A major issue facing the members of congress and U.S. policy makers is how to respond to the Russian issue. Recently, the Russian army under the command of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin occupied Ukraines Crimea region. The reason that the prime minister gave for invading the country is the protection of fellow compatriots in Ukraine. It is important to note that although the United States can project its military might across the globe, Russia wields substantial power to respond in a more or less similar fashion. Although the cold war is over, the weapons once owned by the Soviet Union are now in Russia under the command of Vladimir Putin (Welsh, 2014). To overlook this fact and simply respond with military action in Crimea would be fatal. Ukraine is strategically more important for Russia than the United States or European Union. The country serves as a buffer region between Russia and the expanding European Union. This is where the conflict starts; Ukraine citizens pursue closer ties with the EU, a Russian backed government in the country will have none of it. The citizens protest, and force the president to resign. In response, Russia invades the Crimea region and threats to expand into the eastern and southern provinces (Woehrel, 2014).
There is no denying that Russia is a dangerous and often disappointing partner to conduct business with. However, the issues playing out in Ukraine occur at a critical moment in the history of the United States. The U.S. resources and attention are spread thin. The country is facing a deteriorating relationship with Pakistan. The Israel-Palestine talks are at the top of the agenda for policy makers in the United States, and the thorny issue of Iran and it nuclear program. Other issues include tensions in the Korean peninsula and the systemic disruption of established order by Islamic extremist groups across the world with a focus on U.S. installations. These issues coupled with the recent budget cuts because of the recession make pursuing sanctions with the possibility of a diplomatic solution the only option for the United States. The Syria conflict plays a major role in informing this policy. Early during the conflict, the United States threatened to use military action if certain demands were not met. However, the involvement of major players, such as Russia and china in the conflict resulted in a compromise. Pursuing policies that the country cannot backup is an increasingly dangerous game, especially in the current world where the United States dominance is threatened by emerging powers, such as China and India (Bremmer, 2014).
Other than the threat mutual destruction and the increasingly constrained resources, there are other incentives for the United States to try to pursue a collaborative relationship with Russia. Russia is the largest oil producer and the second largest producer of gas in the world. The Americans feel the effects of this economic power right at their fuel pumps. Given that the American relationship with Pakistan is poor, the United States is collaborating with Russia to supply resources to troops in Afghanistan and ensure the safe exit of equipment as the occupation ends. Russia is also a signature of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program, which play a key role in ensuring sensitive technologies do not land in the hands of terrorist groups or rogue states (Nikonov, Kuchins, & Trenin, 2005).
References
Bremmer, I. (2014). A Tortured Policy Toward Russia. Retrieved from:
Nikonov, V., Kuchins, A., and Trenin, D. (2005). U.S.-Russian Relations: The Case For An Upgrade. Retrieved from:
Welsh, T. (2014). Experts see little the West can do directly to remove Russia from Crimea.
Woehrel, S. (2014). Ukraine: Current Issues and U.S. policy. Congressional Research Service. Web Document
No comments:
Post a Comment