Kourosh Ziabari: As a heated war of words soars between the United States and Russia over the sovereignty of the Crimean peninsula where 58% of the citizens are ethnic Russians, it seems that Washington is losing the battleground to the will of the Crimean citizens who favor reuniting with Russia instead of remaining under the autonomy of Ukraine.
Although the US officials have been openly threatening Russia with economic sanctions and even a military strike in the recent weeks, and while even former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has compared Russian President Vladimir Putin to the late German dictator Adolf Hitler, a renowned American journalist and syndicated columnist believes that the United States’ threats are futile and unserious.
“I don’t think these threats are serious. Yes, the United States is an aggressive power and likes to invade other countries, but it doesn’t like to go to war against countries that can defend themselves. Remember what happened when North Korea acquired nuclear weapons? Suddenly military action was off the table. Conversely, look at what happened when Muammar Gaddafi gave up nuclear weapons in Libya? If he could come back to life, I doubt he’d make the same mistake twice,” said Ted Rall.
Ted Rall is an American columnist, syndicated editorial cartoonist and author. His cartoons appear on around 100 newspapers and magazines across the United States. He was the President of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists from 2008 to 2009. Rall has won several national awards including the first prize in the 2011 edition of the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies Awards and Amazon’s Best Books of the Year, for “2024: A Graphic Novel.” Rall has published several books, including four cartoon collections, eight non-fiction and prose books and four graphic novels.
What follows is the text of my interview with Mr. Ted Rall on the ongoing crisis in the Crimean peninsula and the standoff between Russia and the West over the sovereignty of Crimea following the Euromaidan protests of 2014 in Ukraine.
Q: What the Western media claim about the crisis in Ukraine is that Russia has occupied the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and is sending its troops to the region illegally. They say that the United States is playing a constructive role by defying and resisting the Russian “occupation” of Crimea. Is this a true interpretation of the current developments?
A: Under international law, which places the primacy of existing borders of nation-states above all other considerations, yes, Russia’s occupation of Crimea is, strictly speaking, illegal. That said, the United States clearly has no moral authority to criticize any nation for invading any other nation. Given America’s long-standing and recent history as an aggressive power that has repeatedly invaded foreign countries, most notably, in recent years, Afghanistan and Iraq, how can the United States criticize Russia now? Furthermore, it is clear that America’s main interest in “defending” Crimea and Ukraine from Russia is a revised version of the Cold War, albeit with economic rivalry replacing ideological and military confrontation. The United States government doesn’t give two hoots for the people of Ukraine or Crimea.
Q: In your recent article about the crisis in Ukraine, you noted that there are very close cultural and historical links between the Russians and the Crimeans, and that ethnic Russians make up around 58% of the population of Crimea. It’s also said that Russia and Crimea have a strategic cooperation agreement by which the Russian government is allowed to maintain some military bases in Crimea and send its troops to the peninsula in times of urgency. But it seems that the Western public is unaware of these facts. Why is it so? Are the Western media trying to conceal these realities for certain reasons?
A: Ignorance of foreign countries and foreign affairs is widespread in the United States, and this is both for ideological as well as educational reasons. American public schools are very weak on international history and politics. Very few students, even graduates from elite universities such as Harvard and Yale, graduate with any sort of working knowledge of the cultures or laws or history of foreign countries. Therefore it isn’t terribly surprising that journalists, editors and producers at major media outlets don’t provide the relevant historical and legal background for any story that they cover. For the most part, they just don’t know what they’re talking about. So how can he report it? They are so ignorant of these things, that it doesn’t even occur to them to reach out to professors at diversity’s and other experts who might be able to fill in the gaps for readers and listeners. That also, it is true that the United States does not have media outlets that are terribly interested in questioning the dominant – government – narrative. Even when facts somehow come to their attention that would cast a different light on a story, these outlets are very reluctant to present them.
Q: What’s your viewpoint about the abolition of laws which permitted the use of Russian language as one of the official regional languages in courts, schools and other government institutions in Ukraine? It seems that one of the major causes of the current conflict and unrest in Ukraine that has spilled over into Crimea is this decision made by the Ukrainian Parliament. Why have they repealed the law? What do you think about its consequences?
A: As I wrote in my column two weeks ago, the language law had sweeping implications that most Americans cannot begin to understand. When the Soviet Union collapsed, some 25 million ethnic Russians were still living in 14 non-Russian, now newly independent nations. In all of these states, a policy of de-Russification was initiated by laws that downgraded Russian from an official language in those countries. What followed – being stripped of employment and a place to live, forced exile – began with this. Everyone in the former USSR is aware of these facts. So when the new Ukrainian Parliament made such a law one of its first acts in power, this sent a strong signal to the ethnic Russian population living in Crimea and in eastern Ukraine.
The new regime in Kiev now realizes that they went too far and has repealed this act, but the signal nevertheless remains very clear. You cannot help but be worried if you are an ethnic Russian living in Ukraine.
Q: Russia says that the new government in Ukraine led by Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk is a neo-Nazi and neo-fascist government, and even the European Parliament has called it a “racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic” government. Is there any threat that the neo-Nazis and neo-fascists may take power in Ukraine for a long time and promote policies which are detrimental to the peace and security in the region and on the Russian borders?
A: There’s no doubt that a Ukrainian nationalist strain runs deep in the new regime. It has been estimated that roughly 1/3 or more of the supporters of the new government come out of xenophobic, anti-Semitic, neo-fascist movements that draw much of their ideological heritage from the Nazi puppet regime that governed Ukraine under German occupation during World War II. That is not to say that the new government is itself neo-Nazi. Far from it. Perhaps a better analogy would be to say that it is a government that has a lot of neo-fascist supporters, and that it will be reluctant to offend them.
Q: You have recently written that millions of ethnic Russians of the former Soviet Republics have experienced widespread discrimination and harassment since the 1991 collapse of the USSR, were displaced and forced to move from their homelands. Moreover, in many of the newly-founded republics, laws were passed which eliminated Russian as an official language. What do such discriminations stem from? Could it be said that it’s a policy promoted and encouraged by the United States?
A: Not directly. I really doubt that the US State Department even knows enough about Ukrainian history to suggest such a thing. I think that the rump Ukrainian Parliament in Kiev was inspired by the actions of the other 13 Commonwealth of Independent States nations that have passed similar laws since 1991.
Q: What do you think of the war of words that is underway between Russia and the United States over Ukraine, especially the recent threats made by the United States officials over the possibility of a military strike against Russia? Are these war threats serious? Hillary Clinton, who will be running for the office of the US President in 2016, has compared President Putin to Hitler. What do you make of such a comparison, and the US officials’ aggressive remarks on Russia?
A: I don’t think these threats are serious. Yes, the United States is an aggressive power and likes to invade other countries, but it doesn’t like to go to war against countries that can defend themselves. Remember what happened when North Korea acquired nuclear weapons? Suddenly military action was off the table. Conversely, look at what happened when Muammar Gaddafi gave up nuclear weapons in Libya? If he could come back to life, I doubt he’d make the same mistake twice.
It would be wise to consider these comments to be the usual US government saber-rattling, and nothing more. If I were Vladimir Putin, I would sleep soundly at night.
Q: A public referendum was held in Crimea on March 16, and the people cast their votes in favor of reuniting Crimea with Russia as a federal subject of the Russian Federation. Will the new Ukrainian government recognize the results?
A: I think the Ukraine government will not recognize the results, but they won’t have much choice but to live with what happens next.