The Vladimir Putin coup that removed Boris Yeltsin from power has restored a traditional Russia — a country dating back to late 14th century when the Duchess of Muscovy first appeared on the map.
And so, the chorus we now hear that the United States and European Union have “limited options” to counter Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine is a stance halfway between mendacity and malarkey, muttered with eyes closed on the continuing Cold War under way.
Would it not be neat to have this war replaced by a “global economy”?
The one in which London is functioning as money changer for the Kremlin, while France is building high-tech ships for the Russian navy, as it is doing right now? And Russia sending gas to Europe, flammable as well as mental.
Joining the canard of “limited options” is former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
In a way he symbolizes a transformation that gradually took hold over the last 10 years in the attitudes of American upper strata and opinion makers toward “foreign involvements.” But this transformation is not something that questions the need for many existing American military bases in over 50 foreign countries or cutting military spending (it usually becomes larger after the cuts). Implicitly it is mostly about what not to do.
The key notion seems to be caution. Good. Another notion is that a Cold War would be bad. “Would be,” of course, is a flight from reality. The Cold War is made in Russia, not in America or Europe. While the West is struggling between the ideals of civil society and money making, Russia’s chauvinistic self-indulgence is its unquestioned priority, boosted by traditional autocracy that feeds hostility towards its neighbors. None dare call it fascism.
Predilection for caution in Washington is among the consequences of the two unwinnable wars in which the US has been engaged in the last 13 years, with a huge damage to its own economy and credibility. Gates, as someone who presided in the management of these wars, is now perhaps more cautious than most kibitzers relative to the present Ukraine crisis. And yet, he finds grounds for severe criticism of U.S. President Barack Obama’s decision to terminate the Afghan fiasco. Frankly, this exposes Gates’s own predilection to get stuck in Asia — in a place where the US has truly exhausted all options.
Pretending that we are not in a Cold War with Russia means retreat, to be followed by more retreat or facing a stronger enemy later.
No one has spelled it out better than Donald Tusk, prime minister of Poland: “Appeasers usually only buy a little time.”
Someone in Washington needs to recognize that the “limited options” syndrome is a poisonous affliction and a self-defeating rhetoric. Are options really limited when the main strength of the enemy is his arrogance rather than power? For instance, Putin’s Crimean base could be wiped out in 24 hours (not that it would be the best approach).
Russia’s inability to wage a real war against a major power is epitomized by the size of its economy, about the same as Switzerland’s. “Belligerence cannot hide Russia’s frailty,” reads a Financial Times editorial on March 8.
The word “arrogance” indeed may be the best characterization of the mood mobilized in Russia for invading Ukraine’s territory. The BBC News Magazine, March 11, shows according to one poll 70 percent of Russia’s population approves Putin’s policy toward Ukraine. A majority wouldn’t mind Russia sending tanks straight to Kyiv.
And, Bloomberg News of March 12: “Ukraine warns that Russia’s forces, who have already seized the Crimean peninsula, continue to deploy along Ukraine’s eastern frontier, as its prime minister Arseniy Yatseniuk is off to Washington to seek financial assistance”.
More than financial assistance, Ukraine needs military help. One of the obvious, quickest, and easiest “limited options” for the United States is to establish air supremacy over Ukraine’s territory, flying a short distance from west and from carriers in the Black Sea. They can also have a decisive role in the air-to-ground support. Unthinkable? Not unless Washington and the Pentagon have agreed not to think.
Russia is refusing to recognize the new government in Ukraine, much less to “negotiate a solution” as the West is suggesting — unless Moscow receives assurances that Ukraine stays in Russia’s orbit, in one form or another. That means no Association Agreement with the European Union as visualized before the Yanukovych reversal.
Ukraine’s prime minister Arseniy Yatseniuk has again stated Ukraine government’s position, in his meeting with President Obama in Washington on March 12: “We are part of the West and will never surrender”. This is Churchilian tone, if anyone has doubts.
As Yatseniuk was addressing the United Nations emergency Security Council meeting on March 13, Russia launched new “war games” near Ukraine’s eastern border. Some observers maintain that a full-scale Russian invasion is a distinct possibility, despite the threat of Western sanctions.
Western leaders are saying that sanctions will kick in if Russia doesn’t back off in Crimea. But if the threat of these sanctions proves to be no deterrent to Russia’s actions in Crimea (as will be the case most likely), it probably cannot scare Putin from invading mainland Ukraine. Yes, Ukraine could use some military help. It would be a huge mistake for President Obama to shy away.
Boris Danik is a retired Ukraine-American living in North Caldwell, New Jersey.
