This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only.

JULY 15, 2014

Why Hasn't Putin Intervened?
Putin, Ukraine and the Future of
Europe
by JACK RASMUS
As the military crisis in the Ukraine has intensified with the fall of key rebel
cities, like Slavyansk and Kramatagorsk, and as new decisive conflicts for the
capitols of Donetsk and Lugansk regions are about to take place, in the West
some are beginning to ask why Putin has not more directly intervened on behalf
of the rebels in the eastern breakaway regions? After initially having mustered
Russian forces on the eastern border of Ukraine late last winter, why has Putin
pulled back and ordered them to stand down?
When the Ukraine crisis entered a new stage last February 2014, the question of
the day five months ago was would Putin and Russia directly intervene
militarily? Today the key question has become why hasnt Putin intervened and
why does it appear increasingly that he will not?
Over the past decade, the USA built up its support among proto-fascist elements
on the ground in the Ukraine, funding these forces to the tune of a US admitted
$5 billion. It then elbowed aside EU negotiators and intervened directly last
February, when it appeared the European Union was about to strike an
economic deal that was not politically aggressive enough in the USA view.
The USA has clearly wanted political regime change all along, not just a
favorable economic deal with Ukraine. The so-called Orange Revolution
initiated a decade ago had succeeded only in part in breaking the Ukraine from
the Russian economic and political orbit. The Ukrainian crisis of 2013 offered a
new opportunity to complete the unfinished political task of the Orange
Revolution. But the Europeans, mired in their own economic problems, were
not interested in taking the lead.
In her publicly much quoted statement. fuck the EU, made last February on the
eve of the coup by the USAs leading diplomat on the ground at the time,
CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names Putin, Uk... http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/07/15/putin-ukraine-and-t...
1 of 6 7/15/14 6:55 PM
Virginia Nuland, the USA clearly assumed direct control of the Ukrainian
intervention from the Europeans. The European Union, together with the
European-led IMF, would henceforth be left to negotiate the economic bailout
with the Ukraine. But the USA would now drive the political policy.
The dichotomy between the USA and the EU that erupted into full view with the
February 2014 coup in Kiev, when the USA took charge on the ground is still
evident today: Since the May 2014 Ukrainian parliamentary elections the USA
has continued to push for harsher economic sanctions against Russia while
directing the new Ukrainian Poroshenko government to undertake more
aggressive military action in the eastern regions of the Ukraine. In recent
months, moreover, it has become further clear that USA military, CIA , and no
doubt USA special forces advisors have been calling the shots on the ground
militarily for the Poroshenko government. USA advisors have been flowing
steadily into the Ukraine since last May. And shifts concerning Ukrainian
military tactics and strategy against the eastern regions in recent months have
almost always coincided with high ranking US politicians and USA-NATO
military personnel visits to the Ukraine.
In contrast, the EU governments have been trying to keep the economic
sanctions against Russia limited to select individuals instead of entire economic
sectors in Russia, as the USA has proposed, while calling for a ceasefire and
immediate negotiations between the parties.
Given the aggressive USA political policy toward the Ukraine today, the question
is: Why has Putin not responded more aggressively to the threat of the now
potential severing of the Ukraine from Russian economic and political
interests? Why has Russia not militarily intervened to date and appears, with
every passing week, even less likely to do so?
The possible answers to Russias cautious, measured response to USA aggressive
political and military policies in the Ukraine are several:
First, whats at play here is not just a fight for the eastern regions of the
Ukraine. Its not even a fight for the Ukraine per se. It is a broader geopolitical
strategic struggle now emerging across the Eurasian continent as new global
realignments begin to unfold.
The Ukrainian crisis has various levels of meaning. But at the geopolitical level
its about whether Europe will continue to develop even deeper economic and
political ties with Russia than it has to date; or whether the USA will take more
CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names Putin, Uk... http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/07/15/putin-ukraine-and-t...
2 of 6 7/15/14 6:55 PM
aggressive steps to slow, reverse, and potentially sever, that growing Europe-
Russia economic relationship.
This writer rejects the view that the USA intervention in the Ukraine is the
outcome of a rogue foreign policy adventure that caught the Obama
administration and its security apparatuses by surprise. When viewed more
globally and strategically, what appears as a USA political mis-adventure in the
Ukraine, set in motion and led by a Neocon dominated US State Department
since last winter, is really a planned intervention and response by USA interests.
Those interests viewed the emergence of a general crisis in the Ukraine in 2013
as an opportunity to further secure USA global economic hegemony by
preventing what it perceives has been a dangerous drift by Europe toward more
economic integration with a resurgent Russia.
Europes growing dependence on Russian gas and energy is well known. Europe
has grown in the last decade to depend on at least a third of its gas from Russia.
And Eastern Europe EU economies are nearly totally dependent on Russian gas.
But that energy dependency only the visible tip of the economic iceberg of a
growing mutual economic dependency between Russia and Europe.
German, Italian, and French export and import trade with Russia in various
categories has grown significantly in the last decade, including production and
exports of military equipment. Frances development and export of two
helicopter carriers to Russia is but one case in point. The USAs recent $9 billion
financial penalty levied on France largest bank, BNP, could be viewed, at least in
part, as a USA response and threat to Frances delivering the carriers to Russia
despite USA insistence to the contrary. USA proposals to provide Europe with
liquefied natural gas is another indicator of its attempt to wean Europe off of its
growing Russian resource and capital flows dependence. The USAs current
proposals for a Trans-Atlantic Free Trade agreement between it and Europe is
no doubt another indication of a renewed USA turn toward Europe. With a
combined economy roughly the size of the USAs, Europe is too big and too
important an economic prize to allow Russia to obtain too large a foothold. And
the economic penetration of Russia has already gone too far, in the view of USA
interests.
The USAs direct intervention in the Ukraineelbowing aside the Europeans last
February 2014 to bring about the Ukrainian coup detatshould be viewed
therefore in this context of the USA political response to potential long term
strategic shifts in Europe. What better way to bring Europe fully back into the
CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names Putin, Uk... http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/07/15/putin-ukraine-and-t...
3 of 6 7/15/14 6:55 PM
USA economic fold than by precipitating a political crisis in the Ukraine that
provokes Russia into a premature, direct military conflict with the west?.
But should Russia intervene military in the Ukraine in response to USA
provocations, that intervention would provide an opportunity for the USA to
push Europe in general, and Germany in particular, to retreat from the Europe-
Russia economic relationships that have developed over the past decade.
Putin no doubt knows this and has been seeking a way around a direct fight on
the ground with the USA and its NATO arm in the eastern Ukraine. Putin and
Russia are thus between a rock and a hard place, as the saying goes. Intervene
militarily in the Ukraine, and Russia gives impetus to the USA strategic objective
of slowing and possibly even severing Europe in the long run from Russia
economically. On the other hand, by not intervening militarily Putin
strengthens the hand of certain EU interests to continue to resist USA demands
for broad sanctions against Russia and to continue to insist on a negotiated
settlement in the Ukraine.
To recognize the larger geopolitical reasons for the USAs direct political
intervention in the Ukraineand for Russias reluctance to respond with its own
military intervention in the Ukraineis not to deny other possible reasons for
Russias hesitancy to intervene militarily despite the grave threat to its interests
posed by the USA-engineered coup of last February.
A possible second reason why Putin appears reluctant to engage militarily
directly in the eastern regions is that he recognizes the Russian military is still
no match in a direct conflict with USA-NATO forces on the ground. Russias
military modernization is not yet completed. It is therefore premature for a
decisive conflict on the ground there. Having re-integrated the Crimea earlier,
before the USA was able to handpick the Poroshenko government and
reconstitute the Ukrainian military, Putin knows a similar development in the
eastern regions is highly unlikely to prove as successful as the Crimea.
Thirdly, theres the factor of Russias own economic oligarchs. They have little
interest in a military conflict in the eastern Ukraine, and a good deal of interest
in continuing their wealth economic & investment partnerships with western
European bankers and industrial capitalists. Many also have large financial
positions in the Russian giant company, Gazprom, which is owed $4.4 billion by
the Ukrainian government in back gas payments. The only way Gazprom and the
oligarchs will be paid is with the agreement of the IMF to ensure the IMFs $18
billion current bail out of the Ukraine will in part include payments to Gazprom.
CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names Putin, Uk... http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/07/15/putin-ukraine-and-t...
4 of 6 7/15/14 6:55 PM
Russia and Gazprom would like to conclude that payment deal first. However,
Poroshenko and the USA keep the bait dangling, refusing to agree to final terms
while military actions are underway. Sensitive negotiations continue to this day
between the parties with regard to how much the Ukraine and IMF will pay
Gazprom for past gas deliveries. Poroshenko and USA advisors will no doubt
refuse to agree until they have militarily pacified the eastern Ukraine.
Another possible interpretation of Putins reluctance to intervene militarily is
that the reluctance reflects a strategy of allowing violence by the Ukrainian
military and government to intensify in the east, and thereby deepen further
popular internal disgust with, and opposition to, the Ukrainian government
there. There is also the possibility the military action now underway by the
Poroshenko government will overextend itself and produce a popular backlash
within the Ukraine itself. Continued atrocities by the Ukrainian military against
its own Russian-speaking citizens in the east would also build more support with
the Russian populace in favor of intervention, which is now still split at best on
the topic of military intervention in the Ukraine. Putin may thus be awaiting
events to further develop within the Ukraine and for public opinionin both the
Ukraine and Russiato shift more in favor of direct military intervention.
Of the various reasons behind Putins apparent reluctance to intervene in the
east Ukraine, the most compelling is the longer run geopolitical strategic contest
over the future of Europe itself: will it be pulled back from growing relations
with Russia? Or will Europe in general, and Germany & France in particular,
continue to maintain, and even grow, economic relations with Russia? Russian
military intervention at this point would clearly prevent the latter, and set in
motion a reversal of Europe-Russia economic relations.
The conflict in the Ukraine is therefore about the future direction of Europe
itself. Will Europe become even more economically dependent upon the USA,
more integrated with the USA economically, and politically and diplomatically
even more an appendage of the USA? Or will Europe embark on a more
independent global economic coursewith not only Russia but China as well?
Were there no USA-provoked Ukrainian coup and crisis, a more independent
European economic policy would prove more likely, perhaps even inevitable.
But with the fact of the Ukraine crisis and the aggressive USA-led military action
by the USA-friendly Poroshenko government, the future economic direction of
Europe may thus depend on whether or not Putin and Russia intervene military
in the eastern Ukraine in response to the on-going USA provocation.
CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names Putin, Uk... http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/07/15/putin-ukraine-and-t...
5 of 6 7/15/14 6:55 PM
But dont bet on it. Our guess is Putin is not just a master tactician but is no
less focused on the broader geopolitical implications of a Russian military
intervention. He will more likely continue providing all the support he can to
the rebels in Donetsk and Lughanskshort of direct military response.
Jack Rasmus is the author of Epic Recession: Prelude to Global Depression
(2010) and Obamas Economy: Recovery for the Few(2012), by Pluto Press,
London, UK, and the forthcoming Transitions to Global Depression(2015). He
hosts the Alternative Visions radio show on the Progressive Radio Network,
and serves as the Shadow Federal Reserve Chair, in the Green Shadow
Cabinet. His website is www.kyklosproductions.com. He blogs
at jackrasmus.com, and tweets at @drjackrasmus
Written for teleSUR English.

CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names Putin, Uk... http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/07/15/putin-ukraine-and-t...
6 of 6 7/15/14 6:55 PM