[ad_1]
The author is an associate researcher at the Raoul-Dandurand Chair, where his work focuses on the study and analysis of American politics.
While Russia has officially undertaken the invasion of Ukraine, and the White House has already made it known that such a hostile gesture will trigger a series of harsh measures against Moscowa fundamental question arises: what are the options for the United States at this time?
There are four.
Punishments
The administration of US President Joe Biden can continue – as it has done since Monday, after Moscow recognized the pro-Russian separatist regions of eastern Ukraine – to impose financial sanctions on the Russian regime. The idea is to go there in a way gradual, moving on to increasingly severe punishments. That’s what it announced on Thursday, with four more Russian banks penalized and more than half of Russia’s tech imports cut. Vladimir Putin could also be personally sanctioned.
However, this path is strewn with internal pitfalls for the Democratic president. Because it is not only the degree of severity that is likely to gradually increase, but also the degree of difficulty in having these measures adopted by elected officials. Because, constitutionally, the strongest sanctions are usually those that must be approved by Congress, where reaching a consensus is hard work, especially in this time of great divisions in the United States.
Within NATO, resistance, especially from European countries fearing or dependent on Russia, will sooner or later be felt. For example, although the Biden administration appears to have pulled off a major diplomatic coup in getting from germanyafter weeks of negotiations, the decision to suspend the “ famous » Nord Stream 2 pipeline linking it to Russia, other nations, such as Italy, already seem chilly the idea of further alienating their main source of gas supply.
And then, the sanctions have a limited power. Quite simply because, for Russia, when it comes to Ukraine, considerations of an economic nature can have a very relative weight compared to geopolitical concerns. As long as the Kremlin feels threatened by the West, as has been the case for years now, especially since its neighbor’s rapprochement with Europe and NATO, financially punishing a few oligarchs will not accomplish of miracles.
The uprising
If Putin seeks to occupy Ukrainian territory for a period of time, the United States could support and fund, overtly or covertly, a ground insurgency against Russian troops. This is what senator and former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney already suggested in January on American television. Romney, who 10 years ago had qualified Russia, “geopolitical enemy number one” of the United States, sees in a possible insurrection the possibility of bleeding — figuratively and literally — Russia.
Putin, so sensitive to the history of his country, must remember that military entanglements abroad were at the heart of the fall of the tsarist regime during World War I and soviet regime during the Cold War. The risks associated with an occupation of Ukraine — becoming responsible for a country of 40 million people, the clear majority of which, particularly in its western part, want nothing to do with a Russian presence — are very real for Cheese fries. The prospect of complications and sustained military casualties could weigh in the balance.
However, the costs of such an approach, if only in loss of Ukrainian life, would be considerable and the outcome would remain uncertain. Ultimately, the United States could help create or fuel the equivalent of a civil conflict that would do unimaginable harm to Ukraine…and virtually destroy its chances of joining NATO — the point start of the crisis. Putin could ironically come out on top.
militarization
In addition to financing an insurgency, the United States could, in principle, actively defend Ukraine by sending its own soldiers there. This would obviously be the cleanest option — and also, of course, the most dangerous. Like the recently said President Biden himself: “When Americans and Russians start shooting at each other, there is a world war. This option has therefore, for the moment, been categorically rejected by the White House.
However, this did not prevent the Biden administration from supporting the sending of soldiers to Baltic countries such as Estonia and Latvia, ex-Soviet territories such as Ukraine, neighbors of Russia and… members of NATO. In a context where Article 5 of the NATO charter stipulates the mutual defense of members of the North Atlantic Treaty and where Biden has promised very explicitly to defend “every square inch” of NATO territory, then that Russia opposes the accession of these countries to the military organization, it is not a decision without risk. He repeated this commitment Thursday, during his press conference after a meeting with NATO leaders.
acquiescence
The most basic option was rejected from the outset by the United States from the start of the crisis: to seriously consider, even accept, Russia’s first request to commit not to admit Ukraine into NATO. . However, if this option was inadmissible for the Americans and their allies before Putin ordered the invasion, it seems downright unthinkable today.
The reader who has come this far will have understood one thing: at this stage of the crisis, there is no longer any miracle exit that can be orchestrated by the United States.
The sequel does not look good.
[ad_2]
Source link
