[E-rundbrief] Info 1301 - Jan Oberg - Questions on Ukraine

Mo Mär 3 17:18:51 CET 2014

E-Rundbrief - Info 1301 - Jan Oberg (S): Ukraine - What Would You Like 
to Know About It?

Bad Ischl, 3.3.2014

Begegnungszentrum für aktive Gewaltlosigkeit

www.begegnungszentrum.at

================================================

Ukraine - What Would You Like to Know About It?

By Jan Oberg

28.2.2014

PressInfo TFF:

http://www.icontact-archive.com/uY4CWN-9Ks3n5LBkjUdhzZ4calgf23XB?w=4

I'm no expert on Ukraine, haven't even visited it. Like millions of 
other citizens, I rely on media reports to understand at least some of 
what looks like potentially very serious developments.

Why do I feel so frustrated at what I get? Why do I have so many 
questions still after weeks of coverage? And how much will 
fellow-citizens who have just a few minutes per day to acquaint 
themselves with issues such as this understand (except that Putin is a 
bad guy)?

It's a conflict, isn't it?

I would like to know what are the internal Ukrainian dimensions, the 
regional East-West European and EU/NATO aspects and what has all this 
to do with global developments e.g. U.S. foreign policy, NATO's 
expansion since the end of the Cold War, strategic interests of Russia 
and Russia-NATO relations. And where is China and BRICS countries in 
all this?

Internally, I'd like to learn about the ethnic composition and 
geography, the role of Russians and - not the least the Jews - and the 
historic relations between Russia and Ukraine.

In a shorter perspective, when did the West begin to see Ukraine as an 
interesting country? Why did George Bush Sr. and James Baker promise 
Mikhail Gorbachev that the West would never expand up to Russia's 
border - and anyhow NATO began being an issue in Ukraine in 1995.

It would be great to learn from media about how - as everywhere else - 
economic mismanagement and overall crisis caused both neo-Nazism, 
rampant anti-Semitism and general dissatisfaction? And why is it that 
anti-Semitism is covered so little anywhere in the Western press?

How come that important background aspects like these so easily 
translate into simplifying anti- versus pro-Russian attitudes?

Security - what is legitimate?

I would think that a U.S. dominated media world that shows every 
understanding for the U.S.'s security needs, bases and worldwide 
interventionism in the name of national security - would have some 
little understanding that Ukraine is important, indeed essential, to 
Russia both strategically, historically and culturally and that there 
is a limit, a border at which Western interests would have to be given 
up? After all, Ukraine means 'border' for some reason.

I don't get it why U.S. Secretary of State Kerry talks about how 
strongly the American people stand behind the Ukrainian opposition (oh 
my, it includes boxers, hooligans, nationalists, Russophobes, 
neo-Nazis and anti-semitists) and also talks threatening to Russia 
about not intervening militarily in sovereign states - as if the U.S. 
itself never did that, particularly very far away from itself. 
Strangely, journalists don't ask him what he means?

Fuck Putin: Regime change?

One narrative is absent in all Western mainstream reports: that of 
Washington-financed regime change. Throughout the Internet you can 
find reports on covert action, informal dimplomacy and massive funding 
from U.S. institution aiming to achieve what has just happened. Here 
is a former U.S. secretary (under Reagan), Paul Craig Roberts (1), on 
this, stating that the U.S. has spent US$ 5 billion on interference 
and undermining of the government in Ukraine.

Elsewhere I see how exceptionally influential US Vice President Joe 
Biden (2) has been and we know how Assistant Sec of State Victoria 
Nuland - a neo-conservative - interacted over the phone with Geoffrey 
Pyatt, the U.S. embassador in Kiev - the famous "Fuck EU" tape (3).

What is obvious from this transcript is that the U.S. has been 
involved all the time at the highest level in brokering a regime 
change deal. And it hardly broker deals that is not in its own 
interests. So the conversation is much more important as a clue to 
regime change than the four-letter word. It looks to me like someone 
in Washington may have thought Fuck Putin the last 2-3 months...

Crimea

It would certainly be helpful if media with an ambition to contribute 
to public education would have focussed on Crimea, its history, 
special status and military importance - now it's parliament building 
and airports have been occupied.

Crimea is filled with layers upon layers of history and has status of 
an important autonomous parliamentary republic within Ukraine, 
governed by Ukraine's constitution and hosting Russia's Black Sea 
Fleet. Wow, that sounds complicated? Who'll explain to us what that 
means? No one, it seems.

Such an angle would require both research and pedagogical talent; it's 
much easier to point out instead that bad-guy Putin (5)  is "flexing 
Russia's muscles" (formulation repeated in thousands of headlines if 
you Google). That requires no knowledge about anything and no empathy 
- I mean what would Mr. Kerry do if something threatened the U.S. 
border area or a hugely important U.S. naval facility?

Solutions?

Next, I guess I would have liked to see somebody doing what is an 
essential task, in my view, of media coverage: Looking for possible 
solutions as expressed by parties to the conflict.

The underlying assumption seems to be that Ukraine must either belong 
to the Russian sphere of influence or be torn away and belong to the 
EU/US/NATO world.

But it doesn't require much creativity to see that the two could be 
combined peacefully and that the issue is not what outside forces want 
or demand but what the 45 million people in Ukraine may want for their 
future.

It should not be so difficult for journalists to take their eyes away 
from Western telegram boards and surf the net a bit, do a little 
research and check sources. Actually all that is more easy than ever 
before.

Are the Ukrainians enthusiastic about NATO and the EU?

Wikipedia (6) - for whatever it is worth - is one source used by many 
and it tells you that there have been various opinion polls over time 
but it seems that Ukrainians being against NATO membership have 
doubled over the last good 10 years and is now around 70%. When it 
comes to the enthusiasm for EU membership, Wikipedia informs us that 
it is maximum around 50% and around one-third against integration into 
the EU (7).

I for one do not see that translate into a great enthusiasm among the 
Ukrainians for deep integration into the West and cutting ties to Russia.

Media implicitely convey the impression that the opposition and most 
others strongly dislike Russia. It simply isn't so (8). During the 
last 5 years positive attitudes in Ukraine to Russia varies between 
70% and 96%. Whereas the positive attitudes to Ukraine among Russians 
varies between 34% and 68%

So if these polls are worth anything and if we respect democracy why 
has the West - US/NATO/EU - been pushing for Ukraine to come over to 
"us" instead?

Are we really able to take on one more hugely problematic country in 
an already crisis-ridden EU and does anyone think we can still 
convince Russia that all NATO does is in Russia's best interest - even 
this? Even the Ballistic Missile Defence? Yugoslavia's dissolution?

Connect the dots!

You know what - I think it is time to connect the dots. If dots are 
fast bits of information, I want more knowledge and education in the 
media - connection of dots into images.

And I have a nagging feeling: It's all so much more complicated than 
we are told and it isn't so black and white! Pressures since 1989 
causes counterpressures, right? Expanding Western dominance and NATO 
all the way from the Baltic Republics to Georgia, keeping NATO alive 
and Russia down was, in hindsight, perhaps a very short-sighted idea?

There are not two parties to the Ukraine conflict - not only a 
government and its oppositional people, there is a mosaic of 
complexities that can only be untied and stabilised through dialogues 
and attempts to understand and - well, stop power games inclding 
undermining of democratically elected governments.

You and I deserve better

OK, I admit I don't know much about it. I am speaking as a citizen 
here, not as an expert. I just can't get it out of my head that 
simplifications and propaganda rule over research-based, pluralist 
media coverage. Also in the case of Ukraine.

Democracy deserves better. Free media should not mean freedom to 
merely repeat Western news bureaus and drop research or to stop asking 
critical questions! The people of Ukraine somehow deserve better too.

So when do you think you'll adopt a new way of doing things and 
finally put the Cold War behind you, dear editors?

------------

Fußnoten:
(1) http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/02/22/sleepwalking/

(2) 
http://www.twincities.com/nation/ci_25222388/joe-biden-is-at-center-us-diplomacy-ukraine

(3) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

(4) http://www.thenation.com/article/178344/distorting-russia

(5) http://www.thenation.com/article/178344/distorting-russia

(6) 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations#cite_note-61

(7) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93European_Union_relations

(8) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_relations

-----------------

TFF provides research and public education related to the basic UN 
Charter norm that "peace shall be established by peaceful means".

We are always happy to hear from you or try to answer your questions.

Jan Oberg

TFF director, dr. hc.

February 28, 2014

TFF
Transnational Foundation for Peace & Future Research

Vegagatan 25, S - 22457 Lund, Sweden

(+46) 738 52 52 00

-- 

Matthias Reichl, Pressesprecher/ press speaker,
Begegnungszentrum fuer aktive Gewaltlosigkeit
Center for Encounter and active Non-Violence
Wolfgangerstr. 26, A-4820 Bad Ischl, Austria,
fon: +43 6132 24590, Informationen/ informations,
Impressum in: http://www.begegnungszentrum.at
Spenden-Konto Nr. 0600-970305 (Blz. 20314) Sparkasse Salzkammergut,
Geschäftsstelle Pfandl
IBAN: AT922031400600970305 BIC: SKBIAT21XXX

--

Ausgezeichnet mit dem (österr.) "Journalismus-Preis von unten 2010"

Honoured by the (Austrian) "Journalism-Award from below 2010"