Greg Austin for New Europe
As commanders in chief of the armed forces of Russia and Ukraine, Vladimir Putin and Oleksandr Turchynov appear to be poorly matched. The former has been commander in chief (de facto) through the last war in Chechnya, the Georgian campaign in 2008, and the Syrian civil war for the last three years. The latter, though a political campaigner since 1992 and head of Ukraine’s security service for seven months in 2005, cannot match Putin’s experience of diplomacy, war, politics or covert operations.
Putin has been in power since 7 August 1999, initially as Prime Minister, though having announced for the Presidency that very day. Turchynov has been interim President of Ukraine for two months, having served a similarly short interim term as Prime Minister several years ago.
The mismatch between the two leaders became painfully obvious on 30 April, the day that Turchynov declared that his military forces were unlikely to regain control in critical parts of the east of Ukraine, and that the government should concentrate on stabilizing important cities like Kharkiv and Odessa. His remarks to a meeting of regional governors were reported as follows: “I would like to say frankly that at the moment the security structures are unable to swiftly take the situation in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions back under control.” He expressed doubts about the ability of the security forces to protect the people of Ukraine.
The Turchynov statement, though doubtless an accurate description, will play badly into the psychology of the conflict dynamics. The President’s statement cannot have been regarded positively by anyone in Ukraine still hopeful of keeping the country together and stopping the revolt.
By contrast, Putin has been feeding the enthusiasm of the rebels with successive psychological boosts. Typical of this was his April 17 interview in which he referred to the troubled region in Ukraine as “the Russian southeast. It’s New Russia.”. He followed with this: “Kharkiv, Lugansk, Donetsk, Odessa were not part of Ukraine in Czarist times. They were transferred in 1920. Why? God knows. Then for various reasons these areas were gone, and the people stayed there. We need to encourage them to find a solution.”
He reminded the world that the Russian parliament had approved use of Russian military forces on the territory of Ukraine. The statements taken together provide a clear message to the rebels in Ukraine: press on with civil unrest because “mother Russia” will back you.
Many observers have interpreted the Putin statement similarly, but less attention has been paid to what it says about the escalation dynamics of the conflict inside Ukraine and around it.
We see as adversaries two very unequal states, Ukraine and Russia, led by two very unequal leaders – in an insurgency the like of which has not been witnessed in Europe for more than sixty years, not even in Northern Ireland. Russia is supporting its allies in the domestic struggle inside Ukraine with military power, while Ukraine has no international allies willing to do the same. Russia and the pro-Russian insurgents in Ukraine are united, while their opponents inside Ukraine could not be more divided. In fact, they are fighting an election campaign against each other.
The election for a new President scheduled for May 25 was a good idea on February 21. By now, the election has become a highly destabilizing element in the conflict dynamics. The election process will now become a new locus of violence and civil discord. On May 26, Russia will have a President, and his name is Putin, but Ukrainians now face considerable uncertainty over whether their election will even produce a nationally acceptable commander in chief, let alone one who can match Putin in the struggle over “new Russia”.
Read the original at http://www.neurope.eu/article/putin-vs-turchynov
