There is little need for additional evidence that the statements of Fred Hiatt (Fred Hiatt) on the Washington Post editorial page about Russia and Ukraine should be treated with extreme skepticism, or even ignored altogether. Nevertheless, on Friday we were treated with a new portion of calls for the United States to impose unilateral sanctions against Russia, which became another such evidence.
But let's order. The Washington Post claims that the “anti-terrorist operation” launched by Kiev (a name in the spirit of Orwell) is going well, because President Poroshenko “resists calls to make unacceptable concessions to Moscow and its henchmen”. However, it is not. Poroshenko achieves "success" mainly because Russia is acting very restrained in terms of the operation, which can be called an ethnic cleansing carried out by the Ukrainian government against the Russian-speaking east.
This “success,” which boils down to the shelling of the civilian population, and whose victims are everyone - unarmed men and women, old people and children - led to a humanitarian crisis that is written and reported quite rarely. According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, more than 110 000 residents of Ukraine fled to Russia this year, and 54 000 people have become displaced within Ukraine. It should be noted that the State Department press secretary Mary Harf (Marie Harf) arrogantly dismissed these figures, demonstrating the same attitude towards the Russian inhabitants of Ukraine, which was to them throughout the crisis - as if they were subhuman.
The Washington Post further claims that Vladimir Putin "hopes to create another" frozen conflict ", with the help of which Moscow is constantly destabilizing its neighbors." This is a widespread topic of neocon talk, which does not withstand even the most superficial verification of facts. What are frozen conflicts? What, the unresolved problems of Nagorno-Karabakh or Transdniestria - is this really part of Putin’s grand neo-imperial strategy? Yes, the ambiguous status of the Georgian territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia suggests two such frozen conflicts, but Georgia, after Saakashvili’s departure, can hardly be called destabilized.
Then the newspaper informs the reader that “it is not yet clear whether Ukrainian troops will be able to do away with the rebels, while respecting the promise to avoid civilian casualties.” I'm afraid everything is clear here. According to the UN Assistant Secretary General for Human Rights, an 423 man has been killed since April in clashes in eastern Ukraine. Yes, we note a sort of optimistic-bloodthirsty terminology - “do away”. This is another example of how alarmingly frivolous Washington is related to armed conflicts.
The editorial concludes with a call for the United States to impose unilateral sanctions against Russia. It says: “The United States has the ability to introduce crushing sanctions against Russia, especially through the banking system. If the Ukrainian government can act without the permission of France and Germany, so can the United States. ” A couple of comments. First, there is no evidence that sanctions will or will have at least some impact on Russia's behavior. On the contrary, it is enough to analyze the events after the introduction of the “Magnitsky list” to understand: provocations of this kind will only lead to the fact that Russia will respond the same.
In fact, as Daniel Larison (Daniel Larison) notes, “it looks like the punitive measures of the West benefit Moscow because they give it something that can be ignored and which can be openly neglected”. The original premise of the editorial also suffers from flaws. It seems that the Washington Post believes that the administration will impose a sufficiently tough sanctions regime, due to which the Russians will refuse to support the rebels. However, it is completely incomprehensible whether the administration has such capabilities. And it is even more incomprehensible whether the Russian state has the ability to recall the rebels. Influence? Of course. Full control? Hardly.
Further. The Washington Post readily forgets the fact that the right flank in Russia is more and more insistently demanding action from Vladimir Putin. Hyatt and Co. imagine the Russian autocracy that exists in their imagination. According to them, Putin is the only person who makes decisions in Russia who can afford not to pay attention to the policy around him.
As a result, in this article there is a demand for the US to start an economic war against Russia. At the same time, the author revels in the real war that Kiev is waging against armed insurgents as well as against unarmed civilians. Or maybe the Washington Post wants to turn this new cold war into a “hot” war?