Former U.S. ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul has been talking pretty forthrightly to VICE News. Here are some of his comments:
On the possibility of a face-saving way for Russian President Vladimir Putn to end the Ukraine conflict in the wake of MH17:
Yes, because what this tragedy gives him is a reason to break with the insurgents, and it could be very simple. He could call [Ukrainian President Petro] Poroshenko and say, “Here are the three things I need so that we can declare victory.” And it could be decentralization, the protection of Russians by international monitors, and the use of the Russian language. I think Poroshenko would take that deal and Putin could say, “Congratulations, the insurgency has accomplished what it needed to.”
There’s a big argument about whether he has leverage or not. My view is that he has a lot of moral leverage and soft power leverage even if he can’t call up these guys and tell them to lay down their guns. If he goes on national television and says, “Mission accomplished,” it will be very hard for them to continue the fight…. Will he do it? My answer is no. I don’t predict that he’ll do it. I think there’s a higher probability today because of this tragedy that he might, but every indication so far is that he’s not interested yet in that kind of a settlement.
On the option of supplying Kyiv with weaponry:
Yes. I would ask the question in a normative way. The Russians have said, “This is atrocious. This is awful. You should never do this. This would mean escalation.” And my answer to that is, “Well, why is it okay for Putin to arm illegitimate, illegal insurgents inside of Ukraine, but somehow it’s not legitimate for us to assist the internationally recognized government of Ukraine?” Again, I don’t want to pretend to know what kind of assistance they need, but to say that it’s off limits because we don’t want to offend Putin — I just don’t understand normatively why that is an acceptable argument, especially in the wake of this tragedy.
On dealing with Putin:
Well, I think he’s quite powerful when it comes to foreign policy matters. I should underscore that no amount of quiet diplomacy, no amount of constructive engagement at lower levels or with Putin, in my view, would have changed the dynamic in US-Russia relations that we see today. I think that that’s sometimes hard for people to admit. But I’ve thought about this pretty hard and I don’t think that if only we had some secret channel to Putin through some government official or private citizen, we could have solved the problem. Because he just has a different theory about international relations than we do. He sees us as a sinister force. He sees us as wanting to foment regime change around the world, and no amount of engagement is going to change his mind. I saw the president engage with him. I saw other senior American government officials engage. And he’s pretty firm in his views. That’s the first thing.
The second thing is there is not, in my view, a coalition around him that does the kind of red-teaming, plan B, or pushing back on his theory of international relations. He’s been in the job for fourteen years, so he thinks he knows everything. And if fourteen, ten years ago, there were people around him that I think he did listen to, particularly on economic policy, today I think his circle has become smaller and more insulated and more filled with yes men….
The last piece that I would add to that concerns the international stage. In his first term, there were several leaders around the world that he had relationships with and that he respected, so they had some influence on him. I think the moment he went into Crimea was the moment he just said, “To hell with them all. I don’t really care what they think.” And aside from maybe [German Chancellor Angela] Merkel, although that relationship seems rather strained right now, you don’t look out there and see people, his peers in the international leadership, that are people he would listen to. That therefore makes influencing him all the much harder today than it might have been, say, ten years ago.
Read the entire interview here
Russians say the #MH17 downing is the 11th most memorable event of the last few weeks: http://t.co/664BFayfeB
— max seddon (@maxseddon) July 24, 2014
@Yatsenyuk_AP I announce the resignation due to the collapse of the coalition & due to blocking of the Government's legislative initiatives
— Arseniy Yatsenyuk (@Yatsenyuk_AP) July 24, 2014
In the case if the existing coalition collapses, and there is no new coalition in place, the Government and the PM have to resign.
— Arseniy Yatsenyuk (@Yatsenyuk_AP) July 24, 2014
Candles and photos of the victims of #MH17 at a memorial concert in Kharkiv this evening pic.twitter.com/2OfRN0Zmfi
— Kevin Bishop (@bishopk) July 24, 2014
Malaysia for the win: How Kuala Lumpur secured the black boxes: http://t.co/a5F46qBQjL #MH17
— Paul Sonne (@PaulSonne) July 24, 2014
Reuters: Investigators find no evidence either #MH17 black box tampered with http://t.co/TWeTveLqoS
— Kyiv Post (@KyivPost) July 24, 2014
RFE/RL's Rikard Jozwiak has sent our news desk this update on the possibilty of further EU sanctions against Russia:
Reports today have indicated that the European Union ambassadors discussing fresh sanctions against Russia are likely to place wide-ranging restrictions on the activities of Russian banks.
"The Financial Times" reported that new EU sanctions on Russia for its role in unrest in eastern Ukraine seem set to include banning Russian banks from selling shares on European markets.
The EU sanctions would go further than those the United States imposed on two Russian banks -- Gazprombank and VEB -- on July 16, with the EU sanctions targeting all banks with more than 50 percent state ownership.
It is also expected 15 individuals and 18 organizations will be added to the EU's sanctions list for undermining Ukraine's territorial integrity.
The names of the individuals and organizations are due to be released tomorrow.
(With reporting by AFP and Reuters)
CPJ called on #Ukraine “not to fight propaganda with censorship” but only part of our statement made #Russia's press: http://t.co/uWoD3mz2Yt
— Elana Beiser (@ElanaBeiser) July 24, 2014
Here is another Ukraine-related update from RFE/RL's news desk:
The United States says it has evidence that Russia is firing artillery to attack the Ukrainian military and that Moscow intends to provide more heavy weaponry to pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine.
"We have new evidence that the Russians intend to deliver heavier and more powerful multiple rocket launchers to the separatist forces in Ukraine, and have evidence that Russia is firing artillery from within Russia to attack Ukrainian military positions," U.S. State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf told a press briefing today in Washington.
Harf said the assessment is based on "intelligence information" but that she could not discuss the "sources and methods behind it."
Fighting between Ukrainian government forces and pro-Russian rebels is continuing in eastern Ukraine. Washington has previously accused Russia of arming and training the separatists.
Crying man in the bus:"how much vodka do I need to drink to forget my son was killed today in the East?" Reality of war. #Ukraine
— Kateryna_Kruk (@Kateryna_Kruk) July 24, 2014