Tag Archives: Ukraine

President Obama, 1938 Called, It Wants Its Foreign Policy Back

25 Tuesday Mar 2014

Posted by in Foreign Policy, NATO

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

By Greg Smith

“The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.” President Obama to Mitt Romney during 2012 presidential debate.

The idea the North Atlantic Treaty Organization lost its mission after the fall of the Soviet Union has been proven wrong by Russia’s Crimean annexation, but the fog of peace still hasn’t lifted for NATO members who became pre-occupied doing business with the 800-pound gorilla in the Kremlin. NATO’s mission will continue so long as Russia exists.

For 40 years NATO had a single mission: protect Western Europe from the Soviet threat of invasion. When the Soviet Union imploded in 1991 widespread belief was the threat from Russia had permanently disappeared. That sentiment was probably shared by the Golden Horde in the 1400s. You know, the Mongol empire long ago absorbed by its former vassal state, Russia.

Since the 1200s Russia can be compared to a glacier during a cooling period. It mainly increases in size, engorging and less often disgorging satellite nations and regions. Despite its size – in area Russia is almost twice the size of the second largest nation, Canada – Russia has viewed its neighbors with fear and suspicion, of course with some justification. Adding territory on its margin provided both a greater buffer and control of populations. Russian leaders have proven adept at bargain hunting, snapping up land when the price was right.

The lesson from history for NATO is simple: Make the price Russia pays to take over other countries too high. In the past three weeks there has been discussion of Russian views of Eastern and Central Europe as a sphere of influence, and that Western diplomatic efforts at closer ties with Ukraine, as well as NATO inching closer to Russian borders are cause for alarm in Moscow. Hogwash.

Given its size and resources Russia no longer has any excuse or justification for taking over territory for self defense. European countries have been disarming for decades. Even collectively and including Turkey they pose no real danger to Russia. The U.S. has continued to invest in modern equipment but mainly for unconventional war. The U.S. Army has actually requested production of its main battle tank – the one designed to shred Soviet tanks — be stopped.

Russia’s aggressive stance – particularly using shadowy, unmarked forces who appear more like Klansmen — against Ukraine shows it didn’t get the U.S. State Department’s memo ending 19th Century power politics. Western nations invite greater problems if they treat Russia like a wayward regional power, applying sanctions instead of putting military options on the table. Vladimir Putin may mean it when he says Russia has no designs on Ukraine or any other country, but effective diplomacy is about credible foreign policies that prevent these types of crises before they occur.

Acting as a bulwark against Russian expansion does not require a Cold War posture or attitude. In fact, a credible, sincere defense policy would prevent Russia from actively considering military measures, leaving dialogue as the preferred option. Crimea leaving Ukraine could have been dealt with diplomatically, but Russia chose not to go that route. Why not is the 64,000-ruble question.

So long as Russia exists, NATO will have three core missions: contain Russia, contain Russia, and contain Russia. Whether NATO chooses to fulfill its mission is less clear. ©

Greg Smith is a freelance writer and political consultant who lives in Bantam, CT. His blog is found at http://www.betterfatthanfascist.com.

U.S. Better Have a Strong Plan B in Central Europe

04 Tuesday Mar 2014

Posted by in Crimea, Foreign Policy, NATO, Russia, Ukraine

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

By Greg Smith

“Instead of alienating ourselves from the world, I want America – once again – to lead.” Barack Obama, July 15, 2008.

President Obama ran for office on a partial platform of improving U.S. relations with foreign countries but his administration has shown a lack of mastery of international affairs. Over a year into his second term foreign policy is ill-defined, buffeted by events and hamstrung by the secretary of state’s pre-occupation with a diplomat’s equivalent of cold fusion.

John Kerry has spent much of the past year trying to forge a framework for a final settlement between Palestinians and Israelis. In itself that would be fine, but the world is not on hold and there is no indication either government is ready to make the major concessions needed to end possibly the most bitter international dispute in modern history. Lately talk is Kerry has made progress, but it will be easy to tell if a real agreement is within reach: Iran’s proxies will rain missiles on Israel as never before.

The Obama administration may not be at fault for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but President Obama’s responses in Libya, Syria, Iran and North Korea as well as America’s recent diplomatic posture probably gave Vladimir Putin the impression the U.S. would respond to its invasion of Ukraine only with threats of a diplomatic nature.

The president and secretary of state are absolutely at fault for having three months’ notice there was a major problem brewing in one of Central Europe’s fledgling democracies and doing absolutely nothing about it. Given the likelihood of Ukraine joining NATO if Kiev lurched back toward the West, Russia’s reaction to events was quite obvious. Yet the administration had either no plan at all, or worse it had a plan and that’s what we’re seeing play out.

After 9/11 U.S. policy was too predicated on full military responses. But this president has swung even further to the other side of an effective mix of hard and soft power. Worse yet, over five years in and he doesn’t seem to have learned how to deal with trouble spots. Not every other world leader views realpolitik as a bad thing. It’s like we’re playing tennis, but Putin is playing football. The time to make adjustments is before we’re flat on our diplomatic back with a concussion.

Given Europe’s dependence on Russian petroleum exports, America’s initial response of threatening Russia with sanctions and isolation are doomed to fail and America’s partners – as well as their enemies — around the world will see to the extent they can count on us in a pinch. Simply not alienating ourselves from others is not the same as leading.   ©

Greg Smith is a freelance writer and political consultant who lives in Bantam, CT. His blog is found at http://www.betterfatthanfascist.com

Blockade Forces Putin to Defeat Himself

03 Monday Mar 2014

Posted by in Foreign Policy, NATO, Russia, Soft Power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

By Greg Smith

As previously covered in this blog, the best immediate response for NATO to the Russian invasion of Ukraine is to prevent access for Russian commercial and naval vessels to enter or exit the Black Sea.

One advantage of a naval blockade is it would require very limited air and naval forces, which would still be within striking distance of Iran. The U.S. Navy has grown smaller so a response that does not require a large number of ships would be preferable. The U.S. has F-22s in the region and could quickly have B-1s, which no longer have a nuclear role but can be fitted with anti-ship bombs and missiles. A blockade would be inexpensive, and Russia would not dare seriously test it.

NATO should immediately place a handful of old, expendable ships outside the Turkish Straights to act as a blockade curtain. The Russians may think we won’t risk a billion dollar cruiser in a collision, but the hockey crazy nation will understand the idea of a floating goon.

The best reason for a blockade is strategic: Russian access to the Mediterranean Sea is critical to Russia’s goal of becoming more a power equal to the U.S. Eliminating that access renders the Russian naval base nearly useless, an enormous strategic blow without firing a shot. Russia then has to decide to win a Pyrrhic victory or admit defeat. Russia would be forewarned its actions will seriously impair Vladimir Putin’s desperate desire to globally project military power.

Failure of the U.S. or NATO to act decisively will only invite further aggression, especially as it appears Russia’s incursion is intended to carve a Crimean slice off Ukraine. If the U.S. allows this to happen, which Baltic country is next on the menu?

Russia has used the Black Sea fleet to blockade the sovereign nations of Georgia and now Ukraine, it has no right to complain if another nation blockade’s the Black Sea fleet. A blockade is the best way to diffuse this crisis while preventing another. Why Washington won’t consider an essentially peaceful use of military power is beyond comprehension.  ©

Greg Smith is a freelance writer and political consultant who lives in Bantam, CT. His blog is found at www.betterfatthanfascist.com.

American Failure to Act in Ukraine Likely to Have Global Consequences

02 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by in Crimea, Foreign Policy, Soft Power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

By Greg Smith

The Russian incursion into Ukraine is a good time for the U.S. to better explore the use of a softer power – strategy – to shape world events for the better. Washington needs to get this right quickly or it may soon have greater problems with China, Iran and North Korea – and even Saudi Arabia.

The time line of events indicates this was probably not a snap decision by Vladimir Putin. November 30, 2013 saw pro-Western demonstrations in Kiev met with violence by riot police, which has not abated in three months. Two days later Kiev’s city hall was overrun by protesters, and on Feb. 20 government forces began to murder protesters. Russia responded with only words through these events. Putin is well aware that President Carter cancelled American athletes participation in the 1980 Olympics held in Moscow; the last time Russia hosted the games.

Suddenly, Ukraine’s pro-Moscow President Viktor Yanukovych flees to Russia a day and a half before the Olympics end, at which time Putin has a free hand to act without tarnishing his pet project, the Sochi games. The day after the games end Putin’s pool boy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev begins the drumbeat of war by questioning the new government in Kiev. The rest is recent history. It may be coincidence, but who would question whether Putin is willing to orchestrate events to suit his purposes?

President Obama’s response to watching Russian troops rolling into a Central European country is being heavily scrutinized in Beijing, Pyongyang, and Tehran. But the most peril lies in the impression it leaves in Riyadh, Tokyo, Manila, Taipai, Canberra, Paris and London — indeed inside every government that relies on the U.S. — and on whom the U.S. rely — for some level of security cooperation.

As you read there must be arguments in Beijing that there will be no better time to cross the Taiwan Straight, which would back Washington into a choice between a major war or irrelevance.

The best example is the Saudi Arabians, who according to BBC News may have nuclear weapons on order from Pakistan. The Saudis were disappointed to say the least at the Obama administration’s response to and handling of the civil war in Syria and openly questioned whether they could count on the U.S. having the willingness to prevent Iran, the Kingdom’s arch enemy, from acquiring nuclear weapons.

If Saudi leaders had been on the fence, what must they be thinking now, and if they acquire nuclear weapons, will they think twice about using them because they have faith in the U.S.?  ©

Greg Smith is a freelance writer and political strategist who lives in Bantam, CT. His blog is found at www.betterfatthanfascist.com.

Naval Blockade Is NATO’s Best Response to Russia’s Crimean Incursion

02 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by in Crimea, Foreign Policy, geostrategic

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

By Greg Smith

If the Obama administration wants a serious, effective response to the Russian intervention in the Crimea, it need only consult a map and a history book.

In 1948 Soviet forces denied the Western Allies access to Berlin in an attempt to force the West into abandoning this thorn in Stalin’s side. The West responded with an airlift, moving massive amounts of supplies essentially over the Iron Curtain. The wisdom of the Berlin Airlift was it allowed the West to maintain West Berlin as an outpost of freedom while forcing the Soviets to make the first move in a war. The Soviets wisely backed down.

Considering the geography and politics of the region, an effective response would be for NATO to announce a naval blockade of the entrance to the Sea of Marmara. Denying Russian access to the Turkish Straights would make the Black Sea a lake and strategically much less important, greatly diminishing the value of Russia’s naval base in the Crimea. This would warn Russia of Western resolve to defend the territorial integrity of Central Europe while forcing the Russians to fire the first shot. They would not dare.

The blockade would need to be held until Russian forces depart Ukrainian occupied territory outside of the base leased to them by Ukraine and publicly agree to respect Ukraine’s independence.

By indirectly intervening the international community would generally look upon this as justifiable and wise use of force, show Washington as a reliable partner, force Russia to think twice before its next incursion and achieve the goal without bloodshed. There is no downside. The world awaits an intelligent response.  ©

Greg Smith is a freelance writer and political consultant who lives in Bantam, CT. His blog is found at http://www.betterfatthanfascist.com.