Obama's Hands Tied with Ukraine: He Will Not Take On Moscow Because He Needs It

Obama’s unrelenting discourse is unlikely to lead to action: The United States could scare Putin by cancelling trade agreements that are favorable to Russia, but they will not because U.S. collaboration with the Kremlin is crucial in the Syrian crisis, Iran’s nuclear program and the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan.

“There will be costs,” in case Russia decides to launch military action against Ukraine. Barack Obama was particularly severe during the press conference at the White House with regard to U.S. participation in the crisis. He asked the Kremlin to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the borders of Ukraine” and warns of the “deeply destabilizing” effects that the Russian military intervention could have on the political and diplomatic scene. Despite the alarm, and the rather curt warning, the Obama administration does not have many options regarding Russia at the moment.

Sources in the Department of State have explained that in the case of military action in Ukraine, the U.S. would immediately cancel President Obama’s participation at the G-8 summit, scheduled to be held this June in Sochi, the seat of the recent Winter Olympics.

A similar decision could also be made by the European allies of the United States. A comparable event occurred last year, albeit much less sensational, when Barack Obama cancelled a bilateral meeting with Vladimir Putin, which was set to take place during an international summit in Moscow, after Putin’s government granted asylum to the National Security Agency’s “whistleblower,” Edward Snowden.

Another possibility, which was proposed by certain political circles of Obama’s administration, was for the U.S. to stop trade negotiations with Russia. Precisely at the time Obama was angrily protesting against Russia’s involvement in Ukraine, representatives from Moscow were sent to Washington to enter into negotiations that could prove to be particularly lucrative for both countries. Despite the deterioration of political and diplomatic relations, commercial ties and economic interests between Russia and the U.S. have grown immensely in recent years. U.S. exports to Russia increased by 38 percent in 2011, while Russian exports to the U.S. increased by 35 percent. A number of major American companies – General Motors, Ford, Paper Co., ExxonMobil, General Electric – have launched, or are launching, development projects in Russia. In addition, over the last few months, the Russian authorities have insisted on the creation of a sort of “free market” area between Washington and Moscow, as well as an increase in American investments. Obama’s order to stop military involvement could therefore prove to be a particularly heavy loss for the Russian economy.

In American political and diplomatic circles, there is a lasting memory of what happened with the war in South Ossetia in August 2008. Yet last week, the U.S. Department of State reiterated its request that Russia withdraw its military garrisons from Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Georgia, for its part, has repeatedly denounced the slow but continuous occupation of its territory by Russian soldiers deployed to Ossetia. This action, declares the U.S. Department of State, is in open violation of the 2008 peace agreements. Washington’s request has so far not had a great effect on Moscow, which does not bode well for the chances of the U.S. in blocking the Kremlin’s plans concerning another “hot” area of Russian interests: namely, Ukraine.

The administration’s condemnation, however, is easier said than done. In fact, the U.S. absolutely needs Russia’s support in a series of important international matters. First of all, there is the issue of resolving the matter of civil war in Syria and the future of Bashar al-Assad; the experience of the past months has made it abundantly clear that the Syrian president will remain firmly in power as long as he has Moscow’s support. The question of the Iran nuclear program remains to be solved: even here there is little chance of reeling in a willing response from Tehran without Putin’s support. Last, there is, very importantly, the problem of withdrawing from Afghanistan. The U.S. needs to make use of Russian communication channels in order to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan.

For this reason, excluding Obama’s rather unrelenting discourse, it seems that at this time the U.S. administration has above all chosen the path of diplomacy. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said that “this could be a very dangerous situation,” but he also added that “we’re trying to deal with a diplomatic focus, that’s the appropriate, responsible approach.”

Therefore, this leaves the door open to the work of Secretary of State John Kerry, who has recently spoken to his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov at least two times. This does not detract from the crisis in Ukraine putting the spotlight on the obviously worsening relations between Moscow and Washington.

The reasons behind this relationship cool down have not only been related to Snowden having been recently granted asylum in Russia. The U.S. and Russia have clashed on the violation of gay and lesbian rights; the Russian parliament voted in a law to prohibit American citizens from adopting Russian children (in response to the Magnitsky Act that was voted in by Congress); even the imprisonment of Pussy Riot has caused friction between U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Powers and the Russian diplomacy.

Then, there are other issues that are even more global and decisive: the disagreements over Syria of course, but also Russian criticisms concerning the enlargement of NATO to include certain countries in Eastern Europe, and American interest in oil resources and natural gas in central Asia. It is this famous “reset” button, the breakdown and renewal of relations with Russia, that Obama’s U.S. wanted to crush, but at this point appears to be the dim memory of a broken promise.