Sunday, July 20, 2014

7.20.14: (Kiev as the New Berlin) The Start of Cold War II

It's important to start this week's column by saying that if this tragic firing down of a passenger plane over Ukraine doesn't change policy behavior in Europe and Russia, things are going to get much worse.  Secretary Kerry, in his interview laid out the case...

It's inexcusable what is happening in the wake of the crash with separatist soldiers removing bodies from the crash site and the cover-up of evidence with cooperation from the Kremlin; the internationally criminal act has now been compounded by international conspiracy. 

Mr. Kerry clearly stated that the Kremlin is supporting, supplying, training, and cooperating with the separatist so now it becomes a question of response.  Europe can not be excused either due that lack of a strong coordinated response from Germany, England, France and Italy, with the latter two pulling back from the two former.

We learned years ago that when Russian President Vladimir Putin says one thing, he'll do another, and in this case he has no inclination to stem the violence in eastern Ukraine.  As long as Mr. Putin keeps gaining ground on his goal of reestablishing the former Soviet territory of influence without consequence while enjoying high approval ratings at home, there's no reason for him to stop. 

Kiev will become the new Berlin in Cold War II. 

Given what we've seen this week in eastern Ukraine, you must conclude that Mr. Putin is fully prepared to be more strategically ruthless than his western counterparts.  Frankly, if you look at it from a wider angle, Mr. Putin, who is enjoying a revival in Russian Nationalism at home according to Mr. Kerry, has European Leaders on their heals in response because of control over energy supply, and he has also bogged down a war weary United States from giving a forceful response by asserting itself as an adversary in the Middle East.  All this means is that Mr. Putin can move with impunity.

David Gregory asked Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) what the administration hasn't done in response to these events, he said that Secretary Kerry and the president haven't called Mr. Putin a thug.  We agreed with Mr. Graham on some points, but not this one because even if in fact that's what he should be called, it's actually Mr. Graham's job to call him that.  The president has to be presidential and Mr. Kerry is the one who has to keep the dialogue going so it falls upon the Senators in the U.S. Congress to issue harsh words.

However, we agree with Mr. Graham, and the entire round table, in saying that the president's response has been weak.  As Andrea Mitchell accurately pointed out, Samantha Powers, U.S. Ambassador to the UN made a more forceful state in condemning Russia's actions than President Obama.  The president has to be out front on this, no more leading from behind.  As the Wall Street Journal's Jason Riley succinctly stated, Mr. Obama is not leading, supported by Ron Fourier's reminder that the president had set a red line in Syria, it was crossed, and there were no consequences - an situation by the way that benefited Russia the most for its backing of the Assad regime. 

Right now are the most challenging times the United States has faced in the last twenty years and unfortunately, the Obama Administration doesn't have a good enough strategy - the light footprint, leading from behind - to get through them and Republicans' ideas are even worse.

Mr. Kerry, for his part, couldn't give a clear answer on what the United States next move should be.  Nor could the Secretary explain what the United States wanted Russia to do in as much as changing its behavior.  The president did institute new sanctions against Russia this week, but he should immediately step them up.  Usually we'd advocate getting Europe on board first, but not in this case.  The U.S. should move ahead and then get Europe on board - take the difficult lead, which is something Mr. Putin figures isn't going to happen.

With regard to Mr. Graham's other suggestion of arming the Ukraine, we would not advocate that action because it puts the United States directly involved in an armed conflict on the Russia border with everything west of that line not fully supporting you.  Not to mention that such action would only escalate the conflict.

Speaking of which, that's exactly where we are with the Israelis and Palestinians.  What's different here is that the region's powers, and the United States according to Mr. Kerry today, back an Egyptian plan to have the moderate Palestinian Authority, lead by Mahmoud Abbas, take control of Gaza instead of Hamas.  It's certainly the desired outcome certainly, as having Hamas, whose arms are funded by Iran, continuing to fire rockets into Israel is not an option. But making that happen is going to require eliminating Hamas altogether because they are not going to capitulate, fall into line as it were so hence, there must be an escalation of the conflict to achieve that desired result.

That escalation is now in the form of Israeli ground troops, who should stay in Gaza as long as they need to root out Hamas completely according to Senator Graham, who spoke tough on behalf of Israel which was a little silly.  However, what he was really saying is that the United States will support the effort.

To ever achieve peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, one core tenant has to be in place.  The Palestinians, all of them, have to acknowledge Israel's right to exist because until Hamas acknowledges this, the violent cycle will only continue. The question is if we have seen Israel's patience completely run out this time.


Round Table: Andrea Mitchell, NBC Foreign Affairs Correspondent; Ron Fourier, editorial director at the National Review; Amy Walter, national editor; and Jason Riley, Editorial Board of The Wall Street Journal




No comments: