NoBC4U Note: Even though it appears that Yatsenyuk is back, it appears to be for the short-term only. Still a worthwhile read...
by Matthew Crosston
One of the odd things inevitably lost in the mire and labyrinth of complex high politics is how often executive leaders purposely and subtly prolong conflict, confusion, and corruption because to minimize it or to make progress against it will signal the start of actually assessing the effectiveness and power of their own leadership. This seemed to be what Ukraine was experiencing under the guidance of Arseniy Yatsenyuk as Prime Minister. Now that he has resigned, let us make sure his ‘leadership’ is not inaccurately assessed and evaluated. Ukraine can do better.
It is easy to forget, since it was never highly emphasized in Western media to begin with (a special exception goes to Forbes.com, which had always looked skeptically and critically at Yatsenyuk, even BEFORE he elevated to his present primary leadership position), but Ukraine’s Prime Minister was a rather uninspiring and non-innovative thinker, whether that be politically or economically. His appeal to Western power brokers was his ability to be pliable, to be worked, to be a ‘company guy.’ Of course, the ‘company’ in question for this discussion was the European Union, not the sovereign national interests of Ukraine.
And that seemed to cause major problems for the ‘new’ Ukraine: the only thing it discussed was whether or not it would follow EU interests or American interests or Russian interests. Its own leader was not apparently striving to carve out and determine what may be truly UKRAINIAN interests and then figure out how those interact and coordinate with the interests of others. This is the high politics formula of foreign affairs and has been so for over a thousand years. Not engaging this formula properly basically means the leader of Ukraine was simply trying to decide which power group to be a vassal state for. This is disappointing, but perhaps not unexpected.
Yatsenyuk was not simply a technocrat (and we all know there has never been a new or innovative idea, EVER, from such types), he was a relatively little regarded technocrat IN HIS OWN COUNTRY JUST SIX MONTHS AGO. At the beginning of the year he trailed in local popularity to figures such as the boxer Vitali Klitschko and the rather wild nationalist leader, Oleh Tyahnybok. This is not exactly inspiring pedigree to pin your political future to as a country. But what Yatsenyuk had was the interest of the European Union and the United States. Again, not because he was particularly awe-inspiring or truly seemed to stand out amongst all possible choices for a better and stable Ukraine: he was the candidate who was most willing to maintain a staunch opposition to whatever maneuvers or initiatives came out of Russia while also not having many independent ideas of his own. And that revealed itself to be one of the major stumbling blocks to closing the chapter on the Ukrainian conflict.
Complete story at - Ukraine: This Little Piggy Won’t be Missed | New Eastern Outlook
by Matthew Crosston
One of the odd things inevitably lost in the mire and labyrinth of complex high politics is how often executive leaders purposely and subtly prolong conflict, confusion, and corruption because to minimize it or to make progress against it will signal the start of actually assessing the effectiveness and power of their own leadership. This seemed to be what Ukraine was experiencing under the guidance of Arseniy Yatsenyuk as Prime Minister. Now that he has resigned, let us make sure his ‘leadership’ is not inaccurately assessed and evaluated. Ukraine can do better.
It is easy to forget, since it was never highly emphasized in Western media to begin with (a special exception goes to Forbes.com, which had always looked skeptically and critically at Yatsenyuk, even BEFORE he elevated to his present primary leadership position), but Ukraine’s Prime Minister was a rather uninspiring and non-innovative thinker, whether that be politically or economically. His appeal to Western power brokers was his ability to be pliable, to be worked, to be a ‘company guy.’ Of course, the ‘company’ in question for this discussion was the European Union, not the sovereign national interests of Ukraine.
And that seemed to cause major problems for the ‘new’ Ukraine: the only thing it discussed was whether or not it would follow EU interests or American interests or Russian interests. Its own leader was not apparently striving to carve out and determine what may be truly UKRAINIAN interests and then figure out how those interact and coordinate with the interests of others. This is the high politics formula of foreign affairs and has been so for over a thousand years. Not engaging this formula properly basically means the leader of Ukraine was simply trying to decide which power group to be a vassal state for. This is disappointing, but perhaps not unexpected.
Yatsenyuk was not simply a technocrat (and we all know there has never been a new or innovative idea, EVER, from such types), he was a relatively little regarded technocrat IN HIS OWN COUNTRY JUST SIX MONTHS AGO. At the beginning of the year he trailed in local popularity to figures such as the boxer Vitali Klitschko and the rather wild nationalist leader, Oleh Tyahnybok. This is not exactly inspiring pedigree to pin your political future to as a country. But what Yatsenyuk had was the interest of the European Union and the United States. Again, not because he was particularly awe-inspiring or truly seemed to stand out amongst all possible choices for a better and stable Ukraine: he was the candidate who was most willing to maintain a staunch opposition to whatever maneuvers or initiatives came out of Russia while also not having many independent ideas of his own. And that revealed itself to be one of the major stumbling blocks to closing the chapter on the Ukrainian conflict.
Complete story at - Ukraine: This Little Piggy Won’t be Missed | New Eastern Outlook
No comments:
Post a Comment
All comments subject to moderation.