Bridge from Russia to Crimea now complete

Russia is building a 19 kilometre long bridge from mainland Russia to the Crimean Peninsula which will bypass Ukraine altogether - peninsula’s only land border is with Ukraine - and will connect Kerch in the Crimea to the mainland.

Workers are building temporary bridges that will carry construction machinery and deliver materials to the Kerch bridge site - complete with its own concrete plant and a temporary village of worker's accommodation. Eventually there will be three bridges, but the "technical" bridge has now been completed and is in operation.

A suspension bridge is expected to open to the public in December 2018.

Former General supports Russian position over Crimea

Last week's Sunday Times, 28 September 2014, contains an interview with one of Britain’s former top soldiers, General David Richards, who retired last year.  The article was essentially discussing the crisis in Iraq and Syria, and Friday's vote in the House of Commons to commit the UK's armed forces to airstrikes against the terrorist group ISIL in Iraq, but in it he expresses some refreshingly honest, and accurate views on Russia, which run counter to the prevailing Russophobia in the western press.

General Richards outlines his solution to the crisis, which includes, among many other things, some kind of arrangement with Russia - their assistance in tackling Islamic terrorism is crucial.  But he does on to express some pro-Russian views in respect of the events in the Ukraine and Russia's annexation of Crimea.  In respect of Crimea, he refers to the annexation as Putin's "cleverly executed plan".   

“I don’t want to sound an apologist for Russia, but think Falklands, think Cuba, and you begin to understand what Russia feels about Ukraine.....it’s been a part of their country for hundreds of years." In respect of Crimea, he refers to the annexation as Putin's "cleverly executed plan" 

I do tend to think that you are on dodgy ground when you try to establish borders and rights to territory on the basis of a arbitrarily selected point in time (or a point in time chosen to support your case), especially in the case of historically contested territory and fluctuating borders of nation states, kingdoms, princedoms, tribes.  However, General Richards goes on to state:

"Crimea is Russian. The Russians, British and French went to war over Crimea 170 years ago. The idea that Crimea was ever going to be allowed by Russians to be part of Ukraine, or a Ukraine that was hostile, was cloud-cuckoo-land. And from a purely military sense, it was a rather cleverly executed plan."

On the events Ukraine, he expresses a more honest opinion than you usually read in the western press; he asks:

"are we really certain those protesters in the early days were properly representative of the majority of Ukraine? There were certainly some dodgy elements, and a president who was democratically elected was kicked out, however much you don’t like him."

He goes on to express his worry, which I believe is quite an honest assessment of western actions in Ukraine, Georgia, Syria and elsewhere: we get involved, we give encouragement, moral support, but we don't follow through; we keep encouraging people to get to the top of the hill but don't do enough to get them there. Perhaps like Sisyphus in Greek mythology: as a punishment for chronic deceitfulness, Sysyphus is compelled to roll an immense boulder up a hill, only to watch it roll back down, and to repeat this action forever.

Ukraine crisis

Much has been said about the crisis in the Ukraine and much criticism leveled at the Russian state, Putin in particular, over its invasion / occupation / interference in Ukraine's affairs; and criticism has been leveled at comments in the blogosphere, by those ill equipped to comment on international affairs or strategy - as if this was the preserve of journalists in the traditional media.  I'm talking about you, David Aaronovitch.

Much as I enjoy David Aaronovitch's articles in The Times newspaper, I take exception to his dismissal of alternative points of view in relation to the Russian action in Ukraine - by all means use your skill to demolish opposing arguments with facts, reasoning and logic, but the valid points you make are diminished by categorising alternative viewpoints as: "There’s the irritate-your-neighbour “Putin’s got a point” brigade", "The amateur strategists", "The Ladybird Book demographers".   I might be all of those things, but I also have a viewpoint.  Right. Here's my two penneth worth:

I was supportive of the popular will to rid Ukraine of its corrupt and incompetent leader Yanukovich. I was glad to see the back of him, and as far as I can judge from interviews I saw on TV before his ousting, so were of some of the Russian population in Crimea. I don't think any of the population of Ukraine want to see one set of crooks replaced by another set of crooks whatever their orientation - pro EU or pro Russian. I'm sure that all they want is an end to their economic woes, an end to corruption and an improvement in their political freedoms.

I'm certainly not anti-west, and I'm not Putin apologist either, but I do have a certain sympathy for the Russian position in this matter, although I don't exactly agree with all of the actions they have taken nor do I believe the propaganda they are putting out for justifying their actions. I can't pretend to know what their endgame is, what they are hoping to achieve or whether they are trying to annex Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine (or whether they will stop at that).

I do think that the actions in Crimea are no more or less illegal than the takeover by the protesters of the Ukrainian government in Kiev (and the ousting of Yanukovich).  Very few countries - and certainly not Russia - would tolerate an unstable country on their doorstep especially when it seems that their is an overt courtship by western countries and institutions (NATO and EU) to bring Ukraine under its sphere of influence and control.  Ukraine is a failed state: it is bankrupt;  it is not politically and culturally cohesive; the protesters might have been united in their hatred of Yanukovich, but they were so divided themselves, there was no guarantee they could have put up a serious democratic challenge to Yankovich's presidency in the elections originally scheduled for later this year.

It seems entirely logical and legal that Russia beefed up the protection of its military assets in the Crimea, however much they over-egg the pudding on the threat from Ukrainian extremists.  But I think the Russians are right to feel an existential threat to their sovereignty. Since the end of the Cold War, despite promises from the US not to make a single step eastwards, the EU and NATO has steadily advanced eastwards.  On its western borders, Russia is now flanked by NATO countries (Belarus and Ukraine being the exception).  One by one, the former Soviet republics of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and former client states of Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Czech republic, Slovakia have become NATO members and part of the EU.

In addition, the US and EU have long been interfering in the affairs of former Soviet republics, encouraging anti-Russian sentiment and political movements, in countries such as Ukraine and Georgia.  They stir things up but pay no heed to the consequences.  They lack the military clout or political will to follow through with their meaningful support to these countries / opposition movements in their hour of need.  Neither side can bale out Ukraine economically and there is no appetite for any military confrontation with Russia.

Remember the Balkans in the 1990s?   Germany and the EU were keen to encourage Croatian independence and separatist movements - Germany was the first to recognise Croatia as an independent country.  But they stood by and watched while Yugoslavia broke up and a humanitarian crisis of grave magnitude unfolded. Same with the Kurds in Iraq. And with the Arab spring - especially Syria (although Russia's intervention here was self-serving and morally repugnant).  

The West needs to wake up to the fact that by trying to get Ukraine under is sphere of influence, by encouraging it into the EU or NATO, it has in fact handed a huge chunk of territory to Russia - which Russia grabbed from under their noses via a stealthily executed coup d'état.

Crimea votes to re-join Russia

The hastily held referendum in Crimea on re-joining Russia has resulted in a vote in favour of the Crimea re-joining the Russian Federation.  As a consequence, Crimea's parliament has today formally declared independence from Ukraine and asked to join the Russian Federation.

All I've heard from the UK, US governments and the EU is sour grapes about the result - I have not heard a single credible argument that what has happened is illegal or undemocratic.  William Hague this morning was again talking in "generic" terms of  Russia's actions being unacceptable and discussing (with EU counterparts) of targeted sanctions against specific individuals in the Russian and Crimean leadership.

The timing was questionable, it was done against the backdrop of a large Russian military presence - but the referendum was not conducted at gun-point.  As John Simpson, foreign correspondent of the BBC, remarked on the radio this morning - the result (97% in favour) may be on a par with Kim Jong-Un's election result, but this was no North Korean style vote.  He also remarked on the obvious joy of Crimean population at the result and that this apparently represented the majority will of the people.  The result greeted with scenes of jubilation, street parties and rock concerts.

The referendum had long been planned for this year but was brought forward - no doubt to capitalise on the uncertainty of events in the rest of the Ukraine and the weakness of the authorities in Kiev, as well as uncertainty as to the ability of the Ukrainian state to control all its territorial integrity.

Putin playing Mr Benn, again

Mr Putin, in explaining the presence of troops in Russian military uniforms in Crimea, told journalists: “You can go to a store and buy any kind of uniform.”  Hmmm perhaps a shop where, as if by magic, the shopkeeper appears, wearing a Fez?  That explains everything! (See Http://blog.therussiahouse.net/2013/09/putin-is-tosser.html?m=1 which describes the book by Fiona Hill and Clifford Gaddy: "Mr Putin: Operative in the Kremlin".  This books tries to identify the real Mr Putin from his various personalities, and compares his staged managed action man escapades to the adventures of 70s cartoon character Mr Benn.)

True identity of the unmarked troops in Crimea revealed