Saturday, September 27, 2014

Russian Agrresion and the US Response



                When Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula in Ukraine earlier this year it exhibited hard military power. Now the state is rumored to be sending pro-Russian rebels into Ukraine proper which would qualify as exhibiting soft power. Both actions send a strong message to the rest of the world, specifically the United State and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) that they are in fact a great international power and they are not to be trifled with. From an American point of view Russia is acting as an aggressor in the international community and testing the limits of their former cold war enemies. By using their immense military strength to aggress and assert power over Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula they force Ukraine to be submissive as they have more military strength. Additionally, the Russian aggressors found even more hard power in the Ukrainian citizens of the Crimean Peninsula who identify with Russian culture more than Ukrainian culture.  This territorial gain and power assertion threatens the balance of power regionally in Europe as well as in the entire International community. Said international community has condemned any violation of sovereign Ukrainian territory and watches carefully as to see if the Russian state dares to cross the border of the annexed Peninsula into the Ukrainian state. The United /states and NATO have vehemently expressed their objections to further aggression and annexations in the region despite the Ukraine not being a member of NATO.          
                Despite Russia’s recent actions that are most definitely not in the interest of the United States, some might say the U.S. is being a passive member in this situation .The United States has a considerable amount of military power too, even more than Russia itself yet no military presence in the Ukrainian region has been established. Also to the advantage of the United States, the state has the soft power of persuasion over their NATO allies. If hard military engagement was deemed necessary and appropriate by the United States their NATO allies would be expected to contribute to the cause increasing their relative power. Unfortunately, The United States has not asserted any power over Russia effectively, failing to convince them of the superior power status of the United States (and its allies) and therefore failing to truly or definitely divert the Russian state from aggressing further into sovereign Ukrainian territory. A disruption in the balance of power, both relative and absolute in Europe would negatively affect U.S. allies and therefore negatively affect the U.S.   The deceptive nature of the probable presence of placed pro-Russian rebels within Ukrainian borders increases the need for a powerful state such as the United States to intervene in order to protect a legitimate democracy as it points to an increasing threat.           

4 comments:

  1. I think this is directly linked to what we talked about in discussion on Friday the 3rd. Yes, I agree that Russia had no right doing what they did, but at this moment in time I don't necessarily think that the best plan of action would be to present a military presence in Russia. We talked about the bargaining theory of war, which is similar to the situation that you referenced. It would be more costly on many levels for the US to engage in some form of military action in Ukraine at the time being. But what do you think Russia would further have to do, to make the US and NATO convinced that war/military action is an acceptable and cost effective response?

    ReplyDelete
  2. You did a fantastic job describing the very complex events occurring in the Ukraine, as well as characterize the tricky relations between the United States and Russia on this issue. While you say that hard power, an intervention on the part of the U.S., is the solution, I wonder if soft power would also be a potential solution. If the U.S. exerted soft power on its allies and other countries in the region, a coalition (such as NATO and others) opposed to Russia's actions could intimidate them. If the bargaining theory of war holds, Russia would realize they are overpowered by the U.S. and its allies, and surrender. However, this is all dependent on Russia acting rationally. Overall, you did a great job explaining a complicated problem.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Interesting points here. The Ukrainian situation seems rather complex to me, because there is such an important domestic politics component: one side is drawn to Russia and one side is drawn to the West. Perhaps the true future of this conflict lies in the different tools employed by each camp. It seems like the west and NATO allies are relying on more soft power tools (trade, attraction of institutions, potential benefits) whereas the Russian camp is using more of a hard power approach. It will be interesting to see which is more sustainable over time.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree with Trevor here. Its obvious that Russia is being an antagonizer in this situation, however I don't believe it is time in intervene, whether that be individually or hand in hand with NATO (preferred). If the US was to intervene in some way, relations with Russia and similar nations would likely not be restored to somewhat positive relationships for a very long time. As stated by everyone, this really is a great summary of a complex situation

    ReplyDelete