Now that President Obama has given his speech on ISIS (or ISIL or Islamic State, whatever you want to call it), let me say, once again, the United States’ number one foreign policy problem is Ukraine and Russian aggression there. Or, more accurately, the United States’ number one foreign policy problem is Vladimir Putin and his attempt to recreate, as much as he can, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and its sphere of influence. ISIS is dangerous, and we need to do something about it, but the danger being caused by Vladimir Putin is bigger and, I believe, more immediate.
It seems possible (maybe even probable) that both these problems, i.e., ISIS and Vladimir Putin, have been acerbated by the way the U.S. (and others) have responded to them. With respect to Iraq, we left when many think we did not have to (see here), and we basically threw our hands up, saying it was not our problem anymore. Tied in with this, we did not try to help groups trying to overthrow Bashar al-Assad when we said Bashar al-Assad had to go or when he used chemical weapons in spite of our redline. I am not saying ISIS only happened because of things we did. We don’t control the world in that way. But what we did do (or, more accurately, what we didn’t do), made it easier for them and encouraged them to think we were weak and/or passive.
As for Vladimir Putin, I find it hard to believe that our failure to follow through on the redline we set for Syria did not affect his evaluation of what the United States would do when he invaded Crimea. Similarly, the lack of significant response to Russia’s invasion and annexation of Crimea has to have encouraged President Putin to move into eastern Ukraine. I am not suggesting that we should have sent, or should send, troops to Ukraine (though I do not see why President Obama has to keep saying, over and over, that we won’t send troops; why make it so easy for the other side to know what we might do?), but why couldn’t we at least sell them weapons? (See here.)
President Obama was worried, with respect to providing arms to groups fighting Bashar al-Assad, that the weapons might in get in the hands of Islamic extremists/terrorists. Is he worried that weapons we might sell/provide to the Ukrainians are going to wind up in the hands of Islamic terrorists? Actually, the story is that President Obama doesn’t want to provide weapons to Ukraine because he is worried that Russia would consider it a provocation. What? Russia invaded and annexed Crimea and then invaded eastern Ukraine, and we worrying about provoking them? What is worse, getting the Russians upset that we sold weapons to Ukraine when Ukraine was attacked or letting the Russians think we are so concerned (scared?) about provoking them that we won’t sell weapons to countries like Ukraine?
I know that President Obama has been adamant about defending countries that are members of NATO, such as the Baltic countries. I was very happy about President Obama’s statements in that regard, but I worry. Will President Obama follow through on his statements? Perhaps even more worrying, will other countries join us in defending places such as the Baltics? Or, worst of all, will President Obama’s not infrequent hesitancy in actually doing something in areas such as this, make other countries hesitate, too?
Secretary of State Kerry is touring the Middle East seeking support for action against ISIS, but what are we doing about Ukraine? Or are we outsourcing that to Chancellor Merkel? The problem is that leadership, and following through on your promises and commitments can’t be outsourced. It also can’t be done from behind. We need to do more now to stop President Putin so we don’t have to do even more later.
One final thought. According to Ukraine, Russia is pulling its troops out of eastern Ukraine. We need to be clear, however, that this is not a solution to the problem and that this does not mean we don’t need to impose more sanctions, and we can start to ease the sanctions already in place. The solution is not just for Russia to pull out its troops (which it denies were ever there). Russia needs to stop aiding the rebels in eastern Ukraine, and Russia has to stop threatening Ukraine with coming back in. At this point, Ukraine has to assume, and act as if, Russia will invade again if Ukraine does not give in to what the Ukrainian rebels (spelled P-u-t-i-n) want. Easing/Ending the sanctions against Russia should only happen when Russia stops interfering in Ukraine and there is no threat of them returning in the future.
Recent Comments