by Burt Norris.
Without The Threat of Credible Force, President Obama’s Foreign Policies are Weak Worldwide
Don’t pop the champagne corks just because Vladimir Putin phoned Barack Obama to pursue a diplomatic solution in the Ukraine. It may just be a ploy, similar to Moscow’s proposal to denude Syria of chemical weapons in order to head off a potent U.S. air strike against President Assad’s forces. It may just be a gambit to tamp down the West’s drive toward greater sanctions against Russia. These and other sinister explanations for the call gain weight by the fact that some 25,000 Russian troops still threaten Ukraine’s borders.
Even if Putin is serious about diplomacy for the moment, there is a deeper problem afoot for Obama. It is one that the White House rejects outright, but one that officials outside the White House, and experts outside the administration, are certainly fretting about. It is that Obama’s idea of combatting aggression using economic sanctions and “diplomacy” is not nearly enough. The costs of aggression have to be raised, and there has to be a stronger and more credible military dimension to U.S. national security policy.
Whether the White House admits it or not, foes the world over seem to have concluded that Obama has taken the U.S. military force option off the table and made aggression easier.
In that vein, take a second look at what Obama said last Wednesday about a Russian attack on Ukraine:
“Of course, Ukraine is not a member of NATO, in part because of its close and complex history with Russia. Nor will Russia be dislodged from Crimea or deterred from further escalation by military force.”
That sounds awfully close to telling Putin if he wants to grab more of Ukraine, or all of it, he need not worry about a U.S. military response. In effect, the U.S. president is saying the only cost to Russia for totally violating the basic rules of international behavior is the threat of tougher sanctions (and that’s only if the Europeans and others can get their act together). Why on earth would Obama give Putin this virtual free ride?
Was the White House afraid that unless the Ukrainians felt totally abandoned, they would be foolhardy enough to precipitate a war with Russia? If so, Obama could have warned Ukrainian leaders, publicly and privately, that their only chance to get help from the West would be to make it absolutely clear Moscow was the guilty party.
When Obama said the United States would do nothing militarily to protect Ukraine against an attack, he was, in effect, walking away from the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 signed by Ukraine, Russia, Britain, and the U.S. Through this memorandum, the Ukraine gave its nuclear weapons back to Russia on a pledge by all parties not to violate Ukraine’s security and sovereignty. To be sure, neither London nor Washington was legally obliged to defend Ukraine if it were attacked. However, it is perfectly obvious that Kiev would never have given up its nukes unless it believed the U.S. would come to its defense in some meaningful fashion.
The Budapest Memorandum makes sense historically only as a quid pro quo agreement resting upon American credibility to act. The United States cannot simply walk away from the plain meaning of the document and leave Ukraine in the lurch. How would this complete washing of U.S. hands affect U.S. efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, supposedly a top national priority? Why should any nation forego nukes, or give them away as Ukraine did, if other nations, and especially the U.S., assume no responsibility to defend them against aggression by others? It’s not that Washington has to send ground troops or start using its nuclear weapons; it’s just that potential aggressors have to see some potential military cost.
It’s bad enough that Obama thinks of the U.S. response to Russia almost exclusively in terms of diplomatic isolation of the bad guy, plus economic sanctions, and a touch of military aid. However, the real worry is that this has become his pattern worldwide.
If potential aggressors think their power grabs will be met solely by diplomatic harassment and some economic squeezing, they will be increasingly tempted to snatch whatever they want first and worry later. Greedy lawbreakers have been emboldened by Obama’s unenforced “red lines” in Syria. The same goes for North Korean rockets landing on South Korean lands without serious penalty, and China’s new pattern of muscle flexing to establish its interests in the East and South China Seas. President Obama’s policy in the Ukraine only reinforces their perception, and encourages more of the same power grabbing.
Economic sanctions are a good tool, but not a substitute for a credible military option. Even potent economic sanctions over decades have not brought Cuba, Iran, and North Korea to their knees. Russia will be even more difficult to break with economic sanctions because it is the eighth largest economy in the world.
How can the U.S. add muscle in the present Ukraine crisis?
The boldest and riskiest course would be to dispatch 50 or 60 of the incredibly potent F-22s to Poland, plus Patriot batteries and appropriate ground support and protection. Russian generals and even Putin surely know that the F-22s could smash the far inferior Russian air force and then punish Russian armies invading eastern Ukraine, or elsewhere in the region.
There’s no sense at all in making this move unless Obama unambiguously resolves to use the F-22s. The worst thing to do is bluff. Nor would the dangers end there even if Obama were not bluffing; Putin might think he we’re bluffing anyway and start a war. With all these complications and risks, the Obama team still should give this option a serious look—and let Russia and our NATO partners know this tough course is under serious consideration. Obama has sent a few F-15’s and F-16’s to Eastern Europe, and some military aid to Ukraine and other states, but everyone knows this is tokenism.
Another plausible and perhaps less risky measure: help prepare Ukrainians for guerrilla war against an invading Russian force. Pound for pound in conventional war, the Ukrainian forces are no match whatsoever for the Russians. But irregular Ukrainian troops, armed with first-class rifles, mortars, and explosive devices, would do Russian troops great damage. Russians know this. They have surely not forgotten the horrors fighting guerrillas in Afghanistan.
These steps would be plausible, purely defensive, and a deterrent for starters. They would demonstrate to Moscow that further aggression against Ukraine would result in much more than economic and diplomatic slaps. Credible force has been the missing ingredient in U.S. policy. Support for what might be the Ukrainian Resistance, combined with an F-22 deployment to Poland “to protect U.S./NATO security interests in the region,” should give Putin pause.
This approach would make the dictators in Pyongyang, Damascus, and Beijing think twice as well.
Republish with permission of PracticalPoliticking.com
Without The Threat of Credible Force, President Obama’s Foreign Policies are Weak Worldwide
Don’t pop the champagne corks just because Vladimir Putin phoned Barack Obama to pursue a diplomatic solution in the Ukraine. It may just be a ploy, similar to Moscow’s proposal to denude Syria of chemical weapons in order to head off a potent U.S. air strike against President Assad’s forces. It may just be a gambit to tamp down the West’s drive toward greater sanctions against Russia. These and other sinister explanations for the call gain weight by the fact that some 25,000 Russian troops still threaten Ukraine’s borders.
Even if Putin is serious about diplomacy for the moment, there is a deeper problem afoot for Obama. It is one that the White House rejects outright, but one that officials outside the White House, and experts outside the administration, are certainly fretting about. It is that Obama’s idea of combatting aggression using economic sanctions and “diplomacy” is not nearly enough. The costs of aggression have to be raised, and there has to be a stronger and more credible military dimension to U.S. national security policy.
Whether the White House admits it or not, foes the world over seem to have concluded that Obama has taken the U.S. military force option off the table and made aggression easier.
In that vein, take a second look at what Obama said last Wednesday about a Russian attack on Ukraine:
“Of course, Ukraine is not a member of NATO, in part because of its close and complex history with Russia. Nor will Russia be dislodged from Crimea or deterred from further escalation by military force.”
That sounds awfully close to telling Putin if he wants to grab more of Ukraine, or all of it, he need not worry about a U.S. military response. In effect, the U.S. president is saying the only cost to Russia for totally violating the basic rules of international behavior is the threat of tougher sanctions (and that’s only if the Europeans and others can get their act together). Why on earth would Obama give Putin this virtual free ride?
Was the White House afraid that unless the Ukrainians felt totally abandoned, they would be foolhardy enough to precipitate a war with Russia? If so, Obama could have warned Ukrainian leaders, publicly and privately, that their only chance to get help from the West would be to make it absolutely clear Moscow was the guilty party.
When Obama said the United States would do nothing militarily to protect Ukraine against an attack, he was, in effect, walking away from the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 signed by Ukraine, Russia, Britain, and the U.S. Through this memorandum, the Ukraine gave its nuclear weapons back to Russia on a pledge by all parties not to violate Ukraine’s security and sovereignty. To be sure, neither London nor Washington was legally obliged to defend Ukraine if it were attacked. However, it is perfectly obvious that Kiev would never have given up its nukes unless it believed the U.S. would come to its defense in some meaningful fashion.
The Budapest Memorandum makes sense historically only as a quid pro quo agreement resting upon American credibility to act. The United States cannot simply walk away from the plain meaning of the document and leave Ukraine in the lurch. How would this complete washing of U.S. hands affect U.S. efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, supposedly a top national priority? Why should any nation forego nukes, or give them away as Ukraine did, if other nations, and especially the U.S., assume no responsibility to defend them against aggression by others? It’s not that Washington has to send ground troops or start using its nuclear weapons; it’s just that potential aggressors have to see some potential military cost.
It’s bad enough that Obama thinks of the U.S. response to Russia almost exclusively in terms of diplomatic isolation of the bad guy, plus economic sanctions, and a touch of military aid. However, the real worry is that this has become his pattern worldwide.
If potential aggressors think their power grabs will be met solely by diplomatic harassment and some economic squeezing, they will be increasingly tempted to snatch whatever they want first and worry later. Greedy lawbreakers have been emboldened by Obama’s unenforced “red lines” in Syria. The same goes for North Korean rockets landing on South Korean lands without serious penalty, and China’s new pattern of muscle flexing to establish its interests in the East and South China Seas. President Obama’s policy in the Ukraine only reinforces their perception, and encourages more of the same power grabbing.
Economic sanctions are a good tool, but not a substitute for a credible military option. Even potent economic sanctions over decades have not brought Cuba, Iran, and North Korea to their knees. Russia will be even more difficult to break with economic sanctions because it is the eighth largest economy in the world.
How can the U.S. add muscle in the present Ukraine crisis?
The boldest and riskiest course would be to dispatch 50 or 60 of the incredibly potent F-22s to Poland, plus Patriot batteries and appropriate ground support and protection. Russian generals and even Putin surely know that the F-22s could smash the far inferior Russian air force and then punish Russian armies invading eastern Ukraine, or elsewhere in the region.
There’s no sense at all in making this move unless Obama unambiguously resolves to use the F-22s. The worst thing to do is bluff. Nor would the dangers end there even if Obama were not bluffing; Putin might think he we’re bluffing anyway and start a war. With all these complications and risks, the Obama team still should give this option a serious look—and let Russia and our NATO partners know this tough course is under serious consideration. Obama has sent a few F-15’s and F-16’s to Eastern Europe, and some military aid to Ukraine and other states, but everyone knows this is tokenism.
Another plausible and perhaps less risky measure: help prepare Ukrainians for guerrilla war against an invading Russian force. Pound for pound in conventional war, the Ukrainian forces are no match whatsoever for the Russians. But irregular Ukrainian troops, armed with first-class rifles, mortars, and explosive devices, would do Russian troops great damage. Russians know this. They have surely not forgotten the horrors fighting guerrillas in Afghanistan.
These steps would be plausible, purely defensive, and a deterrent for starters. They would demonstrate to Moscow that further aggression against Ukraine would result in much more than economic and diplomatic slaps. Credible force has been the missing ingredient in U.S. policy. Support for what might be the Ukrainian Resistance, combined with an F-22 deployment to Poland “to protect U.S./NATO security interests in the region,” should give Putin pause.
This approach would make the dictators in Pyongyang, Damascus, and Beijing think twice as well.
Republish with permission of PracticalPoliticking.com