The War of Words Over Ukraine Plays into Putin’s Hands (Anne-Marie Slaughter) from the Guardian [of the UK]
"Meanwhile, elevating Russia to global enemy No. 1 feeds the hard-liner narrative in Moscow just as it does in Iran. A better strategy would be to tone down the rhetoric and let Europe take the lead, while making clear that a Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine would be met with the strongest possible economic response. Ultimately, the absence of that invasion is the most striking event of the past month."
Normally, I find myself in agreement with Anne-Marie Slaughter, but not here. Given Putin's control of the Russian media, the US could remain deadly silent on Crimea -- and it would STILL be demonized and demagogued to the Russian people. There would be very little upside.
More importantly, since the end of the Bush years if not earlier, the U.S. HAS toned down the rhetoric, for the most part HAS let the Europeans take the lead, and HAS let economic carrots and sticks be the preferred method of dealing with Putin. I find it odd that Slaughter doesn't seem to see that, to the extent that there has been a "pause" in Putin's aggressive policies, it has been due PRECISELY to the verbal attacks Putin has endured along side a range of both economic, diplomatic and other forms of direct pressure.
Now, as regular readers know, I oppose ANY use of military force in Ukraine or the region -- but Obama's and the Europeans' response must (in my view) be unambiguous, direct, and forcefully targeted. He and his regime need to face REAL consequences for their actions, not a lot of inconclusive posturing or behind-the-scenes verbal 'back-and'forth'.
Just to be clear -- I think Putin is engaging in a strategic "pause" as Russia digests Crimea. All of Ukraine is (in my view) still on the menu.
"Meanwhile, elevating Russia to global enemy No. 1 feeds the hard-liner narrative in Moscow just as it does in Iran. A better strategy would be to tone down the rhetoric and let Europe take the lead, while making clear that a Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine would be met with the strongest possible economic response. Ultimately, the absence of that invasion is the most striking event of the past month."
Normally, I find myself in agreement with Anne-Marie Slaughter, but not here. Given Putin's control of the Russian media, the US could remain deadly silent on Crimea -- and it would STILL be demonized and demagogued to the Russian people. There would be very little upside.
More importantly, since the end of the Bush years if not earlier, the U.S. HAS toned down the rhetoric, for the most part HAS let the Europeans take the lead, and HAS let economic carrots and sticks be the preferred method of dealing with Putin. I find it odd that Slaughter doesn't seem to see that, to the extent that there has been a "pause" in Putin's aggressive policies, it has been due PRECISELY to the verbal attacks Putin has endured along side a range of both economic, diplomatic and other forms of direct pressure.
Now, as regular readers know, I oppose ANY use of military force in Ukraine or the region -- but Obama's and the Europeans' response must (in my view) be unambiguous, direct, and forcefully targeted. He and his regime need to face REAL consequences for their actions, not a lot of inconclusive posturing or behind-the-scenes verbal 'back-and'forth'.
Just to be clear -- I think Putin is engaging in a strategic "pause" as Russia digests Crimea. All of Ukraine is (in my view) still on the menu.
No comments:
Post a Comment