1 Mugami

Essay About Ukraine Crisis Solutions

Reinhard

Macron and Merkel urge renewal of Ribbentrop – Molotov Pact, whilst Poland and it’s ally Britain marked as rogue nations in EU press.

Posted on 12/23/17 | 2:55 PM CET

Vishnou

“Urge”???? The crisis has been lingering on for years…..since December 2013. Results?????

Posted on 12/23/17 | 3:50 PM CET

Brian the Snail

Nero fiddled, M&M issue platitudes.

Posted on 12/23/17 | 4:04 PM CET

François P

Complete fail by Politico. This statement from Macron and Merkel is certainly linked to today’s decision by the US to sell military kit to Ukraine. Politico either overlooked that news or failed to report it.

Posted on 12/23/17 | 5:21 PM CET

freddie silver

@Vishnou,
“..Results?????..”
Dare you imply that your beloved Eurochiefs can’t resolve problems? How ungrateful!

Posted on 12/23/17 | 7:27 PM CET

Spanish Purebred

Ginger gipper’s wearing the same elasticated, chairman mao jacket again with magnetic (stick on) pockets. Leather trousers? Yuck !

Posted on 12/24/17 | 4:25 AM CET

Observer

Merkel once again is making huge political miscalulcation and mistake as Neville Chamberlain did with Hitler 1938. There is NO peaceful solution of Russian agression on Ukraine.

Posted on 12/24/17 | 5:16 AM CET

Stefan M

Merkel should go way from power ,she fails .

Posted on 12/24/17 | 8:23 AM CET

wow

‘Multi-lateralism is a tool of the weak’

Posted on 12/24/17 | 11:07 AM CET

wow

Germany always wanting dialogue. Because they’re peaceful? Don’t be naive. They have no military LOL and nobody wants to buy any military hardware from France or Germany.

It’s all USA and UK.

Cheerio Now.

Posted on 12/24/17 | 11:10 AM CET

cinceur

@wow

Now now, we had to pay H&K (DE) to turn the L85A2 into a decent rifle, we buy a lot of our heavier infantry weapons from Fabrique National (BE), and France make good money out of exporting fighters (although the Swedish made JAS-39 Gripen is set to take a chunk of that market in the future).

Not to diminish what we do make well though, mainly weapons and targeting systems.

Anyway, huh? What we talking about?

Posted on 12/24/17 | 4:39 PM CET

wow

cinceur
@wow

Anyway, huh? What we talking about?

we’re talking about my wet dreams. don’t spoil them with facts.

cheerio now.

Posted on 12/25/17 | 8:16 AM CET

Not Santa klaus

For sure this two puppets want now a peaceful solution, because US has given and will give real arms to Ukraine and they will be this time able to take back given territories to put.n like Crimea. And these two puppets are only there to make a great eussr…they will do anything to help the great Russian democracy by for example giving them a few hundreds billions euro more each year for gas from north stream 2…

Posted on 12/25/17 | 9:32 AM CET

trisul

Peaceful resolution will happen, as soon as Moscow comes to conclusion that they will not win with arms, or that the cost is not worth it.

Posted on 12/25/17 | 11:38 AM CET

trisul

@Reinhard
“Macron and Merkel urge renewal of Ribbentrop – Molotov Pact, whilst Poland and it’s ally Britain marked as rogue nations in EU press.”

The two do not exclude each other.

Posted on 12/25/17 | 11:39 AM CET

Pexit

What a surprise…For sure this two puppets want now a peaceful solution, because US has given and will give real arms to Ukraine and they will be this time able to take back given territories to put.n like Crimea.

Posted on 12/25/17 | 11:42 AM CET

~\_O_/~

A narrow piece…
A) the problem was created by the eu and Merkel in particular who made overtures to Ukraine regarding eu membership
B) Russia was not prepared to lose the Crimean naval base which supported access to the Mediterranean.
C) Crimea was originally Russian and given to Ukraine after Stalins death.
D) Merkel won’t do anything as she wants the gas pipeline deal to go through.

Side note: @wow, both Germany and France are huge arms exporters

Posted on 12/26/17 | 9:57 AM CET

 

By Lt. Danny Kuriluk, U.S. Navy
Best Defense guest columnist

Beginning with Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula in early 2014, Russia has continued to destabilize Ukraine by fomenting rebellion and spreading the conflict into other regions of the country. The international community failed to prevent the situation, and has failed to stop its escalation. If Putin cements rebel gains in Ukraine, it will further damage the national interests of the U.S., and continue the degradation of international norms relating to sovereignty and intervention.

Ukraine has an obligation to protect its own people. Due to Russia’s overwhelming military advantage, Ukraine has asked the west for help in fulfilling this obligation. In order to maintain the legitimacy of the United Nations and NATO, the U.S. must work with Europe to take steps to counter Russia’s actions.

A strategy that satisfies the “right intention” criterion will avoid direct confrontation with Russia, enable Ukraine to have full control of its territory, allow for reconciliation of the combatants, and provide peaceful self-determination for the people of Crimea and the separatist provinces. The following strategy comprises five components that the U.S. must begin coordinating and executing simultaneously.

Component 1: Level the Playing Field

The quickest way to enable Ukraine to defend itself requires the U.S. to partner with allied nations to enact an arms and medical supplies program to help strengthen the country’s defensive and humanitarian capabilities. America’s current aid is not sufficient to enable Ukraine to counter the new forces that Russia is massing along the border. Instead, the U.S. should appropriate money to regional allies that utilize Warsaw Pact weapons to enable defensive assistance to quickly reach the Ukrainian forces, and avoid the time, skill, and integration issues of directly sending American weapons or trying to train Ukrainian troops. This component will raise the costs of Russian intervention and help Ukraine stem its losses — hopefully either convincing Russia to reassess its strategy, or provide the west with time to implement a more robust response. Coupled with increasingly harsh sanctions, specifically SWIFT sanctions, it will increase the pressure domestically and internationally on Putin, and aid Ukraine’s defense while preventing the U.S. from becoming too involved in another foreign adventure.

Component 2: Mobilize International and Domestic Support

Utilizing the media and NGOs to publicize Russia’s complicity in human rights abuses, cease fire violations, and other abhorrent acts (like the targeting of Malaysian Air Flight 17) will build the domestic and international support required to mount a successful counter intervention. The conflict is too far away from everyday life, and the government needs to do a better job of publicizing why it is in America’s interest to act.

With the right campaign, the U.S. can build a domestic consensus because this strategy is geared towards countering the aggressive actions of a belligerent foreign power, rather then trying to force regime change. This component will help to win the propaganda fight that comes with any international conflict.

Component 3: Build a Coalition

The U.S. must coordinate OSCE peacekeepers backed by a robust NATO force to rapidly enter the conflict zone and protect the peacekeepers if conditions continue to deteriorate. An OSCE peacekeeping force counters Russian fears of NATO expansion along its borders, and prevents accusations of an occupying force entering Ukraine. It will also help enforce the current cease-fires, provide civilian security, and, should Russia decide end its intervention, provide the enduring security required to begin rebuilding the devastated areas and implement demobilization of the rebels.

Utilizing only OSCE peacekeepers without a robust force  nearby could spur Russia into enacting a blitzkrieg-type strategy aimed at cementing gains should the peacekeeping mission fail. Prepositioning a robust and comprehensive NATO force outside the contested regions and separate from the OSCE peacekeepers can deter Russia from taking more aggressive action.

The most successful interventions, for example in Kenya, have occurred through the cooperation of regional actors as opposed to a far-off power imposing its will. Utilizing the OSCE, supported by NATO, provides a European solution for a European problem—but still backed by the full strength of the United States.

Component 4: Clean Up the Mess

Professor Michael Ignatieff once said, “Every intervention is political”. This counter intervention is no different. The U.S. and Europe cannot enact a comprehensive strategy, without addressing the most important step of any intervention. A post-conflict solution must provide for demobilization and reconciliation of the combatants, as well as creating the economic growth necessary to sustain peace.

The Ukrainian government will face the challenge of demobilizing, not only, the Russian-backed separatists, but also the irregular Ukrainian soldiers that have filled the gaps created by the weak Ukrainian army. The South African reconciliation proves that although it is a painful and difficult process, amnesty provides the greatest hope to reintegrate the fighters back into society. Furthermore, Ukraine should work with the EU and the U.S. to develop autonomy agreements that recognize the diverse character of the regions, along with economic incentives and loans to help repair and develop the destroyed provinces. These facts should help convince the rebels to adhere to the ceasefire and accept the OSCE peacekeepers — eliminating the need for the fifth component.

Component 5: Set and Enforce a Clear Red Line

There is no guarantee that the first four components will convince Russia to end its Ukrainian adventure. To prevent Russia from taking advantage of the ambiguity inherent during a peacekeeping situation and cease-fire, the U.S. should set a date and declare that any non-Ukrainian heavy weaponry located within Ukraine’s territorial limits will be destroyed after that date.

Setting a deadline, and coordinating the forces necessary to enforce it, will convey Europe’s resolve to guarantee Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty to Mr. Putin, and push the rebels to the negotiating table. Although it will require massive amounts of coordination, and likely encounter heavy opposition, this red line is necessary to provide credibility to the previous components. The U.S. and Europe must make it clear that they are not trying to defeat the rebels. Instead, this component is necessary in order to eliminate their ability to prolong or escalate their conflict. Although the president has experienced trouble with red lines in the past, this one is should be much easier to enforce than the red line he set for Syria.

This plan is not perfect and will require deft timing, coordination, and negotiation in order to overcome the inherent risk and be successful. However, Putin has embarrassed the West as he seized another country’s territory, and forced the U.S. and Europe to default on its obligation to protect Ukraine in exchange for relinquishing nuclear weapons. Russia’s actions have far greater geo-political implications outside of the region, and the time has come to take stand in the name of democracy and international standards of conduct.

Lt. Kuriluk has served as a P-3 Instructor Pilot and Mission Commander over the course of three deployments spread across six continents. He recently finished his stint as the Navy’s two-year Politico-Military Masters Fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and is beginning work at the Navy’sOffice of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations and Environment.

Photo credit: Alexander Khudoteply/AFP/Getty Images

Thomas E. Ricks covered the U.S. military from 1991 to 2008 for the Wall Street Journal and then the Washington Post. He can be reached at ricksblogcomment@gmail.com.

Tags: Military, Russia, Ukraine

More from Foreign Policy

By Taboola

Leave a Comment

(0 Comments)

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *