I
don't often pay attention to the ravings of Empire. Perhaps I should
pay more attention
Putin’s
Crime, Europe’s Cowardice
22
July, 2014
TANGIER,
Morocco — IN eastern Ukraine, Vladimir V. Putin has been playing
with fire.
He
has mobilized the worst elements to be found in the region.
He
has taken thugs, thieves, rapists, ex-cons and vandals and turned
them into a paramilitary force.
He
has permitted ad hoc commanders of separatist groups to kill or chase
off intellectuals, journalists and other moral authorities in the
cities of Donetsk and Lugansk.
He
has watched as a vodka-soaked rabble army destroys or takes over
public buildings, hospitals, schools and municipal offices of the
country it is pretending to liberate.
He
has allowed a veritable gang war to take hold — without caring that
he is losing control of the forces that he has unleashed, with rival
bands pitted against one another and carving out fiefs amid the
growing anarchy.
Most
troubling of all: To this underworld without structure or discipline,
to these undisciplined louts who know only the law of the jungle, to
this new brand of fighting force that has only the dimmest idea of
war and no idea, God knows, of the laws of war — to this motley
collection Mr. Putin, the Russian president, gave a terrifying
arsenal with which the amateur soldiers were unfamiliar and with
which they have been playing, like kids with fireworks.
We
know that Russia supplied vast quantities of heavy weaponry to the
separatists and trained them to use the SA-11 surface-to-air missile
system — the kind believed to have been used to bring down Malaysia
Airlines Flight 17.
One
can envision the victorious gang celebrating with its trophy, playing
with it as if it were a toy — one that can reach altitudes of over
70,000 feet.
One
can similarly imagine Russian military officers — not so secretly
assigned by the Kremlin to watch over the missiles and their use by
amateur artillery crews targeting Ukrainian military aircraft —
being overtaken by events and seized with panic.
One
can even imagine their consternation when Igor Strelkov, the
self-proclaimed defense minister of the Republic of Donetsk, claimed
responsibility for shooting down a Ukrainian military plane — which
turned out to be Flight 17.
We
know what happened.
Whatever
the outcome of the eventual investigation — an investigation made
well nigh impossible by these dogs of war who follow no creed and no
law, who, as they horrified the world by leaving the bodies of their
victims abandoned in fields or heaped in poorly refrigerated train
cars, as they reveled in their 15 minutes of fame by deploring before
the news cameras of the world that the 298 lost souls had had the bad
taste to “land” on people’s houses or in reservoirs used for
drinking water, were also purloining the plane’s black boxes,
organizing the export to Russia of possibly compromising debris, and
casually stripping the bodies of objects of value — whatever the
outcome of the investigation into all of this, an undeniable result
was carnage, a war crime, an attack on Ukraine, the Netherlands and
Malaysia all at once.
For
all of these reasons, it was hard not to side with Ukraine’s
president, Petro O. Poroshenko — who, it is worth noting, has shown
in the terrible days since the crash the qualities of composure,
dignity and authority that he exhibited during his campaign for
office — when he asked the international community to classify as
terrorist organizations the “people’s republics” of Donetsk and
Lugansk.
It
is also hard not to agree with Mr. Poroshenko when, several hours
after the tragedy, speaking unemotionally and with no trace of hate,
he reminded France’s president, François Hollande, that Col.
Muammar el-Qaddafi had been blacklisted by the world for his
suspected involvement in a similar attack on a commercial airliner,
Pan Am Flight 103, over Lockerbie, Scotland, in December 1988.
Faced
with this new Lockerbie, will we in the West do no more than beg Mr.
Putin to provide “free and complete” access to the crash site and
offer “full cooperation” in the recovery of remains?
Have
we not a moral obligation to draw logical conclusions about a crime
for which, because of his incendiary and irresponsible policies,
deeply unworthy of the president of a great power, Mr. Putin is, in
the end, wholly responsible?
Under
the circumstances — with Mr. Putin having not yet agreed to back
off in Ukraine, much less in Crimea — how can France morally
justify its plan to deliver to Russia two Mistral-class warships, now
being fitted out in the western port of St.-Nazaire? Do we want them
to become the crown jewels of a Russian fleet off Sebastopol and,
perhaps, Odessa?
To
see the European Union acting so pusillanimously is very
discouraging. France wants to hold on to its arms contracts for the
jobs they are supposed to save in its naval shipyards. Germany, a hub
of operations for the Russian energy giant Gazprom, is petrified of
losing its own strategic position. Britain, for its part, despite
recent statements by Prime Minister David Cameron, may still not be
ready to forgo the colossal flows of Russian oligarchs’ ill-gotten
cash upon which the City, London’s financial district, has come to
rely.
In
European parlance, this is called the spirit of Munich —
appeasement. And it is a disgrace.
Bernard-Henri
Lévy, a philosopher, is the author of “Left in Dark Times: A Stand
Against the New Barbarism.” This essay was translated by Steven B.
Kennedy from the French.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.