Containing Russia
Published in El Comercio
(Peru) on 4 March 2014
by Oscar Vidarte A. (link to original)
(Peru) on 4 March 2014
by Oscar Vidarte A. (link to original)
Translated from
by Mayra Reiter.
Edited by Brent Landon.
Taking advantage of the fact that a majority of the population on the Crimean peninsula is of Russian descent, Vladimir Putin has used an argument that has reoccurred in history (remember the beginnings of the World War II) to obtain permission from the Russian parliament to formally use force in this region on Ukrainian territory. This would be done to protect the Russian community that would find itself unprotected after the events that have led to the ousting of Yanukovych, Ukraine’s president. The problem is that this is not the first time he has done something like this. In 2008, Russia invaded Georgia under the same moral pretext of protecting the majority Russian population in South Ossetia. Unlike what is happening in Ukraine, that region has serious differences with Georgia, to the point it demands independence, which is recognized by Russia. It is evident that, although it has the unique status of an autonomous republic, the situation is not the same for Crimea in relation to Ukraine.
It has been very difficult for Russia to lose a large portion of its area of influence after the breakup of the Soviet Union, which is why Putin looks willing to fight to prevent Western advances. That explains not only his foreign policy in Georgia and Ukraine, but in Syria as well.
For their part, the United States and the European Union have economic and security interests in the entire region, whether they are the oil pipelines that cross Ukrainian territory or Russia’s military presence in an area with access to the Mediterranean. During the last few months we have seen a power fight between the European Union and Russia for Ukraine, which seemed to lean towards the latter until Yanukovych’s abrupt exit.
Russia has demonstrated that it is willing to do everything possible to protect its interests. However, Ukraine should be out of bounds for Russian action. In this respect, what is the United States going to do about it? Certainly, [the U.S.] has committed similar acts; it should suffice to remember interventions such as those in Kosovo in 1999 and Iraq in 2003 — but, on the other hand, it is the world superpower! If it allows Russia to employ foreign policy that not only violates international law, but also affects Western interests, the United States would be promoting the incentives necessary such that other countries — read China — might develop similar policies.
Putin is very skillful; he knows that this is not the strongest moment for either the United States or the European Union, as both are immersed in an economic crisis that restricts their foreign policy. But believing the West will continue to accept Russia’s behavior and repeat Neville Chamberlain’s mistakes and as well as his appeasement policy is very unlikely. It would be an inadmissible show of weakness by the West.
For the United States, the best strategy is to contain Russia and make Putin understand that he must retreat. Although political and economic sanctions are the first steps to follow, unfortunately, when it comes to world powers, military strength plays a very important role. This does not mean being on the brink of armed conflict, because the costs of war are very high for all who take part. However, we could be at the beginning of a new and much stronger foreign policy on the part of the West, which may propose negotiations on different terms to counteract the offensive that Putin seems to have initiated.
It has been very difficult for Russia to lose a large portion of its area of influence after the breakup of the Soviet Union, which is why Putin looks willing to fight to prevent Western advances. That explains not only his foreign policy in Georgia and Ukraine, but in Syria as well.
For their part, the United States and the European Union have economic and security interests in the entire region, whether they are the oil pipelines that cross Ukrainian territory or Russia’s military presence in an area with access to the Mediterranean. During the last few months we have seen a power fight between the European Union and Russia for Ukraine, which seemed to lean towards the latter until Yanukovych’s abrupt exit.
Russia has demonstrated that it is willing to do everything possible to protect its interests. However, Ukraine should be out of bounds for Russian action. In this respect, what is the United States going to do about it? Certainly, [the U.S.] has committed similar acts; it should suffice to remember interventions such as those in Kosovo in 1999 and Iraq in 2003 — but, on the other hand, it is the world superpower! If it allows Russia to employ foreign policy that not only violates international law, but also affects Western interests, the United States would be promoting the incentives necessary such that other countries — read China — might develop similar policies.
Putin is very skillful; he knows that this is not the strongest moment for either the United States or the European Union, as both are immersed in an economic crisis that restricts their foreign policy. But believing the West will continue to accept Russia’s behavior and repeat Neville Chamberlain’s mistakes and as well as his appeasement policy is very unlikely. It would be an inadmissible show of weakness by the West.
For the United States, the best strategy is to contain Russia and make Putin understand that he must retreat. Although political and economic sanctions are the first steps to follow, unfortunately, when it comes to world powers, military strength plays a very important role. This does not mean being on the brink of armed conflict, because the costs of war are very high for all who take part. However, we could be at the beginning of a new and much stronger foreign policy on the part of the West, which may propose negotiations on different terms to counteract the offensive that Putin seems to have initiated.
Previous article![]( "The Hour of Diplomacy")
Next article![]( "Prime Minister’s Historical Perspective Is a Thorn in Wavering Japan-US Relations")
