Not Yet Stopping the Russians

For John, BLUF:  Likely more Russian land acquisition in Ukraine.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Here is a look at the crisis in Ukraine, which is still ongoing, for those of you who have been distracted by taxes or Letterman's replacement or the new City Manager.

The item, "Deterring the Ukraineshluss?", posted by Professor Dan Nexon,♠ at his blog Hylaean Flow, is partly extracted below:

Back at my old digs, Jeff Stacey wants the US and NATO to stop further Russian aggression against Ukraine:

Or has he? Will Putin seek further Ukrainian territory in the Russian-speaking east? Russian has had over 40,000 troops and sizable collection of military hardware massed near the border for weeks, and now a Russian fighter has buzzed a U.S. destroyer.  It should now be clear beyond a reasonable doubt that western conventional deterrence has not been restored, and the mere threat of further sanctions is essentially meaningless at this stage.

Far more costly economic sanctions are called for, but in days not weeks western allies need to step up aerial patrols and stage a NATO ground exercise in Poland, in order to establish credible deterrence.  A show of force is key to avoiding having to use force, and still achieve one’s objective.

Is military deterrence possible?  Probably not.

First, the balance of interests clearly favors Moscow.  At best, Ukraine constitutes a peripheral security interest for the United States.  Russia, on the other hand, views Ukraine as part of its core: as a country of dubious legitimacy sitting on the symbolic homeland of the Russian nation.  To consolidate economic and military control over Crimea, it needs additional Ukrainian territory — or, at the very least, guaranteed access through eastern and parts of southern Ukraine.

Finally, let me suggest that any discussion about Russia and Ukraine needs to take place within the context of clearly articulated arguments about US grand strategy.  Despite some genuflection in that direction, the tenor of debate so far — particularly from advocates of a more robust US response — involves vague handwaving toward ‘principles’ and broad ‘interests’ rather than anything resembling a sustained analysis. But that’s a topic for another day.

Isn't that the truth!

For us, as Americans, the question is, will President Putin stop at some logical point or will he go far enough to provoke the Ukraine Government into action, with the danger of drawing the rest of Europe into war, which means drawing us into war?  The sub-question is if the Obama Administration has any tool for convincing President Putin that the game is not worth the candle.

Which brings up the question of if British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was wrong in trying to find a balancing of interests that would have given Europe peace in the fourth decade of the last century.

Sure, this whole thing irritates me, but what do I suggest?  Try to dissuade.  Route 38 irritates me, but I am not going to advocate the destruction of dozens of houses from Douglas Road/Phoenix Avenue north to East Merrimack Street just to fix a main road that was never built to carry the load it does.  Ukraine is out of our lane and trying to save what remains is going to be very difficult, and risky, and should be avoided, while backstopping the rest of the nations in the area against Russian aggression.  Not doing something in Ukraine does not mean not doing something Estonia or Poland or Finland.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Dan Nexon, Georgetown University, has held fellowships at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation and at the Ohio State University's Mershon Center for International Studies.  During 2009-2010 he worked in the U.S. Department of Defense as a Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow.