Putin-Obama Summit “Ukraine and Terrorism” Necessary

The Ukrainian situation just took a very dangerous turn. The demonstrators have taken over government buildings not only in Kiev but five other cities including the Russian-speaking East. Neither is it just Yanukovych´s broken promise to let the Ukraine join the EU and his turn towards Russia which sparked this crisis. It is his overall policies of cronyism, corruption and the enrichment of his family, as well as his regime´s sheer thuggery and brutality.

This week, Yanukovych´s cabinet and Prime Minister  resigned and the anti-demonstration laws were abolished. But how serious is  Yanukovych´s compromise offer of power-sharing  and can he be trusted?   The problem with the regime's offer of the PM and vice-PM positions to opposition leaders Yatseniuk and Klitschko is that  a) both positions are completely dependent on the good will of the president. b)   The offer only can work if Yanukovych appoints serious middle-of-the-road, technocratic reformers, from the opposition and from his own party, to the ministerial portfolios.  If he simply replaces one set of corrupt, authoritarian officials with another,   this will not be genuine  power sharing, but coopting and discrediting.  The crisis can likely only be resolved if it offers genuine power sharing followed by free elections.

The determination of the Ukrainian people for democratic change was symbolized by their destruction of one of Lenin´s last statues in Kiev. Not just in the Western Ukraine,  culturally linked with Europe, but also in its Russian-speaking East and South, the people have rejected Leninism.  An anti-thug, “Euro-revolution” is in progress.

What is decisive, however, is how Russia will respond to the crisis.  Right now, as the Olympic torch passes through the Northern Caucasus hotbed, President Putin is caught between the Scylla of Muslim terrorism in Chechnya and the Charybdis of Euro-revolution in the Ukraine.  A Russian military intervention in the Ukraine, or even economic pressure, is unlikely in the coming weeks -- giving the Ukrainian democrats a unique opportunity to take over the government.  Traditionally, the Russians try to avoid engagements on two fronts.  

Indeed,  Putin has so far shown restraint  vis-à-vis the Ukraine.  Offering economic inducements, he has also publicly hinted a few times that he does not like Yanukovych.   Moreover, Putin is not simply a KGB thug.  He is rather a complex dialectic of both East and West.   Besides his career as a KGB officer and head of the Federal Security Service (FSB) he was a reformer under Anatoly Sobchak and prime minister under Boris Yeltsin.   He pursues what is best for Russia but seems increasingly inclined to obtain that end through diplomatic means.

We believe that the achievement of a more stable and democratic Russia is dependent to some extent on the same happening in the Ukraine. What is needed is for the U.S to work closely with Russia, a nuclear superpower, indispensable to a stable world order.  A summit with President Obama should be arranged. It should have a simple agenda; International Terrorism and the Post-Communist Conflict in the Ukraine. The new, unprecedented, Russo-U.S. cooperation in providing security at the Sochi Olympics allows a hospitable environment for such summitry, as does the mutual need for a partnership against Islamist terrorism.

So far as the Ukraine is concerned, the objective would surely be to let peaceful, revolutionary change occur.   But it should also include cooperation with Russia to work out an economic package, supported by the U.S. and the EU, which would help both Russia and a newly elected, Ukrainian regime. Putin may not be adverse, as he has promised to support whatever government in the Ukraine emerges with promised economic incentives.

 The United States and the EU can positively  affect a democratic outcome in the Ukraine. In Obama´s words in his SOTU speech, “In Ukraine, we stand for the principle that all people have the right to express themselves freely and peacefully…”  But deeds are necessary and the best course is very simple.  All Washington and Brussels have to do is to initiate investigations of the dubiously acquired assets held in their countries by members of the Yanukovych regime. 

Moreover, the U.S. could work with the EU to assure that the Ukraine and then Russia both  eventually  join the EU as associate members. While doing so, we must also avoid pursuance of unrealistic objectives, e.g. calls for the Ukraine´s NATO membership, anathema to Russia. The NATO option should be reserved, pending U.S.-Russo future relations.

As multiple crises continue to explode around the world, the one in the Ukraine requires our new thinking, our peaceful engagement and creative diplomacy.

Alexander Motyl is a professor at Rutgers University. Dr. Jiri Valenta is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and president of a post-communist-terrorism website (jvlv.net). Leni is its CEO.