WEST LONG BRANCH, N.J. – On March 6, Russian troops and armored vehicles were positioned in multiple regions along Ukraine’s eastern border. By strategically arranging Russian military personnel at these locations, Vladimir Putin indicated a possible invasion, arousing the anger of the Western nations.
German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has quite blatantly rebuked Putin’s indirect military approach, stating that the Russian government must abandon the traditional political strategies that it has been practicing for the past two centuries, or else, the European Union would be forced to reconsider its economic and diplomatic relations with Russia.
President Obama has also assumed a similar stance on the issue. He has clearly stated the United States will support the Ukrainian people’s fight for a popular form of government, not an imposed one, which will grant them their basic civil liberties.
Obama has been equally active in criticizing Putin’s policies, going as far as to suggest a diplomatic solution to the crisis. On March 28, after a month of unpredictable political maneuvers (synchronized with further military buildup in Ukraine), Putin finally called President Obama to discuss the issue. It was decided that U.S. and Russian diplomats would meet to discuss proposals for defusing the crisis.
The meeting took place on March 30, between the U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, and the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei V. Lavrov. Unfortunately, a concrete resolution—as was ideally desirable—was not reached. While both of the diplomats underscored the significance of an agreeable solution, there appears to be no evidence of one being reached in the near future.
During the meeting, Kerry attempted to convince Lavrov that Ukrainian authorities are currently attempting to address the rights of the Russian speaking population and other constitutional reforms. He also suggested that Putin significantly reduce Russian forces near Ukraine. Thus far, Putin’s response has been uncertain.
As the New York Times reported, the two diplomats have not yet set a date to meet again. This provides further evidence that a definite diplomatic agreement has not been carved out yet.
Furthermore, NATO’s foreign ministers are scheduled to meet April 1 and 2, to determine how to improve the Western military power, and help the Ukrainian government.
As seems to be the consensus, via popular media outlets within the U.S., the Western nations are hoping that in the coming weeks, Putin will lay out the Russian government’s true (hidden?) agenda.
Given the former political strategies of the Russian government, along with their more aggressive military history during the days of the U.S.S.R., however, it is more likely that Russia will continue peace talks, but without any significant results.
On the issue, Dan Gunderman, The Verge’s Editor-in-Chief, said, “Russia seems to be demonstrating this aggression not out of a ploy to assert their dominance, but one to hide their weakness, or forms of instability.”
He continued: “There’s nothing more that Putin probably would like to see, than Russia being booted out of the European Union, too. Heck, that will probably rally his people. As for a diplomatic solution in the coming weeks, I’m not so sure we’ll be seeing anything of substance. You can bet on this: the Ukrainians and Russians will not be frolicking through Crimea, hand in hand; that is for sure.”
Whether the talks lead to a peace settlement, or the tensions continue to flare, you will be able to track all the latest developments here on The Verge. We are curious to know what the Monmouth community has to say about the issue. If you would, please comment below.
Seriously?
This is what students are learning?
This piece is loaded with inaccuracies. The aggressor is not Russia but the US who funded the coup to overthrow he democratically elected leader of Ukraine.
We know this because of the Snowden leaks which capture our US Ambassador to the Ukraine, Victoria Nuland, talking about the $5 billion of US tax dollars spent ( while gutting school funding and food stamps) to overthrow the government.
Why, you ask?
Because the Ukrainian people were not leaning toward voting to join the EU and that meant they couldn’t be manipulated (like their Greek, Spanish, Irish counterparts) into borrowing billions of dollars at unconscionable fees and interest rates for unnecessary infrastructure investment (like a half billion dollar power plant which services about 100 customers). My relatives are Ukrainian. What is told in the US corporate controlled media (99% of all media in the US is owned by 6 corporations) is bull crap.
Sad to see students at this institution (from which I hold 2 degrees) become burdened with both unbelievable student loan debt and spreading this propaganda.
We need NO more wars.
I think you might be reading a bit too far into this, especially bringing up conspiracies and lumping our war expenditures with student loans and accusing The Verge of spreading propaganda. Our writer seems to have relayed info from diplomacy meetings held between Kerry & Lavrov. Sad to see someone so critical, when we’re on the same side.
Reading too much into this?
The article is talking about Russia “invading” Ukraine. The article casts Russia as the evil doer without pointing out that the overthrow of the democratically elected President of Ukraine by the Ukrainian people was not perpetuated by Russia but by the US.
The assertion that Obama will “support the Ukrainian people”s fight for a popular form of government , not an imposed one” is pure Orwellian.
If you want to find out what is going on on Ukraine, for god’s sake go to any news outlet outside the US.
Again, 9p% of all media in the US (TV, radio, billboards, magazines) is owned by 6 corporations.
news Corp (Fox), GE, Time Warner, Disney, Viacom, CBS
That is 90%.
It would be an interesting topic for a different day. But here, we just try to stick to objectivity, and some of this was sourced from the NYT. I believe what you’re referencing is circumstantial and inscrutable.