Posts
THE
ABSURD TIMES
We have been
subjected, you and I, to a constant stream of erroneous and quite biased
language on the subject of the independence of Crimea and its joining of the
Russian Federation. We warned of it, it happened, and now we are making things
worse. This is quite an accomplishment
for this country, but we are full of, er, resources.
For example,
our media usually uses words such as the "invasion" of the region,
"annexing," and "takeover".
A short after
this former Reagan/Bush ambassador to the Soviet Union and then Russia gave
this interview, Obama got on the networks to say he is imposing
"sanctions" against Russia.
Shortly after that, Russia imposed sanctions on several U. S. Senators,
the correct ones, BTW.
THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 2014
Former U.S. Ambassador: Behind Crimea Crisis, Russia Responding
to Years of "Hostile" U.S. Policy
The standoff over Ukraine and the fate of
Crimea has sparked the worst East-West crisis since the end of the Cold War.
The U.S. has imposed sanctions on top Russian officials while announcing new
military exercises in Baltic states. Meanwhile in Moscow, the Russian
government says it is considering changing its stance on Iran’s nuclear talks
in response to newly imposed U.S. sanctions. As tensions rise, we are joined by
Jack Matlock, who served as the last U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union.
Matlock argues that Russian President Vladimir Putin is acting in response to
years of perceived hostility from the U.S., from the eastward expansion of NATO to
the bombing of Serbia to the expansion of American military bases in eastern
Europe.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in
its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: The Ukrainian
government has announced plans to abandon its military bases in Crimea and
evacuate its forces following Russia’s decision to annex the region. Earlier
today, Russian forces reportedly released the commander of the Ukrainian Navy,
who has been seized in his own headquarters in Crimea. At the United Nations,
ambassadors sparred over the situation in Crimea. Yuriy Sergeyev is the
Ukrainian ambassador to the U.N.
YURIY SERGEYEV: The declaration of
independence by the Crimean Republic is a direct consequence of the application
of the use of force and threats against Ukraine by the Russian Federation, and,
in view of Russian nuclear power status, has a particularly dangerous character
for Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity, as well as for
international peace and security in general. Accordingly, I assert that on the
basis of customary norms and international law, that the international
community is obliged not to recognize Crimea as a subject of international law
or any situation, treaty or agreement that may be arise or be achieved by this
territory.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Russia’s ambassador to
the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, defended Moscow’s move to annex Crimea.
VITALY CHURKIN: [translated] A
historic injustice has been righted, which resulted from the arbitrary actions
of the leader of the U.S.S.R. at the time, Nikita Khrushchev, who, with the
stroke of a pen in 1954, in violation of the constitutional norms, transferred
the Russian region of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol to the Ukrainian Soviet
Socialist Republic, which was part of the same state then. And he did this
without informing the population of Crimea and, of course, without their
consent. And nobody cared about the views of the Crimeans.
AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, on
Wednesday, the U.S. Navy warship, the Truxtun,
a U.S. guided-missile destroyer, conducted a one-day military exercise in the
Black Sea with the Bulgarian and Romanian navies. And Vice President Joe Biden
has been meeting this week with the heads of states of Poland, Estonia, Latvia
and Lithuania, promising Washington would protect them from any Russian
aggression. On Wednesday, President Obama addressed the crisis during an
interview with NBC 7 San Diego.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: We are not going to be
getting into a military excursion in Ukraine. What we are going to do is
mobilize all of our diplomatic resources to make sure that we’ve got a strong
international coalition that sends a clear message, which is: The Ukraine
should decide their own destiny. Russia, right now, is violating international
law and the sovereignty of another country. You know, might doesn’t make right.
And, you know, we are going to continue to ratchet up the pressure on Russia as
it continues down its current course.
AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about the
growing crisis in Ukraine, we’re joined by Ambassador Jack Matlock. He served
as U.S. ambassador to Moscow from 1987 to 1991. He’s the author of several
books, including Reagan and Gorbachev: How the
Cold War Ended. He recently wrote a column for The Washington
Post headlined "The U.S. Has Treated
Russia Like a Loser Since the End of the Cold War."
Ambassador Matlock,
welcome to Democracy Now! Talk about the situation right now, what has just taken
place, Ukraine now pulling out of Crimea.
JACK MATLOCK JR.: Well, I think that
what we have seen is a reaction, in many respects, to a long history of what
the Russian government, the Russian president and many of the Russian
people—most of them—feel has been a pattern of American activity that has been
hostile to Russia and has simply disregarded their national interests. They
feel that having thrown off communism, having dispensed with the Soviet Empire,
that the U.S. systematically, from the time it started expanding NATOto the east, without them,
and then using NATO to carry out what they consider offensive actions about
an—against another country—in this case, Serbia—a country which had not
attacked any NATO member, and then detached territory from it—this is
very relevant now to what we’re seeing happening in Crimea—and then continued
to place bases in these countries, to move closer and closer to borders, and
then to talk of taking Ukraine, most of whose people didn’t want to be a member
of NATO, intoNATO, and Georgia. Now, this began an intrusion into an area
which the Russians are very sensitive. Now, how would Americans feel if some
Russian or Chinese or even West European started putting bases in Mexico or in
the Caribbean, or trying to form governments that were hostile to us? You know,
we saw how we virtually went ballistic over Cuba. And I think that we have not
been very attentive to what it takes to have a harmonious relationship with
Russia.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Ambassador
Matlock, Americans often look at these crises in isolation, and some of the
press coverage deals with them that way. But from your perspective, you argued
that we should see the continuum of events that have happened from the Russian
point of view—for instance, the Orange Revolution, the pronouncements of some
of our leaders several years back, the crisis in Georgia a few years ago, and
how the Russians are seeing the original good feeling that most Russians had
toward the United States after the collapse of the Soviet Union compared to
now.
JACK MATLOCK JR.: Yes, that’s absolutely
true. You see, in the Orange Revolution in Kiev, foreigners, including
Americans, were very active in organizing people and inspiring them. Now, you
know, I have to ask Americans: How would Occupy Wall Street have looked if you
had foreigners out there leading them? Do you think that would have helped them
get their point across? I don’t think so. And I think we have to understand
that when we start directly interfering, particularly our government officials,
in the internal makeup of other governments, we’re really asking for trouble.
And, you know, we were
pretty careful not to do that in my day. And I recall, for example, when I was
being consulted by the newly elected leaders of what was still Latvia, Estonia,
Lithuania. They were still in the Soviet Union, and they would come to us. We
were, of course, sympathetic to their independence; we had never even
recognized that they were legally part of the Soviet Union. But I had to tell
them, "Keep it peaceful. If you are suppressed, there’s nothing we can do
about it. We cannot come and help you. We’re not going to start a nuclear
war." Well, they kept it peaceful, despite provocations.
Now, what have we been
telling the Ukrainians, the Georgians—at least some of us, officials?
"Just hold on. You can join NATO, and that will solve your problems for you." You
know, and yet, it is that very prospect, that the United States and its European
allies were trying to surround Russia with hostile bases, that has raised the
emotional temperature of all these things. And that was a huge mistake. As
George Kennan wrote back in the ’90s when this question came up, the decision
to expand NATO the way it was done was one of the most fateful and bad
decisions of the late 20th century.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go to Vice
President Joe Biden, who criticized Russia recently during his trip to
Lithuania Wednesday.
VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: I want to make it
clear: We stand resolutely with our Baltic allies in support of Ukrainian
people and against Russian aggression. As long as Russia continues on this dark
path, they will face increasing political and economic isolation. There are
those who say that this action shows the old rules still apply. But Russia
cannot escape the fact that the world is changing and rejecting outright their
behavior.
AMY GOODMAN: And in a speech
Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin blasted what he called Western
hypocrisy on Crimea, saying that the U.S. selectively applies international law
according to its political interests.
PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN: [translated] Our
Western partners, headed by the United States of America, prefer in their
practical policy to be guided not by international law, but by the right of the
strong. They started to believe that they have been chosen and they are unique,
that they are allowed to decide the fate of the world, that only they could
always be right. They do whatever they want
AMY GOODMAN: Ambassador Jack
Matlock, if you could respond to both Biden and Putin?
JACK MATLOCK JR.: Well, I think that
this rhetoric on both sides is being very unhelpful. The fact is, Russia now
has returned Crimea to Russia. It has been, most of its recent history, in the
last couple of centuries, been Russian. The majority of the people are Russian.
They clearly would prefer to be in Russia. And the bottom line is, we can argue
'til doomsday over who did what and why and who was the legal and who was
not—I'm sure historians generations from now will still be arguing it—but the
fact is, Russia now is not going to give up Crimea. The fact also is, if you
really look at it dispassionately, Ukraine is better off without Crimea,
because Ukraine is divided enough as it is. Their big problem is internal, in
putting together disparate people who have been put together in that country.
The distraction of Crimea, where most of the people did not want to be in
Ukraine and ended up in Ukraine as a result of really almost a bureaucratic
whim, is—was, I think, a real liability for Ukraine.
Now, the—we should be
concentrating now on how we put Ukraine back together—not we, but the
Ukrainians, with the help of the Europeans, with the help of the Russians, and
with at least a benign view from the United States. Now, the American president
and vice president directly challenging the Russian president and threatening
them with isolation is going to bring the opposite effect. All of this has
actually increased President Putin’s popularity among Russians. Now, you know,
most politicians, they like to do things that make them more popular at home.
And, you know, the idea that we are acting, you know, contrary to what Russians
would consider their very natural interests—that is, in bringing an area which
had been Russian and traditionally Russian for a long time back into
Russia—they look at that as a good thing. It’s going to be very costly to
Russia, they’re going to find out, in many ways. But to continue all of this
rhetoric, I would ask, well, how is it going to end? What is your objective?
Because it isn’t going to free up Crimea again or give it back to Ukraine.
I think it would be
most helpful to encourage the Ukrainians to form a united government that can
begin reforms. The proposals before, both by the EU and by Russia, would not
have solved their problems. And they are not going to solve the problems by
taking a government that basically represents one half of the country and
making it work on the whole country. And all of this interference, both by
Russia and by the West, including the United States, has tended to split
Ukraine. Now, that is the big issue there. And we need to turn our attention
more to it. And I just hope everyone can calm down and look at realities and
stop trying to start sort of a new Cold War over this. As compared to the
issues of the Cold War, this is quite minor. It has many of the characteristics
of a family dispute. And when outsiders get into a family dispute, they’re
usually not very helpful.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Ambassador
Matlock, what would you, if you were counseling the president, urge him to do
at this stage? Because obviously there are these pretty weak sanctions that
have so far been announced. What would your advice be?
JACK MATLOCK JR.: Well, I think, first
of all, we should start keeping our voice down and sort of let things work out.
You know, to ship in military equipment and so on is just going to be a further
provocation. Obviously, this is not something that’s going to be solved by military
confrontations. So, I think if we can find a way to speak less in public, to
use more quiet diplomacy—and right now, frankly, the relationships between our
presidents are so poisonous, they really should have representatives who can
quietly go and, you know, work with counterparts elsewhere.
But fundamentally,
it’s going to be the Ukrainians who have to put their society back together. It
is seriously broken now. And it seems to me they could take a leaf from the
Finns, who have been very successful ever since World War II in putting
together a country with both Finns and Swedes, by treating them equally, by
being very respectful and careful about their relations with Russia, never
getting into—anymore into military struggles or allowing foreign bases on their
land. And they’ve been extremely successful. Why can’t the Ukrainians follow a
policy of that sort? I think, for them, it would work, too. But first, they
have to find a way to unite the disparate elements in Ukraine; otherwise, these
pressures from Russia, on the one hand, and the West, on the other, is going to
simply tear them apart. Now—
AMY GOODMAN: Ambassador, on
Wednesday—
JACK MATLOCK JR.: —in the final
analysis, if the—
AMY GOODMAN: On Wednesday, the head
of Ukraine’s First National TV was attacked in his office by members of the
far-right Svoboda party, including at least one member of Parliament who serves
on the parliamentary committee on freedom of speech. The attackers accused the
station of working for the Russian authorities, after it aired a live broadcast
of the signing of the agreement between President Putin and the de facto Crimean
authorities. In a video posted online, the attackers are seen forcing the head
of the channel to write a resignation letter. Heather McGill of Amnesty International
condemned the attack, saying, quote, "The acting Ukrainian authorities
must waste no time in demonstrating that basic human rights are protected in
Ukraine and that nobody will face discrimination because of their political
views or ethnic origin." Ambassador Matlock, can you talk about this
attack and the role of these far-right-wing parties in the new Ukrainian
government?
JACK MATLOCK JR.: Well, I’m not
intimately informed about all of the details, but—and I would say that I think
Russian media have exaggerated that right-wing threat. On the other hand, those
who have ignored it, I think, are making a big mistake. We do have to
understand that a significant part of the violence at the Maidan, the
demonstrations in Kiev, were done by these extreme right-wing, sort of
neo-fascist groups. And they do—some of their leaders do occupy prominent
positions in the security forces of the new government. And I think—I think the
Russians and others are quite legitimately concerned about that. Therefore, you
know, many of these things are not nearly as black and white, when we begin to
look at them, as is implied in much of the rhetoric that we’re hearing. And I
do think that everybody needs now to take a quiet breath to really look at
where we are and to see if we can’t find ways, by keeping our voices down, to
help the Ukrainians in present-day Ukraine to get to a road to greater unity
and reform that will make them a viable state.
AMY GOODMAN: Jack Matlock, we want
to thank—
JACK MATLOCK JR.: And I would argue
that—
AMY GOODMAN: We want to—
JACK MATLOCK JR.: —they are better off
without Crimea.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you
very much for being with us. Ambassador Matlock served as the U.S. ambassador—
JACK MATLOCK JR.: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: —to Moscow from 1987
to 1991 under both President Reagan and President George H.W. Bush, and he’s
the author of a number of books, includingSuperpower Illusions and Autopsy on an
Empire: The American Ambassador’s Account of the Collapse of the Soviet Union,
as well as Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold
War Ended.
The
original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org.
Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately
licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.
