But the war for Ukraine won’t be decided in Sevastopol. It will be fought and won in Kyiv without a shot being fired.
One of the objectives of Putin’s invasion of Crimea is to destabilize the Ukrainian economy, which is teetering on the brink of default. His rationale is that if Ukraine’s economy collapses while its new pro-Western government holds power, Ukrainian citizens will become convinced that the country’s future lies with Russia. After all, retirees always got their pensions on time during Victor Yanukovich’s presidency. Further, although the United States and European Union have already pledged $16 billion in loans and grants to bailout the Ukrainian economy, the U.S., EU, and IMF are unlikely to give the additional $19 billion in aid necessary to keep Ukraine’s economy afloat over the next two years if the country’s territorial integrity cannot be ensured.
The more chaos in Ukraine, the further it is from signing an Association Agreement with the EU, which Putin sees as the first step towards EU and NATO accession.
The U.S. has few options available to deter Russian aggression. Many have suggested that economic sanctions might force Russia to retreat. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that European nations, most notably the UK and Germany, will not pursue crippling economic sanctions against Russia; the Russian and EU economies are simply too closely intertwined.
Without help from the EU, economic sanctions on Russia will be meaningless.
The success of the new government in Kiev over the next three months will set Ukraine’s course for the next decade. The U.S. cannot be distracted with a decades-old grudge match. The conflict in Crimea has been used by neo cold warriors as a proxy conflict with Russia. It’s been said before, but it is worth repeating: Russia is not the U.S.’ foremost geopolitical foe, but it might be Ukraine’s. If the U.S. is serious about helping the Ukrainian people and promoting long-term peace in the region, it should cool the Cold War rhetoric and focus on supporting the fledgling government in Kiev. It may not be able to levy meaningful economic sanctions, but the U.S. government has a bevy of available options to influence the long-term future of Ukraine.
For a time following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine was one of the largest recipients of U.S. foreign aid. American policy makers wanted to do everything possible to pull Ukraine out of Russia’s sphere of influence. After two decades, however, the U.S. had little to show for its massive investment. Perhaps understandably, “Ukraine fatigue” became a common expression among Foreign Service officers.
Now, however, the results of this investment are becoming clear: the Euromaidan movement is a testament to the vibrancy of the civil society in Ukraine that the U.S. has worked hard to cultivate over the past two decades. The U.S. government has also helped transform corrupt parts of Ukraine’s government, most notably its judicial system: USAID’s FAIR Justice Program has made tremendous strides in reforming Ukrainian judicial institutions.
Despite some setbacks, the new government has shown itself to be committed to European integration in the days since Yanukovych’s fall. The U.S. should continue to finance efforts to promote civil society in Ukraine, and work with the new Ukrainian government to reform existing institutions.
The U.S. should also work to free Ukraine from its dependence on Russian oil and gas, which have been at the center of Russo-Ukrainian disputes for the past ten years. The current crisis has invigorated efforts to ease restrictions on the export of American liquefied natural gas.
Exports of LNG to Ukraine would support the already booming American LNG industry, and help to create stability in Eastern Europe. Chevron is currently exploring shale gas deposits in parts of Ukraine, and if the company finds the expected reserves, it will help Ukraine approach energy independence.
If the U.S. truly cares about a Europe that is “whole, free and at peace,” it should set its sights on pulling Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit, not reigniting the Cold War by imposing relatively meaningless sanctions. This will not happen overnight. Reforms to stamp out corruption and bring production standards in line with those of the EU will happen over the course of years, not months. The joint decision with the EU to commit $16 billion in loan guarantees, and to pledge technical assistance to help reform Ukraine’s economy is a good start. Despite the uncertainties in Crimea, the U.S. should work with the IMF to provide more long-term assistance in the coming months and years.
Finally, the U.S. should work with Kiev to accelerate Ukraine’s accession into NATO, and put Ukraine on the path to EU integration. It is unlikely that Russian troops would have invaded Ukraine if it had steadfast security guarantees from NATO.
Of course, preventing a hot war in Crimea is the first order of business. Deploying monitors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the UN Security Council will be an important first step towards diffusing tensions. Putin’s acceptance of Angela Merkel’s idea to create a “contact group” to facilitate dialogue about the crisis in Ukraine seems to be another step in the right direction.
But it is worth bearing in mind that the crisis in Crimea is only one of the battles being waged in Ukraine. U.S. policy makers should focus on long-term goals in Ukraine through an array of government and private ventures. Even if the U.S. is forced to concede a long-term occupation of Crimea, it has the opportunity to affect positive change in Ukraine over the next several decades.
And if we are able to view Ukraine only through the prism of the Cold War, won’t it be nice to outfox Putin in the long run?
Kyiv Post staff writer Isaac Webb can be reached at [email protected]
