Thanks, Obama! Russia invaded the Ukraine over the weekend, and as is their favorite pastime when things run amok, Republicans in Congress have fired a barrage of obtuse and scornful quotes at President Barack Obama for his failure to do, you know, whatever they’re complaining about on that given day. Most recently, they’ve rebuked the president for not being assertive, for weakening the country’s military, for failing to lead the international community and so on—what Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called “a feckless foreign policy where no one believes in America’s strength anymore.”
This extreme stance, however, is misguided. While certainly Russia’s unprovoked aggression is a dangerous violation of international norms, something the United States should react and in fact is reacting to, the truth is that any leader of this country, Democrat or Republican, would have the same difficulty Obama is having to find a successful response to the crisis. Indeed, there are no realistic options that would effectively rebuff Russia’s hasty, reckless advances. It’s an election year, and it’s easy for Republicans to rouse their base and earn a few votes by blaming the president for America’s oh-so-significant decline in international status. It’s especially easy after last week’s announcement from Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, who released his department’s budgetary plans, including a sizable reduction in U.S. military forces. Republicans have called on Obama to restore plans to a greater number of soldiers, proclaiming these sorts of policies make the United States look weak.
Aside from the fact this policy is taken out of context (the military is preparing for a peacetime where fewer numbers are necessary—a peacetime, I might add, following two very unpopular wars under a leader of the GOP), it isn’t the reduction that dwarfs our nation’s power. Rather, it’s Congress’ obstinate refusal to authorize our military might when it’s needed. Case in point: Syria. Following reports of chemical weapons in the fall of 2013, Obama proposed to perpetrate a strike against the Assad regime. But instead of acting on his own, he, as requested by Republican legislators, sought the approval of Congress, where the initiative failed to gain enough traction to even come to a vote. But, even if Republican leaders did whip up enough votes for a measure to use military force, there would probably be little popular support. After two long, costly wars, the American public isn’t exactly eager to be involved in another international crisis.
Still, the use of force isn’t the only possible reaction to Russia’s attack on the Ukraine. Just as the president announced earlier, economic sanctions are a strong option. However, this sort of retribution has serious humanitarian consequences Russian President Vladimir Putin may never feel or even care about. The idea behind these sanctions is if it’s able to cripple the country’s economy, the U.S. might be able to force Russia to give in to its demands. But Putin won’t be the one bearing the burden of these sanctions. Instead, ordinary Russians, those who didn’t provoke the conflict, will be the ones to feel the weakening economy, and it’s their plight that is supposed to bring Russia to the bargaining table.
Yet, as is with nearly all the states the U.S. wants to manipulate, Russia’s leader more or less disregards what the Russian public feels. He’s not exactly the most caring guy. Over the last few years, he’s ignored and blanketed massive protests for democratic reform in the country, even jailing his political opponents or forcing them to flee. Thus, sanctions aren’t a great option either. They’ll only cause distress for the Russian public without forcing any real movement from Putin.
Even if he did issue real sanctions or bypass Congress to use military force in the Ukraine (what a creative round of vitriol from Republicans that would surely cause), the issue is still more complicated. There are other dimensions of the conflict and ramifications to consider. While its power has diminished over the last 25 years, Russia is still a major international power, and it has its hands in other conflicts around the world in which the United States has a stake—maybe even a greater one. For instance, Russia is a major player in the goings-on in Iran, where over the last several months, Secretary of State John Kerry has assiduously worked with other key leaders to negotiate an end to Iran’s nuclear program. Should Obama provoke Putin too much, the U.S. might lose the support it needs from Russia to bring the dangerous program to a close. And there could surely be a similar effect in Syria, where Russia still backs the tyrannical Assad regime. Alas, say about President Obama what you will, but if you choose not to support him, I challenge you to seriously consider the options, and then I think you’ll come to the same dreary conclusion.
What do you think the U.S. should do about the Ukraine-Russia conflict? Do you agree with Sean that it doesn’t have an easy answer? Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
