Ukraine Crisis Recurs, US and EU Differ

Ukraine Crisis Recurs, US and EU Differ
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 11, 2015

Executive Summary: Ukraine finds itself caught between Europe and Russia. Taiwan can empathize. Today Eastern Europe. Tomorrow the Taiwan Strait. The international situation and domestic situation constantly impinge upon each other. We must learn a lesson from the crisis in Ukraine.

Full Text Below: 

Europe now faces a triple crisis. One. Former Middle Eastern and North African colonies are experiencing outbreaks of terrorism. Immigrants are importing these conflicts to continental Europe. Two. The economic integration of Europe is being undermined by imminent Greek withdrawal from the Eurozone. Three. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has led to a crisis in Eastern Europe and the resumption of fighting. German Chancellor Angela Merkel is the most besieged. She must deal with the Greek debt relief problem, and convince Obama not to add fuel to the fire.

Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine will begin four party talks today in Minsk. They will redraft peace agreements on the crisis in Eastern Ukraine. Pro-Russian rebels in Eastern Ukraine recently launched a fierce offensive. They expanded their occupied areas. The Russians used the opportunity send troops. Ukraine was overwhelmed. Germany, France, and other European countries of course hope that the two sides can reach a ceasefire and establish a DMZ to maintain stability. But the United States is determined to provide Ukraine with arms, to bolster its military capabilities against the rebels and Russian troops. Europe and the United States disagree on how to handle the crisis in Eastern Ukraine. They agree on the ends but differ on the means. Both sides want to lend Ukraine a helping hand. But they hope to employ very different means.

Such is the tragedy in Ukraine. They lack the ability to resist either outside aggression or internal strife. They can only rely on assistance from other countries. Suppose US weapons stream in? At best they will enable the Ukrainian military to hold the line. They will not enable it to win. The result will be prolonged war and endless unrest. This is why Merkel opposes Obama's "no troops, only weapons" aid plan.

Two republics in Eastern Ukraine have declared their independence. Fierce fighting is taking place between the rebels and government forces. So far the unrest has caused the death of over 5000 people. Locally 1.25 million inhabitants have fled their homes. Last September the two sides reached a ceasefire agreement. But their armies continued fighting. The peace agreement was for naught.

The West has accused Russia of crossing the border and supplying the rebels with arms and troops. But Europe and the United States are reluctant to send troops to Ukraine. Before NATO's eastward expansion it dared not include Georgia. Now, if it includes Ukraine, Russia will inevitably react. Therefore some advocate providing Ukraine with defensive weaponry to counterbalance the Russian military. One US think tank recently proposed providing Ukraine with lethal weapons. Secretary of Defense Carter agreed with this proposal during a congressional hearing. At that same moment, US Secretary of State Kerry was in Kiev. The rumor was that final negotiations over the weapons were then in progress.

Some NATO countries, such as Poland and the Baltic states, have also agreed to provide Ukraine with arms. But larger European countries such as Germany and France think that providing only arms without sending US troops will merely intensify the conflict and widen the conflagration. Hardliners think that improving Ukraine's fighting ability will result in body bags arriving in Russia. Putin will then be forced to withdraw. But this approach is likely to be counterproductive. The Russian economy has deteriorated. But Putin's poll numbers remain as high as 72%. This is due to Ukraine. Putin says the Ukrainian army is merely NATO's "Foreign Legion". The arrival of NATO or US weaponry will merely confirm his allegation. Putin's plan is to escalate the civil war in Ukraine into a conflict between NATO and Russia. This will ensure Russian unity, drive up international oil prices, and resolve the financial crisis.

Europe and the United States now differ on the Ukraine crisis. Merkel of Germany and Hollande of France are worried about the situation deteriorating. On the fifth, they suddenly went to Kiev, then on to Moscow to meet with Putin. They proposed a "demilitarized zone". Once Putin agreed, German, French, and Ukrainian leaders met in Belarus for a four party summit. Merkel personally met with Obama, hoping to get him to agree. Merkel stressed that a peace agreement may not succeed, but the conflict cannot be resolved by military means, because this is not merely a civil war. It could well become a "regional disaster".

Frankly, Ukraine cannot win the conflict by itself. Kiev must freeze the conflict. It must buy time, then use economic means to win Eastern Ukraine. Therefore the Ukrainian government must withdraw from the rebel-occupied zones. It must govern East Ukraine using a decentralized "federalist" model. Only that will enable it to ensure its territorial integrity. As for Russia, it is selling its oil and gas to Mainland China, India, and Turkey. That however, is merely a temporary measure. The long-term solution is to set aside its Cold War mentality, and find a way to coexist with the European Union and NATO. Blindly insisting on "buffer states" is obsolete.

European countries dealing with European affairs is perfectly justified. The United States is on the other side of the Atlantic. It does not understand the sensitive and delicate nature of the situation. Merkel stepped forward, just in time. Europe and the United States have a long and special relationship. The United States accounts for half of the military in NATO. It cannot be excluded from the negotiations. European and US coordination is essential.

Ukraine finds itself caught between Europe and Russia. Taiwan can empathize. Today Eastern Europe. Tomorrow the Taiwan Strait. The international situation and domestic situation constantly impinge upon each other. We must learn a lesson from the crisis in Ukraine.

烏克蘭危機再現，美歐志同道不合
2015-02-11 03:56:12 聯合報 社論

歐洲此刻正面臨三重危機：一是中東與北非的舊殖民地所爆發的恐怖主義，正經由移民蔓延至歐洲大陸；二是歐洲經濟統合的基礎，正隨著希臘威脅退出歐元區而面臨威脅；三是東歐的烏克蘭遭俄羅斯侵犯的危機又重燃戰火。其中，最忙碌的莫過於德國總理梅克爾，她除了處理希臘的減債問題，還要說服歐巴馬別在烏東危機火上加油。

德法俄烏四國今天將在明斯克舉行四國會談，就「烏東危機」重擬和平協議。主要是，烏東親俄叛軍最近發動猛烈攻勢，擴大占領地區，而俄軍亦不斷趁機派兵支援，使烏克蘭難以招架。在德法等歐洲國家的立場，當然希望雙方能停戰弭兵，劃出非軍事區來維持安定；但美國卻意圖提供烏克蘭武器，以強化其軍隊抵禦叛軍和俄軍的能力。歐美對烏東危機的處理可謂「志同而道不合」：雙方都想要對烏克蘭伸援手，但手段卻大相逕庭。

這也正是烏克蘭的悲情。自己國家沒有能力抵禦內亂與外患，只能仰賴他國協助；但若美國武器源源流入，卻充其量僅足以供烏軍抵抗，而無力讓其打贏，其結果勢必是戰事綿延，動亂不可能止息。梅克爾反對歐巴馬「不派軍，只送武器」的援助計畫，擔心的就是這個。

目前，烏東兩個共和國已宣布獨立，叛軍與政府軍激烈戰鬥。動亂迄今，已造成五千多人死亡，當地已有一百廿萬居民逃離家園。去年九月，雙方一度達成停火協議，但兩軍仍持續交火，和平協議形同廢紙。

對此，西方雖然極力指控俄國越界供應軍備與人員，但歐美對出兵烏克蘭卻有所顧忌。之前「北約」東擴，就不敢將喬治亞納入；現在若納入烏克蘭，勢必引發俄國強烈反彈。也因此，有人主張應該提供烏克蘭還手與自衛的武器，以制衡俄軍。美國智庫最近便建議給烏克蘭防禦性致命武器，接著，國防部長內定人卡特在國會任命聽證會上表示贊同。就在此時，美國務卿凱瑞訪問基輔，盛傳即是為武器的種類做最後磋商。

部分北約國家如波蘭與波羅的海國家，也贊成向烏克蘭提供軍火；但歐洲大國如德、法卻認為，美國只提供軍火不派兵，反而會升高衝突，引發遍地烽火。強硬派的想法是：提高烏克蘭的戰力後，一旦屍袋開始運抵俄羅斯，可迫使普亭收斂。但這種想法極可能適得其反，儘管俄國經濟惡化，但普亭目前民調支持度達七十二％，就是靠著烏東戰事贏得的。且普亭已經放話，烏克蘭軍隊不過是北約的「外籍兵團」，如果還接收北約或美國的裝備，更坐實這個指控。普亭的盤算，就是要把烏東內戰升高為「北約」與「俄羅斯」的緊張，既可催化俄國內部的團結，又可炒高國際油價，化解財政危機。

歐洲與美國對因應烏克蘭危機出現不同步調。德法領導人梅克爾與歐蘭德擔心情況惡化，五日突然前往基輔，隨後轉赴莫斯科會晤普亭，提出「非武裝區」之議，得到普亭的同意後，隨即敲定德法俄烏領袖今天在白俄羅斯舉行四國峰會。梅克爾更親訪歐巴馬，希望能說服他同意。梅克爾強調，和平協議未必一定成功，但重要的是，「這場衝突不能以軍事手段解決」。因為這不僅是一場內戰，而是一場可能升級為「地區災難」的戰爭。

老實說，烏克蘭不可能獨力贏得這場衝突。對基輔而言，重要的是先凍結衝突，以時間換取空間，再用經濟來爭取東烏。所以，烏克蘭政府必須退出叛軍佔領的地盤，改採分權的「聯邦制」治理烏東，才能挽救國家領土的完整。至於俄羅斯，目前將油氣市場轉往中國大陸、印度與土耳其，畢竟只是暫時之計，長遠之計是要放下冷戰心態，找尋與歐盟和北約共處之道，因為一味守護著「緩衝國」的手段已經落伍了。

歐洲國家處理歐洲事務，本來就天經地義，美國隔著大西洋，其實並不理解其中的敏感細膩之處。梅克爾這次出頭，恰如其時，也恰如其分。但是，歐美畢竟有長久的特殊關係，尤其美國在北約組織中佔有一半軍力，不可能把它隔在談判範圍之外，歐美協調畢竟不可或缺。

烏克蘭夾在歐美俄之間的兩難處境，台灣感同身受。今天的東歐，也許就是明日的台海，國際情勢與國內局勢永遠是相激相盪的，我們要從烏克蘭的危機中汲取自己的教訓。