"Public discussion on Ukraine is all about confrontation. But do we know
where we are going? In my life, I have seen four wars begun with great
enthusiasm and public support, all of which we did not know how to end
and from three of which we withdrew unilaterally. The test of policy is
how it ends, not how it begins."
"Leaders of all sides should return to examining outcomes, not compete
in posturing. Here is my notion of an outcome compatible with the
values and security interests of all sides:
1. Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with Europe.
2. Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I took seven years ago, when it last came up.
3.
Ukraine should be free to create any government compatible with the
expressed will of its people. Wise Ukrainian leaders would then opt for a
policy of reconciliation between the various parts of their country.
Internationally, they should pursue a posture comparable to that of
Finland. That nation leaves no doubt about its fierce independence and
cooperates with the West in most fields but carefully avoids
institutional hostility toward Russia.
4. It is incompatible with
the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. But it
should be possible to put Crimea’s relationship to Ukraine on a less
fraught basis. To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty
over Crimea. Ukraine should reinforce Crimea’s autonomy in elections
held in the presence of international observers. The process would
include removing any ambiguities about the status of the Black Sea Fleet
at Sevastopol.
These are principles, not prescriptions. People familiar with the region
will know that not all of them will be palatable to all parties. The
test is not absolute satisfaction but balanced dissatisfaction."
- Henry Kissinger regarding the role of the West in the Russia-Ukraine issue
No comments:
Post a Comment