Gerard Toal is a Professor in the School of Public and International Affairs at Virginia Tech. He writes about US foreign policy, geopolitics, and territorial conflicts. He’s co-author with Carl Dahlman of Bosnia Remade: Ethnic Cleansing and Its Reversal and editor of several books on critical geopolitics. Gerard’s newest book is Near Abroad: Putin, the West and the Contest Over Ukraine and the Caucasus published by Oxford University Press.
Tommy Makem, “Four Green Fields.”
You Might also like
By Sean — 2 years ago
The SRB Podcast had an amazing year. More amazing than I had anticipated. I managed to put out 43 interviews in 2016 on a wide variety of topics concerning Eurasian politics, culture and history.
Feedback on the show’s content and quality has been overwhelmingly positive and criticisms and suggestions have been constructive and helpful. I’ve done my best to address them, especially in the area of production quality. I’ve spent a lot of time being attentive to the show’s sound quality, and I think it has improved greatly over the last several months. I hope many of you listeners agree.
Most incredible is the growth in the podcast’s listenership and popularity. The SRB Podcast had 56,000 downloads in December 2015. As of today, it has surpassed 200,000!
In my opinion, this reception is a wonderful thing for a show that caters to a niche audience. It is also welcomed. One of my goals is to add variety and complexity to the public knowledge and discourse on Eurasia in general, and Russia in particular. Given the utter shallowness and often sheer inane public commentary on Russia today, it’s encouraging to find out that there is a hunger out there for substantive discussion. I think the SRB podcast provides that. At least, I hope it does.
Thanks to everyone for their support. It’s greatly appreciated and humbling. Remember, the SRB Podcast is free, but not free to make. If you like what you hear and find it valuable, please consider becoming a monthly sustainer or making a one-time donation.
Finally, the gods didn’t create all interviews equal. Some topics and guests are naturally more popular than others. I leave you with the top ten most downloaded interviews of 2016.
Onward to 2017!Post Views: 3,283
By Sean — 13 years ago
Though there are a few exceptions, reporting on the elections in Belarus have been awful. Granted, this is a statement that demands qualification. There has been a lot of articles on Belarus, the elections, Lukashenko’s authoritarian grip, the arrests, beatings, and general harassment of the Opposition, the closing of newspapers and independent media, and of course the modest protests in Minsk. All of these are worthy stories and they all should be reported. Still, in my opinion, something has been lacking. Amid the deluge of news, few have actually told me anything explaining why Lukashenko is genuinely popular and why even without rigging the elections, which was certainly done, he would have won anyway. The answer that most have given is a standard and reductive one: Lukashenko’s rule by fear. Sure fear is a factor, but frankly I don’t completely buy it.
This is why I think that Mark Almond’s comment in the Guardian is so interesting. Bucking all conventional reporting, Almond not only points out the blatant hypocrisy of the United States and to a certain extent the EU on Belarus, he notes that the root of this might have something to do with capitalism.
On American hypocrisy, he writes:
Our media have a split personality when it comes to these two guardians of democracy. On Belarus they are quoted like Old Testament prophets, but mention them in connection with Iraq and people recall that they were the only US officials with President Bush and Tony Blair on January 30 2003 when Bush suggested provoking an incident with Iraq to get the war with Saddam going.
Of course if you believed them about Iraq then you won’t choke swallowing their story about Belarus. But let’s avoid the slick argument that just because veterans of the US’s Central American policy under Reagan allege that Lukashenko has “disappeared” some vocal critics that cannot be true either.
Almond then goes on to point out that while no one in the West batted an eye at when Rose Revolutionary Saakashvili received 97% of the vote, Lukashenko has gotten threats of sanctions from the EU.
But charges of hypocrisy are easy in this complex world. Of course the US isn’t going to give the same rhetoric to the fledgling government in Iraq or Afghanistan as it is to Belarus. We should remember that platitudes to democracy are doled out in relation to geopolitical interests.
As to why Belorussians support Lukashenko, the reason is again found in Bill Clinton’s adage: It’s the economy, stupid! Almond argues that the reason why the Milinkevich’s opposition has no support is because it has “offered no economic platform [and] just echoes of these western allegations against Lukashenko.” One wonders who is Milinkevich’s audience: Western governments and international civil society foundations that start salivating when you speak of looking west rather than east or a Belarussian constituency that has daily bread and butter concerns.
The basis of Lukashenko’s power is that he has prevented Belarus from descending into the “shock therapy” madness that so many other post-Soviet states have experienced. On this, Almond writes:
No communist-era throwback, Belarus has an evolving market economy. But the market is orientated towards serving the needs of the bulk of the population, not a tiny class of nouveaux riches and their western advisers and money launderers. Unlike in Georgia or Ukraine, officials are not getting richer as ordinary folk get poorer. The absence of endemic corruption among civil servants and police is one reason why the wave of so-called “coloured revolutions” stopped before Minsk.
Lukashenko is far from an egalitarian, nor is he a champion of human rights in any way. But few heads of state are, and I certainly wish all of them would be put on trial at some point. Though I’m sure some readers will call me an apologist, I have no intention of apologizing for Lukashenko’s obvious dictatorship. What I’m calling for is some clarity when looking at these states. We need to understand that the narrative of “Orange Revolution” is not a formula. And different states have their own particular social, economic and political calculations. I think when that is understood perhaps a political opposition will win by addressing the real issues that concern its citizens, rather than a flawed and hypocritical Western consensus.Post Views: 528
By Sean — 14 years agoThe plot thickens in the Ukraine. 100,000 supporters of the opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko occupy Kiev’s Independence Square in freezing cold protesting the defeat of their candidate by three percentage points. Yesterday, Ukraine’s Parliament gave a boost to their claims of election fraud by voting for annulling the election. Representatives of Yushchenko and Viktor Yanukovich, the hand picked successor of outgoing president Lenoid Kuchma, are now in talks for some sort of non-violent settlement. Speculations range from a new election on December 12 to civil war to secession of Ukraine’s eastern and southern regions if Yushchenko takes power. Conspiracy theorists point to a CIA directed coup to put the pro-Western Yushchenko into power. According to one Moscow newspaper, such ideas are frequent among Putin’s advisors, who feel that the United States is meddling in Russia’s affairs. This is an especially popular idea since Yushchenko’s wife is an American and has worked for the US government. Moscow backs Yanukovich because of his favorable ties with Russia. Putin’s not used to losing and there is a sense that if Moscow loses this one it might make difficulties for Putin to handpick his “replacement” in 2008. Could another genuine democratic transfer in Ukraine put extra pressure for one in Russia? Could this then mean the beginning of the end of Putinism? I certainly don’t have answers to these speculations. Yes, the election in the Ukraine has put it on the world stage. Many Americans, I’m sure, didn’t even know it was its own country. Others might not see what the big deal is: What importance does Ukraine serve to American interests?
According to one article in the London Independent, after Yushchenko got the nod from Western governments, cash flooded into his supporting organizations. This money seems to come from a variety of government and non-government organizations set on promoting “democracy” in the East. These same groups also bankrolled the exit polls that named Yushchenko the winner. Putin, never one to be outdone, has apparently inaugurated a similar phenomenon with Russian cash flowing to prop up Yanukovich. Anyway you look at it, I think the article’s suggestion that a “postmodern coup d’etat” is taking place in the Ukraine is not too far off. I don’t agree with direct CIA involvement. The Ukraine isn’t Venezuela or Haiti. Yanukovich is not calling for a something akin to Hugo Chavez’s “Bolivarian Revolution” nor is he a democratic thorn in the side of the US like Haiti’s Aristide. However, the fact that some 470 foreign ministers have publicly pledged their support for Yushchenko, thereby de facto recognizing him as President, does little to douse speculation of a Western organized coup.
Whether an actual coup is in progress or not is anyone’s guess. I doubt there is something so James Bond at work where Yushchenko’s wife is secretly fulfilling a longtime CIA plot in the making. That’s just a little to Manchurian Candidate for me. It does, however, speak to a point that Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri make in their new book, Multitude. They write, “a ‘network power,” a new form of sovereignty, is now emerging, and it includes as its primary elements, or nodes, the dominant nation-states along with supranational institutions, major capitalist corporations, and other powers.” In this formulation, Hardt and Negri argue that there is no multilateralist or unilateralist position available for nation-states. Global power flows through networks; it involves state power and civil society. One can certainly see this happening in the Ukraine. Forces from below are aligning with foreign NGOs, nation-states, and other groups to effect the election in a sovereign state. This is far different from the tactics used in the past, where coups occurred through assassination or good ol’fashioned fascist thuggery. No, the seemingly local political situation in Ukraine has now become a global situation with many groups playing a part according to their interests. Many commentators are correct to see the Ukrainian crisis a rerun of the ousting of Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia and Eduard Shevardnadze in Georgia. Whatever the outcome is, it will appear “democratic” only because the forces at play are diffused and decentralized along various nodes of the international network of governance.
To be sure there are some real issues at stake in this democratic debacle. Old world commodities like oil and natural gas continue to plague the politics of new Europe. Ukraine doesn’t produce much or either, but the country is a major transit territory for Russian natural gas and oil. In addition, Yushchenko has promised that under his rule the Ukraine will move closer toward the West and seek European Union membership and possibly joining NATO. If this turns out to be more than campaign rhetoric, Moscow does have something to worry about. Commentators signal the possibility of the Ukraine raising transit costs for Russian energy companies. Some even speculate unfavorable trade conditions between Russia could push the Ukraine to import more oil from states like Azerbaijan rather than its Slavic big brother. EU and NATO membership could further turn Ukrainian economic interests 180 degrees to its Western neighbors.
Western concerns are the mirror opposite of Russia’s. Europe is concerned about having a non-democratic state at its border. Ukrainian membership in the EU will provide yet another eastern state to exploit through monetary policy and labor extraction. NATO membership probably has the US arms manufacturers salivating over the potential arms sales. NATO membership requires a commitment to retool and modernize the candidate’s military further extending America’s military industrial complex into another state’s coffers.
Over the last few days, relations between Washington and Moscow are said to have cooled. However, this could just be a case of the winter chills; the latest tiff in two powers’ geopolitical rivalry. I doubt Putin’s open invitation to Crawford will be revoked. Nor do I think Putin will be making anti-US rhetoric a standard policy. Moscow’s position is simple enough. The US is simply pissing in the wrong yard. In addition, experts point to little real difference between Yushchenko and Yanukovich. Kinda reminds one of US politics. Both come from the same corrupt Ukrainian elite who profited off of the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s. No matter who is elected with have to deal with both internal and external forces that will keep their hyperbolic campaign rhetoric at bay. Ukraine’s next President will have to balance relations with both the West and the East. It can’t escape its social and economic situation any more than it ignore being geographically sandwiched between Europe and Russia.
I think that this last point about geography is probably the most interesting aspect of the whole situation. Ukraine’s emergence on the international stage speaks to the long standing cultural animosity shared between East and West. The Ukraine has emerged as representation of the political, cultural and even religious divide that has plagued Eastern and Western relations. The Ukraine is constructed as a country divided along these tensions: suspended between democracy and authoritarianism, western liberalism and eastern conservativism, Catholicism and Orthodoxy, free markets and state regulation, the future and the past. The cultural Other is now embedded in the body of Yushchenko and Yanukovich. I’m surprised there hasn’t been any arguments about Ukrainian crisis that highlight the legacy of Asiatic modes of production. It seems that the entire future of the Ukraine as a ‘Western” or “Eastern” country is entirely based on the outcome of this election. Perhaps this is why the specter of civil war, however unlikely, has begun to loom over the situation.
Unfortunately for the Ukraine, in the United States the Andy Warhol principle seems to now apply to nation states. Every state seems to have its fifteen minutes under the American gaze. I’m positive that if the situation continues much longer the Ukraine will fade into the annuls of history just like Serbia, Kosovo, Rwanda, Afghanistan, Liberia, Sudan, Haiti, and Venezuela. America is a cold lover that is unless your name is Israel. No more CNN.com headlines for little Ukraine. We, Americans just don’t have the attention span for such events. It forces us to consult maps and learn pronunciations of names with too many consonants. The story of that evil Peterson guy, his poor darling wife Lacey, and her unborn child is much easier to follow. Forget the Ukraine! Ukraine is boring! Why don’t they just go home like we do and let the lawyers figure out all that hard election stuff. Long live the live coverage from Redwood City!!!Post Views: 542