Opinion

What would a strong American president do about the Ukraine crisis?

J. D. Gordon Former Pentagon Spokesman, George W. Bush Administration
Font Size:

Considering Russia’s takeover of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula, a strategically vital landmass in the Black Sea and centuries-long home to the Russian Black Sea Fleet, Ancient Greek historian Thucydides would be preaching to the choir in Kiev today.

In his Melian Dialogue, Thucydides wrote of the 5th-Century BC Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta, the superpowers of their time. He described the plight of Melos, a tiny island allied with Sparta that Athens eventually destroyed, by saying “the strong do what they can, the weak suffer as they must.” Those words still apply today in Ukraine.

Though Western-friendly mass protests forced out Ukraine’s clearly pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych last month after he cancelled a pending free trade agreement with the European Union in favor of accepting a $15 billion loan and cheaper natural gas from Russia, Vladimir Putin now thinks it’s his turn to push back.

The often shirtless, tiger hunting, horse riding judo expert and all-around macho man is showing his strength in an intentional contrast with President Obama’s weakness.

After staging major military exercises on Ukraine’s border, his Russian forces took over Crimea’s major airports in Sevastopol and Simferopal. Russia’s Upper House of Parliament then unanimously approved a much larger use of force, and on Saturday, more than 15,000 Russian troops stormed into Ukraine.

Though Crimea was part of Russia prior to 1954 when the Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev “gifted” it to Ukraine, the administrative transfer didn’t matter much, as both were part of the Soviet Union. Nonetheless, the reason for the “gift” remains important. In the early 1930s, millions of Ukrainians died in the Holodomor, a man-made famine caused by Premier Joseph Stalin. A year after Stalin died in 1953, Khrushchev wisely sought to make amends with this largely symbolic gift.

Ukrainians and Russians haven’t forgotten the Holodomor, but Vladimir Putin couldn’t care less.

He apparently enjoys showcasing his typical toughness to “protect” the majority ethnic-Russians in Crimea, while the West has yet to match his resolve.

We’ve seen this movie before, and it doesn’t end well for justice or freedom. In 2008, Russia invaded Georgia to “protect” Russians in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, effectively stripping those regions from Georgian control ever since. Although the West condemned Russia and pushed hard for a cease fire, it was of little help to Georgia.

In stark contrast to Putin, the White House under President Barack Obama has adopted a significantly lower-profile foreign policy than the previous administration, with almost no focus on upholding liberty as a basic value.

So what would a strong American President do about the current Ukranian crisis? First, he would stand up for Ukraine in every way possible, and not just with a hollow warning to Russia about an undefined “cost” associated with military intervention. Once again, Mr. Obama is showing a weak hand.

On the diplomatic front, a strong American president would recall the U.S. ambassador from Moscow until Russian forces and their surrogates return genuine sovereignty of Crimea to Ukraine. At the very least, Washington should be pushing for U.N. resolutions condemning Russia’s use of force.

On the economic front, a strong American president would punish Moscow’s kleptocracy by targeting international bank accounts of Putin’s inner circle with direct ties to the Crimean power play. Sanctions against Russia’s industries that support the defense sector would be next.

On the military front, a strong American President would send U.S. Navy ships to the Black Sea to back up warnings with capability. Washington would ask NATO to make the same commitment, and assemble a formidable flotilla off Sevastopol to send a clear message to Moscow.

On the international law front, a strong American president would abide by the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, in which leaders of U.S., U.K., Russia, and Ukraine pledged to “uphold territorial integrity of the Ukraine” in exchange for giving up nuclear weapons. Perhaps it’s time for Bill Clinton to remind Barack Obama of his signature on that document committing the United States to come to the defense of Ukraine. And if the Russians ignore this compact, a strong American president would respond by cancelling the New START deal (which gave Russia a 10 to 1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons) that the U.S. should have never signed in the first place.

Though none of these steps by themselves will deter Moscow, taken together, perhaps they would make Putin think long and hard about whether Crimea was worth the cost?

It’s worth the cost to Putin if President Obama may be counted on to object with nothing more than weak rhetoric. A strong American president would clearly state why it is in our national interest not to allow Russia to annex new territory and to exert ever-greater military power. Demonstrating true leadership and employing meaningful leverage are reasonable steps to take in the current circumstances. To fail to do so will only further embolden an increasingly belligerent Vladimir Putin.

J.D. Gordon is a retired Navy Commander and former Pentagon spokesman who served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense from 2005-2009. He is a Senior Adviser to several think tanks based in Washington, DC.