In order to understand Obama’s treatment of Russian politics concerning the conflict in Ukraine, all we need to do is ask ourselves how John McCain would have done it differently.
Although a firm believer in diplomacy, the American president has no option other than to increase U.S. sanctions against the Kremlin following the annexation of Crimea and the destabilization of eastern Ukraine. He convinced Europe to impose even stricter sanctions against Moscow. Yet, such measures weren’t enough to stop Vladimir Putin from openly disregarding the Minsk peace agreement, and so Washington is faced with increasing pressure to take a harder line.
Should we provide Kiev forces with defensive weaponry? If we’re looking for equal treatment, then the answer is yes. Pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine have acquired heavy weapons and military equipment from Russia, despite government denials. If we were to do the same with the Ukrainian army, this could mean giving them a chance to actually defend the sovereignty of their country. It could also mean putting a stop to Putin himself, who, it is feared, may undermine the very foundations of Europe. Does such a strategy have a chance at success? It’s hard to say.
If Barack Obama seems hesitant, it’s simply because he doesn’t like war, nor does he like having to take a back seat. That is, rely on drones and air strikes, as was the case in Iraq. He has other priorities to be dealing with. In Syria, he was confronted with a similar situation: should he arm the so-called moderate rebel forces? Today, nobody can claim to have a definitive answer to this question.
If he were to opt for aggressive military reinforcement, he would be running the risk of dividing the united American-European front against Russian dictator Putin.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, advisor to former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, admits that U.S.-Russian relations could potentially turn frosty. But he remains optimistic. The Russian middle class, he predicts, will be the ones to unite western Russia, those who have no interest in a U.S.-Russian conflict, and who value former president Dmitry Medvedev’s sense of internationalism.
Israel must reduce its military dependence on the United States as much as possible and deepen its technological, military and moral value in American eyes.
European autonomy - military, technological, economic, and financial - is beginning to take shape as Europe hedges against current and future fluctuations in [U.S.] policy.
Here was the American president, surrounded by an ultimately submissive team, deciding to go to war on gut feeling and with no visible concern for what it would mean beyond [U.S.] borders.
America’s Achilles’ heel is internal. If it loses this war, it will likely be because much of the media, politicians, and even some of Trump’s allies do not fully understand his policies.
Israel must reduce its military dependence on the United States as much as possible and deepen its technological, military and moral value in American eyes.
European autonomy - military, technological, economic, and financial - is beginning to take shape as Europe hedges against current and future fluctuations in [U.S.] policy.
The shift now underway is unlikely to take the form of a dramatic collapse of American power in the Gulf. It is more likely to be subtler and, for the region, more unsettling.