Midterm elections in USA: optimistic approach to the last two years of Obama presidency

Image-for-Midterm-Recap-PostMidterm elections in USA showed a huge win of Republicans Party. In both: U.S. House of Representatives and in Senate, Republicans, after elections have majority and can halt every presidential initiative which have to be passed by those two bodies. Even if this majority is not enough to reject the President’s veto, it is still huge change in US political scene. In such situation almost all analysts predicts, that President Barack Obama decision making process will be paralysed and this president will stay inactive, up to the end of 2016 when his presidency will terminate. But there is also another possibility, which in #MyPointOfView is more plausible.

Just after the results became undeniable, President of the USA issued such statement:
„Yesterday, millions of Americans cast their ballots. Republicans had a good night, and I congratulate all the candidates who won. But what stands out to me is that the message Americans sent yesterday is one you’ve sent for several elections in a row now. You expect the people you elect to work as hard as you do. You expect us to focus on your ambitions — not ours — and you want us to get the job done. Period. I plan on spending every moment of the next two years rolling up my sleeves and working as hard as I can for the American people.”
We can see it with ambiguity. From one point of view it could be understood as President admitting, he did nothing, or at least not much, until now and just from this moment he will roll-up his sleeves to get to work. Such view is expressed by his opponents, which are obviously in great majority in the US. Those opponents most often say, president will stay inactive next two years, because he his party is not strong enough to pass his projects. Another point here is that president will use his vetoes which even more deepen the paralyze of the country. It will be correct if president will be just a democratic party member, and not the head of the mightiest county in the world – above particularly interest.
Looking for the options President has now in his disposal, there is also possibility of increase of the advantageous presidential activity. President Obama has a great chance of much better outcome of the last two years of his presidency, ignited by the midterm elections, than his opponents expect. He need to use the core values of the democracy, we all perceive as the best known system. If voters pointed out that US policy have to be more in line with republican ideals, President need to use those suggestions. He can be than more active than before that moment.
As far as international affairs are concerned, President Obama failed in his most important and most obvious tasks he announced, when he entered the White House. In general, it was providing the peace and stability to the world. He promised to negotiate and search of the common understanding with Middle Eastern partners, instead of forcing western solutions. This was meant to improve US appearance and it’s relations with other international actors. He planned to shift US focus to east Asia, because in Europe as well as in the Middle East it was planned to stay peaceful. Libya after the of 2011 was meant to be example of good crisis management made by new administration. Less democratic but still successful was meant to be leaving Iraq in Shia led government of PM Nouri al-Maliki. US with allies were meant to be successful in defeating Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and weakening it in Pakistan, Yemen and other parts of the region. US drone warfare and intelligence surveillance was meant to keep in control those places and regions, where are possible new threats.
Unfortunately the situation in all aspects and all dangerous regions was much more complicated (http://wp.me/p4y6QP-2h). The use of just an interim policy, with a guiding idea of Soft Power and military solutions used unofficially produced a lot of contradictions. But first of all this policy was lacking a comprehensive strategy, rooted deep in the scientifically approach to the regions of greatest threat – or great interest. Iraq under control of Shiites fall in the sphere of Iran policy and it’s control. Most of the Syrian rebels from the beginning were cooperating with extremists, simply because many of them revolted because of their anti-secular approach (http://theworldoutline.com/2013/04/make-peace-not-war-for-syria/). In the north of Iraq and Syria, abandoned Sunni people, with no representation in the governments, became more and more frustrated and some of them violent. Many of them searched for a chance for normal life in this piece of hell, but also many joined Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra or rebels in Syria. There was no clear solution of Kurdish question. Nobody started any serious negotiations between Turkey and Kurds. Turkish policy of zero problems with the neighbours, was somehow successful. Their agreement with Abdullah Ocalan and Turkish Kurds, should be just the first step to establish a better relations with Iraqi and Syrian Kurds. To achieve that (if possible at all), influential party, as a mediator, would be of great help. It should be no surprise, that when ISIS started it’s terror spreading actions, and focused on fighting the only force which was defending – Kurds, Turks were not willing to support people, they perceived as a greatest enemy. Turkish government was encouraged to support Kurds, by the many officials in the whole world, but encouraging is one thing, yet giving a good example and sending the „boots on the ground” is something completely another. No one should deny Kurds right in their struggle for their country. They show remarkable spirit, even sending their women to the battle ground. They proved they deserve their piece of land for many times. But just criticizing Turks by the people who armed and trained Syrian rebels, of whom many became IS fighter now, is great hypocrisy. Despite US efforts, Libya became another failed country and it’s masses of stored weapons after Kaddafi regime flown through the Sahara desert and the Gaza, into the Syria. Now it is used by the rebels and IS fighters in Syria and Iraq as well. This was another reason of fast growth of the ISIS and again Turkey was just the one of the last pieces of puzzle. In Libya almost next day after the Kaddafi regime fall, begun the war of the tribes and the strongest force was there Al-Qaeda of Maghreb and other extremist organizations. For a long time US tried to keep the false picture of Libyan transformation as a model, but it was not based on facts, but rather strong propaganda. In all those situations there was much more US president could have done or not done (as in the case of Libya intervention which should never happen at all). Of course it is impossible to see if he would be more successful, but many of the results could be easily predicted. Middle East did not change after president Obama’s Novruz message to Iran and Iranians. Destroyed country security structures in Iraq after 2003 and leaving this country alone in 2011 had to enforce Iran influence or even decisive role in that country. President Obama outrage on Israeli settlements in the West Bank didn’t stop Benjamin Netanyahu from his further actions of taking the Palestinian lands. The policy toward Iran is not decreasing this regime support for Hamas, aimed only in attacking Israel.
We could observe progressive change in the president Obama policy. He sent planes to bombers IS, even if he promised, he will not start any war again. He introduced sanctions against Russia even tougher than EU and supported Ukrainians with intelligence and most probably much more. He also did not resign using the sanctions against Iran, despite the growing pressure of his party to make Iran an example of the US peaceful policy success. Another symptom of more comprehensive policy was a great move by the Obama administration with agreement made with Saudi Arabia on lowering of the oil prizes. It created another leverage in both cases, most dangerous from geopolitical point of view: Iran and Russia. Both suffer very much from that move and this is a very good example, of how Smart Policy could be used. There are in the US people like John McCain who see everything possible using the military means only and Ron Paul who claims that US should withdraw from all its military activities in the world at all. President Obama pressured by the republicans can make his two final years as a moderate successful being in the middle, but using also both extremities if it would be strategically favourable.
Midterm elections will enforce that course of Obamas presidency. If he wish to live a better impression after his presidency, he could combine his views of the US role in the world and republicans, which in fact is somehow possible. It could imply coming back of the idea, which was meant to be the sole basis of his presidency: the concept of the Smart Power (http://wp.me/p4y6QP-2I). Until now he was oppressed by the „not Bush” image. Now if he wants to be active under new circumstances, he has to be „more Bush” than he imagined in 2008. He has to use much more direct military actions in the cases where it can be effective. ISIS is the example where direct military actions are expected, but using his negotiation abilities first of all he need to cut of the supplies for those extremists. Cutting of the supplies is the first rule of all military actions and art of war in general. We can easily enumerate few sources of ISIS power. Improving Turkey-Kurds relations would stop some source of ISIS support for sure. Saudi Arabia could be much better partner in fighting ISIS if there would be no threat of growing Iranian influence in the Middle East. So control of the Iraq seems to be a good plan also. New PM in that country makes some hopes, but Iranian regime becomes the rival and not ally in this case. It has many ways of activating or calming down its relations with Iraqi authorities if needed. Egypt can be a very important US ally or could be another Syria also if the military wouldn’t keep it’s supervision over the political transition process. As far as military in Egypt has so strong support of Egyptian people, criticizing president Abd al-Fattah as Sisi for being too cruel seems pointless. Egyptian president has many strong and extremely radical opponents in his country – and not only in Sinai. There is also a great issue in fighting Asad regime. Until now it produced only disaster for Syria and the region. US president should assess who will rule the Syria after Asad’s house. Using Iraqi example we should expect growing chaos and influences of Sunni monarchies but most accurate are those who predict, that falling of Asad will make t much better for the extremists. President Obama under republican pressure can be much more active in the Europe too. Rebuilding the NATO plans gives him a great opportunity to take the decisive role in situation of permanent Russian aggression in Ukraine and Russian show of force against Europe and US.
There is plenty of tools under his disposal and he and his Secretary of State in 2008, Hillary Clinton, enumerated them in general. Just it was no will of use part of them and there was not any great plan of combining them and preparation for different circumstances. As Zbigniew Brzezinski say, there was no comprehensive strategy for US role in the world. There was no contingency plans in case when the actual actions would go wrong or new threats emerge. All this can be good from two perspectives. One – it will improve his image and all democrats, whose voice is very important in the US internal debate and they should be not pushed out of scene too far. Second it could be a good starting point and preparation for a next – most probably – republican president starting in 2017. Both reasons are very important not only for president Obama, but for USA image in the world, which radicalises itself and gets more and more anti-american and anti-western.


Smart Power of Alexander the Great

As I present here in this blog my point of view, I always try to compare important moments from history with what is happening today.My favourite topic – Smart Power, was in fact used, with much better effect in the ancient times by few leaders. But no one of them outrun Alexander the Great. He used all his tools of the international policy, to realize his ideas.

Alexander the Great policy was unique in whole of the history. He started his political career in a very young age but managed to stay in power and start the war with Persia, which was a dream of Greeks. Greeks were invaded by the Persians few times earlier and it was a time for revenge. Alexander was ruthless, but not without cause. He drunk wine – but it was long expedition and he had many strong personalities under his command. He won all of the battles he commanded against humans, lost just one – against the desert. Brought political systems which people were used to have. He didn’t force any nation to change their political system or even religion. He built the shrines of all beliefs. He ordered the marriages of his Macedonians and Greeks and advised them to dress same as the countries they stay in and learn the languages of those lands. Did not order everyone to believe what he did. This was a real Smart Power. Become friend, husband, commander, king, pharaoh and finally the god. Is it truly make him maniac? Did not Persians or Egyptians believed that their king is in fact a god or at least god’s son? If he stayed just friend of his Macedonian generals, would it be possible to keep the power in the east and south?

This time I put it not in words but in maps, pictures and fragments of films: https://rze.academia.edu/MaciejMilczanowski

Smart Power and the golden mean in US policy

In the XXI century, the concept of the „Smart Power” was introduced in the US security and global security dispute. It was first presented by Professor Ney who wrote: „Smart power is neither hard nor soft. It is both.” (Nye Jr., Joseph S.. Soft Power: The Means To Success In World Politics, New York 2004). From the further reading, Smart Power appears to be something between hard and soft power with use of both extremes if necessary. It means that „smart”, in this combination, constitute wide range of all means available for the user. The very reason of this idea, lies in the correct selection of those means, with most extreme taken into account, pre-dated by the correct planning and assessment of the own and others situation and capabilities, and specific for the each situation.

One can say it was all in used long before Ney was born and no concepts are necessary for that. It is partially true, because even Aristotle was describing his concept of „Golden Mean” as something between two extremities (Aristotle, Eudemian Ethics, 1233b15). When, Stagira born Greek, described what this concept means, he illustrated it using example of Sparta, as being too militarized: „they train for war but not peace” (Aristotle, Politics, 1270af and 1271b). In other examples he also warned, to not go into extremes in long range activities, but search for golden mean, which is not the mathematics middle, but is specific for each situation. This exactly fits in the Smart Power concept. Aristotle was far from pointing military means as wrong, he even advised Alexander the Great how to conduct his conquests. But he was equally far from militarism pointing how to settle things in the conquered territories without any further military actions. It looks like the theory of „Smart Power” is old as the history of politics itself. Using old or even ancient ideas as a basis for a new concept has a deep meaning. Such building of new concepts on the best known ground – the history, can give the best results. In recent times, when more and more radical ideologies are coming to life, searching of the golden mean by Nye, is very much rational and helpful for the policy makers. Just policy makers have to use it.
Smart Power appears to be most reasonable ideology deriving from the oldest historical background. Yet leaders like Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot followed just most radical way of Hard Power. Truth is, that for Stalin could be „successful” for a long time using so brutal means, but it was in specific circumstances and finally even „communist” system had to end, leaving countries where it was introduced in ruin. On the other hand Dalai Lama, uses his non violent policy, urging persecuted Tibetans to stay peaceful and just discuss, prey and wait for the change of the course of Chinese policy toward their nation. Of course using both of those kind of leadership, is most of all determined by the tools we have in our disposal. In case of Tibet there is not much more they can do. Any other action without any capabilities or international support (other than even best Hollywood movies) is pointless.
USA is the powerful enough to use policy they choose and this relate to the global leadership. But even for such mighty country the consequences of those choices are very profound. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan created circumstances, which have forced next US president to change policy, shifting from Hard to Soft Power. Drawing red lines in Syria and then, after Asad regime crossed them constantly, refusing any further actions; hesitation in taking any actions against growing ISIS threat; just soft means in face of Russian aggression against Ukraine; or ignoring by Israeli government, continuous US president’s objection for their settlements program in West Bank proves, that administration of Barack Obama is not willing or unable to pursue the idea of Smart Policy. Although it was stated by Hillary Clinton in her first official appearance as a Secretary of State of the USA in 2009. The idea elaborated then by Hillary Clinton, sounded like exactly fitting the international situation. But whether the rest of US administration was not ready to follow this path or all of it was just said to fulfil election promises, the concept was not used.
But in fact there are some traces of Hard Power under president Obama administration. It was done unofficially and consisted of hard means like worldwide spying program, drone wars, secret military operations and others. It was some kind of Smart Power and probably could have been more successful, but was provided inconsistently, just to fight the remnants of the previous US president threats like Al-Qaeda. It seems like Obama administration didn’t want to realize a new threats, like they believe that under such extraordinary speaker and negotiator there can be no new problems. But such policy produced negative outcome in double: as half of the world believed Obama is pretending to be a peaceful and cooperative, but in fact tried to continue ineffectively hard lined Bush’s policy, and second part saw Obama as unable to use any Hard Power means. President Obamas inconsistence was well seen especially in Syria where US supported Syrian Rebels, even when they joint with Al-Qaeda. All of this shows that president Obama prepared kind of Smart Power strategy but unappreciated or overrated many important factors. Unfortunately international relations in the second decade of the XXI c., have great dynamics. Therefore president of USA shouldn’t exclude hard means from use. He underestimated Russian will, to rebuild its empire. In 2008 the Georgia was attacked by Russia, but still Obama used his reset concept just few months later. Although idea of reset could be good, but it had to be also hard means prepared if it didn’t work. When president Obama sent signals that his focus (after reset with Russia) have been shifted from Europe to Asia, it was a vital information for president Putin. He acknowledged, that such situation made a best ground for his plans. If president Obama denies Israelis settlements in the West Bank, he have to find the tools in his large toolbox to prevent Benjamin Nataniahu and his Likud from pursuing this goal. In the Syria the better was not draw any lines, because building any alliance was very much doubtful. Determining such point of US reaction, when none from the Western world finally supported the idea, put president Obama in very bad position. To fulfil his promise he would have to start unilaterally military steps against Syrian regime supported by Russia and Iran. Against Russia, fully depended on natural resources, strong impact in this sphere would be much better (and it was partially done). In the same time unofficially large shipments of western weapons, at least from the  time of Crime annexation, would make the difference in this situation. Just discussing the shipment of the gas to the central Europe, and underlying, that such perspective is possible in tens of years make whole discussion ridicule.
Unfortunately his hesitations, red lines without consequences and admitting to have no strategy prepared to fight ISIS (which shouldn’t be stated publicly even if it’s truth), produces a picture of weakness and inability to use both – soft and hard power in a proper measure. Unfortunately, for many leaders in the world, too much of soft power, means weakness and in this case most probably this opinion of the president Obama will prevail.


Alies – enemies in the Middle East and countries of influence

Alies-enemies in the Middle East

Middle East has gone through important changes for the last decades. Especially after 09/11 this region went into dramatic chaos causing disaster for many nations. This graphic shows the international relations which not always reflects its official picture. There have been placed on the map a new state – Kurdistan, which in fact was was constituted by the Iraqi Kurds, and it’s a matter of time and consciousness for the world leaders to recognize it. Most of the relations are obvious. In this text, I will try to clarify those which could be dubious for the reader and will try to describe some of the consequences produced by such relations in the region. The idea of the core, perypheric and influencive countries comes from over fourty-year old theory of the Cantori and Spiegel (L. J. Cantori, S. L. Spiegel, The International Politics of Regions. A Comparative Approach, Engelwood, New Jersey 1970). Despite its age the theory seams still suitable for this region.

First of all there are two strong axis of alliances, very much directed against each other: USA-KSA (and CCG except Qatar)-Israel-Turkey and opposite axis: Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Iraq backed somehow by Russia and China.
Both axis determines the reality of the regional stability. New, non-state actors, like Al-Qaeda or ISIS are very much against everyone in the region, even if they are partially supported by the people or even governments. For the clarity  of the graphic (although doubted) I did not placed all GCC relations as they are pretty much same for all the Committee, of course except Qatar, which for a several months distanced itself from the rest of the group.
What needs to be explained for this graph, is the situation of the deeply divided Iraq. There are several centres of power in this falling country. One is the official government which is just a pawn of the Iranian Ayatollahs and relations shown on the graphic apply to this body. Another centre of gravity in Iraq is the Kurdistan which has it’s border, all institutions divided from the Baghdad, and in fact it is a separate state now. Moreover in the face of growing ISIS threat for the region, Peshmerga fighters are the only power, who successfully engaged those radicals. It gives much to the independence of the Kurdistan in Iraq. Another part of Iraq is the Sunni minority, also divided into three parts. First – we can call them moderate are the ordinary Iraqi citizens, who are oppressed by Shia run government. They have tough conditions for living in Iraq as even their representatives were pressed outside government. Difficult situation of Sunni resulted in the emerging Al-Qaeda in the Iraq. Even official US sources admitted, Iraq is the one of the most important centres of Al-Qaeda in the world. The last Sunni part of Iraq organizes itself under influence of the Syrian ISIS fighters. For the graph just the two sources of power in Iraq are represented: Shia lead government steered by Iran and second – Kurdistan, and they are in deep conflict. Just US influence and instability of the country causes that Iraqi government do not start any military operation against Kurds. It appears that Iraqi government is in total conflict of interest with USA, just US makes efforts for desperately keep some kind of influence on them. Fighting ISIS would be another occasion for it, but in fact in long run it will be difficult for US to keep this state under their control. Decisions for this will come from Teheran for sure, the same as for the relation with Sunni or Kurdish minority which were never planned to constitute equal parts of the Iraqi society under this government.
Under Barack Obama administration US tried to change its relation with Iran. Especially after new president Rouhani came to the office there. US is trying to establish better relations with Iran, which would be a very good idea, if Iranian regime would be ready to start some kind of cooperation with west. True face of this regime is well seen in its actions toward their own society. Unfortunately Iranian regime is not moderate and not cooperative, using every measure to get advantage in the region. Another case is, that US will need unofficial agreement with president of Syria Bashar Al-Assad and Iranian Ayatollahs, through president Rouhani, to get rid of the ISIS and Al-Qaeda. But it will be a game in which Iran can earns most and this chess game has to be played very carefully by the US. Iran, Shia government of Iraq and Assad would like to exploit US presence in the Middle East as much as possible, but if USA is enable to prepare masterpiece strategy in case of the fighting ISIS it would benefit for the region and for the USA very much. It can’t be just the strategy for fighting ISIS. That should be mere tactical phase. Intervention against ISIS have to be a part of the greater strategy for the whole region and also have to assess other players reaction and activity. The perfect plan would include: in the same time as intervention, the measures to contain Iran and softened it’s grip of the axis and internal affairs, preserve Iraqi government, force it to recognize Kurdistan and enable Sunni minority to participate in the government, force Assad to reconcile with rebels and stabilize the situation in Syria, renewal of the relations with Egypt and with it’s help finally establish a permanent peace between Israel and Ramallah in a two or one state solution. Maybe the plan of transfer of the part of Sinai Peninsula for the Gazans (if it’s true) would help Palestinians there to marginalize Hamas and join Ramallah for the peace treaty. Such plan would make Obama eternally best world leader, but it is hard to imagine that such plan would even start to be build.

Most important tool for the US, except its military, diplomatic and economic means, is their axis of alliances. It consist of three strongest and very influential players: Turkey, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Israel. The relations between these three are also complicated so it is not easy to base activity on them. One more very important country which used to be very close to US is Egypt. The internal tumult in this country has brought it to the point where Egyptian army finally regaining control for the state tries to be more independent and strengthens its ties with regional powers like GCC. Despite Egyptians anti-Americanism, it seams that Egypt will stay in the alliance with USA. The proof could be the keeping a good relations with Israel.

Russia seams to be not very important player in the region. It’s important for Assad as he was desperate to search for international allies because of the strong efforts to overthrown him. But Iran uses Russian support instrumentally and it is hard to call them allies.

Putin’s ambitions, Hitler and the NATO summit

It seems that President Putin has made a similar mistake as Hitler did in the years prior to and at the beginning of the World War II. Hitler believed that western countries are too used to living in comfort and too pacifistic after what happened during World War I, or even too lazy to fight wars. He thought that his eagerness and cruelty, putting nations in front of facts rather than negotiations or diplomacy, will create a situation that will facilitate his plans. Diplomacy used before the conflict an element of war strategy and was meant to give Hitler an idea of European and world leader’s willingness to fight him. His idea was that he would frighten whole world so much that no one would have enough courage to stand against him. In fact at the beginning he was quite right. But at some point he just couldn’t win because too many strong opponents were against him, and they were determined to fight to the end.
Now Putin has made pretty much the same efforts of assessing how Europe and the World view his activity in Ukraine. His clash with Georgia gave him impression that Europe and US are not ready to confront him. The Crimean Anschluss was the next move which gave him the confidence that he is the strong one and master of the situation. Sanctions were the minimum of what the world could do, and for Putin it had to look like just a smokescreen to do nothing. The best proof for it was that sanctions were announced just for a short time, and always just to the moment when Russia deescalates its activities in Ukraine. For those who knows the conflict theories it is obvious that it is not a good approach to negotiations if we at the beginning stat those measurements are just temporary. The Russians know they are doing wrong, and a weak response just strengthens the impression that the west is trying to say sorry for applying the sanctions against the Russian establishment.
I believe Putin considered letting the Donbas area go and waiting for another good moment to act. Putin’s plan seems to be easy to predict. He wants to keep Ukraine’s eastern provinces autonomous from the rest of the state. Then for a few years he can use propaganda like in the Crimea, place regular units there, invited by the autonomous government of those territories and finally hold a fake referendum like in Crimea, or otherwise take the region. The plan could work if Ukraine stays poor and divided.
But the Ukrainians are more and more against Putin because of those pro-Russian separatists which often are just ruthless mercenaries conducting war on their territory. After the Russian aggression, it seems that Ukraine is much closer to joining the EU, and most of the oligarchs escaped or are not siding with Russia now. It appears to be a good path for Ukraine to develop and improve quickly. Then there would be none who would like to join Russia and Putin would not have any occasion to play his strongest card – propaganda. The last point which is very important for Putin for his decision to invade eastern Ukraine was preparation of new elections by President Poroshenko who wanted to get rid of the Kremlin supporters and obvious Russian spies.
The false image of a divided and lazy Europe, a weak and undecided Obama and a mobilizing Ukraine, pushed Putin to the decision that there can be no better time for invading east Ukraine. He decided to invade with an unknown the number of soldiers, but reliable sources claim it is from 7 to 15 thousands of well trained experienced and well equipped soldiers. From the start they were attacking newly formed, totally inexperienced Ukrainian units surrounding Donieck. The results were obvious. The Ukrainian government was fully right giving the order of full retreat. Losing Ukrainian soldiers – many very young boys (perhaps some of my former students), was pointless. At this moment Putin claimed that he could seize Kiev in few days, Warsaw in a week and I suppose he believes that Berlin and Brussels would fall in month. What Putin did and is still is doing in Ukraine has to be enough to be a wake up call for the West. Everything done until now was based on high ambitions of one leader surrounding himself with ideologists most probably having deep antisocial personality disorder. Leader embraced with totally wrong impressions of Russian might and western weakness or inability to organize, who makes decision individually and independently ignoring opinions of people thinking otherwise. All this makes Putin similar to Hitler, although it is not enough to compare those two figures.
The ongoing NATO summit in Wales shows that Putin went too far, just like Hitler. Fortunately, post-World War II – „too far”, doesn’t mean that half of Europe has to be in flames and filled with death camps for „subhumans”.The decision of building quick reactions forces with infrastructure organized in Poland and some initial battle units, four thousand soldiers strong, ready to react in the NATO member countries, seems like a first sign of a really strong and reasonable response to Putin’s activity. We have to add, those units will not operate separately but with the national armies of attacked states. There is much more the west can do to contain Putin, and this progressive direction of NATO is inevitable now, when none have any illusions about him and his mafia state’s ambitions.

I want to thank to Nick Siekierski @ResearchTeacher for correcting of this text.

The Tragedy of MH-17

Simple and undeniable facts of the Ukrainian crisis are that Russia, using military from the Crimea, pressured the people there and organized a so-called referendum (in fact annexing the peninsula), then, almost openly supporting the pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine. The culminating point of this conflict was the shooting down of the Malaysian commercial airliner, Boeing 777 flight no MH17 with 298 people on the board (cited as such by the head of the polish National Security Bureau gen. Stanisław Koziej: https://twitter.com/SKoziej/status/491179285005090816, http://www.polskieradio.pl/7/129/Artykul/1182487,Koziej-zestrzelenie-samolotu-bylo-kulminacja-kryzysu-na-wschodzie-Ukrainy).

This article is an attempt to present and analyse information from different sources to establish the premises to direct the blame for the tragedy to the guilty parties. Another aim is to present the reasons for actions of people who committed this terrible massacre in the Donetsk province in Eastern Ukraine. But I have no doubt it will not convince any of Putin’s „true believers”. Every point can be dismissed by saying: all information from the west is a manipulation of the CIA or other „secret forces”. I am well aware that mine is just one of many voices in this discussion, but it may be helpful to those who want to get to the truth.

Speaking of the credibility of the global flow of information, we need appropriate measure. In the next text, which I will prepare, I will discuss propaganda, access to information and the level of democratization – considered as the plurality of opinions, helping the decision making process in the Western and in Russia. All this should be taken into consideration when we try to analyse the information coming from different directions as we search for the truth.

  1. The evidence of perpetration

First the Russian versions, which focus on three variants:

a. President Putin officially claim that Ukrainian authorities are responsible, because if they had not proceed with the war in eastern Ukraine, there would have been no tragedy of the civilian plane (http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/jul/18/ukraine-malaysia-airlines-mh17-vladimir-putin-video).

     In other words he said that Ukraine should let go of one third of its territory to Igor Girkin and Alexaner Boroday, who officially admitted their aim to transfer those territories to Grand Russia. Concurrently, any movement of the Ukrainian military forces in the direction of Crimea, provokes a reaction from the Kremlin and statements that it will defend its integrity! Even for pro-Russian observers such a philosophy has to seam inappropriate.

b. There are suggestions on the website „Russian Today” and other Russian media, that MH17 could have been shot down by the Ukrainian military jet SU-25 (Ukrainian Su-25 fighter detected in close approach to MH17 before crash – Moscow, Russia Today, July 21, 2014, http://rt.com/news/174412-malaysia-plane-russia-ukraine/). A film has been presented by a Russian officer which purportedly shows a Ukrainian military jet following a civilian plane. Of course such „evidence” like that from other sides of the conflict, could easily be fabricated. But what is really important, is the problem that this scenario presents could be easily checked by European or US intelligence. Maybe that is why president Putin did not mention this version at all. It was released just to create informational confusion, a routine propaganda action. Even if western intelligence kept such information a secret from the public, their governments would still consider Ukrainian authorities as being culpable.

c. The last option raised by Russian media states that there was a flight of the Russian president on the same day and route, and even „the contours of the aircrafts are similar, linear dimensions are also very similar, as for the colouring, at a a quite remote distance they are almost identical” (Reports that Putin flew similar route as MH17, presidential airport says ‚hasn’t overflown Ukraine for long time’ July 17, 2014, http://rt.com/news/173672-malaysia-plane-crash-putin). 33In fact if we compare those planes, they are not as similar as Russia Today claims. Even ground forces in areas of operation are trained to recognize plane types and nation of origin. I am sure that pilots are trained much better and such a „mistake” is not possible. This version seems the most peculiar and looks like pure propaganda with no sense to it at all. In fact, the Russian president did not mention this version either, so even for him this option is not worth using, but makes for very useful information noise. This „gossip” was spread for two groups of receivers: „Putin’s believers” who search through the media to validate that their idol has done everything right. Second are those who are undecided, and are thus pushed into even greater confusion and creates a basis for doubt. The last argument should also be considered the most persuasive. What if the Ukrainians really shot down the Russian president? In such a situation a much more radical man would come to power. For Ukraine it would be end of their short independence and could even cause a humanitarian disaster.

President Putin tried to simplify his claim and said that “Obviously, the state over whose territory it happened bears responsibility for this terrible tragedy,” (Reports that Putin flew similar route as MH17, presidential airport says ‚hasn’t overflown Ukraine for long time’ http://rt.com/news/173672-malaysia-plane-crash-putin). No matter how absurd it might seem, the President of Russia uses this argument officially and often so it merits some consideration. Of course he could say otherwise, that the state which controls the territory over which it happened, bears the responsibility… He could, it looks just like a game of words, but in this version it would direct accusations towards Russia. In fact this second phrase would be much more honest and reasonable. If he would be serious in this question we could ask him the same about the terrorist attack in Dubrovca in 2002. Didn’t Russia own and control the territory of the Moscow Theatre? And yet the tragedy happened. Chechen citizens were blamed and nobody in Russia had any doubts, they bear all responsibility, even if Russian special units made dramatic errors during this anti-terrorism operation. Also 9/11 is another example of huge tragedy happening over territory owned and controlled by the state which can’t do anything about it. Christo Grozev presented in his blog, how the Kremlin’s propaganda works: http://cgrozev.wordpress.com/2014/07/19/the-pot-smoking-gun/, and I also will develop this subject as I mentioned, in my next text.

Now, the most important and at the same time most obvious premise pointing at the pro-Russian separatists as the perpetrators of this tragedy:

  1. Area of the plane crush is in full control of pro-Russian separatists.

All this happened on the territory fully controlled by pro-Russian separatists. Even after the plane crash, they said that Kiev’s envoys are not allowed near the crash site because it lies deep in their area of operations. Meaning there are too many secrets, logistic lines or preparation areas to allow the enemy to enter. So the territory lies far behind the fighting line. There are no reports that the Ukrainians have any anti-craft equipment capable of this act in the vicinity. The Ukrainian PM stated that their forces didn’t even use such equipment because pro-Russian separatists did not have aircraft. From another angle, there are many indications that pro-Russian separatists could get the BUK-1M missile system from Russia and could have used it. There are pictures from the Donetsk area, transport routes and US intelligence information. But most important is that just week before the MH17 tragedy, Russians encroached 3km deep into Ukrainian territory. There are no other reasons for such action other than the transfer of people and equipment into a combat zone. In fact in this area pro-Russian separatists shoot down many ukrainian planes untril now and not russian or pro-Russian plane was shoot down by the Ukrainian army (https://twitter.com/dpjankowski/status/492557547023654912/photo/1) BtXqedWIYAAV9tR.jpg large

  1. Pro-Russian separatists self confession.

There are plenty of recordings of the pro-Russian separatists admitting they committed this attack (just one example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mid_kTCWLzI&app=desktop). Those recordings could be manipulated as Russians claim. But the first recording, linked to above, was released just hours if not minutes after tragedy. Even if it was manipulated, it couldn’t have been done professionally in such a short period. There are number of methods and tests to use to verify those recordings. There are other recordings as well and the voices there seams to be the same. Cristo Grozev was even able to connect with one of those from the tapes and he also confirmed the voice is the same, even if this man denied everything. And the last, but most important. Just after the plane was shot down, pro-Russian separatists sent a message about shooting down a Ukrainian military plane. On that day they did not have any other such „achievements”. Shortly after, the message was deleted (All those deleted ifnormation are gathered in this blog: http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/russia-shoots-down-malaysian-mh17.html). We all know that our „Big Brother” – NSA records every message and every phone call we make. It was confirmed by many people that the communication went out into the world, confirming the shoot down of a Ukrainian military plane, which proves they made a „mistake” and shot down a civilian plane thinking it was Ukrainian. By the way, if it was Ukrainian, with the same number of people on-board, the reaction in the west would not be nearly the same as it is now.

  1. If BUK was used, then Russia is responsible in the first place?

From the beginning there were speculations that the BUK-1M missile system could have been used by the pro-Russian separatists in the shoot down. At the beginning Russians spread the three versions of events as described in the first part of my article. But all investigations were presenting more and more evidence that it happened with the use of BUK („Military analysts said the size, spread, shape and number of shrapnel impacts visible all point to a missile system like the SA-11 Buk as previously suspected” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2702002/US-Russia-created-conditions-shoot-down.html#ixzz38Wnmfm1Y). Now the black boxes from the plane are pointing to a shoot down by artillery. Because of that, new information appeared in the Russian and pro-Russian media. It said the Ukrainians could use their BUK even from an enormous distance.

Why are there contradicting US intelligence reports regarding Russia’s role? In one information they say: „U.S. intelligence officials today said Russia did bear ‚responsibility’ for the downing of Flight 17 but they offered no evidence that Vladimir Putin was directly involved.” (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2702002/US-Russia-created-conditions-shoot-down.html#ixzz38WoLNt3O) In another we read: Unnamed US officials are telling Associated Press that their intelligence suggests Malaysia plane shot down by anti-Kiev militia, no link to Russia found” (http://rt.com/usa/174796-intelligence-malaysia-plane-mh17-us/). There are two reasons for the contradictions. One is connected with information chaos created by Russia and another with the track two diplomacy of the US and EU. The first statement was official, spread by the British Daily Mail. It suggest that Russians „loaned” the BUK to the pro-Russians separatists and that is why they bear responsibility. But Russians couldn’t know against whom those rockets would be used. They are out of the control of the Kremlin thus Putin cannot bear any responsibility. But Russians are still responsible for supporting those pro-Russian „fighters”. The second message is slightly different. There are no links to Russia at all. So no equipment could be „loaned” and certainly no launching from Russian territory, although the Russian border was much closer to the shooting point than any Ukrainian BUK at that time. Both versions lay responsibility on pro-Russian separatists. And let’s look who in fact spread this second piece of information. Russian propaganda TV and some „Unnamed US officials”. Well… not really convincing. In both cases, they say that president Putin cannot be responsible. Of course, everyone who follows the Ukrainian conflict could be angry, because if Putin supports pro-Russian „rebels” he obviously bears responsibility for their actions. It is true and hard to discuss. But there have to be diplomatic solutions to this difficult and bloody situation. There have to be solutions that prevent the full scale Russian invasion of Ukrainian territory, which would be a disaster for Ukrainians in the first place, then for the region and in the end for Russia itself. That is why president Putin has to be absolved of the heaviest accusations. He has a way out of this with the full, popular support of his own people and those from abroad, „Putin’s believers”. At the same time western media and even politicians leave no space for speculation and openly say that president Putin is responsible for all that happens in the Ukraine. So despite the truth, track two diplomacy is used to show president Putin the way out of this situation. The message is clear: „Cut all connections to the „rebels”, blame them for everything and then we will go back to much better economic relations. You will have Your World Cup in 2018, F1 track in Sochi and so on.” It has to be very attractive for president Putin, but it is not for Girkin, Boroday and others who have staked everything on this conflict. If they lose, they would have to build their reputation from the beginning. All of their „achievements” in Moldova, Chechnya or the Balkans would be forgotten because they failed in Ukraine – the most important aim of their imperial plans. Influencers in Moscow like Malofeev do everything to stop Putin from caving in. They have great impact on the Russian president and a big influence on the Russian economy and Armed Forces. In most pessimistic scenario, they can create a short-term economic crisis (which in fact is imminent considering the war, Crimean annexation and the costs of realizing imperial plans), spread information about the failure in Ukraine and even claim that the President betrayed Great Russia (which in fact they do on Twitter) and ultimately cause Putin to lose his position.

All those circumstances led to tragedy for the passengers of Malaysian Airlines flight no. MH17 and has now caused many complications in the area of operation of the pro-Russian separatists. This tragedy is another example of the innocent civilians losing lives in the conflicts caused by the imperial ambitions of the people who have powerful capabilities at their disposal. In fact, Russians fighting in Ukraine makes this conflict another proxy war – which is more brutal, because it consists of mercenaries and people from another countries who don’t care about the people in the territory where they are fighting. Igor Girkin (Strelkov) or Alexander Boroday are no different than the leaders of ISIS in Iraq or Boko Haram in Nigeria. They any and all methods to achieve their aims, they pursue an extremist ideology and they do not have any humanitarian inclinations whatsoever. In their minds a political victory achieved through military or rather terrorist methods is the absolute, top priority. They even could believe they are helping other people, because sometimes “it has to be hard before it gets better in the future”. But such an idea is not appropriate in all circumstances

      What makes them different from the most radical terrorist groups in the Middle East or Africa, is that they operate in the middle of Europe – which despite western views is in Ukraine. They have strong sponsors. Political sponsors are located in the Kremlin, but financial support comes from people like billionaire Constantine Malofeev. Such influential and rich sources of support make those pro-Russian separatists very powerful. They refuse to listen to orders from the Kremlin, but have their own ideologists like Alexander Barkashov, whose ideals fit much better with the aim of a „Great Russia” than Putin’s complicated policy. A great advantage of the pro-Russian separatists is the situation in Russia. Close connection or even unification of Russian politics and organized crime in that country, makes the state highly unpredictable. If western analysts base their assessments on relatively healthy state organisms of western countries, they will have great difficulty in analysing Russian behaviour and predicting their next moves.  We hear, that the Dutch Prime Minister was deeply shocked by the pro-Russian separatists behaviour in front of the MH-17 wreckage and the dead bodies lying all around. Well… Ukrainian, Polish or Lithuanian analysts and politicians were not shocked by this. In this part of Europe, people know much more about those fighting the Ukrainian Armed Forces, about the situation in the Russia and the geopolitical conditions that this situation creates. The Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs and Prime Minister and the organizations such as the National Security Bureau with its director, General Stanisław Koziej, warned western politicians, journalists and societies of the importance and danger of the situation in Ukraine and Russia role in it.

Operating in the centre of Europe also has disadvantages. Europe is filled with high- level intelligence technology, the European Union cooperates in strategic alliance with the USA which creates great capability for diplomatic and intelligence actions. Despite the leaks about wire-tapping of European leaders by the USA, western intelligence has the greatest access to the global flow of information. Russia is also deeply involved in cooperation with the European Union, which makes warlike politics much more complicated.

The geopolitical situation in the twenty-first century is proof that every international relations actor of enormous power will act in their self-interest, become arrogant and ultimately aggressive. Today Russia resembles the USA from 2002 and 2003. The beginning of the war in Iraq was not a mistake. There were false reports presented in the UN Security Council, bunch of false media information. Although there was also large critic in the West. France and Germany did not surrender to the US pressure. Even in US there were medias which informed about anti-war opinions. So Russia is same arrogant, and starts to be aggressive but uses much more total propaganda than it is possible in the West. USA regards Iraq as their largest mistake. They also see many others mistakes they did and many others do not see. But Russia starting aggression against Ukraine is wrong in the same way and in Russia there is no real debate. There is no TV channel like „Democracy Now” in Russia or senators like Ron Paul on the Kremlin (or were excluded from Duma). Only West can force Russia to understand that they are not over any international relations and international Law. If US economy started to shrink because of the wars in the Middle East, what caused less international actions by the USA in the second decade of the XXI c., than poor and retarded Russian economy does not allow them to play that game also (This is stated by Zbigniew Brzezinski often: http://t.co/MZRSbMqTw3).

(I would like to thank to Nick Siekierski for correcting this text)

Tragedia MH17

malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-routeTragedia pasażerów i załogi samolotu Malezyjskich Linii Lotniczych, Boeninga 777, lot MH17 to jedno z takich wydarzeń, w których od początku wiadomo kto jest bezpośrednio odpowiedzialny, a kto jest winny pośrednio (jako polityczny sponsor tego co dzieje się na Ukrainie) a jednak z uwagi na to jak potężny aktor stosunków międzynarodowych jest w to wmieszany, wniosków nie artykułuje się zbyt dobitnie aby nie urazić przywódców „gazowego mocarstwa”. Rozpatrywany jest więc także wątek podawany przez propagandystów i polityków (choć często to są ci sami ludzie) rosyjskich. Działanie propagandy rosyjskiej doskonale przedstawił na swoim blogu dziennikarz estoński Christo Grozev: http://cgrozev.wordpress.com/2014/07/19/the-pot-smoking-gun/. A przekaz z ich strony dotyczy właściwie trzech wariantów:

  1.  Wersja prezydenta Putina – władze Ukrainy są odpowiedzialne, bo gdyby nie ich operacja antyterrorystyczna nie byłoby wojny i nie zostałby zestrzelony samolot.
  2.   Samolot umyślnie został zestrzelony przez lotnictwo Sił Zbrojnych Ukrainy.
  3.   Wersja najbardziej kuriozalna i rzadko przedstawiana w mediach to zamach na samego prezydenta Putina. Ukraińcy mieli próbować zestrzelić samolot prezydencki Putina, który rzekomo miał właśnie w tym samym dniu lecieć tą trasą.

Wersję pierwszą można logicznie rozwinąć w ten sposób: po co Ukraina walczy, niech zrezygnuje z połowy swego terytorium, wtedy nie będzie wojny. Dziwna to logika, która nakazuje takie bzdury wygadywać rosyjskim politykom.
W wersji drugiej trudno doszukać się sensu. Wszystkie fakty bowiem przemawiają za separatystami jako autorami zamachu. Wersja trzecia zakłada zupełne szaleństwo władz w Ukrainie, które pragnąc popełnić zbiorowe samobójstwo całego narodu, dałyby argument Rosji do nieuchronnej pełnej inwazji wojsk rosyjskich. Zapewne w takiej sytuacji także społeczność międzynarodowa miałaby wątpliwości jak reagować. Trzeba też dodać, że nawet media rosyjskie nie traktują tej trzeciej opcji poważnie. Została ona puszczona w eter po to, aby stworzyć pożywkę dla samonapędzających się teorii spiskowych. Efekt jest porażający, ponieważ o tej właśnie opcji nie tylko mówią znani rosyjscy politolodzy, jako o bardzo prawdopodobnej ale też stała się ona ulubioną dla wszystkich zwolenników prezydenta Putina na całym świecie. Na Bliskim Wschodzie, gdzie prezydent Putin ma wielu wiernych „wyznawców” często innej opcji w ogóle nie bierze się pod uwagę. W rozmowach można usłyszeć następującą argumentację: „Lubimy Putina bo jako jedyny przeciwstawił się USA”. Z tej prostej logiki wynika szereg następnych implikacji, gdzie Putin jest traktowany jako idealny lider idealnego państwa. Jak więc widać nawet najbardziej absurdalna teza propagandystów rosyjskich ma szerokie grono odbiorców, czekających tylko na taką pożywkę dla dalszego kształtowania kultu doskonałego Putina. Podobnie tego typu teorie mają wielu zwolenników w Ameryce południowej a nawet w Europie Zachodniej.
Natomiast co wskazuje na pro-rosyjskich terrorystów we wschodniej Ukrainie, jako autorów zamachu? Działania tzw. „separatystów” już wcześniej nosiły znamiona terroryzmu, jednak po tym wydarzeniu, w istocie nie powinno się już nazywać ich separatystami, tylko właśnie terrorystami. Otóż jest to sporo kwestii świadczących o ich autorstwie, z których przedstawionych zostanie tylko kilka najważniejszych:

  1. Samolot rozbił się na terytorium w pełni kontrolowanym przez pro-rosyjskich terrorystów. Zamach mógł zostać dokonany w trzech wariantach: z terytorium Ukrainy kontrolowanego przez terrorystów, z terytorium Rosji przez wyspecjalizowany personel rosyjski, z powietrza przez inny samolot. W tym trzecim wariancie próbowano upatrywać autorstwa Sił Zbrojnych Ukrainy, jednakże to sami pro-rosyjscy terroryści chwalili się dzień wcześniej, że zestrzelili transportowy samolot wojskowy sił ukraińskich, a rosyjski SU27 zestrzelił Ukraińskiego SU25. Wygląda na to, że Ukraińcy tracą nawet kontrolę nad przestrzenią powietrzną nad tym terytorium. Władze Ukrainy wyraźnie sugerowały natomiast, że atak musiał być przeprowadzony przez Rosjan z terytorium Rosji. Takie rozwiązanie w pełni obciążałoby samego prezydenta Putina, jak i zdejmowałoby jakąkolwiek odpowiedzialność z Ukrainy, nawet tak iluzoryczną, jak brak nadzoru nad własnym terytorium. Jednakże wszystko wskazuje, że to właśnie druga opcja jest najbardziej prawdopodobna, co wynika z kolejnych punktów niniejszego zestawienia.
  2. Drugim najważniejszym dowodem jest to, że pro-rosyjscy terroryści sami przyznali się do przeprowadzenia zamachu, o czym świadczyły rozmowy nagrane i opublikowane przez Służbę Bezpieczeństwa Ukrainy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mid_kTCWLzI&app=desktop. Swoją drogą ciekawe, że po takim zapisie rozmowy, który przecież specjaliści mogą łatwo sprawdzić i potwierdzić zarówno identyfikację rozmówców jak i oryginalność tekstów, nadal odpowiedzialność terrorystów jest kwestionowana.
  3. Sam fakt ataków na lotnictwo ukraińskie, dokonywanych przez Rosje a także terrorystów świadczy o możliwości takiej „pomyłki” i zestrzelenia samolotu pasażerskiego zamiast wojskowego ukraińskiego.
  4.  Istnieje wiele zapisów wideo i zdjęć wyrzutni rakiet przeciwlotniczych ziemia-powietrze typu BUK, transportowanej z Rosji do wschodniej Ukrainy, co świadczy, że terroryści dysponowali takim sprzętem. Wywiad USA donosi też że dwa dni przed zamachem z Rosji przetransportowano same rakiety.
  5. Około tygodnia przez zamachem Rosyjskie Siły Zbrojne wkroczyły trzy kilometry na terytorium Ukrainy w okręgu Donieckim. Dzięki temu mogli oni swobodnie transportować sprzęt i ludzi na wschodnią Ukrainę. Jednocześnie przy granicy ukraińsko-rosyjskiej wciąż skoncentrowane są oddziały wojsk Federacji Rosyjskiej.

    BtDHRiLCUAAFfmQOczywiście można by wymieniać dłużej dowody na to, że to terroryści wspierani przez Rosję są odpowiedzialni za zestrzelenie samolotu Malezyjskich Linii Lotniczych. Jednakże przedstawione wyżej powinny w zupełności wystarczyć każdemu, kto stara się obiektywnie oceniać wydarzenia zarówno w tym konflikcie jak i innych toczących się na świecie (równolegle przecież toczy się kolejna odsłona konfliktu izraelsko-palestyńskiego gdzie także ilość hipokryzji i propagandy jest kuriozalna).
Dodatkowo odrażające zachowanie samych terrorystów w rejonie katastrofy, jeszcze bardziej unaocznia światu z kim mają do czynienia żołnierze ukraińscy.

Terroryści nazywający siebie bojownikami Donieckiej Republiki Ludowej, to w istocie zdegenerowani najemnicy, których przywódcy tacy jak Igor Girkin (pseudonim Strelkow) czy Aleksander Boroday, zasłynęli z radykalnych działań zarówno w wojnie w Naddniestrzu jak i w Czeczenii. Ich celem jest destabilizacja wszystkich regionów, należących do ZSRR i włączenie ich do tzw. Wielkiej Rosji. Nie jest jasne czy chodzi im tylko o republiki ZSRR czy także państwa satelickie, ale można się domyślać, że w tej kwestii ich „apetyt będzie rósł w miarę jedzenia”. Sam Girkin w wywiadzie telewizyjnym przyznał, że ich celem jest powiększenie terytorium Rosji a nie tworzenie Donieckiej Republiki Ludowej.
Ciekawostką jest także fakt, że Rosjanie oskarżają Ukraińców w Kijowie o postawy nazistowskie, gdy tymczasem osoba, która współpracuje z terrorystami pro-rosyjskimi – Aleksander Barkashow, otwarcie głosi swoje neofaszystowskie poglądy fotografując się ze swastyką w tle.
Na koniec wypada wyrazić żal, ze dopiero katastrofa samolotu pasażerskiego, z niewinnymi osobami z Europy Zachodniej, ukazała światu faktyczny obraz konfliktu ukraińskiego. Obraz ten był przed zamachem już przedstawiany przez wielu niezależnych, ale zaangażowanych obserwatorów i dziennikarzy. Naturę tego konfliktu prezentowaliśmy też przy okazji seminarium naukowego w ramach projektu Katedry Bezpieczeństwa Wewnętrznego WSIZ „Kryzys Ukraiński 2013-” (http://kbw.wsiz.pl/?page_id=143). Niestety dramat samej Ukrainy, ukraińskich obywateli i żołnierzy, nie stanowił wystarczająco silnego bodźca dla obywateli państw zachodnich. Świadczą o tym wypowiedzi zszokowanych holenderskich polityków, na czele z premierem, zachowaniem terrorystów na miejscu katastrofy, gdzie bezczeszczone są ciała ofiar, a sami zamachowcy zachowują się tak jakby chwalili się swoim trofeum. Zachodnie media dopiero teraz odkrywają skalę tego konfliktu i ze zdziwieniem konstatują, że nie ma żadnych przesłanek dla usprawiedliwienia działań pro-rosyjskich terrorystów ani ich mocodawców.

     Bezpośredni odnośnik do obrazkaOczywiście mechanizmy jakimi Europa w tej sprawie dysponuje to nadal dyplomacja i sankcje gospodarcze. Nadal zgodnie z dewizą Zbigniewa Brzezińskiego, jedyną opcją nie prowadzącą do otwartego konfliktu Zachodu z Rosją, jest konieczność pozostawienia możliwości wycofania się z tej sytuacji prezydentowi Putinowi. Choć najpierw należy znaleźć sposób na skłonienie go do odcięcia wsparcia dla pro-rosyjskich terrorystów. Bezpośrednio odpowiedzialni za zamach powinni jednak zostać zatrzymani i osądzeni, natomiast polityczna odpowiedzialność Rosji powinna powodować konsekwencje długofalowe ze strony Unii Europejskiej i USA.