American Weapons for Ukraine: the Wrong Direction for Peace

Paula Dobriansky and other conservative foreign policy advisors advocate sending American weapons to Ukraine, to assist the Ukrainian government in the war against separatists in Eastern Ukraine. Such an action would be seen as a provocation by Russia.  President Putin, as his history shows, would respond with disproportionate force.  Any American intervention in Ukraine would invite an openly full-force Russian invasion, which would be devastating to the people and country of Ukraine.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Mission Statement for the United States State Department is:  “Create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community.”

Someone might wonder if the actions of the State Department, accurately reflect those values. Someone might wonder if the results of American foreign policy are often the opposite of our stated goals.

In 1998, members of the institute “Project for the New American Century” wrote a letter to President Clinton, urging him to use the American military to overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq.   Paula Dobriansky was among the very high-profile signatures on the letter.   Most of the signers of the letter later occupied high positions in the second Bush administration, and conducted the war against Iraq.  The war did devastated Iraq, cost thousands of American lives and perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives.  The current situation is far from stable, democratic, or prosperous. The war against Iraq resulted in the emergence of the Islamic State in the Levant, a genuine threat to Americans and the world.

Paula Dobriansky appears to be ready to repeat this mistake in Ukraine.

Presentation by Paula Dobriansky, “Ukraine, Peril and Opportunity”

I recently heard a presentation at the Alaska World Affairs Council by Paula Dobriansky, former United States Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs.  Ms. Dobriansky is an experienced diplomat with gold-plated credentials  who has worked at the highest levels in American foreign policy.  Ms. Dobriansky’s talk was titled “Ukraine, Peril and Opportunity”.  

A Voice of America interview with Paula Dobriansky addressing the situation in Ukraine can be found here:  http://www.voanews.com/content/q-and-a-with-paula-dobriansky-ukraine-crisis-upends-international-order/1890889.html

In her presentation, Ms. Dobriansky acknowledged the bleak situation and poor prospects for peace in Ukraine.  She advocates the hardest possible sanctions on Russia in response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine.  Despite well-documented evidence, Ms. Dobriansky avoided any discussion of responsibility that Western diplomats may hold in inciting the current conflict.  As an aside during her presentation, Ms. Dobriansky called for providing American weapons to the Ukrainian government to fight pro-Russian separatists and the Russian military in eastern Ukraine.  She added that this measure would come before the United States Congress in March, when the current round of economic sanctions expires.

After the program, I asked Ms. Dobriansky what possible good would come through delivering weapons to the Ukrainians.  She responded, that she believed that weapons shipments from the United States would give the Ukrainians “psychological support”.

The United States is currently providing non-lethal support to Ukraine.  Ukrainian president Poroshenko directly requested military support from the United States, saying, “You can’t win a war with blankets.”

Bennett Ramberg, a former State Department official in the G.H.W. Bush (senior) administration echoes Dobriansky’s opinion that the United States should provide lethal military support to Ukraine.  Ramberg cites the “successful” strategy of providing military aid to Afghan militants during the Soviet occupation, seemingly oblivious to the long-term results of that action.

Disproportionate Retaliation; Vladimir Putin’s Personal Style in Response to Conflict

The conflict in Ukraine began in a dispute about a proposed trade agreement between the European Union. 

As in many conflicts, the Ukrainian conflict developed according to a well-worn pattern of offence and retaliation.  What began as a simple trade proposal between Ukraine and the European Union was perceived by Russia as an expansion of NATO and an existential threat.    Each action by Western governments has been met with a response in kind by Russia.  President Putin has been reactive throughout the entire Ukrainian crisis, responding and retaliating to perceived offenses by the West.

President Putin has done much to consolidate power in Russia, eliminating opposition in the media, in politics, in business and in government.  His authority is now unquestioned, and it is clear that he is personally invested in the Ukraine conflict.  We can judge the likely actions of Russia based on the personality of its solitary leader. 

There is a pattern to Putin’s actions and decisions.  Putin responds to any perceived offense with a disproportionate retaliation, and usually in kind with the original offense.  Putin’s response to the European trade deal was a bigger trade deal; his response to a pro-Western insurrection is a bigger pro-Russian insurrection.  Putin’s response to the Ukrainian military campaign was a bigger military campaign.  This is a predictable style for President Putin. 

Vladimir Putin has used disproportionate retaliation as a response to conflict since childhood.  Biographer Masha Gessen recounts stories of Putin, a small boy, fighting and beating anyone who would dare to insult him, including much larger boys.  Putin established a tough reputation.  That pattern of behavior has persisted throughout Putin’s life, and as president, Putin has used it effectively to gain power and intimidate his opponents.

When Mikhael Khordokovsky dared to make a minor contribution to an opposition political party, he was jailed for ten years, and the company Yukos was dismembered.  Yukos lawyers, including a young mother, were jailed and beaten for daring to perform their duties in defense of the company.  In the Chechen war, the disproportionate response was the razing of the city of Grozny.  The examples are endless, including attacks and murders of opposition journalists, and the imprisonment of blogger Alexei Navalny’s brother.  President Putin is a vindictive man, who has shown that he will violently punished offender and innocent alike in retaliation for an insult.

Putin is a judo master, who has said “Life is judo”.  He is an opportunist, using his reprisals as opportunities for gain.  When Yukos, Russia’s largest oil company, was taken apart, the assets were largely distributed to Rosneft and Gazprom, from which the Russian government and Putin profited greatly.  From Yukos, to the confiscation of 50% of Shell’s Sakhalin Island project, to the annexation of Abkhazia and Crimea, Putin has shown he will use provocation as an excuse to take what he wants.

Likely Consequences of Sending American Weapons to Ukraine

So, let us consider again the prospect of providing American weapons to Ukraine.  

There is no doubt that providing American weapons would be perceived by Russia as a dramatic escalation of the conflict.  There can be no doubt that Russia’s response would be a disproportionate, violent, and acquisitive.  At present, observers have estimated that Russia has about 1000 soldiers in eastern Ukraine.  I expect the response to shipments of American weapons would be a massive invasion, with 80,000 to 100,000 troops, expanding the conflict to all of eastern Ukraine.  I expect the goals would be to establish a land corridor to Crimea, control of the infrastructure providing power and water to Crimea, and to acquire the lands east of the Dneiper River, including the coal, oil and natural gas resources of the Dneiper-Donets Basin.

Figure 1.  Oil and Gas Fields of the Dneiper-Donets Basin

Ukraine, since the breakup of the Soviet Union, already existed as a scattered collection of local authorities, with a weak and corrupt central government in Kiev.   In the state of war, local oligarchs have formed private militias to protect their own interests, which do not necessarily align with the interests of the central government.   These private militias are growing more powerful.   If America sends weapons to the Ukrainians, there is no accountability for the ultimate disposition of those weapons, and against whom the weapons will be used.  As has been seen in Iraq and Syria, many weapons supplied by the United States are ultimately acquired by our enemies, and used against our interests.

There is no winning this kind of war.  Russia is close to the conflict, can mobilize a much larger military response than Ukraine, and has many supporters in the population.  Russia is willing to destroy or displace any resistant native population.

Ms. Dobriansky, your house will not burn if the U.S. Congress approves sending weapons to Ukraine.  Your life will not be cut short with dreams unfulfilled.  Your sons will not die.  You will not feel the burn of bullets or shrapnel; you will not see the horror of a limb torn from your body.  But these things will surely happen to many people, if Congress follows through on your advised path of military support for Ukraine.   Nearly 5000 people have already died as a result of this unnecessary conflict.   About 600,000 people have been driven from their homes, and cities have become smoldering ruins.   And, as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, small conflicts become large conflicts.  War does not bring stability, nor peace, nor democracy; rather, military intervention becomes a crucible for hatred, violence and terrorism for decades.  If you have any compassion at all for your fellow human beings, you would not suggest sending weapons to Ukraine.

As I write, the situation in Ukraine is again in flux.  Fighting has intensified in the area of the Donets airport.  Additional tanks have appeared among the Donets rebel forces.  Russia is again massing soldiers on the border, in possible preparation for a full invasion.   In the event of a full Russian invasion, those advocating shipment of American weapons to Ukraine will have a stronger argument before the United States Congress.

About Paula Dobriansky

Ms. Dobriansky  has an extensive resume; she is currently Senior Fellow at Harvard University’s J.F. Kennedy School of Government, and has served as a diplomat under five U.S. presidents, both Democratic and Republican  She briefly served as an high-level executive of the news agency Thomson Reuters.  She has multiple academic honors and honorary degrees, and honors from the United States and a number of Eastern European nations, including Ukraine.  She is the author of influential opinion pieces on the editorial pages of major newspapers.  She has worked on a number of critical global issues, including women’s rights, human trafficking, human rights, oceans, health and climate change.  She is the daughter of a noted Ukrainian-American economist and anti-communist of the past generation, and she is considered an expert on Eastern Europe.

References

Dobriansky, Paula; Alaska World Affairs Council; Ambassador Paula Dobriansky on "Ukraine: Peril and Opportunity", December 10, 2014.

http://www.alaskaworldaffairs.org/events/paula-dobriansky-ukraine/

Dobriansky, Paula; “Q&A with Paula Dobriansky: Ukraine Crisis Upends International Order”, Voice of America Interview, April 10, 2014

http://www.voanews.com/content/q-and-a-with-paula-dobriansky-ukraine-crisis-upends-international-order/1890889.html

Letter to President Clinton by members of “Project for a New American Century”; January 26, 1998.

https://web.archive.org/web/20131021171040/http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Ramberg, Bennet; Op-ed piece by Bennett Ramberg, former State Department official in the G.H.W. Bush (senior) administration.  Ramberg echoes Dobriansky’s opinion that the United States should provide lethal military support to Ukraine.  Ramberg cites the “successful” strategy of providing military aid to Afghan militants during the Soviet occupation, seemingly oblivious to the long-term results of that action.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1120-ramberg-arm-ukraine-20141120-story.html

Karatnycky, Adrian, January 2, 2015; “Ukraine’s Rising Warlords”, blog post on GulfNews.com (Dubai).

Out-of-control private militias, right-wing militants, and oligarchs are becoming a problem for new Ukrainian government.    Private military groups have kidnapped and threatened government officials, and obstructed officials from carrying out their duties, unless actions are approved by the private militia.

http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/ukraine-s-rising-warlords-1.1435189

Golinkin, Lev, January 2, 2015, “Kiev’s Brutal Strategy in Eastern Ukraine”; blog post, Los Angeles Times.

Ukrainian policy of depriving separatist regions of basic necessities is inhumane and likely to create deeper conflict.   Private militias in eastern Ukraine are interdicting aid convoys from Russia.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-golinkin-ukraine-humanitarian-crisis-20150102-story.html

Gessen, Masha, 2012, The Man Without a Face – The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin,  Riverhead Books, First Edition, ISBN-10 #1594488428.

Ukraine – A Nation on the Edge, Update #2 – Differing Perspectives from East and West

The crisis in Ukraine has been the subject of two previous posts on this blog. 

Fifty years ago, as an eight-year old playing with older boys, I learned the name "Ukraine" in a board game called "Risk".  It was a war game, and the goal was global domination by building military empires.  The most important place on the map was Eastern Europe, stretching from the Barents Sea to the Middle East.   This large block, half the size of a continent, controlled the expansion of empires from east or west.  That crucial geopolitical place, the key to success in this boys' game, was given a single name: Ukraine.  (Strangely, the name of Russia did not exist on the map; perhaps this was some artifact of the cold war.  

Status of the Ukrainian Crisis

The Ukrainian crisis is unfolding with the inexorable logic of a slow-motion train wreck.  I wrote those words about a month ago, but failed to finish this post.    I originally wrote that outright war was unlikely…then still unlikely… and now would say increasingly likely.  Considerable violence will occur before the crisis is resolved. 

Russia has annexed Crimea, and cities of eastern Ukraine are in turmoil.  Separatists in these cities have created an ungovernable climate, using the same tactics used by rebels to overthrow President Yanukovich.  It is clear that Russian special forces are organizing the opposition, and performing the takeover of strategic infrastructure before handing control of these assets to local militias.

Perspectives on the Crisis

From the Russian perspective, the turmoil in Ukraine is a result of Western meddling.  Western interests attempted to pull Ukraine into the economic orbit of the European Union, and provoked a revolution, unseating a democratically elected president.   Further, Russia’s  annexation of Crimea is simply the settlement of a long-standing territorial dispute.  Most Russians of this generation regard Crimea as part of Russia, separated from Russia in 1958 by an arbitrary administrative act by Nikita Khrushchev.  In the post-war Soviet Union, Crimea was a popular resort destination for citizens of the Soviet Union.  Russians regard Crimea much as Americans would regard Florida.  It is a traditional resort and vacation land, a place of pleasant memories for today’s generation of Russians, their parents and grandparents.  

From the Western perspective, Russia’s actions are a war of territorial expansion, an unimaginable return to the predatory aggression of World War II.  Western diplomats regard Crimea is an integral part of Ukraine.  Ukraine’s border were established two generations ago, and guaranteed by a treaty in 1994.  In that treaty, Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, in exchange for the guarantee of security of its borders.

Each perception contains partial truth.   But reality goes beyond either perspective.   Western interests did provoke this crisis.   Europeans pursued economic integration with Ukraine, in a genuine, well-meaning attempt to improve the lives of people.   American diplomats promoted the Western-leaning opposition in a geo-political game of domination, and undermined the existing democratic government.  Russia, for its part, is over-reacting, to its own detriment.  Vladimir Putin is using this crisis to demonstrate that he has no tolerance of such interference in satellite countries.   Russia does not regard Ukraine as an equal sovereign state, but rather like a vassal, a little brother bound to Russia politically, economically, and militarily.  Russia will not tolerate the disloyalty and insubordination of Ukraine pursuing a different destiny.

When protests in Kiev reached a tipping point, Russia acted opportunistically, implementing a well-defined plan to dismember Ukraine.   After Russia annexed Crimea, the next steps were predestined.  Despite reassurances by Putin, diplomats and news media, Russia never intended to stop after the annexation of Crimea.  Crimea is dependent on the Ukrainian mainland for water, for power, and for natural gas.  To obtain a secure border for Russian territory, it was immediately necessary to control Kherson province.   And secure control of Kherson province requires control of the Black Sea coast, and the roads and infrastructure of eastern Ukraine.    At this point, Russia cannot back away.   Russia will continue its well-practiced process of local insurrection, military acquisition of strategic infrastructure and annexation until it has acquired all of Eastern Ukraine and the Black Sea coast to Moldova.  Russia's goals will be to obtain a secure border, separation of Russian-speaking regions from Ukraine, control of critical infrastructure, and ownership of prospective petroleum resources within Ukraine.   These petroleum resources exist in the Donets basin of Eastern Ukraine, and the offshore areas of the Black Sea.  The Black Sea coast of Ukraine is a highly prospective but mostly unexplored petroleum province.

Economic and Political Systems

Here’s my political theory. 

The political organization in a society must match the economic organization in that society.  Political structures which do not match the economic structure of the society are unstable, and will not endure.

When the economic unit consisted of a city and surrounding farmland, the political unit was the city-state.   As trading between cities increased, the level of political organization grew to principalities or small kingdoms.  Larger economies, such as ancient Egypt, carried correspondingly large political systems.  Empires sometimes arise as a result of aggressive leadership, but unless supported by widespread trade (e.g, the circum-Mediterranean trade of the Roman Empire), empires divide and die over the course of a few generations.   And so, the main political unit of the 20^th century has been the nation-state.   In recent decades, the increasing scale of trade caused more consolidation.  The European Union represents the next scale of political organization, reflecting economic integration across an entire continent, spanning many nations, languages, and cultures.  North America is awkwardly adjusting to the integration of Mexican and American cultures.

The Soviet Union was perhaps the first economic super-state.  The Soviet economy spanned 15 countries, and was continent-wide in political and economic union.  But this first experiment as a super-state failed, due to the flawed paradigm of strong state control, micro-managed economic planning, single-party political rule, and disregard for human liberty. 

The conflict in Ukraine is a conflict at the border between two expanding economic systems, each striving to improve lives through improved efficiency and economic integration.  But for the people with the misfortune to live in this torn country, there is no benefit. 

Consequences

As usual, there will be no winners in this conflict.

Russia will consolidate its influence in Eastern Ukraine and the Black Sea coast; the only question is how much violence will occur.  Western Ukraine will adopt an economic alignment with the European Union.   The West will need to provide substantial economic support to Western Ukraine for many years.   The people living in the disputed territories will suffer from local conflict for years to come.   Russians living in other satellite countries may be subject to prejudice or expulsion, as the principle rationale for Russian incursions into Crimea, S. Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Eastern Ukraine is that Russians are living in these places, and need protection.  Satellite countries that wish to preserve their autonomy may decide to preempt this process by expelling ethnic Russians, as occurred in several former Soviet Republics, following the breakup of the Soviet Union.  Russia will see the departure of Western investment, jobs, and technology.  The Russian economic growth was already slowing before the Ukrainian crisis; economic sanctions are likely to push the economy into recession. 

Vladimir Putin’s vision of Russia is that of a self-contained and self-sufficient society.  But the world is moving toward greater economic integration.  Every industry is benefiting from innovation and investment that is only possible in a world without economic borders.  Russia is shutting the door to participation in that world.

Putin’s Russia would be the center of an economic and political super-state, along the lines of the Soviet Union.   But Putin’s Russia has not corrected the flaws of the Soviet system.  And Russia lacks the wealth and technology to create a 21st century super-state.  Because of these actions in Ukraine, I believe Russia will become less wealthy, less influential, and more politically unstable in the coming decades.

And the question remains whether the adults and political leaders of the 21st century can hold the lives of people and the prosperity of society in higher regard than boys playing a game of world domination, fighting for control of a piece of territory called Ukraine.

Vladimir Putin and Julius Caesar

Here is something of a slightly lighter character for this blog.

A number of years ago, a traveling exhibit of Roman statuary came to one of the major museums in Houston.   Among many other beautiful statues, there was a long line of busts; the head and shoulders of many of the Roman emperors.  At the beginning of the line was Julius Caesar.

As I stared at the head of Julius Caesar, I had a strange feeling of familiarity about the face.  It was the face of someone contemporary, someone famous.  Finally I had it!  Julius Caesar resembles Vladimir Putin!  Or, alternatively, Vladimir Putin resembles Julius Caesar.

Take a look.

Vladimir Putin                       Julius Caesar

To me, there's a resemblance:  the high forehead, the slight hollow in the cheeks, the slight twist to the mouth, as if he is waiting for the right moment to say something.

The resemblance raises another question; whether people come in archetypes.  To me, it seems that certain patterns among people recur, perhaps controlled by groups of genes which are inherited together.  Sometimes, physical appearance, abilities, personality, attitudes and gestures occur as a correlated set.  We recognize these archetypes in our humor, in our dramas, in our cartoons.   We look at a new colleague and say silently to ourselves, "Oh, no, not again.  One of THOSE."

Perhaps evolution selected certain patterns which persist in populations today.  A small, near-sighted man, introverted, patient and clever with his hands, might have been a flint-knapper, making arrowheads and spear points for the clan.  Large and strong men, courageous and far-sighted, might have been the hunters.  A woman with sharp mind and memory, and fascinated with plants might have been a healer.  And ambitious, authoritarian leaders have been a part of mankind as long as people have organized themselves in groups.