While the U.S. and Europe spent the last few weeks grappling over how to combat ISIS’ rampage through Iraq and Syria, Russian President Vladimir Putin took significant steps to realize his long-term goal of reasserting Russian military and economic power in Europe. Western powers face a serious dilemma after Putin demonstrated his willingness to raise the stakes so severely in Ukraine. Should the Western powers double down and counter Putin’s attempts to reconsolidate power over ex-Soviet satellite states throughout Eastern Europe? Alternatively, should the Western powers accede to his insertion of troops in Ukraine and acquiesce to his bullying?
First, some background information is necessary to understand the conflict: the crisis in Ukraine began in 2013, when then-President Viktor Yanukovych rejected a deal that would have produced greater economic integration with the European Union, which largely emanated from a desire to appease the ethnic Russian voters in the East and South who voted him into office.
Countries such as the United States, England and France have reached a near consensus surrounding their national identities, which are rooted in classical liberal ideas such as democracy, equality and representative government. However, Ukraine has faced an identity crisis between its pro-European west and its pro-Russian East for centuries because of “Russification” policies by Catherine the Great and Josef Stalin, who both shipped thousands of ethnic Russians to the East and imposed laws to secure Russian as the official language.
Yanukovych’s decision in 2013 to turn eastward for economic relief prompted mass protests, which he vainly attempted to squash with violence; subsequently, Russia backed Yanukovych in the crisis, while the US and Europe supported the protesters. Then, Yanukovych was run out of the country by forces who were supportive of greater integration with the West, and in response, Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in an attempt to salvage the injury to its influence over Ukraine.
This April, Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine began seizing territory and taking over government buildings; as the fighting intensified in August, and the rebels started losing ground to the Ukrainian military, the Russian army invaded Ukraine, though it still denies this, and added more fuel to the fire. Ivan Simonovic, UN Assistant Secretary General for Human Rights, has stated that over 2,500 Ukrainians have died since the fighting started.
The difficulty of addressing this crisis is compounded by the resurgent Russian Empire’s alarming strategic posturing. Russia’s direct involvement in fostering unrest, arming separatist rebels, and even inserting Russian armed forces into Ukraine is now undeniable. NATO estimates that over 1,000 regular Russian troops are now based in Ukraine, equipped with tanks, artillery and missiles that are capable of hitting naval vessels stationed at sea.
Putin has authorized massive military exercises, such as the one that occurred in the Far East with over 155,000 troops and more than 600 aircraft. Additionally, the Russian navy announced it will at least double the size of the Black Sea Fleet based in Crimea by 2020, with 80 new ships. The Russian defense budget, which has nearly doubled since 2010, is expected to rise by 18 percent this year and 22 percent in 2015, according to Bloomberg View.
Thus, it appears that the U.S. is once again locked into a game of chicken with Russia. Increasing NATOs presence in Ukraine and supporting pro-Western forces will likely lead to an arms race, forcing Putin to respond in kind. However, failing to do anything amounts to appeasement as English Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain has been accused of countless times for signing the Munich Agreement and accepting the Nazi-led annexation of the Sudetenland in the buildup to World War II.
The crisis in Ukraine is the culmination of diametrically opposed national identities, in which the West favors European integration, and the East favors Russian integration. Although Russia has legitimate interests in Ukraine that are currently under negotiation with the European Union, they do not have the right to dictate the terms of the negotiations at the barrel of a gun. A resumption of a Cold War-style arms race is not desirable for any parties involved, especially as Europe and the United States attempt to recover from the 2008 recession; however, rolling over to Putin’s bullying and failing to establish meaningful sanctions with some teeth would set forth a dangerous precedent of appeasement.
As a happy medium, I would propose a sanctions-not-bullets approach, in which Western powers dramatically increase current sanctions on Russia that encompass all sectors of the Russian economy, including, cue the gasps, the energy sector. This would increase the pressure on Russia to adopt a less belligerent foreign policy, especially as it teeters on the brink of recession triggered by capital flight from panicked investors.