|
Kiev soldiers |
In telephone conversation US President Trump fails to give strong
support to Ukrainian President Poroshenko, as other US officials also
signal desire by US to put Ukraine crisis behind it in order to focus on
detente with Russia and war against Jihadi terrorism and ISIS.
Though the White House has not yet published on its website a
readout of US President Trump’s telephone conversation on Saturday with
Ukrainian President Poroshenko, it is clear that it did not contain the
strong support for Ukraine Poroshenko must have been looking for.
The conversation took place against the backdrop of intense
fighting between the Ukrainian military and the eastern Ukrainian
militia around the town of Avdeevka in eastern Ukraine.
The White House is reporting that Trump said to Poroshenko the following
We will work with Ukraine, Russia, and all other parties involved to help them restore peace along the border
This comment contains no criticism of Russia, it does not
accuse Russia of initiating the fighting, and it makes no reference to
“Russian aggression”. Nor does it make any strong statement of support
for Ukraine.
This has been the consistent pattern of Donald Trump’s statements to European leaders since he became US President.
Donald Trump has now met with British Prime Theresa May and
German Vice-Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, and he has had telephone
conversations with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President
Francois Hollande.
If the White House readouts of these these conversations are
to be believed, in not one of them has he said anything about Russia
committing aggression in Ukraine. His most substantive discussion of
Ukraine with any European leader was his one with German Chancellor
Merkel. Here is the White House’s summary of the conversation
President Trump and Chancellor Merkel today held an
extensive telephone conversation covering a range of issues, including
NATO, the situation in the Middle East and North Africa, relations with
Russia, and the Ukraine crisis. Both leaders affirmed the importance of
close German-American cooperation to our countries’ security and
prosperity and expressed their desire to deepen already close
German-American relations in the coming years.
Not only does this summary separate the issue of the
“Ukraine crisis” from the question of “relations with Russia” – an idea
that totally overturns the Western foreign policy orthodoxy of the last
three years – but it lumps the “Ukraine crisis” – supposedly (according
to Western leaders) the biggest crisis in Europe since the end of the
Second World War – with those of the Middle East and North Africa,
whilst mentioning it last in a way that seems to give it the least
priority.
Contrary to what many are saying, I do not see any significant difference between Trump and other US officials on this issue.
In the hours following President Trump’s conversation with
Poroshenko, Vice President Pence – often regarded as an anti-Russia hawk
– appeared on ABC News’ “This Week”. Here is how Bloomberg sums up what he said
We’re watching,” Pence said on ABC. “And very troubled by the increased hostilities over the past week in eastern Ukraine.”
Pence noted that Trump spoke
about Ukraine with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Jan. 28. He said
the question of whether sanctions on Russia remain in place if it
continues to violate the cease-fire in Ukraine will depend on Russia’s
actions and the opportunity to work together on matters such as defeating Islamic State.
“It just simply all depends on whether or not we see the kind of
changes in posture by Russia and the opportunity perhaps to work on
common interests
(bold italics added)
Again this is scarcely a resounding denunciation of Russia –
such as might once have been expected from Obama administration
officials – and it even appears to link the possibility of lifting the
sanctions to Russia’s cooperation in fighting the Islamic State.
What of the statement made by US ambassador Nikki Haley to
the UN Security Council, which is being widely reported as contradicting
Donald Trump’s position, and which is supposed to have contained a
stern denunciation of Russia?
In my opinion this interpretation is wrong, and to show why I herewith provide Nikki Haley’s full statement, which I shall then analyse
Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you,
Under-Secretary-General Feltman, Under-Secretary-General O’Brien, and
Ambassador Apakan for your useful and comprehensive briefings today.
This is my first appearance in this chamber as the Permanent
Representative of the United States. It is an immense honor for me to
sit behind the United States placard and to follow in the footsteps of
so many giants of American diplomacy. It is humbling to be part of a
body whose responsibility is nothing less than maintaining international
peace and security. I look forward to working closely with each of you
on this Council. The United States is determined to push for action.
There is no time to waste.
I consider it unfortunate that the occasion of my first appearance here is one in which I must condemn the aggressive actions of Russia. It
is unfortunate because it is a replay of far too many instances over
many years in which United States Representatives have needed to do
that. It should not have to be that way. We do want to better our
relations with Russia. However, the dire situation in eastern Ukraine is one that demands clear and strong condemnation of Russian actions.
The sudden increase in fighting in eastern Ukraine has trapped
thousands of civilians and destroyed vital infrastructure. And the
crisis is spreading, endangering many thousands more. This escalation of
violence must stop.
The United States stands with the people of Ukraine, who have
suffered for nearly three years under Russian occupation and military
intervention. Until Russia and the separatists it supports respect
Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, this crisis will
continue.
Eastern Ukraine, of course, is not the only part of the country
suffering because of Russia’s aggressive actions. The United States
continues to condemn and call for an immediate end to the Russian
occupation of Crimea. Crimea is a part of Ukraine. Our Crimea-related
sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control over the
peninsula to Ukraine. The basic principle of this United Nations is that
states should live side by side in peace.
There is a clear path to restoring peace in eastern Ukraine: full and immediate implementation of the Minsk agreements,
which the United States continues to support. For the people in eastern
Ukraine, the stakes are high. With each passing day, more people are at
risk of freezing to death, or dying from a mortar blast.
The United States calls on Russia and the combined Russian-separatist
forces to fulfill their commitments in the Minsk agreements and fully
restore and respect the ceasefire. The Minsk agreements require the
disengagement of forces and withdrawal of heavy weapons from both sides of the contact line. This is the formula for a sustainable ceasefire. Pulling back forces and taking heavy weapons out of this area will save lives.
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Special
Monitoring Mission must also be granted full, unfettered access. The
presence of OSCE monitors can help calm tensions.
Cooperation on this issue is possible. Earlier this week,
both Russia and Ukraine supported this Council’s unanimous call to
return to a ceasefire. It was the first time in years that this Council
was able to come together on Ukraine. The parties on the ground should
heed this signal and hold their fire. The United States
expects that those who can influence the groups that are fighting – in
particular, Russia – will do everything possible to support an end to
this escalation of violence. Thank you.
(bold italics added by original editor)
This is a very different statement from the one which might have expected from someone like Samantha Power.
It says that the US wants better relations with Russia. It does not say
that Russia or the eastern Ukrainian militia started the latest
fighting. It calls for full implementation of the Minsk Accords, which
(as everyone knows) Ukraine is not implementing. Lastly it calls for
heavy weapons to be removed from “both sides of the contact line”, when
everyone knows it was Ukraine’s decision to violate this provision by
moving heavy weapons into the buffer zone (which includes Avdeevka)
which caused the latest fighting.
As for the criticisms of Russia, not only do these have a
ritual quality – with Haley simply repeating what is still official US
policy – but she actually says she regrets having to do it. Moreover it
is difficult to avoid reading Haley’s comment about her having to do it
being “unfortunate because it is a replay of far too many instances
over many years in which United States Representatives have needed to do
that” as being anything other than a veiled reference to Samantha
Power, with the clear implication being that Haley wants to be different
from her.
Lest anyone think that I am alone in reading Haley’s
statement in this way, I should say that no less a person than Vitaly
Churkin, Russia’s ambassador to the UN, who was physically present in
the Security Council chamber when Haley read her statement, is of the
same view.
Immediately following the UN Security Council meeting on Thursday where Haley read out her statement, Churkin said that he had noted “a tangible change of tone”, and said that he found Haley “friendly enough, with the allowances for the circumstances and the subject.”
Churkin and Haley then met on the following day.
Interestingly, it was Haley who went to see Churkin, not the other way
round. The report of the meeting provided by the Russian news agency TASS reads as follows
Russia’s UN envoy Vitaly Churkin has held the first
meeting with his newly-appointed US counterpart Nikki Haley. As the
Russian missions’ spokesman Fyodor Strzhizhovsky said, Churkin and Haley
agreed to maintain close cooperation in accordance with Moscow’s and Washington’s intentions. “The Russian envoy received Nikki Haley at his residence. Both sides expressed the intention to cooperate tightly within the United Nations in accordance with their respective capitals’ intentions,” he said.
(bold italics added by original editor)
The talk about “close” and “tight” cooperation “within the
United Nations” suggests discussion about jointly sponsored Resolutions
aimed at defeating Jihadi terrorism and ISIS, which is quite clearly the
new administration’s priority.
Of course this is all very tentative. The difficulties in
the way of a detente between the US and Russia are so great they may
prove insurmountable. The opponents of such a detente are legion, and
they have not gone away. Besides it is far from clear upon what terms
Trump wants such a detente, and whether they are terms the Russians feel
able to concede to him.
However it is wrong to say that on this subject the new
administration is not speaking with one voice. On the contrary all its
senior officials – including of course most importantly President Trump
himself – are saying they want a detente with Russia, and all the
administration’s statements – including Trump’s in his telephone call
with Poroshenko, and Haley’s in her statement to the UN Security Council
– suggest the new administration wants to put the Ukrainian crisis
behind it so that it can concentrate on the fight against Jihadi
terrorism and ISIS, for which it obviously feels it needs Russia’s help.
Source: The Duran
|