“The case for debt reduction,” by Lawrence Summers (professor and past president of Harvard University, former U.S. treasury secretary and former economic adviser to President Barack Obama), Opinions, The Washington Post, May 17:
“Soon Ukraine, its creditors and the international community will have to decide how that nation’s debt is to be handled in the context of its ongoing aid program. The case for debt reduction is as strong as any that I have encountered over the past quarter-century. How the issue is resolved will say much about the extent of the global community’s commitment to Ukraine and to resisting Russian aggression. Failure to achieve debt reduction would also confirm the view of those who believe that private financial interests disproportionately influence public policy.
“Ukraine is in a quasi state of war with Russia, which has annexed Crimea and achieved a significant measure of control over swaths of eastern Ukraine. Other republics of the former Soviet Union and even the nations of central Europe are watching anxiously. How this episode is ultimately regarded by history will depend as much on what is done for Ukraine as on what is done to Russia.
“This is especially true because Ukraine has its best, most-reform-oriented economic team since it became independent at the beginning of the 1990s. Ukraine has shown real political courage in combating corruption and especially in moving aggressively to curb energy subsidies that were generating vast waste, allowing the domestic price of gas to rise tenfold in the past year. Ukraine has done more in 12 months to reform such subsidies than most nations do in 12 years.
“The moral, geopolitical and economic case for giving Ukraine strong support is compelling. …
“John Kerry’s Sochi Misadventure,” by David J. Kramer (senior director for human rights and democracy at the McCain Institute for International Leadership), The American Interest, May 14:
“…Putin has done nothing to merit a visit by the U.S. secretary of state. As recently as Saturday, during the military parade marking the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe, Putin slammed the U.S. for ‘attempts to establish a unipolar world. We see the strong-arm bloc thinking, gaining momentum. All that undermines sustainable global development.’ And that is mild compared to most of Putin’s attacks against the U.S.
“Worse, Putin has continued supporting forces fighting in eastern Ukraine in violation of a ceasefire agreement struck in February and has built up Russian forces along the border with Ukraine in preparation for a possible full-scale invasion. …Putin and his foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, have offered no solutions for the Ukraine crisis and demand that the West, not Russia, change its policies and lift sanctions. …
“Kerry …offered platitudes, saying he was ‘privileged to spend many hours’ with Putin and Lavrov… His trip to Sochi makes the Obama administration look weak and desperate and will likely trigger a stream of Western visitors to seek a meeting with Putin, completely ending the isolation of Russia. If Russian officials are serious about solving the Ukraine crisis (and that would require fully withdrawing from Ukraine and respecting its sovereignty and territorial integrity), let them come to us. They know what they need to do – they simply refuse to do it. …
“Obama seems to have lost interest in Ukraine and Europe more broadly, and Putin senses that. John Kerry’s visit to Sochi isn’t going to fix that problem. It may even create new ones.”
“Kerry is so very nice to Putin,” Editorial, The Wall Street Journal, May 13:
“NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg warned Monday that the Kremlin continues to provide heavy arms and training to its proxy militias in eastern Ukraine – a ‘blatant violation,’ he says, of the Minsk deal Russia signed in February to end the fighting. …
“So what better time for John Kerry to attempt to reconcile with Vladimir Putin?…
“Following eight hours of discussions, Mr. Kerry suggested that ‘U.S. and EU sanctions can begin to be rolled back’ if Russia abides by the Minsk deal. That deal is known as ‘Minsk II’ because the Kremlin had already violated September’s ‘Minsk I’ accord, which was supposed to freeze the conflict in eastern Ukraine, bringing peace in return for securing Russia’s extensive territorial gains. So Mr. Putin may now be rewarded with the lifting of economic sanctions simply by promising to abide by another deal he violated from the moment it was signed.
Mr. Kerry appears to have given up even asking that Russia exit from eastern Ukraine, much less reverse last year’s illegal seizure and annexation of Crimea. …
“The Ukrainians must be thrilled to see Mr. Kerry volunteering their territory for the sake of America’s Middle East interests. Western Europeans will conclude that Americans won’t object when they ease sanctions, while Estonians, Moldovans, Poles and other Eastern Europeans will wonder if their territory is also negotiable.
“As for Mr. Putin, the lesson is that he can grab what he wants, wait out the faux outrage and sanctions, and then consolidate his gains in return for more promises of peace.”
“Kerry’s pointless diplomacy in Russia,” by Leon Aron (resident scholar and the director of Russian studies at the American Enterprise Institute), Opinion, cnn.com, May 14:
“…Isn’t it obvious that a U.S. secretary of state joining Putin at his vacation palace during one of the most strident confrontations between a post-Soviet Russia and the West will only bolster Putin’s image of a feared and thus respected or, better yet, ‘indispensable’ Russia? Apparently deaf to the public implications of this kind of diplomacy, John Kerry did not seem to notice – or care. …
“…the apotheosis of pandering was reached when Kerry talked [during the press conference] about Russia’s war on Ukraine. Happy to acknowledge that he, Lavrov and Putin were of one mind when it came to seeking ‘peace’ in Ukraine, Kerry glossed over ‘challenges’ such as ceasefire violations and ‘whoever has instigated’ them. …Kerry continued the charade of the Minsk-1 and Minsk-2 negotiations, in which an aggressor (Russia) was treated as a peacemaker. …Kerry re-affirmed the charade rules by stating, very firmly, that he would demand that ‘everybody’ abide by Minsk-2. Kerry was courageously holding both the aggressor and his victim to the same unbending standard! …
“Having just seen the borders of one of Europe’s largest states violated by its neighbor for the first time since the end of World War II, I doubt most Europeans (and certainly most European leaders) would agree with this threat assessment. …
“Worse than pointless diplomacy, worse even than the wasted prestige of his office, Kerry’s meeting was shot through with a moral obtuseness that always comes to haunt those who erode the key strength and appeal of the liberal democratic West: its ability to stand by and defend its values in the face of aggression and tyranny.”