In the Russia-Ukraine Conflict, Standing Up to Putin Is Our Only Credible Option - Politico

In the Russia-Ukraine Conflict, Standing Up to Putin Is Our Only Credible Option - Politico

The publication Politico examines the topic of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and has posted an opinion on the situation of Toomas Hendrik Ilves and David Kramer.

 

Toomas Hendrik Ilves is former President of Estonia and a guest professor at Tartu University, the national university of Estonia.

 

David Kramer is director of European & Eurasian Studies at Florida International University’s Steven J. Green School of International and Public Affairs and served as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor in the George W. Bush Administration.

 

For a month now, Russia has been building up troops and weapons on its border with Ukraine, which could herald a new Russian offensive against the country. While the world waits to see whether President Vladimir Putin plans an invasion or seeks another summit with his U.S. counterpart, talk has emerged about Russia's aggressive attitude toward Ukraine.

 

RAND Corporation political scientist Samuel Charap recommends forcing the Ukrainians to put in place parts of the Minsk agreement, arguing that this "might actually invite Russia to de-escalate and revive the sluggish peace process. This, Charap acknowledged, would be doing "the will of the aggressor against U.S. principles.

 

Charap believes it is necessary to prevent conflict. But pressure on Ukraine would undermine U.S. credibility, weaken President Joe Biden politically and damage U.S.-Ukrainian relations. Most problematically, giving Putin concessions would reward his behavior and further his growth. If the U.S. should ask any country for concessions, it should force Russia, an invading and occupying power, to withdraw from Ukrainian territory, not ask Ukraine, the victim, to concede.

 

There are examples in recent history of how failure to respond to Putin's aggression only encourages more dangerous behavior. From the poisoning of former KGB officer Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, the invasion of Georgia in 2008, to recent transgressions such as the killing of dissidents in broad daylight in Berlin and the bombing of a Czech arms depot, the West has done little to respond to Russia's challenges.

 

Even after Putin's invasion of Ukraine in 2014, the sanctions imposed by the West had an initial impact, but were never reinforced. Putin repeatedly concluded that he could get away with aggression and even be rewarded for it - or even threatened with aggression.

 

Demanding that Ukraine fulfill its Minsk commitments without a prior demand from Russia is immoral and strategically unwise. Pressuring Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky to make concessions will lead to his political finish - which is itself the Kremlin's goal - and further damage America's reputation as a partner for those in need.

 

Pressure on Ukraine would also damage the Euro-Atlantic architecture that has more or less maintained peace on the continent for the past seven-plus decades. Moreover, other regimes are closely watching the West's response to Putin's challenge; observers in Beijing, for example, may conclude that they can get away with similar actions against Taiwan.

 

Finally, Charap proves that Putin will move to invade if Ukraine does not relent under pressure from Moscow - and Washington. While a Russian invasion of Ukraine seems more likely this time, it is not a foregone conclusion.

 

It is likely that less concessions will spur Putin to make even more concessions, constantly threatening military action and weakening Zelensky - all without crossing the border.

 

Last spring, Biden invited the Russian leader to a summit. Putin is eager for another summit. A one-on-one meeting on the world stage means a lot to Putin; it boosts his credibility and equalizes his relationship with the United States. In June, Biden met with Putin without any preconditions. This time, he must insist that before the meeting, Russia withdraw all its troops along the Ukrainian border. No withdrawal, no meeting.

 

If Putin complies and the leaders meet, Biden should make clear that the return of Russian troops to the border would immediately trigger new, tough sanctions, and not wait for them to cross Ukrainian territory. These measures would include excluding Russia from the SWIFT banking system, halting the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project, sanctions against Russia's primary and secondary debt markets, and sanctions against Putin himself and his entourage.

 

The latter kind of punishment will get Putin's attention because it will financially harm his income and those oligarchs who do his bidding. Seizing their assets in the West means that they will no longer be able to hide money in Western banks. This will help the West clean up its own mess at home as well. Putin's biggest export is corruption, but if the U.S. stops importing and encouraging it, he will have nowhere to go. The U.S. should do this anyway, regardless of Putin's actions regarding Ukraine.

 

Repulsion and force are the only things Putin understands and respects. The West must make clear that the price of a second invasion would be punitive and immediate. Britain has sent several dozen military trainers to assist Ukrainian forces. The United States and other NATO allies should do the same, creating a kind of tripwire by which Putin will know that an attack on Ukraine could result in NATO personnel being held accountable and trigger a serious response.

 

The United States should provide more military aid to Ukraine. And this is the surest way to get Putin to back down, because he does not want to risk war with NATO. In the meantime, the United States should increase its military presence in nearby NATO member states.

 

"No one wants a military conflict with Russia, and the Ukrainians are not asking American soldiers to fight their war for them. But we must not sacrifice our principles and the sovereignty of our partner country in a vain effort to prevent conflict. The goal is to prevent another Russian invasion while preparing to use targeted economic, military, and diplomatic measures to prevent an all-out conflict, in case Putin is not bluffing. We must support Ukraine and confront Putin. Of course, it's easier said than done, but it's far better than doing the aggressor's bidding." - writes Politico magazine.





The publication Politico examines the topic of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and has posted an opinion on the situation of Toomas Hendrik Ilves and David Kramer.

 

Toomas Hendrik Ilves is former President of Estonia and a guest professor at Tartu University, the national university of Estonia.

 

David Kramer is director of European & Eurasian Studies at Florida International University’s Steven J. Green School of International and Public Affairs and served as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor in the George W. Bush Administration.

 

For a month now, Russia has been building up troops and weapons on its border with Ukraine, which could herald a new Russian offensive against the country. While the world waits to see whether President Vladimir Putin plans an invasion or seeks another summit with his U.S. counterpart, talk has emerged about Russia's aggressive attitude toward Ukraine.

 

RAND Corporation political scientist Samuel Charap recommends forcing the Ukrainians to put in place parts of the Minsk agreement, arguing that this "might actually invite Russia to de-escalate and revive the sluggish peace process. This, Charap acknowledged, would be doing "the will of the aggressor against U.S. principles.

 

Charap believes it is necessary to prevent conflict. But pressure on Ukraine would undermine U.S. credibility, weaken President Joe Biden politically and damage U.S.-Ukrainian relations. Most problematically, giving Putin concessions would reward his behavior and further his growth. If the U.S. should ask any country for concessions, it should force Russia, an invading and occupying power, to withdraw from Ukrainian territory, not ask Ukraine, the victim, to concede.

 

There are examples in recent history of how failure to respond to Putin's aggression only encourages more dangerous behavior. From the poisoning of former KGB officer Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, the invasion of Georgia in 2008, to recent transgressions such as the killing of dissidents in broad daylight in Berlin and the bombing of a Czech arms depot, the West has done little to respond to Russia's challenges.

 

Even after Putin's invasion of Ukraine in 2014, the sanctions imposed by the West had an initial impact, but were never reinforced. Putin repeatedly concluded that he could get away with aggression and even be rewarded for it - or even threatened with aggression.

 

Demanding that Ukraine fulfill its Minsk commitments without a prior demand from Russia is immoral and strategically unwise. Pressuring Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky to make concessions will lead to his political finish - which is itself the Kremlin's goal - and further damage America's reputation as a partner for those in need.

 

Pressure on Ukraine would also damage the Euro-Atlantic architecture that has more or less maintained peace on the continent for the past seven-plus decades. Moreover, other regimes are closely watching the West's response to Putin's challenge; observers in Beijing, for example, may conclude that they can get away with similar actions against Taiwan.

 

Finally, Charap proves that Putin will move to invade if Ukraine does not relent under pressure from Moscow - and Washington. While a Russian invasion of Ukraine seems more likely this time, it is not a foregone conclusion.

 

It is likely that less concessions will spur Putin to make even more concessions, constantly threatening military action and weakening Zelensky - all without crossing the border.

 

Last spring, Biden invited the Russian leader to a summit. Putin is eager for another summit. A one-on-one meeting on the world stage means a lot to Putin; it boosts his credibility and equalizes his relationship with the United States. In June, Biden met with Putin without any preconditions. This time, he must insist that before the meeting, Russia withdraw all its troops along the Ukrainian border. No withdrawal, no meeting.

 

If Putin complies and the leaders meet, Biden should make clear that the return of Russian troops to the border would immediately trigger new, tough sanctions, and not wait for them to cross Ukrainian territory. These measures would include excluding Russia from the SWIFT banking system, halting the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project, sanctions against Russia's primary and secondary debt markets, and sanctions against Putin himself and his entourage.

 

The latter kind of punishment will get Putin's attention because it will financially harm his income and those oligarchs who do his bidding. Seizing their assets in the West means that they will no longer be able to hide money in Western banks. This will help the West clean up its own mess at home as well. Putin's biggest export is corruption, but if the U.S. stops importing and encouraging it, he will have nowhere to go. The U.S. should do this anyway, regardless of Putin's actions regarding Ukraine.

 

Repulsion and force are the only things Putin understands and respects. The West must make clear that the price of a second invasion would be punitive and immediate. Britain has sent several dozen military trainers to assist Ukrainian forces. The United States and other NATO allies should do the same, creating a kind of tripwire by which Putin will know that an attack on Ukraine could result in NATO personnel being held accountable and trigger a serious response.

 

The United States should provide more military aid to Ukraine. And this is the surest way to get Putin to back down, because he does not want to risk war with NATO. In the meantime, the United States should increase its military presence in nearby NATO member states.

 

"No one wants a military conflict with Russia, and the Ukrainians are not asking American soldiers to fight their war for them. But we must not sacrifice our principles and the sovereignty of our partner country in a vain effort to prevent conflict. The goal is to prevent another Russian invasion while preparing to use targeted economic, military, and diplomatic measures to prevent an all-out conflict, in case Putin is not bluffing. We must support Ukraine and confront Putin. Of course, it's easier said than done, but it's far better than doing the aggressor's bidding." - writes Politico magazine.