Cold War Tensions Getting Hot

Ukraine is the battleground for a new Cold War with Russia. Tensions between the Russian Federation and NATO countries are at a level not unlike that fifty year span of time filled with espionage and proxy wars. I believe that we should be more aggressive with aid to the Ukraine. Not just sanctions against a belligerent neighbor, but provide them with arms and training as well. 

---

In the year following violent clashes between pro and anti-Russian parties, the nation has been plunged into civil war. Pro-Russian Separatists in the southeast have taken controls of a portion of the country and Russia has taken advantage of the instability to annex the Crimea. This is important to note because the Crimea is dominates the Black Sea and is home to a number of ports that could be used to project Russian Naval power. This, in addition with increasing encounters between Russian Federation military forces and NATO countries, is a clear sign to me that Russia is gearing up for war.

(Here we see a Russian Bear long range bomber being escorted by a British Typhoon fighter during an encounter over the English Channel)

 

(Crimea, what was once the southern most area of the Ukraine, now under Russian control)

            It’s a well-known fact that, historically, Russia has not cared in the slightest as to what the West thinks of its political machinations, foreign or domestic. Since the 1990s , Russia has been considered a second-rate world power, only useful in terms of Natural Gas and Oil supplies to Europe. But since the election of President Putin, they’ve taken a darker turn.    

            Toward the end of his first series of terms, there was a massive military build-up. In a monograph published by the Strategic Studies Institute, during the period of military reform in the early 90s after the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation had to contend with the idea that former Soviet client states wouldn’t have the same interests as Mother Russia and would develop their own armed forces. That allowed for the idea that Russian Armed forces would be used to protect Russian Minorities in former client states (you can go here to download the monograph free of charge).Like the Crimea, which until March of last year was a part of the Ukraine . . . a part of the former Soviet Union.

            America has responded to President Putin’s aggression in Eastern Europe. Sanctions have been placed on President Putin and his top officials, but is that enough? No. I think that by allowing Russia to flex its muscle and use military to coerce its smaller neighbors to fall in line, we are actually weakening perception of America on the global scene. However, it would seem that our government has decided to take more affirmative actions in regards to Russia.  Soldiers from the Army’s Third Infantry division will arrive in Latvia to begin Operation: Atlantic Resolve; a mission to train European allies and to assuage fears against Russian aggression.  It’s a good start. Of course the next good step would be providing weapons and training to Ukraine, as unlikely as that is to happen.

(Soldiers of 3rd Infantry division conducting exercises before their mission in Europe)

                       An argument I discovered against even so much as arming the Ukrainian military came from Doug Brandow, who is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He’s a specialist in foreign policy and civil liberties according to his bio on the institute’s website. His stance comes to us in the form of on opinion piece published on Newsweek’s website after appearing on the Cato Institute’s website.   In my mind, some of his arguments are legitimate reasons to avoid charging across the Iron Curtain.

            He lists in the article seven reasons why we shouldn’t get involved. His very first reason is that Russia wouldn’t be a push over to defeat on a military stage. Well, yeah, of course not! Aside from the majority of the population living in some of the harshest inhabited areas on the planet, Russia would be fighting on or close to home turf. His second point is that Moscow has more at stake with an unfriendly Ukraine than Western Europe and America does. He contends that Russia has already sacrificed a lot financially, economically, and politically.  He says that since it matters more to President Putin, he’s willing to “devote far greater resources and take far greater risks than the allies will.”

            I disagree with that based on the principle that every country has a breaking point when it comes to war. Look at the Japanese in World War Two. Sure, it took atomic weapons, but their national spirit eventually broke. Even in a country such as Russia, there will come a point where people will lose faith in their leader.  Too many casualties, too much money and material spent, and any war machine will collapse under its own weight. 

            Mr. Brandow’s third point is that military alliances should enhance U.S. security, not provide charity. I’ll concede that. Ukraine is weak, militarily speaking, and from a purely objective stand point it would cost us more to allow them to join NATO than to just throw a tank or two at them every couple months. The fourth point Brandow makes is that military alliances and security guarantees like NATO do more harm than good in terms of deterring conflict. I agree with this as well.

            Points five and six for this intrepid author are that it’s not in our interest as a country to give anything more than morale support to the Ukraine(5) and that its Europe’s time to act(6). I’ll concede point six, because it’s high time our European allies in NATO start getting some millage on their respective militaries. However, with point 5, I disagree. It is very much in our interest to intervene. We can’t just sit on the sidelines and cheer the Ukrainians on. I understand that ethnic Ukrainian lobbyist feel an attachment to their homeland and I understand that it’s not blatantly in our best interest to potentially get into another war. However, to think that we don’t have a stake in Eastern Europe is to ignore what could be a possibly bad scenario.

            If the Russian Federation decides to just chuck world peace out the window, it’s safe to assume that Ukraine is going to be President Putin’s first stop on his trans-Europe tour. It makes sense strategically to, if you can’t stop the landslide, than to slow it down. The best option, in my opinion, would be to arm the Ukrainians and get them ready for a fight. Let’s talk about Doug Brandow’s final point against intervention in Ukraine.

            The best way I can summarize his argument for his last point as to why we shouldn't intervene is that a negotiated settlement is the only way to end the conflict.  He says that unfortunately, Ukraine is in no position to argue with Russia financially and martially and so it must make some concessions. He comments that the West hopes that sanctions will cause President Putin to back off, but as he says “Vladimir Putin won’t retreat voluntarily.” He talks about how public discontent in Russia could forcibly remove Putin from power. That might work if not for two distinctive facts. One, that as of December of last year, President Putin’s approval rating was at 85%. I think that’s higher than President Obama’s, isn't it? Number two is that Putin has absolutely no qualms about murdering political opposition, (if you scroll down towards the bottom of that last article, there’s a list of political opponents of Putin’s who've died whilst he’s been in office).  Popular revolution will not happen in Russia as long as sanctions are still in place and while opposition leaders are still being slaughtered.  Mr. Brandow is quoted on saying that “a Russia in crisis likely would not be democratic and docile.”

            I can understand Mr. Brandow’s point of view. There is not an imminent threat from Russia’s involvement in the Ukraine. Maybe economic sanctions will increase the pressure on President Putin to come to a settlement and facilitate a process that appeases both the rebels and the loyalists in Ukraine. It’s better to, unfortunately, adopt a Cold War mind set with Russia and be prepared, than to get caught with your proverbial pants down. I’m not saying that we start massing on the Ukrainian border and prepare to invade Russia. I personally would rather not as I just left active duty military service and am subject to recall in a situation like that. However it would be foolishness to not prepare for the worst.  I’m sure America has had a contingency plan in place since the end of the Cold War to deal with a resurgent Russian threat.  It’s about time to dust that bad boy off. In the meantime, let’s start prepping our allies.

            Like I said earlier, if Putin wants to start his trans-Europe tour, it’s entirely plausible that he’s going to do it in Ukraine.  The country is destabilized and, more to the point, a portion of the population want to become part of Russia anyway. The Russian war machine is a vast, heavy, apparatus and just like anything that’s large and heavy, once it starts going downhill, you’ll be hard pressed to stop it right away. But you can slow it down enough to deal with it. That’s why I believe we should arm and train Ukraine. If anything else, absolutely anything else, they can help us deal with a potential Russian advance. Best case scenario, the one not involving World War Three, means that they can sort their own house out and finally get life back on track for the millions of citizens that have been displaced and the families of the thousands that have died.