- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 1223 Hour
- Reading permission
This post was edited by abramicus at 2014-3-4 15:57|
The Hollywood Uprising of Kiev cannot be turned back. The unity of the two parts of Ukraine, the West that is anti-Russian and the East that is pro-Russian has been shattered by a betrayal of trust. President Yanukovich offered the Prime Minister position to the opposition, accepted curtailment of the powers of his office, and agreed to an election to be held in December 2014. Russia felt the concessions were excessive and did not sign on to it. The opponents of Yanukovich, and the anti-Russian faction, felt it was too limited, and took the matter into their own hands, using violent tactics of physical battle with the government police, to take over government buildings, and bring the existing government to a standstill.
They created an existential risk for the pro-Russian eastern half of Ukraine, which responded by inviting Russia to protect it, and perhaps, if necessary to annex it. Thus, the Russian troops now in Crimea.
This situation is highly unstable because many factions are unable to secure themselves. And therefore, they are prone to acting forcefully to protect themselves.
What is needed is a clear perspective of what is the next viable equilibrium point, other than the one that has just collapsed, i.e., the unity government that Yanukovich tried to negotiate for.
Unfortunately for Ukraine, the next viable equilibrium point would be similar to the North and South Korean situation. The Western faction must have enough security to not want to attack the East, and vice versa. This can only be achieved by a partition of Ukraine with each side having enough resources and military power to remain what it wants to be. A new border line between Kiev and Crimea needs to be drawn and guarded, as soon as possible. This boundary must allow both sides to have enough resources to live, and to survive any outside attack.
In a sense, Russia would be doing both sides of Ukraine a favor by securing the border of Crimea to its west and its north, but leaving the Kiev government enough to remain secure in its poltical authority and economic prosperity. It may sound like another "wave of invasion" by Russia, but since the UN cannot act to effect this border demarcation, Russia has to do it for the sake of both sides. By posting its forces along what could be a stable equilibrium of separation of the two sides of Ukraine, Russia would be establishing the basis for a future peace. But this seizing of the boundary line has to be done when it could be done with the least resistance and bloodshed on both sides. To the bleeding hearts, this may sound too brash. To a surgeon facing a country that could otherwise bleed itself to death, cutting along the lines of least resistance in order to make each part whole, may not save the whole, but it would certainly save the two parts, with the hope that over time, they would agree to form a confederation, even if each member would retain a much greater degree of autonomy that each could have achieved on its own.
Russia's entry into Crimea, if not followed by a border line definition between Kiev and Crimea, would invite a long series of conflicts that would end up trying to achieve such a border delineation in the end, but only after a lot of suffering and bloodshed. So why not create this border today, avoid the bloodshed and fighting tomorrow? Time to build a fence for Ukraine's two opposing sides. It may sound like self-serving for Russia, but it actually would be a service to its all, to grab the next equilibrium point before any blood is shed.