The Russophobe & Russophile Conundrum

It is hardly news that the Ukraine has been -and seemingly

continues to be- teetering on the brink of a geopolitical crevasse.

But whose fault is that?

The West blames Russian meddling for much of Ukraine’s

turmoil. Conversely, Russia is adamant that Ukraine’s plight is

attributable to the West’s perverse wrong-doing. So, who is right?

That may depend on whether the respondent is a Russophobe or

a Russophile.

So, what do Russophobes and Russophiles have in common?

Almost nothing except that both stumble in blinkered attitudes

about Russia. Their approaches are diametrically opposite. Both

groups address the identical realities. But because of their

predispositions, both reach wholly different conclusions. One

approach must be right and the other must be wrong. Right?
Wrong!

The raw reality is that geopolitical affairs are notoriously
complex, convoluted and contradictory. There can be multiple
correct answers to a single question. Russia’s behavior regarding
the Ukraine and the West’s hostile reaction thereto are a splendid,
but distressing, case in point.

In actuality, facts –be they in Russia, in the Ukraine or in the
West – are always subject to compound interpretations. Realities
differ based on divergent perspectives. Precisely how facts are
marshalled, analyzed and comprehended often depends upon
whose ox is being gored.

Let’s start with the Ukraine. It is lurching perilously toward

bankruptcy. Is that also Russia’s fault? Or is that approaching

economic disaster a product of Ukraine’s traditionally corrupt

politicians and equally avaricious oligarchs? Not incidentally,

Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine’s ousted President, owned a yacht

aptly named “the Bandido.”

That said, the Ukraine owes $7.5 billion to Russia for the natural

gas that Ukrainians consumed in costly gulps. Did that
mountainous debt arise from the already high gas price ($268.50
per thousand cubic meters) that Russia charged Ukraine in 2013?

[That price recently went up this month by 44% to $385.50 per
cubic meter.] Or is the existing massive debt to Russia attributable
to the Ukrainians’ astoundingly profligate use of gas that Kiev
heavily subsidizes?

Alternatively, is that gas debt issue muddled by the inexplicable

circumstance in which the Ukraine still does not have meters at

the points where gas pipelines enter Ukraine from Russia? That

absurd situation renders suspect all discourse about “use versus

abuse” or about “quantity versus price.” An unblinkered
perspective points the finger of fault in every direction.

Indeed, is the International Monetary Fund (arguably an appendage

of the West) not also accountable in that scurrilous matter? Did the

IMF not approve a loan of $15.1 billion to Ukraine in 2010 for the

express purpose of putting Ukraine on the path to fiscal s
ustainability by reforming the gas sector?

But Ukraine has plenty of daunting problems not attributable to
either Russia or the West. Ever since independence, Ukraine has
been split into the industrial, Russian-speaking East, the
Ukrainian-speaking, pro-European, nationalist-oriented West and
the ethnically Russian Crimea.

It is little recognized that Ukraine’s East and West not only speak

different languages, but also attend different churches and pay

obeisance to different national heroes. But at least a major

commonality between East and West was that both deemed Kiev

to be their bona fide capitol. Now even that has changed.

Once Yanukovych was ousted, the Rada (Ukraine’s Parliament

which meets in Kiev) voted to strike Russian from the list of
Ukraine’s official languages. That unseemly provocation to
Russian-speaking Ukrainians can hardly be attributed to Russian
meddling in Ukrainian affairs. But Russian-speaking Ukrainians
did detect the hand of the West [aka C.I.A.] in that mischievous
maneuver.

That circumstance prompted Russian speakers in Karkiv, the first

capitol of Soviet Ukraine, to demonstrate against Kiev’s “fascist

collaborators” with NATO and the West. It was hardly
coincidental that the Karkiv protest was conducted adjacent to that
city’s prominent statue of Lenin.

So, on to the West and its hostility to Russia’s alleged escapades in

and around the Ukraine. Perhaps Germany’s ambivalent reaction is

the most illuminating. Indeed, Germany’s reluctance to support

sanctions is a major factor limiting the viability of the West’s

economic counter-attack against Russia’s undertakings in and

around the Ukraine.

Pointedly, Germany alone exported $48 billion worth of vehicles,

tools and chemicals to Russia in 2013. Compare that to the
relatively meagre $40 billion in trade that the United States does
with Russia. Furthermore, trade between Russia and the EU is ten
times greater than that between the USA and Russia.

Even dyed-in-the-wool Russophobics cannot fail to see that Europe

is dramatically more economically intertwined with Russia than is

America. That naked reality means that American sanctions against

Russia will be virtually toothless absent unified European collaboration.

Even more critically, German businessmen stridently oppose harsh

sanctions. Chancellor Merkel is well attuned to the sobering fact
that retaliatory sanctions would imperil 300,000 German jobs that
could rapidly disappear in the absence of Russian trade.

But that is merely the tip of an economic iceberg that could ram
thebow of Germany’s commercial ship of state. Germans own
6,200 businesses that operate in Russia where they have invested
almost $40 billion. Those investments would be jeopradized by
serious anti-Russian sanctions.

Most critically to Germany, it depends upon Russia for about
35% of the gas and oil that heats Germany and greases the German

economy. Absent those energy supplies, Germany’s physical and

economic well-being would be sorely afflicted, if not imperiled.

Ms. Merkel cannot countenance and will not inflict such adversity

upon her constituents.

While Ms. Merkel is certainly no Russophile, she is a geopolitical

pragmatist. She understands the Russian mentality. She grew up in

communist East Germany. She knows that the Crimea became part

of Russia when it was conquered during the reign of

Catherine-The-Great. It is not happenstance that the latter was a

German-born princess whose portrait now sits handsomely on

Ms. Merkel’s desk.

Chancellor Merkel also knows that Vladimir Putin was a KGB

spy in Dresden, that he speaks German fluently and that a portrait

of Peter-The-Great hangs in Vladimir’s office. It is also no

coincidence that Peter-The-Great is Vladimir Putin’s role model

of an expansionist emperor. So, Ms. Merkel has no illusions about

Russian aspirations or why the cagey Mr. Putin will not willingly 

consent to the Ukraine's slide into the E.U.’s orbit.

That said, other E.U. nations would suffer even greater ills if the

spigot to their energy supplies was suddenly turned off. Estonia,

Latvia, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Bulgaria are all

99% dependent on Russian gas. Even Poland, Austria, Romania

and Greece rely on Russia for more than 59% of the gas they
need to function. Do American leaders seriously think that these
E.U. nations will turn their backs on Russia simply to gratify
America’s Russophobic predispositions?

While speaking of predispositions about Russian behavior, it is

worth noting that the other three B.R.I.C. nations (Brazil, India

and China, i.e. about 40% of the world’s population) have been

at pains not to decry Russia’s Ukranian escapades. Those nations

are neither Russophiles nor Russophobic.

Rather, those nations practice geopolitics in the very same
arena in which Russia plays a not unsimilar game by similar
self-regulating rules. China’s aggressive conduct in the East and
South China Seas comes immediately to mind. In that context, is
it any wonder that China chooses to happily spectate while Russia
and the West compete on the Ukrainian playing field.

In sum, it is unlikely that Russophiles and Russophobes will ever
agree on what the real facts are about Russia and West’s conduct
regarding the Ukraine. But both should both be advised, as Tom
Clancy pointed out in The Hunt For Red October: “... that one
must know something of the truth in order to lie convincingly.”