Opinion: Ukraine offers early warning radar to West

Buy an ad on DigitalJournal.com

In terms of national self expression, Russia and the United States can usually give lessons in how not to do it. Russia’s blunt comments about the Ukraine’s role in Georgia were obviously not appreciated.

So the country blessed with Chernobyl, an on/off relationship with Russia’s gas supply, and other whimsical nightmares, has made a statement of its own.

The BBC:

Ukraine has said it is ready to make its missile early warning systems available to European nations following Russia's conflict with Georgia.

The foreign ministry said Moscow's abrogation earlier this year of an accord involving two tracking stations allowed it to co-operate with others.

President Viktor Yushchenko said his country could ensure its sovereignty only through collective security.

The new situation in Eastern Europe is now being evolved by Ukraine as a combination of retaliation and necessary integration of systems:

In a statement, Ukraine's foreign ministry said that because the country was no longer party to the 1992 agreement with Russia on the use of its radar stations, it could now "launch active co-operation with European nations".

In terms of the NATO arrangements, this would be on the cards anyway. The result is the further solidifying of eastern Europe’s anti missile systems, the exact opposite of Russia’s wishes.

The relationship between Russia and the Ukraine has never been too terrific, since ancient times. The Ukraine wanted independence from the Czars, let alone the Soviets. It certainly doesn’t want to be taking orders from Moscow, V.2008.

The BBC seems to have acquired the habit of tacking on Russian-negative paragraphs, and the effect is rather drab:

Russia clearly sees Nato as America's sphere of influence, despite US President George W Bush's insistence that it is a purely defensive alliance of sovereign democracies, our correspondent says.

Increasingly, the events of the past 10 days demonstrate Russia has gone back to arm-wrestling with its neighbours and the West after the immediate post-Soviet years, when it felt too weak, he adds.

Now a bit of opinion about how the political tags seem to get added to everything to do with Russia.

Again, The Theme. It’s like an SEO writing manual, “always add keywords”. Real shame to see the BBC doing it, though.

1. NATO was created during the Cold War specifically to defend against Soviet attack, by America, which is the major military force by far in the alliance. How the hell else could they possibly be expected to see it, after all these years? An unusually heavily armed stamp collecting consortium, perhaps?

2. The observation regarding Russia’s nightmarish 90s period is like saying “The Cultural Revolution caused a lot of indigestion in China, which affected its foreign policy”. It’s a non-sequiteur, in terms of facts. NATO doubled in size, and nobody bothered to ask the Russians what they thought about it.

3. NATO is now literally on the Russian borders. Some of the member nations in those areas are historical enemies of Russia, like Turkey and Poland, as well as hostile ex-Soviet states.

The rule is apparently that when rewriting history, you should write it backwards, so the present makes sense. You should also write from a single perspective, to prevent readers having to try to think things through as a result of having actual facts on hand, which couldn't possibly be good for them.

Pulitzers, anyone?