Right now, the focus of foreign policy must be on the crisis in Ukraine. A potential military conflict between Russia and America must be stymied while the credibility of the International Community must be protected. It is not helpful, at this moment, to avoid the issue or distract ourselves with other pressing international crisis. Meanwhile, the efforts of political leaders like Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham to so publicly criticize/delegitimize President Obama for political gain is certainly counterproductive, as doing so undermines his credibility in the eyes of Putin. When there is a crisis in the works, politics needs to take a backseat and political opponents need to come together to help develop solutions, so America can approach crises in a unified manner. The issue at hand is what Russia is doing wrong, not what President Obama is doing wrong.
That said, the truth is that the American People do not have a great interest in foreign policy matters while the rest of the world is often only concerned when global issues impact them. Our economies and personal finances have not yet recovered from the 2008/2009 Great Recession while international conflicts have mainly centered on economic issues since the end of the Cold War, even when doing so provoked civil unrest and violence. The US has experienced military conflicts over the course of the post-Cold War era, i.e. Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, along with a variety of military policing operations, but the American People were largely disengaged from these conflicts and lived as though our Country was at peace. At the same time, our military and coffers had been significantly depleted by our nation-building efforts, though not our initial, crushing military intervention, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Given this dynamic, Russian President Vladimir Putin is likely counting on the world growing weary of Ukrainian pleas for help, especially given the International Community’s unwillingness to respond to the Syrian Civil War. On the other hand, Putin has already miscalculated the International Community’s response to Russia’s deployment of forces in Crimea. No state interests are truly at stake for countries like the US, but the credibility of international norms are. Where a relatively small country like Syria or North Korea can be isolated or engaged militarily, if necessary, Russia is a big country and cannot be so dealt with so easily. That said, allowing Russia to simply annex Crimea and/or seize control of Ukraine undermines international interests that disproportionately benefit America and other Western nations, as well as all weaker nations to a lesser extent. Trying to isolate Russia with sanctions is almost impossible; at best, it will help polarize the globe once again with a smaller sphere of influence solely aligning with Russia. That said, Crimea’s upcoming referendum to break away from Ukraine and rejoin Russia could well give Russia most of what it wants, yet undermine Western-Russian relations for some time to come or even provoke an outright conflict. Sadly, if the referendum were organized in such a way that it was legitimate in the eyes of Westerners and Ukrainians, the results could force an end to this conflict. As we are on track for escalation, the world may well have a repeat of World War I, where a web of European alliances erupted in military conflict thanks to one shot fired. Due to NATO obligations, America could be unwillingly dragged into a military entanglement with Russia. If we are lucky, our cool, calculating leaders in Washington and Moscow, e.g. Obama and Putin, will quickly end any conflict, especially if powers like China take a more neutral stance that continues to protect global economic interests. If not, it is important to remember both America and Russia each have enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life on this planet many times over. What has kept both nations from destroying the world is the formation of the International Community and respect for the national interests of all Peoples. If President Obama cannot reason with Putin, it may be wiser for him to now speak directly to the Russian People and see what policies they view to be most in Russia’s interests.
Comments
Even though there are a myriad of other critical issues unfolding around the world that must be addressed, Russia’s intrusion into the Ukrainian territory of Crimea is, unfortunately, now the focus of the world’s attention. What is driving the strong reaction to Russia’s decision to provoke this military, not political, conflict is the world’s fear of Russian influence and eventual dominance, along with the need to protect the credibility and the rules of the International Community.
As Russia tends to be a nation that aggressively pursues its interests at the expense of the interests of other nations, instead of striving to balance the interests of competing nations as the US has aspired to do over the last century, this latest reaction to civil unrest in Ukraine and over-reaction to a potential increased security threat, reinforces fears that Russia will use any influence it has over weaker nations to suppress them. In many respects, Russia’s actions are those of a traditional government. That is, Russia is simply using its power to get what it wants, which is a thoroughly alien concept the modern political scientist, diplomat, and policymaker. During the Cold War, US power and America’s sphere of influence grew with the support of an ever-increasing number of allies. This is, because American power was never predicated on our exercise of our power to force our allies to serve our interests. In fact, it is when American has used its power to suppress, versus protect, the interests of other nations that American power has been undermined. Because the Cold War forced nations to choose between the US and Russia, America’s balancing of interests approach won out over Russia’s traditional pursuit of one’s own interests, because it protected weaker countries from oppression by superpowers. Where America’s poorly justified 2003 invasion of Iraq weakened America’s influence and ally support, Russia’s invasion of Crimea now weakens Russian influence and drives backlash that helps strengthen Western influence. Furthermore, Russian President Vladimir Putin is like all highly influential leaders. Nature can create the perfect predator, but that prefect predator is only perfect for a specific kind of environment. Leaders are people who are so good at functioning in their specific environment that they are able to force others to function better. To be blunt, Putin is a man created for a Russia that probably no longer exists, thus his hardliner influence is starting to undermine Russia’s ability to function in our modern world. Either Putin must adapt or the Russian People must choose between Putin’s vision of returning the world to one where might alone makes right and a world where everyone enjoys the protection of the mighty. Frankly, the world has been Americanized and this means Russia must respect the interests of weaker states in order to function as a world power in this era where we strive to balance the interests of all Nations and Peoples. As such, Putin and the Russian People must decide if they want a Russia adapted to a world that no longer exists or they want a Russia that functions in the modern world. If they choose the latter over the former, more conflicts are certain to arise as Russia tries to expand its exclusive sphere of influence and Russian influence is certain to fall. The Russian People must recognize that as Putin tries to forcefully expand Russia’s sphere of influence, he will polarize the world against Russia while America and the rest of the West will adapt to Russia’s coercive approach by better balancing the interests of countries that have been neglected by post-Cold War powers. In turn, this will strengthen America’s all-inclusive sphere of influence, with excluding itself and its friends. Ukraine has gone from focusing on its internal threat of civil unrest to reacting to an external threat of a creeping Russian invasion. Although Russia has had a right to maintain its Black Sea fleet and other forces in the traditionally pro-Russian state of Crimea under a long-standing agreement with the Ukrainian government, Putin’s PR campaign to convince the world that he is not positioning troops for war in Ukraine is hollow. What may come of this is largely up to Putin, but what is clear is that Russia’s efforts to coerce Ukraine into peaceful submission has failed, so he is now using the questionable transition in Ukrainian leadership to legitimatize his looming seizure of Crimea.
To understand Russia’s actions, it is important to understand the psychology of Putin. Because Putin’s leadership style is authoritarian in nature, his thinking truly drives the policies of the Russian-state. As Putin is overly-aggressive to abusive in the pursuit of his and Russia’s perceived interests, i.e. his is unwilling to balance the interests of others unless forced to do so, the Russian leadership solely acts to fulfill its perceived interests. In other words, only when there is a perceived interest to respond to critics and respect international norms will the Russian power elite try to respond in a measured way. More often than, however, there is tendency for Russia to legitimize its behavior. Looking back at Russia’s 2008 invasion of Georgia, Russia justified its actions by focusing on America’s faulted rationale for invading Iraq and Afghanistan. In other words, any time America does something wrong or seemingly hypocritical, Russia uses it to legitimate its bad behavior instead of just criticizing the US and addressing American criticism when it does wrong. That said, the difference between American, as well as Western, intervention is that Russia tends to react more readily with far greater force in order to ensure its perceived interests by suppressing the interests of others; whereas, the US and the rest of the West seek to balance interests and assume some responsibility for the damage done. Meanwhile, it is also important for the Russian People to recognize that Putin is a man who will put his pride and ego above Russia’s interests. It is his hubris, his weakness. Fear of Russian power provokes reprisal and undermines the soft power Russia needs to sustain its status as a rising global power, just as fear of American and Chinese power has. Over the last couple of months Russia’s sheltering of whistleblower Edward Snowden, the release of opposition figures, Russia’s role in Syrian peace talks, the 2014 Sochi Olympics, and other efforts to act diplomatically had helped Russia gain influence on the international stage. Unfortunately, that power has largely evaporated while the majority of Ukrainians are going to be far less likely to cooperate with Russia in the foreseeable future, especially with Putin in power. Putin’s ego will also likely undercut his credibility in the eyes of Russians and Putin-leaning foreigners. Finally, it is important to recognize that men like Putin often act irrationally to demonstrate their ability to control a situation and this act of aggression may well be an example of that. Having demonstrated his ability to control the situation, he may well choose to ratchet down tensions. Unfortunately, this course of action is very uncertain. That said, sufficient backlash from the International Community can be used to force the Russian leadership to change its calculations. Basically, the options are to let Putin feel as though he has control over the situation or force him into submission, which will require quite a bit given his strongman mentality. As such, the International Community’s strong reaction to Russia’s behavior is probably necessary while that pressure must be intensified and maintained along with ties to Putin what will allow mediators to give Putin an out. Regrettably, this Cold War style conflict is certain to hurt the cohesion of the International Community and undermine the global economy. Moreover, Russia’s overly aggressive stance toward Ukraine is undercutting Russia’s broader interests. |
Read old posts
April 2020
|