#strategically it makes 100% sense to go through Ukraine first

[justacynicalromantic]

In early 2014, Ukraine was a neutral country, with a pro-Russian president, and with 70% of Ukraine's population against NATO membership. Yet Russia bluntly violated Ukraine's neutrality and annexed Crimea, then launched a covert invasion of Ukraine in the east.

Petro Poroshenko won the presidential election later in 2014 having promised a settlement with Russia, keeping a special status of the Russian language in Ukraine. He was initially sceptical regarding NATO accession, underlined Ukraine must rely on its own strength to provide security.

Did Putin meet Poroshenko halfway? Not at all. The regular Russian army entered the Ukrainian territory in mid-2014 to fight the Ukrainian troops, which led to the Minsk-1 agreement signed in September 2014.

Further text - down under the cut, or you can follow the Twitter link to the original post:

Few weeks later, Ukraine's parliament adopted a law that would guarantee the then Russia-controlled part of Donetsk and Luhansk regions additional economic, financial and cultural powers.

How did Putin react? Russia staged sham local elections in the occupied Donbas, and then sent the regular army again to Ukraine in early 2015, which led to the Minsk-2 agreement signed in February 2015.

Zelensky was even more sceptical regarding NATO accession. Asked about NATO, he once famously said he never pays anyone a visit if he has not been invited. He won the presidential election promising to compromise with Russia - to stop shooting, sit down with Putin and talk.

Did Putin meet Zelensky halfway? Not at all. He actually raised the stakes by issuing the Russian passports on the occupied territories of Ukraine even before Zelensky assumed the office, putting him in a difficult political position since the start.

Zelensky was ready to drop Ukraine's NATO bid in an exchange for the Russian troops withdrawing from Ukraine. The talks were held already before 2022. What did Putin do? He launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

In the first weeks of the invasion, Zelensky was yet again ready to drop Ukraine's NATO bid. But he wanted to obtain international security guarantees. What did Putin do? He demanded that Russia must be consulted before any aid would be given to Ukraine in the event of aggression.

To sum up, Ukraine has consistently tried to reach a deal with Russia over the last decade, and was open to giving up on its NATO bid in exchange for the withdrawal of the Russian troops from Ukraine. Russia never reciprocated, never showed a good will, kept raising the stakes.

Both Poroshenko and Zelensky were initially sceptical regarding Ukraine's accession to NATO. Both wanted to get a deal with Putin. And Putin himself pushed both of them to seek NATO membership out of no other viable alternatives.

Up till now, Putin has shown absolutely no willingness to compromise with Ukraine. His war aims remain maximalist - subjugating Ukraine and changing its regime. He seeks Ukraine's partition, and will turn what is left of Ukraine into Russian protectorate.

Russia's imperial self-conception is that of Russian elites at large, and not just Vladimir Putin. The Russian leadership simply cannot reconcile with the existence of a sovereign Ukrainian statehood.

Therefore any sustainable Ukrainian-Russian compromise is currently not possible unless the Russian cost-benefit calculus changes. Only credible risk to the stability of the Russian regime would impact this calculus. The easiest way goes through defeating Russia in Ukraine.

[deniseyallen]

At Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing, Portman Questions Experts on Current Issues with Russia and China

WASHINGTON, D.C. – During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing today, U.S. Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) questioned experts about current global and national issues with Russia and China. Portman discussed his bipartisan efforts to fully utilize the Global Engagement Center, which was tasked with leading U.S. government efforts to counter propaganda and disinformation from countries like Russia and China through legislation that Portman and Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) wrote and successfully passed in 2016. Portman also highlighted a hearing set to be held tomorrow by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI), which he chairs, that will examine China’s impact on the United States education system.  PSI used its broad investigatory power over the last eight months to examine Confucius Institutes, which are located at more than 100 American colleges and universities and have received more than $150 million in support from the Chinese government.   

Excerpts of his questioning can be found below and a video can be found here: 

  Portman: “These two are great diplomats in their time and great public servants and we appreciate your service to our country and your continued advice to us. Hadley, in particular, I had the chance to be one of his colleagues so I saw the kind of advice he gives the President of the United States and the great respect he has among his peers. So many issues and let me just focus on Russia and China quickly. One, Steve I read your piece recently in Foreign Policy with regard to the Kerch Strait and what we should be doing. You advocated a much more aggressive response to Russia and talked about the fact that after Crimea there was very little response and even on the eastern border, not adequate response in Donbass. What should we do specifically, right now, with regard to their obviously illegal activities in the Kerch Strait?” 

The Honorable Stephen J. Hadley, Former National Security Advisor to President George W. Bush and Principal at RiceHadleyGates LLC: “The article suggested that we should have specific sanctions tied to the incident in Kerch where basically Russia broke an agreement that they had with Ukraine that there would be joint sovereignty over that strait. Secondly, we need to take steps that are preventive so that Russia does not mistake the lack of response as an invitation to do more. There are areas north of there that are important for water supplies for Crimea. There’s concern that that Russians might take another chunk out of Ukraine.” 

Portman: “Freshwater reservoirs, yes.” 

The Hon. Hadley: “We should be putting observers and forces there to ensure that Putin is not tempted and I think we need greater naval operations in that area in the Baltic Sea for the same reason.” 

Portman: “And pushing NATO to do more in the region with regard to the naval presence. Quickly on another Russia issue and this is one actually Senator Murphy and I have worked a lot on over the last several years and we now have this Global Engagement Center at the State Department that we have promoted and funded. Disinformation, propaganda – Ambassador Burns when you were in Russia, you saw this – but I would imagine you would say that between the period you were there, particularly around 2005, and today, that things have changed dramatically. What should we be doing that we’re not doing to push back and do you all have information about the Global Engagement Center? How do you think that’s being set up?” 

The Honorable William Burns, President of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: “Well thanks, Senator. I think it’s a very smart initiative. I think there are lots of things that we can do. First is to recognize the severity of the problem and you know, the 2016 elections, I think, drove that home to all of us as well but that’s not the end of it. That challenge is continuing, not just for us, but also for our allies in Europe where Putin and the Kremlin, I think, are past masters in trying to meddle in problems there as well. So I think there are things that we can do that help identify, you know working not only with the government but with the private sector to identify efforts, whether it’s using bots or others, to infiltrate into our systems as well. There are things we can do to help strengthen and safeguard our own electoral processes as well. There are examples and experiences that we can share with Europeans who face many of those same challenges. Again, I think this is an area where making common cause with some on our transatlantic partners on the Russian disinformation threat is a really smart long-term investment.” 

Portman: “Moving on to China, quickly, we’re doing a hearing tomorrow with regard to Chinese influence here in our country with regard to our colleges, universities and our K-12 institutions. These are the so-called Confucius Institutes. A report is coming out today. They spend about $150 million a year through a propaganda arm of the Chinese government to fund these institutes. Colleges and universities, about a hundred of them, are happy to take the money and work with these Confucius Institutes. My understanding is, and we’ll talk about this tomorrow more, that these individuals who come from China have a contract with the Chinese government, including the application of Chinese law. There are visa issues, there are issues with regards to transparency, universities not reporting the payments, which they’re required to do after it meets a certain threshold. Any thoughts about that issue, broadly, and more specifically with regard to influence here in this country through our university system, research, technology transfer with regard to China?” 

The Hon. Hadley: “I think one of the things that’s important is to expose what is going on. People are very sensitive to Russian interference in our country, internally. Not so aware of what the Chinese are doing so first step is exposure. Second of all is a balanced reaction. The solution, in my view, is not to exclude all Chinese graduate students from any American graduate school. There is a lot of value added, we get, from being an open society where students from all over the world can come and study in our institutions.  But having guidelines and restrictions that keep China from using these students as a source for stealing intellectual property and national security and secrets is just common sense. So the question is, expose the problem, get people aware, but then avoid an overreaction and try to craft a sensible set of policies that in substance take a little bit of a middle road and balance competing considerations that are at stake here.” 

Portman: “I like your idea of a strategic competitors and strategic partners and that would be consistent with that.” 

###

from Rob Portman http://www.portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=ED0B808F-E43D-4C4F-A5D1-D40A176BEDF5