A U.S.-Russia proxy war in Ukraine would be an unwelcome echo of the Cold War

Editorial
Los Angeles Times | July 24, 2014

International outrage over the downing of a Malaysian passenger plane over Ukraine on July 17 does not appear to have affected either the actions of pro-Russia forces in that country or the material support Russia is offering the rebels. On Wednesday, the separatists apparently shot down two Ukrainian warplanes flying near the border with Russia. On Thursday, the U.S. accused Russia of firing artillery from its territory into Ukraine.

If Russia continues to abet the Ukrainian armed resistance, it must pay a price, as even European nations previously reluctant to impose significant sanctions are beginning to realize. This week the Europeans moved toward expanding sanctions directed at Russian officials and organizations linked to the rebellion in eastern Ukraine, and they are considering following the lead of the U.S. and imposing sanctions against sectors of the Russian economy, including defense and energy.

But some American politicians and policymakers would go beyond economic and diplomatic efforts and provide the Ukrainian government with military support. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has implored the Obama administration "to give the Ukrainians weapons with which to defend themselves." That would be a mistake.

It’s not clear that the Obama administration is seriously considering McCain’s advice. The U.S. has provided food, body armor and uniforms to Ukraine and has promised to deliver medical supplies and night-vision goggles as well. This week the Washington Times quoted a Pentagon spokesman as saying that the U.S. also planned "to support the Ukrainian military through subject-matter expert teams and long-term advisors."

If by "advisors" the administration means computer experts and payroll managers, that’s one thing. But deploying "advisors" who are military strategists or uniformed soldiers would be reckless and provocative. So would providing Ukraine with lethal weapons.

A proxy war between the United States and Russia would be dangerous even if it didn’t lead to a direct military confrontation between the two nuclear powers. It also would undermine President Obama’s insistence that the U.S., while it supports Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence, doesn’t regard it as part of a Cold War chess game with Russia.

Finally, although it obviously continues to encounter resistance, Ukraine is gradually gaining military control of rebel-held areas on its own. Russia could help end the fighting if it stopped its interference and incitement. As long as it refuses to do so, the U.S. and its allies should keep up the pressure — but stay off the battlefield.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-ukraine-20140725-story.html

 

 

Putin has a new headache in Ukraine: Now Europe is watching
Doyle McManus
Los Angeles Times | July 22, 2014

It’s neither pleasant nor polite to say it, but the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 may have been the best thing to happen to President Obama’s policy on Ukraine in weeks.

Until the plane went down with 298 passengers and crew last week, the nasty little war in eastern Ukraine had almost dropped from public view. Obama’s strategy of nudging Europe to escalate economic sanctions against Russia was getting nowhere, a victim of Europeans’ desire to protect their business with Moscow. Ukraine’s armed forces were making little progress on the ground against Russian-armed separatists. And Russia’s Vladimir Putin was pressing for a cease-fire that would have given the rebels a long-term foothold on the ground, securing Putin a long-term chokehold over the government in Kiev.

In short, Putin appeared to be slowly winning.

Now the picture has changed, thanks to whoever fired the sophisticated Russian-made antiaircraft missile that, mounting evidence suggests, brought the Malaysian airliner down. We may never know for sure whether the culprits were Ukrainian separatists, Russian officers operating under the guise of Ukrainian separatists or (implausibly) someone else entirely. But the behavior of the rebels and the Russian government in the aftermath — blocking access to the bodies, tampering with the evidence and spinning ludicrous conspiracy theories — didn’t inspire faith in their protestations of innocence.

By the beginning of this week even Putin was hurriedly making conciliatory noises, promising that "everything possible" would be done to make an international investigation possible. "Rather than dividing us, tragedies of this sort should bring us together," he said. "No one has the right to use this tragedy to pursue their own political goals."

Too late for that. Russia’s critics were entirely justified in using the tragedy to point out that the ill-disciplined rebels swarming over the crash site were funded and equipped by Putin’s government, which — until this week, at least — had publicly cast them as freedom fighters. Ukraine’s government took advantage of the moment to launch a new military offensive against the rebels in Donetsk, only 50 miles from the crash site.

And the European Union agreed Tuesday to impose new targeted economic sanctions against individual Russian officials and to actively consider broader economic sanctions against entire sectors of the Russian economy.

The new EU sanctions weren’t massive; they basically just matched the new round of U.S. sanctions that Obama announced this month. But the EU also decided to draw up options for broader measures that would block Russia’s access to Europe’s capital markets and limit sales of military technology if Putin doesn’t stop the flow of weapons, equipment and militants into eastern Ukraine. That was a step the European foreign ministers had staunchly resisted until now.

So Putin has a problem he didn’t have a week ago: Europe’s politicians and public are watching. And his chosen instrument for meddling in Ukraine — the separatist forces — suddenly looks like a liability as well as an asset.

"In our view, something fundamental changed last Thursday," Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said. Now, he says, there is a desire across the EU for a unified approach that will "put pressure on Russia to do more."

The EU is still divided over the exact nature of the sanctions. Germany wants to protect its Russian natural gas supplies; Britain wants to keep Russian capital flowing into London’s financial markets; France wants to protect its arms deals with Putin. But in one measure of the changing climate, French President Francois Hollande said for the first time this week that Russia shouldn’t count on getting both of the helicopter assault ships it has bought from his country. The first ship will be delivered in October, he said, but the second "depends on the attitude of Russia."

None of this adds up to a turning point in the battle for Ukraine just yet. The sanctions announced so far are enough to worry Russian economic planners, who were already looking at a growth rate near zero, but not enough to force Putin’s hand. "One difference between Americans and Europeans is that you think the Russians will behave better if you apply sanctions," German politician Karsten Voigt told me recently. "We don’t."

But until the crash of Flight 17, Putin was quietly waiting for the West to lose interest in the conflict and expecting the sanctions to gradually erode. That calculation has changed.

The EU is now demanding more clearly that Russia cut off supplies to the rebels in eastern Ukraine; Putin is unlikely to comply, but not doing so comes with more risk now. And more Western attention and support can only help the Ukrainian government in Kiev as it struggles to build its army and take back some of the territory the rebels have seized.

Economic sanctions alone won’t end the war in eastern Ukraine; Europe is too divided and Putin too resilient for that.

But if the tragedy of Flight 17 buys time for Ukraine’s new government to get organized, bolsters Western support for economic aid to Kiev and increases the cost of Putin’s Ukrainian adventure to Russia, it could be a turning point for the region.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mcmanus-column-ukraine-putin-plane-crash-20140723-column.html

Advertisements

Leave a comment

No comments yet.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s