A must read. The opinion of a man who has defended US interest all his life !
How the Ukraine crisis endsBy Henry Kissinger
PUBLIC discussion on Ukraine is all about confrontation. But do we know where we are going? In my life, I have seen four wars begun with great enthusiasm and public support, all of which we did not know how to end and from three of which we withdrew unilaterally. The test of policy is how it ends, not how it begins.
Far too often the Ukrainian issue is posed as a showdown: whether Ukraine joins the East or the West. But if Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it must not be either side’s outpost against the other – it should function as a bridge between them.
Russia must accept that to try to force Ukraine into a satellite status, and thereby move Russia’s borders again, would doom Moscow to repeat its history of self-fulfilling cycles of reciprocal pressures with Europe and the United States.
The West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country. Russian history began in what was called Kievan-Rus. The Russian religion spread from there. Ukraine has been part of Russia for centuries, and their histories were intertwined before then. Some of the most important battles for Russian freedom, starting with the Battle of Poltava in 1709, were fought on Ukrainian soil.
The Black Sea Fleet – Russia’s means of projecting power in the Mediterranean – is based by long-term lease in Sevastopol, in Crimea. Even such famed dissidents as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Joseph Brodsky insisted that Ukraine was an integral part of Russian history and, indeed, of Russia.
The European Union must recognize that its bureaucratic dilatoriness and subordination of the strategic element to domestic politics in negotiating Ukraine’s relationship to Europe contributed to turning a negotiation into a crisis. Foreign policy is the art of establishing priorities.
The Ukrainians are the decisive element. They live in a country with a complex history and a polyglot composition.
The Western part was incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1939, when Stalin and Hitler divided up the spoils. Crimea, 60 per cent of whose population is Russian, became part of Ukraine only in 1954 , when Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian by birth, awarded it as part of the 300th-year celebration of a Russian agreement with the Cossacks. The West is largely Catholic; the East largely Russian Orthodox. The West speaks Ukrainian; the East speaks mostly Russian.
Any attempt by one wing of Ukraine to dominate the other – as has been the pattern – would lead eventually to civil war or breakup. To treat Ukraine as part of an East-West confrontation would scuttle for decades any prospect to bring Russia and the West – especially Russia and Europe – into a cooperative international system.
Ukraine has been independent for only 23 years; it had previously been under some kind of foreign rule since the 14th century. Not surprisingly, its leaders have not learned the art of compromise, even less of historical perspective.
The politics of post-independence Ukraine clearly demonstrates that the root of the problem lies in efforts by Ukrainian politicians to impose their will on recalcitrant parts of the country, first by one faction, then by the other.
That is the essence of the conflict between Viktor Yanukovych and his principal political rival, Yulia Tymoshenko. They represent the two wings of Ukraine and have not been willing to share power. A wise U.S. policy toward Ukraine would seek a way for the two parts of the country to cooperate with each other. We should seek reconciliation, not the domination of a faction.
Russia and the West, and least of all the various factions in Ukraine, have not acted on this principle. Each has made the situation worse. Russia would not be able to impose a military solution without isolating itself at a time when many of its borders are already precarious. For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.Putin should come to realize that, whatever his grievances, a policy of military impositions would produce another Cold War. For its part, the United States needs to avoid treating Russia as an aberrant to be patiently taught rules of conduct established by Washington. Putin is a serious strategist – on the premises of Russian history. Understanding U.S. values and psychology are not his strong suits. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point of U.S. policymakers.
Leaders of all sides should return to examining outcomes, not compete in posturing. Here is my notion of an outcome compatible with the values and security interests of all sides:
Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with Europe.
Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I took seven years ago, when it last came up.
Ukraine should be free to create any government compatible with the expressed will of its people. Wise Ukrainian leaders would then opt for a policy of reconciliation between the various parts of their country. Internationally, they should pursue a posture comparable to that of Finland. That nation leaves no doubt about its fierce independence and cooperates with the West in most fields but carefully avoids institutional hostility toward Russia.
It is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. But it should be possible to put Crimea’s relationship to Ukraine on a less fraught basis. To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea. Ukraine should reinforce Crimea’s autonomy in elections held in the presence of international observers. The process would include removing any ambiguities about the status of the Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol.
These are principles, not prescriptions. People familiar with the region will know that not all of them will be palatable to all parties. The test is not absolute satisfaction but balanced dissatisfaction. If some solution based on these or comparable elements is not achieved, the drift toward confrontation will accelerate. The time for that will come soon enough.
Kissinger was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977. The article was first published in Washington Post.
National Center of Haitian Apostolate
FIRST SUNDAY OF LENT (MARCH 6TH, 2022)
Dt 26: 4-10; Ps 91; Rom 10: 8-13; Lk 4: 1-13
Last Wednesday we began the season of Lent in preparation for Holy Week and Easter. The word Lent comes from an old English word which means springtime. As nature gears itself for harvest time, the Church calls us to ready ourselves for a season of spiritual harvest: Easter.
The recall of Jesus’ temptations in the desert dominates the scene of this 1st Sunday of Lent. These temptations are typical. Jesus is hungry after spending forty days of fasting. Satan lures him to change a stone into bread. Do we get it? Hunger is an experience of the flesh. People tend to do anything to satisfy the demands of the flesh. Jesus in rebuking the tempter teaches us that “Man does not live of bread alone.” Instead of being enslaved to the flesh, as is frequently the case, we must learn to be intent on the “things from heaven”. God’s words is much more precious than the satisfaction provided by bread. Wake up Christian! Hunger for spiritual goods!
“God alone shall you adore” is Jesus’ response to the 2nd temptation. Bow down and adore and I’ll give you power and all kinds of richness. Did it ever occur to you that many people give to the values of the world an allegiance that is due to God alone? There are new forms of idolatry. Tell me which god you worship and I will tell you who you are! Be careful!
“Don’t put God to the test” is the third answer to the third temptation: Easy success and glory. People commit all forms of crimes for the sake of money, power, pride and illicit pleasures. Let us use these forty days of Lent to strip from our hearts all evil desires and dispose our souls to a spring time of spiritual gifts!
BIDEN STATE OT THE UNION ADDRESS
Five points, reactions most relevant for Haitians from Biden’s SOTU address
BY THE HAITIAN TIMES MAR. 03, 2022
Biden delivers his first State of the Union address amid Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. [Jabin Botsford, Pool via AP]
NEW YORK — President Joe Biden delivered his annual State of the Unionaddress March 1, and gained support for his key points about the Russo-Ukrainian war. Biden also touched on a variety of issues and concerns affecting the American people, including immigration, inflation and COVID — issues that are at the forefront for many Haitian families.
Below are some of the subjects most relevant to Haitian-Americans, and reactions related to those topics from others.
Immigration: “If we are to advance liberty and justice, we need to secure the border and fix the immigration system. At our border, we’ve installed new technology like cutting-edge scanners to better detect drug smuggling.”
Tens of thousands of Haitian refugees were deported last year by the Biden administration at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Reaction: “The thousands of people who tried to seek legal refuge on our southern border, how Haitian refugees have been treated by the United States, not just in past administrations, but frankly this one, is not right,” saidCongressperson Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. “We really need to make sure that when we talk about accepting refugees, that we are meaning it for everybody, no matter where you come from.”
Inflation: “With all the bright spots in our economy, record job growth and higher wages, too many families are struggling to keep up with the bills …that’s why my top priority is getting prices under control.”
Locally-owned Haitian businesses, such as restaurants in New York, have been bearing the brunt of inflation since last year.
Reaction: “The biggest problem for President Biden is that there’s no good way to message inflation,” said Jason Furman, a White House economic official under the Obama administration. “There’s not a lot he can do about it, but he can’t get up there and say ‘The only solution here is patience and the Federal Reserve.’”
COVID-19: “We must prepare for new variants. If necessary, we’ll be able to deploy new vaccines within 100 days instead of many more months or years.”
Haitian enclaves, like those in Brooklyn’s East Flatbush neighborhood, suffered disproportionately high rates of COVID-19 infections.
Reaction: “Under POTUS’ leadership, hundreds of millions of Americans are vaccinated against COVID-19 — it saved lives … let’s use this moment to reset,” tweeted California Congressperson Eric Swalwell.
Health care: “The American Rescue Plan is helping millions of families on Affordable Care Act plans save $2,400 a year on their health care premiums. Let’s close the coverage gap and make those savings permanent.”
For years, Haitian immigrants have struggled with inaccessible treatment to health care and lower rates for insurance coverage.
Reaction: “The idea of passing some form of the bill may be alive, but it’s hanging by a thread — and the next few weeks are critical to see if lawmakers can jump-start the effort,” wrote Washington Post reporter Rachel Roubein.
Taxes: “Nobody earning less than $400,000 a year will pay an additional penny in taxes, not a single penny.”
The household income for Black immigrants was 16% lower than the average American, with unfair tax rates disproportionately affecting their populations.
Reaction: “On average, the top 10% of tax filers, or those earning more than $115,800, could see their after-tax income shrink if one version of Biden’s plan took effect,” according to CNN.
