Ukraine is to Russia, as Scotland is to the United Kingdom?

The world is undergoing tremendous change in the 21st century.  The reasons are many and varied.  The unraveling of borders drawn by the victors of war since the turn of the 20th century, the influence of globalization, the availability of information via world-wide-internet connectivity, the legacy of Cold War polarization, the admirable spirit of democracy that was expressed in the so-called Arab Spring, only to be quashed & suppressed, and many other factors; all contributing to a sense of upheaval in nearly every meridian and parallel around the earth. But let’s make a case study of how differently events are playing out in  the  Ukraine-Russia dilemma juxtaposed with the impending Scotland-United Kingdom decision. In both instances there are smaller nations that seek to alter a long-standing relationship with a greater power. Both Russia and the United Kingdom clearly enjoy global reach, economic prowess, and military supremacy well beyond that of Ukraine or Scotland. Yet, Ukraine and Scotland are respectively seeking deeper and wider national liberties along with a desire for greater self-determination.  And as such, the relationship with their respective “mother nation” has become strained.  Breaking away from the “mother nation” represents a lessening of economic strength and political power for both Russia and the United Kingdom.  Power and influence are at stake in this case study.  But the contrast between the two cases presents a stark, yet informative lesson for all leaders, most particularly heads of state in 2014. As the world awaits the decision of the Scots, it is an important moment for statesmanship.  The polls in Scotland are said to indicate that the outcome of tomorrows election will be close decision.  The ramifications of breaking away from the British cannot be completely foreseen.  Some Scots are willing to take the reins and chart a new course.  Others are cognizant that “going it alone” may not be such an easy path, that remaining part of the United Kingdom affords many protections in a world fraught with challenges and danger. And certainly becoming a stand-alone nation, without the backing of the powerful government and financial systems of England have given many pause before deciding to vote “Yea” or “Nay”.  Still the Royal Bank of Scotland is no lightweight, nor is Lloyds or First Group.  These are huge corporations that will find the mechanisms to stabilize Scotland over time should the voters decide to separate from the U.K. Clearly, those who support the referendum to separate from the U.K, have the backing of a significant grass-roots movement.  There is an excitement and optimism in many camps throughout Scotland where people are fully engaged in the political process. Democracy can be exciting when authentic. The movement in Scotland has been fueled by a progressive argument outlining that to remain tied to the U.K. only represents an old-guard period of history, essentially holding Scotland back from its potential.

In response, Prime Minister David Cameron has been on a shoe leather campaign in Scotland speaking to all who will listen.  His counter argument has been one of caution as well as warning that the promises made by those who paint a rosy picture of an independent Scotland might well be overstating the realities.

So, let’s look at how Russia is responding to the democratic impulse from Ukraine. Granted, there are many in eastern Ukraine who want to remain “Russian” and close ties to Moscow give them comfort.  But for the Ukraine government that is seeking to strengthen its economic ties to the EU and establish more autocracy from Moscow, it is striking to compare the speeches given by Cameron as he beseeches the Scots to not break away with the military tanks and masked men who crossed in to first Crimea and then, more stealthily in to Ukraine.  Just on the surface, from a visual perspective, there is a clear contrast between the throngs of people who are holding signs for independence in Scotland and the menacing paramilitary who point weapons at each other in Ukraine.

There are no dead Scots today.  There is no British invasion of Glasgow.  David Cameron did not send in operatives to destabilize the civilian population with the intention of creating chaos so as to avert an independent Scotland. Is there a lot at stake for the U.K.?  Sure. If the Scots vote “Yea” in the referendum tomorrow the British government will undergo a significant alteration.  The U.K. will be reduced in both political and economic terms.  Size matters on the global stage and Britain has long punched well above its weight.  One has only to examine its colonial history to recognize the powerful reach this nation once held over vast parts of the world.  But despite its colonial past, Britain in the 21st century is a respecter of democracy.  Not in a purist sense, but in the example of Scotland, regardless of the outcome, Britain will not intervene in the referendum.  Regardless of the unforeseen consequences for Scotland as well as for the U.K., the vote of the Scottish people will be respected-AND UPHELD.

And who can predict the outcome, 10, 20, 50 years from today?  The progressives are certainly overly optimistic in their projections.  Still, Cameron and the British are likewise too pessimistic. When the 13 Colonies in North America broke away from England there were many who said the experiment in the New World would fail, was doomed to fail.  But the 13 Colonies became the 13 States and the nation grew in to 50 United States.  Today, the U.S. and the U.K. stand as strong allies rather than enemies and the world is all the better for it.  Scotland, should it become independent of the U.K. will also establish a strong partnership with Britain. Democracy is indeed messy.  But when one looks at the case study between Scotland and Ukraine, it is clear to see that Vladimir Putin’s strategy for preserving the political and economic might of Russia has resulted in thousands of dead civilians, the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH 17, and the prospect of on-going civil war in Ukraine.  Putin’s plan to destabilize Ukraine has required the EU to apply further sanctions at a time when their dependence on Russian sourced energy has made pressuring Moscow all the more difficult.  Even more disturbing, Putin’s inability to allow a democratic trajectory in Ukraine to mature has positioned Russia and the U.S. in roles that have raised the vestiges of a time gone by.  Today ideologies and military game plans between the U.S. and Russia are looking faintly reminiscent of Cold War days.

Putin likely believes he has a grand design to salvage the territory of Ukraine for the greater good of Mother Russia.  Certainly Ukraine, and Crimea, share a storied and treasured past with Russia.  And a break away Ukraine will diminish some of Russia’s prestige and power, but such would also be the case should Scotland choose to break away from the United Kingdom. The world must uphold respect for democracy.  The world community must reward those nations who refrain from military action against those who seek to strengthen their own national economic and political power.  And the world must take a stand against those leaders who exercise military aggression against civilians in any scenario.  At a time when chaos is flaring up in every region around the globe, the spirit of self-determination is ablaze.  Those leaders who use the power of a national government with the lethality of the military to deny people the form of democracy that best represents their needs cannot be given tacit approval.  Do we want Russia looking for vulnerability in Moldova?  The Baltics?  Do we want to send a signal to Moscow that the world community is too preoccupied with other hotspots to hold Russia accountable for the ongoing conflict in Ukraine? The landscape of geopolitical realities is such that, already far too many threats to world stability are active.   Transnational actors who rain down instability  and  assert that existing governments are invalid.  The use of  fear as a governing tool is collapsing systems and threatening the security of millions of people.  Chaos is the trademark of these actors. Conversely, heads of state must be held to the standard of the community of nations.  We cannot allow heads of state to act in any resemblance to transnational actors.  There can be no impunity for a head of state who hides behind his title or government or position.  Otherwise, the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate government starts to blur, ever so slowly, slightly giving pause when considering what good governance should be.  There are privileges and rights that accompany representing one’s nation on the global stage.  The U.N. and the world community must hold Putin to account.  The community of nations cannot pick and choose which leaders should be overlooked for actions that are clearly in contravention to the U.N. Charter simply because of economic interests.  To remain silent or passively observant in the face of any head of state who deliberately inserts chaos and tragedy in to the lives of civilians for the purposes of destabilizing their nation is the wrong message.  It is the wrong message because it paves the way for additional  lethal challenges to people who desire self-representation.  This is an unacceptable prospect and must be retarded now.  National leaders and governments cannot be given a pass for this type of a response and certainly, Russia cannot call itself a post-modern nation given its recent approach to the Ukraine problem. In this case study, the U.K. has it about right.  The British government has made it abundantly clear that it does not want to see Scotland break away.  Powerful allies of the U.K. have been vocal in their disapproval for Scots to vote “Yea” in the referendum. Cameron has made himself a persistent  critic of the break away movement throughout Scotland.  But the U.K. has not exercised military use of force.  There have been no deaths, neither Scottish or British in this case.  And there has been no downing of a passenger jetliner, an event, a moment in history, when innocents were caught in the crossfire between a break away nation and its “mother nation”.

Case study results:  Ukraine is to Russia as Scotland is to the United Kingdom?  The answer is a clear and decisive NO