The West must shoulder blame for Ukraine

IF the current crisis in Ukraine demonstrates anything it is that the Cold War far from thawing has entered a new phase.

Rather like some prehistoric monster from a bad B movie it appears that the Cold War has been in a state of deep freeze just waiting for the right climate to appear for it to make its grand resurgence.

Ukraine has provided just such a catalyst. The old rivalries between two dominant forces are reawakened. There is a misconception however that the growls from the aged Soviet bear are the cause of all today's ills. In international politics it still takes two to tango and the West must foot its fair share of the blame.

As the doyen of international relations John Mearsheimer stated: "The   United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West." (Mearsheimer, 2014)

The United States logically wants to maintain its position as the only hegemon in the global debate, China may be approaching this state but has not yet achieved the same level of cultural or political dominance. 

For Vladimir Putin this poses a direct threat to the sovereign interests of Russia. A Ukraine without Russian ties would pose a problem for him, by, as Mearsheimer points out, giving the West a strong staging point right on his border. 

Imagine for a second that Scotland had voted for independence and England refused to allow it. Would the West defend China if they interceded on Scotland's behalf? It may sound particularly far fetched yet in rational terms the situation is not that much different than the one currently facing Ukraine and its surrounding areas.

Of course with Ukraine however there are far deeper veins to plum for information on the cause and effect of the situation. In historical terms it would be more akin to France throwing its support behind an independent Scotland against the English.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Russia is arming rebels, a useful but not entirely fair term. So long as it doesn't become explicit however it must be seen as part of the great game. Suggestions that the West could overtly arm Ukrainian forces is a dangerous idea. While support is restrained to words and sanctions, with armed support kept to the shadows, there is a possibility for both sides to walk this back. 

If either side admits openly to supplying military assistance though it will force the situation into a whole new phase. The crisis in Ukraine may be devastating but an escalation would be catastrophic and the West would well and truly have the blood on its hands.

A terrifying definition of the data

FIGURES released this week have pointed to a dramatic upswing in the number of terrorist attacks globally. While the majority of these are based in Iraq where the self proclaimed Islamic State is a highly visible presence some in Western media and political circles have picked up on the news as an excuse to call for ever more draconian measures to be implemented in the curtailing of civil liberties.

Since the tragic events of September 11th 2001 for many in the West terrorism has become synonymous with Islam. The history of its use over even the last century has been lost. The actions of the Provisional Irish Republican Army appear to have been forgotten. 

White supremacist bombings in the United States are pushed to one side in favour of a new belief that terrorism is religious rather than political, and by religious the conservative right wing mean Islamic.

The report into the rise in terrorist attacks will not help the debate by making claims that the  four main groups responsible for 66% of all deaths from terrorist attacks throughout 2013, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Boko Haram and the self-styled Islamic State, were motivated by a radicalised and perverted form of Islam.

All four groups used "religious ideologies based on extreme interpretations of Wahhabi Islam", claimed the report before adding, "To counteract the rise of religious extremism, moderate Sunni theologies need to be cultivated by credible forces within Islam."

What the report seems to overlook by counting attacks by groups such as IS and Boko Haram is that terrorism, rather than the ideology of the groups, has changed. These are not loosely organise networks of cells with a clearly defined political agenda. These are highly trained hierarchical insurgent armed forces. If they are to be counted as terrorist groups, which by their methods of instigating fear and anti-state actions they can arguably be claimed as being, then so to should dissidents in Ukraine. So to should drug cartels in South America. 

If we are to get an accurate figure for terrorist actions then it needs to be made clear what a terrorist act is and what classes as a terrorist group. 

While the report itself is a well balanced academic and useful piece it allows for its misuse by the right wing by not addressing this issue clearly enough.

As with any form of data gathering, particularly on such a complex and wide reaching issue clarification of the measurements and ensuring a lack of bias is always going to be a difficult thing to do.

In Israel this week a horrendous attack on a synagogue has left five people dead. There is no doubt that this was a hideous and brutal attack. What could be questioned, however, is whether this was a terrorist attack. There is nothing to say that this was not an act of madness by psychologically traumatised individuals. Indeed if the act had been carried out by a Christians in exactly the same way then this is what it would quite probably have been counted as.

Before we dismiss a rise in killings as a rise in Islamic fundamentalism we must clearly identify what the criteria we are using is lest we taint a religion based on peace and honour unjustly. 

The floodgates of independence

AS MONTHS of campaigning finally reach a close it can be easy to forget that the Scottish referendum has been a peaceful affair compared to other struggles for independence taking place at the moment.

Both sides of the debate have worked hard to sway voters to their cause. Both have used words rather than violence and that is what truly marks the battle for independence.

For months Ukraine has been rocked by bloodshed as separatists fought to be allowed self determination. They didn't choose reasoned debate. There were no televised discussions about which currency they should use. Instead there were tanks and guns. Blood in the street has marked this battle not shouting from the podiums.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko put forward proposals to devolve more powers to Eastern regions. During the Scottish independence campaign British Prime Minister David Cameron offered a similar option to voters if they voted no to leaving the Union. Mr Cameron made the offer to keep Britain together Mr Poroshenko made it to save lives.

Meanwhile Spain is facing a similar threat to its unity as Catalonian politicians push to break away on its own. On Monday the Catalonian regional parliament began setting out the groundwork to allow it to pass a law giving it independence from Spain.

Speaking to the Catalonian regional parliament on Monday Catalan leader Artur Mass said: "This would mean that Spain would effectively bury the 'old Spain' and rediscover that it is a country made up of several nations.

"In an instant, Spain would emerge as a country with an impressive level of democracy, tolerance and one that is capable of listening and resolving what is, above all, a democratic challenge."

In France the Corsicans have watched the Scottish independence referendum with eager eyes. Likewise Flemish speakers in Belgium hungrily wait for their opportunity. 

Greeks in the Epirus region in Albania, Lezigstan, amongst others, in Azerbaijan, throw in groups from Denmark, Croatia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Czech Republic, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Norway, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Russia, Slovakia, Switzerland, Latvia, Bosnia and Herzegovina. This doesn't take into account the threats to Turkey by Kurdish separatists or the multitude of campaigns and wars outside continental Europe. 

Even when, after the hard fought battles, people are able to declare their independence it may not be enough. The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is still trying to gain international recognition despite having been an independent state for forty years. In Kosovo independence, recognised by many in the international community, is still a daily struggle.

The debate over Scottish independence has overshadowed these other campaigns but more than that it has invigorated them. In his burning desire to seperate from the Union and proclaim the independent state of SNP Alex Salmond may have unwittingly led the charge for the greatest shifting of borders since World War Two. What must be hoped now is that as with the Scottish referendum it is done without the bloodshed which has traditionally precipitated the creation of independent states. 

Summit is adapt or die moment for NATO

ESCALATING chaos in Iraq and Syria and rising tensions in Ukraine will dominate discussions among world leaders at the NATO conference in Wales.

Not since the closing days of the Cold War have the stakes been so high for the NATO participants as they attempt to determine if the alliance is ready to face the challenges of the 21st century.

British Prime Minister David Cameron will join NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen in leading the talks taking place over the course of two days.

Speaking ahead of the summit Mr Cameron said: "It's hard to think of a Nato summit coming at a more important time for our alliance.

"We see the appalling actions of Russia in eastern Ukraine. We see the appalling scenes in Iraq and Syria and the rise of this so-called Islamic Caliphate and its dreadful brutality in executing the American hostage we saw overnight.

"And in this dangerous and difficult world NATO has an absolutely key role in providing our collective security, and that's what the next two days are going to be all about."

Nato Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen gave his views to journalists: "In today's world we are, so to speak, surrounded by an arc of crisis.

"To the east, to the southeast, to the south - and at this summit we will address the whole range of security challenges and improve Nato's ability to act swiftly if needed."

The dynamics of global powers have shifted since world leaders last met in the UK as part of a NATO summit. When last gathered on British shores in 1990 Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister and the Cold War, against the alliances old sparring partner Russia, was drawing to a close. There was a need to rethink NATO's operational concept and evolve to face a changing world. 

With the crisis in Ukraine reaching new levels, amid reports of Russian interference, and the dangers of allowing terrorist groups such as Islamic State to take hold of large areas of territory NATO's role has become crucial once again for international 

 stability.

A 2013 brief from the Atlantic Council warned, “The world is changing rapidly, and if NATO does not adapt with foresight for this new era, then it will very likely disintegrate.”

This summit needs to answer the question of whether the group is prepared to adapt, or if as the brief warns it will disintegrate amid bickering and internal divisions.

In a jointly written article for the Times Mr Cameron and American President Barack Obama laid out their plans for the future: "With Russia trying to force a sovereign state to abandon its right to democracy at the barrel of a gun, we should support Ukraine's right to determine its own democratic future and continue our efforts to enhance Ukrainian capabilities," they wrote.

"We must use our military to ensure a persistent presence in eastern Europe, making clear to Russia that we will always uphold our... commitments to collective self-defence.

"And we must back this up with a multi-national rapid response force, composed of land, air, maritime and special forces, that could deploy anywhere in the world at very short notice."

The world will now be watching to see if old animosities and competing agendas can be set aside as they once were decades ago to fulfil the future promise of not just NATO but global peace and security.

Ukraine crash is an early test for Hammond

BARELY having had time to move into his new office Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond is already facing a serious test of his ability in the role.

Yesterday's devastating crash of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 has led to recriminations from both sides of the Ukraine crisis amid fears that an already tense situation could lead to all out civil war.

Among the 298 dead passengers and flight crew lie the bodies of nine Britons. Their deaths may mean that Mr Hammond is pushed into taking a more direct response to the conflict which has engulfed Ukraine.

Speaking ahead of the European Council meeting earlier this week Prime Minister David Cameron told leaders that there needed to be a tougher stance on Ukraine. 

"There are important discussions here today, perhaps the most important is that the situation in Ukraine is unacceptable. The territorial integrity of that country is not being properly respected by Russia," he said.

"We can send a very clear message with clear actions at this council."

Following the latest dramatic events Mr Hammond will be under scrutiny to see how he can follow through on his leader's directive.

In evaluating the British stance Mr Hammond is up against conflicting statements and unconfirmed rumours regarding the cause of the crash. With a full investigation yet to be carried out mechanical failure, or pilot error cannot be totally ruled out. 

Blaming pro-Russian separatists Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said it was an "act of terrorism".

Meanwhile separatist leader Alexander Borodai blamed Ukrainian government forces. Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has been accused of helping to supply hi tech  weapons to the rebels, laid responsibility for the crash with the Ukrainian government, saying: This tragedy would not have happened if there were peace on this land, if the military actions had not been renewed in southeast Ukraine.

"And, certainly, the state over whose territory this occurred bears responsibility for this awful tragedy."

No matter who finally faces responsibility for the crash Mr Hammond must be ready to deal with the escalating crisis in the region. His decision may be further complicated by the aggressive stance taken by the United States, which has already called on European nations to take a harder line in relation to the conflict.

Commenting on the tragedy U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said:

"We are horrified by the crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17. There are no words adequate to express our condolences to the families of the nearly 300 victims. We offer our sympathies and support to the Governments of Malaysia and the Netherlands at this difficult time, as well as to all those whose citizens may have been on board. We are reviewing whether any American citizens were aboard the flight.

"The United States Government remains prepared to assist with a credible, international investigation any way we can, and we will continue to be in touch with all relevant partners as we seek the facts of what happened today."

The British government has already called for an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council to discuss the crash. For Mr Hammond, however, it is the rapidly evolving situation which will determine how the world sees him in his new role, rather than any agreement reached by the UN. 

British interests linked to Ukraine agreement

SENIOR British politicians have warned Russia of the serious implications if it continues to instigate unrest ahead of Ukraine's historic EU treaty signing today.

Earlier this week Foreign Secretary William Hague was reported as saying: "We urge Russia to take the necessary actions to stop the flow of arms across the border, to stop supporting illegally armed separatist groups in eastern Ukraine, because in the absence of actions by Russia the case for stronger sanctions from European Union nations will of course become stronger.”

Mr Hague's statement on Wednesday came as Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko prepared to sign the controversial  "Association Agreement and Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area", which will commit Ukraine to EU standards, including new customs regulations, quality controls and free market competition.

Speaking ahead of the signing Mr Poroshenko said: "This is what we have fought for over recent months and years. This work will be as difficult and responsible, but I am confident that we will do it very well."

Russian officials have condemned the signing amid concerns that it could be detrimental to trade between the two countries.

Russian Finance Minister Aleksey Ulyukaev told the media that if Ukraine signed the deal it would become a "second rate EU state".

"By signing the Association Agreement the countries must restructure their laws to comply with European standards and open the markets. However, in return, they don’t receive any influence on European legislation or policy,” Mr Ulyukaev said.

Sergey Glazyev, an economic aide to Russian President Putin warned of dire economic consequences if Mr Poroshenko pushed ahead with the treaty.

“For Ukraine, signing the agreement is economic suicide,” said Mr Glazyev.

“There is no doubt that by signing this agreement it will result in an acute devaluation of the hryvnia, an inflation surge and in turn hyperinflation, and a drop in living standards."

British interests in the region have already been damaged by the ongoing crisis, which has seen sanctions imposed on Russia in retaliation for its support of pro-seperatist groups in Ukraine.

While Britain imports a large proportion of its steel and manufacturing resources from Russia it has a large export trade selling the finished products back to its supplier.

Russia is currently the single largest importer of Ukrainian products, roughly totalling the same as the country's entire trade with the 28 nation EU bloc. Threats from Russian authorities to raise tariffs on imprints and restrict business, in an attempt to stem a potential flow of EU goods across the Ukrainian border, could damage an already unstable economic situation within the country.

The treaty means more than just currency for the Ukranian President, however, having already precipitated the overthrow of Mr Poroshenko's predecessor Victor Yanukovych through his failure to sign the deal in February.

 The European commission president, José Manuel Barroso, has praised the decision to go ahead with the signing.

"The agreements, the most ambitious negotiated so far by the European Union, aim to deepen political and economic relations with the EU," said Mr Barroso. "We will need to remain active and vigilant regarding our eastern neighbourhood, in particular after the signature of the association agreements where our responsibility increases and not diminishes."

Whether or not enhanced trade with the EU will be enough to make up for the loss of its neighbour is yet to be seen. What seems certain, however, is that the increased ties to the rest of Europe will provide Mr Poroshenko with much needed backing as he continues to try and restore stability in his divided country.

Ukraine's tough road to peace

THE decision of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to sign a controversial European Union bill could see the crisis in the country enter a new stage.

The failure of former President Victor Yanukovych to ratify the deal was one of the primary instigators leading to his overthrow in February.

The bill is widely unpopular amongst pro-Russian supporters who want to see closer ties with their powerful neighbour, something they fear increased links with the EU would prevent.

President Poroshenko's decision comes along with his announcement of plans to bring the burgeoning civil war in Ukraine to a close.

Announcing a 14 point peace plan the new leader is stepping up attempts to bring the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk back under government control.  

Under his proposals a 'peace corridor' would be set up to allow those who had disarmed to leave the embattled regions, changes to the constitution to decentralise power, an amnesty for anyone "without blood on their hands" and, perhaps most controversially, the closure of the Russian-Ukrainian border.

Without support from Russian President Vladimir Putin, however, it seems unlikely that any moves would help calm the current situation.

World leaders have called on President Putin to help de-escalate tensions and support the path to peace. The pleas may fail to have much affect though as reports warn of an increased build up of Russian forces along the border and Russian tanks being used to support the pro-separatist movement.

NATO Chief Anders Ramussen has warned Russia that any attempt to intervene in the crisis could lead to tougher international sanctions against the country.

Elsewhere in the country a spokesman from the Organisation of Security and Cooperation in Europe has confirmed that they have been in contact with two teams who were abducted in the Eastern region last month. Any chance of a peaceful solution to the situation which meets with international approval may well hinge on the safe return of the OSCE observers.

The United Nations currently estimates that 356 people, including 257 civilians, have been killed in fighting since the 7th May.

President Poroshenko may find that his attempts to bring stability to the country and prevent further bloodshed will be a hard fought battle. His signing of the EU bill on the 27th of June is a strong statement but may be meaningless if he cannot show that a peaceful resolution can be reached with his opponents. 

 

Syria's stalemate exposes divisions in international community

DESPITE the best intentions of the Western governments the Syrian stalemate looks set to continue.

Foreign Ministers from Egypt, France, Germany, Italy, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the UK and the US met today in London in another attempt to find a solution to the civil war in Syria.

"We are of course united in our disgust and anger at what's happening in Syria and the ruthless utter disregard for human life, “ said British Foreign Minister William Hague, adding "We've also agreed unanimously to take further steps to... do everything we can to hold the Assad regime accountable for the terror it is perpetrating."

With the continuing tensions between the West and Russia over the developing situation in Ukraine, however, it seems unlikely that they will be able to reach any lasting resolution to the ongoing crisis.

With Russia’s support necessary for any effective international resolution agreement to bring  a lasting peace between the Syrian government and pro-democracy militia current events make it seem unlikely.

Russian Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov called the “Friends of Syria’s” approach “prejudiced and destructive”.

"Unlike some of our Western partners, meeting in London, we work with all Syrian sides, not just with one as if supporting it against the other," Mr Bogdanov told reporters from Russian news agency Interfax.

Without a unified international presence and strong stance by the United Nations it is unlikely that anything will change in the Syrian dynamic.

Retaking Homs has been hailed by supporters of Syrian President Assad ahead of elections in June as a sign that the regime is winning in the three year civil war which has left 150,000 dead.

The relinquishing of Homs is symbolic only though. The rebels have been given an opportunity to regroup their forces, placing them in a stronger position to continue to fight against Assad’s regime, without their most battle hardened fighters confined in the besieged city.

So long as Russia and the West resume old cold war animosities the chances of anything other than a stalemate are limited.

Bashar Al-Assad is guaranteed to win the Presidential elections in June but if the rest of the country does not recognise them then they will have no effect.

"Out of today's meeting, every facet of what can be done is going to be ramped up - every facet. That includes political effort. It includes aid to the opposition. It includes economic efforts, sanctions,” claimed US Secretary of State john Kerry. With Syria already aware that they are facing sanctions, in excess of those it already has in place, these are likely to have little effect though.

Without a combined effort and the international community putting aside its own agenda Syria’s civil war will continue ad infinitum.

More haste less speed for Ukrainian referendum

AS TENSIONS continue to run high following yesterday's referendums in Eastern Ukraine international observers have warned of the potential for civil war in the country.
With reports this morning of Ukrainian military forces preparing to resume operations in the city of Slavyansk this may not be so far fetched. Governments across Europe have joined with America to condemn the referrendum as illegal and pledged to support authorities in Kiev. Even the pro-seperatists greatest ally, the government of Russian President Vladimir Putin, called for the vote to be postponed to allow the situation to de-escalate.
While the West has continued to threaten further sanctions against Russia it is possible that it may have been the only one suggesting a sensible solution.
The issue is not that regions of Eastern Ukraine may split away from the country, nor even that they may wish to join Russia. The crucial factor is the speed at which they are doing it.
In the United Kingdom the thorny issue of Scottish independence is set to be resolved on September 18th. Groups on both sides of the debate have had months to put forward their opinions.Even the most ardent Scottish nationalists accept that there are complex issues involved in creating a seperate country. The economic implications alone are enough to baffle some of the most educated in the debate and need careful analysis.
In Donetsk, and other Eastern regions, there has not been time for the electorate to fully understand what a call for independence may mean. There has not even been enough time to ensure that the system for voting was set up to be impartial and effective.
Yesterday's referendum highlighted how disorganised the pro-seperatist movement is. Queues outside hastily contructed polling stations feared that they would not have an opportunity to submit their ballot. Security was compromised as results were intercepted and released before voting had been completed. This is completely aside from the obvious implications of bias, which have been so roundly condemned by the West.
What was needed was time. If, as in Scotland, a true referendum had been arranged for a suitable time in the future the West would have little defence to condemn the decison. Even the counting was conducted at speed, with results released showing 89.07 per cent of the turnout voting in favour of leaving Ukraine.
The pro-seperatists aknowledge that the vote will not be recognised by the international community so its purpose is still in question. With a little more time they may have been able to make a case, and in so doing garnered much needed support outside their own borders and diminished the threat of armed conflict.

Posted via Blogaway

Ukrainian referendum takes deadly turn

As Eastern Ukrainians in the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk vote on their future the world watches on and tensions run high. Reports are already coming in of clashes in Krasnoarmeysk leaving one dead and others injured as National Guardsmen open fire.

According to reports from journalists on the ground the bloodshed took place after guardsmen shut down voting in the referendum which could see the region split from Ukraine. The shooting has already started to raise questions about how much control the Ukrainian government in Kiev has over the pro-Ukrainian forces in the region.

Monika Kalinowska,@mkalinowskaa, who was visiting the area, reported on Twitter that she had witnessed the shootings from the Guardsmen. “Before the shooting took place in Krasnoarmeysk people were negotiating with the ‘national guards in the adm building,” she tweeted prior, adding “they have told people that they are here peacefully and were asking for cigarettes, next thing we know they are starting shooting.”

With the voting stations now closed and the counting started there are hopes in the region that the situation will start to calm tonight ahead of tomorrow’s announcement, however, with Ukrainian officials reasserting their stance that the referendums are illegal these hopes seem slim.

“This is a step into the abyss for the regions,” warned Ukrainian acting President Oleksandr Turchynov yesterday (Saturday).

Meanwhile the escalation of fighting in the region comes as reports state that 400 Blackwater Mercenaries arrived in the area to support pro-Ukrainian forces. Blackwater has been surrounded by controversy following accusations of killing civilians while deployed in Iraq.  Western governments’, including America, Britain, France and Germany, have condemned the referendums as illegal and threatened harsh sanctions against Russia if they are allowed to be recognised.

Not everyone in the international community is taking the same stance. Venezuelan authorities have already warned that they will not back any efforts in Ukraine. In a statement released to the media officials from the Foreign Ministry said that they would “not recognise as legal a government that emerged as a result of a state coup. In view of the regrettable developments of events in Ukraine, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela confirms that it rejects violent processes that, with the support of the United States and NATO, led to the overthrow of the government, jeopardising the peace and the unity of the Ukrainian people as well as the stability of the entire Eurasian region.”

Until the votes are counted and the results announced tomorrow (Monday) both sides of the debate will be left powerless to do anything more than take part in a war of words. For the people on the ground the situation may take a far more deadly turn.

The fall of a superpower

Has America’s role as the global moderator of all that is right been compromised beyond repair? That is the question which must surely be asked in the wake of recent events involving the world’s foremost superpower.

Rather than demonstrating its power America’s announcement on Tuesday that it would send a team to help find more than 200 missing Nigerian schoolgirls proved that it no longer has the teeth to act when needed.

The world has known since April 14th that the terrorist group Boko Haram kidnapped the girls from their school. The group, whose name translates loosely as “Western education is a sin”, was known to have been trading the girls into marriage and shipping them across the border. Yet the world, and in particular America, sat back and did nothing.

Nigeria’s own government, ostensibly fearful of reprisal from this increasingly powerful group, did little to take action, preferring to hope that the loss of so many young women would go unnoticed. They are fighting a rear guard action against extremism though. They are under constant fear of what the next atrocity will be. If allowing more than 200 young girls to be taken could be seen as a price to keep things from escalating then apparently it was a price they were willing to pay.

The West, however, is under no such constraints. America has time and again pledged its strength to root out extremism and fight for a moral cause. Why is it therefore that it did nothing until its hand was forced by a statement released by the group?

The same story has been repeated time and again. With Syria President Obama clearly stated that chemical weapons were a red line which could not be crossed. To do so would bring the wrath of the world down upon the Syrian government like so much biblical thunder. Chemical weapons have been used though and America and the West have done nothing. Refugees flood across the borders and many more are trapped inside besieged cities, waiting for the next dose of chemicals to fall upon them, and the West does nothing.

In Ukraine America made it clear that they would support the newly formed government and would take strong action if Russia was seen to be instigating aggression. Pro-separatist groups roam the streets, many equipped with Russian weaponry. Reports come in on a near daily basis of supposed Russian interference in the region. Crimea fell with Russian support and its people left Ukraine. Yet the West does nothing more than threaten sanctions which have already been demonstrated beyond a doubt not to work.

America, Britain, France, Germany et al cannot wage war on every country which they deem to have gone against their moral principles. The West cannot be the world’s police force. Imposing a different culture and identity on a people through force has already been proven to fail in Afghanistan and Iraq. To keep pretending, however, that the world has not changed, that the threat of force without the will to back it up and that the ability to do so even exists undermines any hope that a more rational approach to tackling increasing global unrest can ever be found.