It is difficult to see how the improvement in the Russia - US and the Russia - West relations could proceed without cutting the knot of the Crimean issue and problem. The following is the set of thoughts which might be helpful in considering the mutually acceptable solution. If this problem is resolved, Crimea will turn from a "black hole" that absorbs and destroys the good will, from a source of conflict, mutual mistrust, and endless recriminations; from a bone of contention, into the connecting bond, and for Russia, into a permanently open door, a corridor between her and the West, historically much more important and significant than the Petersburg's window, which for the overwhelming majority was just a wistful vista onto the Czar's Baltic lake.
Establish the joint governing mechanism for Crimea with Ukraine and with the European and the Western participation, introduce the visa-free travel to and from the peninsula, for the European and other tourists, and for the Crimeans who wish to travel to the Western countries. Allow the Greeks, the other Europeans, and other Westerners to settle there freely, if they so wish. Grant greater autonomy and self-rule for the Crimeans under the joint Russian - Ukrainian - European umbrella. This is ancient and originally the ancient Greek land. Invite the respected and mutually acceptable Greek or the European politician, who, preferably, speaks Russia or Ukranian, or both, to head the local Crimean government as a prime minister for the initial transitional period or longer, introduce the new constitution accordingly, along the European lines. Instead of begging you for money and being the drain on the Russian budget, they will be awash with investments, the real estate projects of the European quality will spring up fast, the sanctions will be lifted. Agree with Ukraine on directing the repayment of the $3 billion loan to Crimea and its citizens, with the European guarantees. This money will be compensated many folds by the lifting of sanctions and other benefits.
The Russian military, located in Crimea, will benefit also: the value of their real estate holdings will increase several folds. Share the naval base in Sevastopol with the NATO navies. It will establish the much-needed trust and will start the productive cooperation between the militaries.The confrontation and opposing the West is the greatest, irrational and exitless nonsense. The continuing intelligence war will not bring you victory or the world domination, it will just create the endless tensions and hostility. Do not take the Westerners and the Americans for the fools or weaklings, they are not at all, and you know it very well, but you console yourselves with these feelings out of envy and hostility. There no, really. reasons for these feelings, neither good nor bad reasons; they stem from the old Soviet traditions and the historical Russian xenophobic habits. Do not interfere negatively with the Ukraine's and other former Soviet republics' European choice, just the opposite, support them and support their independence, you will only benefit from it in a long run. One, two, or three new or old puppets do not the summer make, let the chips fall wherever they may, allow the history to take its course freely, otherwise the pent-up pressures and tensions will explode, and, as always, into your own faces, with the unpredictable and bad results.
The big, historical, strategic changes require the big historical, strategic, and bold decisions, the bold thinking on the part of the really, historically big politicians. Think broadly, this broadness, "shirota", had always been one of the most appealing features of the Russian national character and the most beneficial feature of her historical figures-politicians' thinking. Peter the Great is probably the best example. The world will only welcome and admire this. I do not think, that anyone will try to take advantage of this broadness and openness, I do not think that anyone will try to f**k you up. Unreasonable fears hurt the security; the natural alliances, fixed by the common historical, cultural, and religious roots and bonds, enhance it.
Think it over, start with the first, small, baby steps, develop them gradually, and walk proudly and freely within and among the historically parental community of the Western nations.
I really do not see any reasonable or viable alternatives to this type of the proposed solution in a long run.
Michael Novakhov
11.14.16
MSNBC
From left, John Mearsheimer, Fu Ying, Kevin Rudd and Sergei Karaganov prepare to speak at a session of the Valdai Discussion Club on Oct. 25. (Daniel Drezner)
As I noted on Monday, I’m in Sochi attending the Valdai Discussion Club. In case it was not obvious, this is a Vladimir Putin-approved event — high-profile gatherings like this one that are unapproved by Putin unhappen in Russia. This raises a rather awkward question for an American during a time of … let’s say “tension” between the two countries. Does the value of attending such a confab outweigh the costs?
The costs are easier to delineate. There is a large public relations component to this meeting, and that component has taken on a bigger dimension in recent years. In the past, a lot more of Valdai was off the record, including the sessions attended by Putin himself. Now everything is televised. Longtime attendees tell me that it also used to be more introspective; in the past, many of the panels covered Russia itself. Now most of the conference is outward-looking, discussing everyone else’s problems. Russia Today (RT) is interviewing every American they can find, including me in a few days. There is an obvious risk that participation confers greater legitimacy on a government that has been accused of some less-than-legitimate activities as of late.
The benefits are harder to specify. In part, this is because some of the value-added accrues only to me and not to thee. Last night I somehow found myself sharing a healthy amount of food and drink with some former G-20 policy principals. Priceless anecdotes about former heads of state were shared, as were some interesting observations about the prospect of great power politics following the U.S. election. But I can’t provide any more specifics than that because it was all off the record. Indeed, I feel cheap even teasing you about it.
One possible public good to proffer is the one David Rothkopf has used to justify the continuation of Davos:
[T]his meeting is the target of criticism for a reason. It is the granddaddy of the world’s big high-level conferences, and it has an important role to play in the world. People watch it closely; it attracts the skeptical views it draws precisely because it actually makes a difference, whether it is regarding how a leader or policy initiative is viewed by markets or how a particular threat (from climate to regional unrest) might be assessed or addressed.
Valdai matters because it is the highest-profile Russian equivalent to Davos (minus the corporate presence). What Vladimir Putin or Sergei Lavrov or Alexei Kudrin says here is worth observing. For close Russia-watchers — and most of the American attendees fall into that category — observing Valdai is like a physician doing a routine check-up of a patient. The interest is in the year-to-year changes in the official rhetoric, as well as what is said during the coffee breaks.
I am not a close Russia-watcher. Even for generalists such as myself, however, there can be value in listening to official boilerplate. There is even greater value in learning how one’s priors about a country might not match up with what is actually happening in that country. I’ve been genuinely surprised at the free-flowing nature of the conversations here on some very sensitive foreign policy questions. None of this will change official policy — but it is good to hear the thinking behind such policies, as well as the acknowledgment of costs as well as benefits.
As I have noted in the past, sharing a stage with people you disagree with is a good thing so long as you can express that disagreement openly. I have been able to do that here at Valdai. I was asked to envision a world in which the USSR didn’t collapse, because that was “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century,” according to the program. I took great pains to point out the myriad ways that statement was wrong. Mission accomplished.
My attendance at Valdai comes with a few costs. But the benefits are real as well.
