but more I was struck by the contributions of the invited Swedish-Finnish speakers: they all agreed that Europe and the USA should speak with one voice in this matter.
Well, if one is politically borgerlig then one is usually not very good at psychology (a phenomenon very familiar to me from Germany), but still it strikes me just HOW little they understand about the Russian side of the business: If one listens to the media and also the Western military it is perfectly obvious that the Cold War has never stopped. Western Europe tries its best to be an obedient client of the USA (which results, e.g., in the president of Bolivia not being able to fly home unmolested as long as the USA see the possibility that he might have Edward Snowden on board his airplane), who also nicely swallows the fact that he is kept in contempt by the official USA (see the NSA affair and the recent formulation “Fuck the EU” – which just confirms what was clear already before). And Russia certainly knows this.
We also see that Russia has since the collapse of the Sovjet Union lost many areas to its Western (still) enemy. If this loss of territory now begins to concern areas which really have been Russian since a very long time (Kiev became Russian in 1687) then one should not expect the Russian government to simply submit to that. If one wants them to accept the loss of the Ukraina , then one should at least TALK to them, and A LOT, and in the spirit of what Willy Brandt and his team were introducing as “Ostpolitik” (“It is not important to shift borders but to abolish their character of being barriers”). The idea that Europe and the US should speak with one voice just supports the idea that the West is indeed the enemy, to whom Russia cannot afford to submit in anything. Thus, the USA should in no unclear terms be told to keep out of this business, better also refrain from ridiculous speaches like Kerry’s formulation that “På 2000-talet beter du dig bara inte på 1800-talsvis genom att invadera ett annat land med en fullständigt påhittad förevändning” (one could ask the Iraquis whether they feel like laughing …).
The presumably most realistic interpretation of Putin’s last move comes from Anna-Lena Laurén (Hbl of 5.03., page 3, “Putins budskap”). The situation is one of confrontation. What European diplomats should try via all available channels is some building of trust: We want a Europe with a respected position for a strong and friendly Russia, with a constructive cooperation between all participants. But if one is borgerlig then one of course prefers to be a just tolerated client of the USA …