12/11/2014
Two Washington policy wonks propose an appeasement policy that would doom Ukraine and give Putin a huge victory over the West, while offering no tangible benefits. Their “win-win-win” policy is based on a fundamental lack of understanding of the Kremlin.
Two highly credentialed scholars—Michael O’Hanlon and Jeremy Shapiro—from the prestigious Brookings Institution, no less,propose in the Washington Post a “win-win-win” diplomatic solution to Russia’s War On Ukraine. They offer a “compromise” that concedes Crimea to Russia, deprives Ukraine of its sovereign choice of economic and security arrangements, refuses to arm Ukraine, and weakens NATO in return for Russian “promises” of good behavior. O’Hanlon and Shapiro admit that “many Western voices will view any such effort as rewarding Russia and Putin,” but their approach is “designed not as a reward but to protect Ukraine’ssecurity—and our own.” I agree their proposal rewards Putin, but I contend it weakens both our security and Ukraine’s.
I suspect that this article reflects the thinking of segments of Washington’s foreign policy establishment and of Berlin’s Putin Versteher community. Note that both authors specialize in international affairs with no apparent expertise on Russia orVladimir Putin. Fortunately, this “appease Putin” proposal drew immediate fire from a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and a former staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, whose views I describe as I go through the elements of the O’Hanlon-Shapiro plan.
No arms for Ukraine
O’Hanlon and Shapiro: “Even with weapon deliveries, Ukraine’s army is no match for Russia’s….The most likely outcome is escalation of the military crisis and a dramatic increase in death and destruction in Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian propaganda would continue to vilify the West and sow the seeds of future crises elsewhere in Russia’s neighborhood.”
Rebuttal: The nine-month war in southeast Ukraine has shown that Ukraine can defeat separatist forces even when they are amply armed by Russia. To prevent Ukraine’s retaking of the Donbass in August, Russia invaded southeastern Ukraine with regular troops. True, the Russian army would defeat Ukraine’s in a full-fledged invasion, but Russian losses would be politically and socially unacceptable and would likely spell the end of the Putin regime as we know it. So Russia’s aggression will remain limited to hybrid warfare in Putin’s Novorossiya bailiwick. An armed Ukraine means more Russian casualties and a weakened Putin. An unarmed and defenseless Ukraine means Putin can conduct his aggression at a very low cost. Also I would like to ask the authors: Why worry about Russian propaganda? It has been vilifying the United States, NATO, and Europe for more than a decade irrespective of what we do.
Weakening and restructuring NATO
O’Hanlon and Shapiro: “Before taking such actions, and before adding permanent NATO deployments to the Baltic states…NATO leaders should attempt to work with Moscow to create a new European security order acceptable to both sides…(namely) a new pan-European security structure…with an eye toward upholding the territorial integrity of European states writ large. This association should give Moscow some sense of equal partnership and could include NATO members and former Soviet states.” The authors add that NATO should limit itself to operations outside of Europe, for a total redefinition of NATO’s reason for being.
Rebuttal: Putin has made it clear that NATO is responsible for bringing down the Soviet Union and is Russia’s number one enemy. Russia, in the Ukraine conflict, has shown the impotence of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe—one of the key players in the proposed European “security structure.” Putin would, of course, interpret “equal partnership” as an open invitation for Russian peace keeping forces or “neutral” election observers wherever he wants them. The only “new security order” acceptable to Russia is the total emasculation of NATO or its dismemberment. It seems that O’Hanlon and Shapiro offer Putin the potential destruction of NATO as we know it. He would jump at that opportunity if given the chance.
NATO membership for Ukraine
O’Hanlon and Shapiro: “NATO, as currently constituted could continue, but there would be no further enlargement… Ukraine and the United States would agree that Ukraine would not be a candidate for NATO membership, now or in the future.”
Rebuttal: The Ukrainian people, after suffering thousands of casualties from Russian aggression, are growing more receptive to NATO membership, if not now, then as an option for the future. To rule out NATO membership to please a hostile power violates the NATO “principle that each and every country has the right to decide [its foreign and security policy] for itself without interference from the outside.” Agreeing to exclude Ukraine sets the precedent that NATO would have to seek Russia’s permission for any new member. But no worry: O’Hanlon and Shapiro want to freeze NATO at its current membership.
We are stuck with Putin so work with him before someone worse comes along
O’Hanlon and Shapiro: “…the Russian leader enjoys 85 percent popularity at home, where many see his actions as reasonable retribution against a supposedly triumphalist NATO….At this point, Putin is a moderate on the Russian political spectrum.” The authors have concluded that Putin, like themselves, is a fellow Realpolitiker. Putin knows when to accept a good offer—and we are handing him a victory in a bright Christmas package.
Rebuttal: As William Taylor, a former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, writes: “As sanctions bite ever more painfully in Russia, inflation rises, oil prices fall and themothers of soldiers killed in Ukraine demonstrate, President Vladimir Putin’s support is falling among the Russian people. (Eighty five percent today, thirty percent tomorrow?) Now is not the time for appeasement.” I regret to say that O’Hanlon and Shapiro seem have bought the Russian propaganda line that Putin’s successor could be worse. I would ask them: How could anyone be worse than Putin, who, among other things, turned Russia into a kleptocratic state (See Karen Dawisha’s Putin’s Kleptocracy), annexed territory by force, attacked sovereign neighbors, closed down opposition media, jailed ordinary protesters, and does not hesitate to lie to foreign leaders? Kremlinology is a tough business for the most experienced scholars. I recommend that O’Hanlon and Shapiro not try to play the game of determining who is moderate and who is extreme.
Conceding Crimea
O’Hanlon and Shapiro: “Russia can make its historically based claim on Crimea but would have to accept a binding referendum under outside monitoring that would determine the region’s future, with independence as one option.”
Rebuttal: The authors must not have paid attention to the various peace agreements from Geneva to Minsk supposedly to be monitored by outside observers. In all cases, the outside observers were harassed, denied entry, andeven kidnapped. Anyone who believes in the possibility of a fair referendum in Russian-controlled Crimea believes in the tooth fairy. O’Hanlon and Shapiro may not have noticed that Russia has already driven pro-Ukraine citizens and Tartars into exile, forced them underground, silenced them with threats, and has arrested them (See U.N. Human Rights Council’s report). It is too late for a “fair” election after the political opposition has been thoroughly purged.
Removal of Russian military forces
O’Hanlon and Shapiro: “Russia would agree to verifiably remove its military ‘volunteers’ from eastern Ukraine.”
Rebuttal: How can Russia agree to remove its mercenaries and regular troops from Eastern Ukraine, when, according to their account, no Russian troops are there (and no weapons have been supplied) and Russian soldiers present in Ukraine are volunteers who will not obey Russian orders to withdraw? As Putin has said on numerous occasions, Russia is just a bystander, with precious little hold over pro-Russian separatists fighting in what is a civil war. Putin’s response to the O’Hanlon-Shapiro proposal would be to agree to remove military “volunteers” from east Ukraine, theatrically show a few carefully selected soldiers crossing the border, and claim he has fulfilled his end of the bargain. Meanwhile, troops and equipment would be entering Ukraine through open borders a few kilometers away from the “show” withdrawal.
Russia as guarantor of Ukraine’s territorial security
O’Hanlon and Shapiro: “Russia would permanently commit, once the Crimea matter was settled, to uphold Ukraine’s territorial security, as promised under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum….”
Rebuttal: Was not Russia a signer of the Budapest Memorandum? What has that gained Ukraine? The authors unfortunately have not bothered to learn that Putin’s “unitary” Ukraine is a loose confederation of quasi-independent republics, each with the right to determine its own international economic and security arrangements. Under Putin’s interpretation, the People’s Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk could legally invite in Russian troops to protect them from a Ukraine that is violating their sovereign rights. Is this what O’Hanlon and Shapiro have in mind? Putin has insisted from the very beginning on afederalized Ukraine. It seems few Western observers know what he means by that.
Ukraine and the EU
O’Hanlon and Shapiro: “The European Union would agree to work with Russia to make any possible future Ukrainian relationship with the union, including membership, compatible with Ukraine’s participation in Russia’s Eurasian Economic Union project.”
Rebuttal: So the West and Russia would agree that a sovereign nation—Ukraine—must be forced to enter Putin’s failing Eurasian Economic Union and agree that any and all arrangements with the European Union be compatible with the Eurasian Union. Under this arrangement, Russia could object to virtually any EU requirement as being incompatible with Eurasian Union membership. Ukraine would have to be dragged kicking and screaming into Putin’s Eurasian Union. After all, Maidan was fought over this very issue. As a former staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee eloquentlywrites: “The 20th century should have made clear that great powers making deals over the heads of smaller nations is morally bankrupt and politically disastrous.” I guess O’Hanlon and Shapiro forget that sovereign Ukraine should not be forced into a “keystone cops” organization for our convenience.
Sanctions
O’Hanlon and Shapiro: “Sanctions on Russia would be gradually—and, in the end, completely—lifted as the elements of this agenda came into effect.”
Rebuttal: With widespread disagreement within Europe over the sanctions, this provision would be taken as an invitation to drop the sanctions post haste, whether or not Russia is keeping its end of the bargain. Russia would claim to meet its obligations and Europe would jump to drop the inconvenient sanctions that are costing them money.
Misunderstanding Putin
O’Hanlon and Shapiro lack a fundamental understanding of Putin. As the former director of a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee puts it: “Most alarming is their inability to grasp the nexus between President Vladimir Putin’s kleptocratic authoritarianism and his aggressive foreign policy.”
O’Hanlon and Shapiro do not understand that Putin’s foreign adventures have been aimed at domestic power, not international objectives per se. Putin won the election of 2000 by inflaming passions against the Chechens via apartment bombings (Dawisha, 208-223). He used the invasion of Georgia to boost his domestic ratings, and the return of “sacred” Crimea for another boost. Putin began his aggression against Ukraine as the Russian economy slipped into secular stagnation. He has been harping on the U.S. and NATO as mortal enemies of the Russian people for almost a decade and a half to build a “foreign enemies” narrative for the Russian people.
Putin cannot afford a world at peace, a key insight that O’Hanlon and Shapiro lack. We live in a perilous world, made more dangerous by armchair theorists who spin conceptually attractive solutions without an understanding of the players and how they play the game.
No comments:
Post a Comment