Conservative Commentary on the Crisis in Ukraine

           Russia has invaded the Ukrainian territory of Crimea.  Russia must respect Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity or else pay a price for its invasion, to deter it from any further aggression.

           

            The Crimean Peninsula is where the Russian Black Sea Fleet is based, at the port of Sevastopol, where the Russian Federation leases a base.  Russia is permitted to base up to 25,000 troops in the territory.  A majority of Crimea’s population is Russian.  Concern for the rights of linguistic minorities after the ouster of Ukraine’s pro-Russian government was Russia’s pretext for its invasion, despite any threat to the Ukrainian Russians.  Ukraine must respect minority rights, as its new government has declared it will.  Crimea is also a popular resort for Russians.  There is much pro-Russian sentiment in Crimea, as well as the rest of eastern Ukraine, but not all Ukrainian Russians necessarily wish to live under the authoritarian rule of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

            There is some fear in the former Soviet republics and in the West that Crimea is to Russia as the Sudetenland was to Nazi Germany.  In the case of the latter, Adolph Hitler insisted on invading the German-speaking part of Czechoslovakia under the pretext of protecting the Germans there and uniting them with their countrymen in Germany.  However, it has become increasingly clear that Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008, after the Georgian government responded to Russian provocations in two breakaway republics, was a harbinger of its invasion of Ukraine.  Then, as I posted at the time and subsequently, Russia paid little price for its aggression against the former Soviet republic and its establishment of puppet states in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which is essentially the seizure of 30% of Georgian territory. 

What little price Russia was paying for invading Georgia, United States President Barack Obama forgave without demanding any improvement in Russian behavior.  Some liberal defenders of Obama have criticized former President George W. Bush for trusting Putin before his Russian counterpart had established a record, but by the time Obama was inaugurated, Putin’s authoritarianism and aggression were obvious, which makes Obama’s forgiveness of Russia less understandable and hardly the basis for a defense of Obama’s Russian policy.  Indeed, Obama’s weakness allowed Putin to calculate that aggression would be worth the risk.

            This time, in order to deter any further Russian aggression and to reassure former Soviet republics and Eastern European states, Russia must pay a sufficiently high price.  Targeted economic sanctions and the freezing of assets against individuals associated with the Russian invasion of Crimea, a boycott of the Group of 8 Industrialized States Summit in Sochi, a rejection of the invitation to send a government delegation to the Paralympics in Sochi and the suspension of military exchanges have already been announced by the Obama Administration.   The boycott of the summit was joined by the other seven states.  The expulsion of Russia from the G-8 is under consideration, while the Congress considers additional measures.  The Administration has also announced a billion-dollar loan to Ukraine, through the International Monetary Fund, while the European Union is extending $15 billion in credit.  Although the U.S. is beefing up its military posture in N.A.T.O. territory near Russia, Obama is only providing non-military aid to Ukraine, despite a 1997 agreement in which the Americans pledge to defend Ukraine, in contrast to Bush, who provided military support to Georgia. 

            Ukraine should shore up its defenses of the rest of eastern Ukraine, without giving any legal recognition to Russia’s conquest of Crimea, which is a fait accompli.  The referendum set for Sunday by the pro-Russian Crimean autonomous government allows only two choices: greater autonomy within Ukraine (i.e. de facto Russian control through a puppet state) or immediate independence with the intent to join the Russian Federation (i.e. ostensibly de jure Russian control).  The referendum is of dubious legitimacy, even if the choices were wider, as the political advantage is tilted heavily to the pro-Russia side.  There is little time for the opposition to organize.  Regardless, the opposition would be campaigning in a climate of fear, surrounded by Russian troops.  Russian-style elections are notorious for the intimidation of the opposition, even without troops.  Although the U.S. and its European allies are threatening Russia with punishment if the referendum occurs, Crimea is expected to merge with Russia nevertheless.  Ukraine would then be wise to negotiate a peaceful withdrawal of its forces and the resolution of other issues, such as the transfer of property, while continuing to protest diplomatically Russian violations of its sovereignty.  Russia may eventually regret its imperialism, but in the meantime, the Ukrainian government must avoid any unnecessary loss of its troops who are currently being besieged by Russian forces in Crimea, and work out a deal on the best terms it can.   

          Conservatives should support tough measures against Russia for its aggression, resist unnecessary cuts to the military, offer more former Soviet republics and eastern European states a pathway to join N.A.T.O., as well as support the drilling for natural gas and the export of oil and gas, which would help deny Russia the wealth it uses to try to reconstitute the Russian/Soviet Empire.