Syria Fiasco Leaves Obama Powerless over Putin

A theory currently circulating among right-wing circles in Washington states that Barack Obama is now paying the price for his past mistakes in Syria with the crisis in the Ukraine. In Syria, many Republicans and conservatives argue, Obama did not undertake military intervention against Bashar Assad, allowing Putin to talk him into the diplomatic option. Lacking the energy to properly enforce a red line against civilian massacres in Damascus, Obama now has little moral authority on which to base demands to Russia to halt at the Ukrainian border. By contrast, Putin played the role of the important mediator in Syria and seems now to have a free hand in Kiev.

Main-stage Republicans such as John McCain and Bob Corker are among the politicians who have voiced this theory over the last few days. Obama has warned Russia about the risks of political and economic isolation in the event of troop intervention in the Ukraine, but many Republicans are prepared to go further than that. Indeed, John McCain, the 2008 presidential candidate with substantial experience and knowledge in foreign policy accrued during his time in the Senate, is the one imploring Obama to do more than just make vague threats. He is calling for the immediate declaration and imposition of sanctions against Russia.

“Every moment the United States and our allies fail to respond,” said McCain, “sends the signal to President Putin that he can be even more ambitious and aggressive in his military intervention in Ukraine.” Others are thinking along the same lines. McCain’s colleague, Corker, is demanding immediate sanctions. Another [colleague], Sen. Marco Rubio, wants John Kerry and Chuck Hagel — secretary of state and secretary of defense, respectively — to fly into Kiev. Republicans also want to extend NATO membership to Georgia and to ban all Russian state dignitaries from entry into the U.S. Will this heavy-handed approach have any effect on Moscow? It’s not likely. None of these American politicians have even the slightest desire for military intervention in Kiev, reflecting the negative public opinion of military intervention abroad in general.

A New York Times/CBS survey published on Sept. 9, 2013, revealed that 62 percent of Americans do not believe that the U.S. should pursue a role of world leader or attempt to resolve international conflicts. In 2003, public opinion was largely in favor — 48 percent versus 43 percent — of the United States’ role as a driving force on the world stage. This shift in public opinion is a sign that the mistakes in Afghanistan and Iraq were not made in vain and explains why the U.S. is not willing to go any further than making vague threats of sanctions against Russia. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that a large part of the lobbying groups who in recent months have tried to raise public and political awareness about the fate of Ukraine actually have close ties with the radical and xenophobic right-wing groups there. It was the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (UCCA) that was behind the anti-Yanukovych protests in many American cities, notably Chicago. This group is a direct relation of the fascist and neofascist Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN).

As the name suggests, the UCCA is based in the U.S. but maintains tight links with Svoboda, the extreme Nationalist Party in Ukraine. It was Svoboda that was at the forefront of recent revolts against Yanukovych. Its leader, Oleh Tyahnybok, was the one calling for Ukranians to fight to liberate their country from a Muscovite-Jewish mafia. In 2010, the same Tyahnybok declared the Nazi collaborator and murderer John Demjanjuk a hero who was “fighting for truth.” He maintains very tight links with Ukranian neo-Nazi groups, including Right Sector, which has overseen many of the protests in Maidan Square. Indeed, it was Tyahnybok who was pictured standing next to U.S. Sen. John McCain when they came out in solidarity with the occupants of Maidan Square last December. What is more, Tyahnybok benefits from a direct line with the U.S. State Department via Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. Nuland met Tyahnybok in February and, in an intercepted telephone call with the U.S. ambassador in Kiev, she expressed her belief that Tyahnhybok needed to be “on the outside” and that Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the new Ukrainian president endorsed by the U.S., needed to be talking to him “four times a week.” The link between the American administration and the extreme right in the Ukraine has a distinct anti-Russian and anti-Soviet nature and is nothing new. Ronald Reagan, for example, extended a personal welcome to Yaroslav Stetsko at the White House in 1983, declaring “his dream is our dream” — this being the very same Ukrainian who oversaw the massacre of 7,000 Jews at Lvov. Lev Dobriansky, former head of the UCCA, was made U.S. ambassador to the Bahamas. These links and ties — this web of mutual interests and solidarity between the U.S. and Ukraine’s extreme right — are more typical of the Cold War years. But today, in a period that is characterized by a new cooling of relations between Moscow and Washington, they seem to have a new relevance.