By Lt. Danny Kuriluk, U.S. Navy
Best Defense guest columnist
Beginning with Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine’s
Crimea peninsula in early 2014, Russia has continued to destabilize Ukraine by
fomenting rebellion and spreading the conflict into other regions of the
country. The international community failed to prevent the situation, and has
failed to stop its escalation. If Putin cements rebel gains in Ukraine, it will
further damage the national interests of the U.S., and continue the degradation
of international norms relating to sovereignty and intervention.
Ukraine has an obligation to protect its own people.
Due to Russia’s overwhelming military advantage, Ukraine has asked the west for
help in fulfilling this obligation. In order to maintain the legitimacy of the
United Nations and NATO, the U.S. must work with Europe to take steps to
counter Russia’s actions.
A strategy that satisfies the “right intention”
criterion will avoid direct confrontation with Russia, enable Ukraine to have
full control of its territory, allow for reconciliation of the combatants, and
provide peaceful self-determination for the people of Crimea and the separatist
provinces. The following strategy comprises five components that the U.S. must
begin coordinating and executing simultaneously.
Component 1: Level the Playing Field
The quickest way to enable Ukraine to defend itself
requires the U.S. to partner with allied nations to enact an arms and medical
supplies program to help strengthen the country’s defensive and humanitarian
capabilities. America’s current aid is not sufficient to enable Ukraine to
counter the new forces that Russia is massing along the border. Instead, the
U.S. should appropriate money to regional allies that utilize Warsaw Pact
weapons to enable defensive assistance to quickly reach the Ukrainian forces, and
avoid the time, skill, and integration issues of directly sending American
weapons or trying to train Ukrainian troops. This component will raise the
costs of Russian intervention and help Ukraine stem its losses — hopefully
either convincing Russia to reassess its strategy, or provide the west with
time to implement a more robust response. Coupled with increasingly harsh
sanctions, specifically SWIFT sanctions, it will increase the pressure
domestically and internationally on Putin, and aid Ukraine’s defense while
preventing the U.S. from becoming too involved in another foreign adventure.
Component 2: Mobilize International and Domestic
Support
Utilizing the media and NGOs to publicize Russia’s
complicity in human rights abuses, cease fire violations, and other abhorrent
acts (like the targeting of Malaysian Air Flight 17) will build the domestic
and international support required to mount a successful counter intervention.
The conflict is too far away from everyday life, and the government needs to do
a better job of publicizing why it is in America’s interest to act.
With the right campaign, the U.S. can build a domestic
consensus because this strategy is geared towards countering the aggressive
actions of a belligerent foreign power, rather then trying to force regime
change. This component will help to win the propaganda fight that comes with
any international conflict.
Component 3: Build a Coalition
The U.S. must coordinate OSCE peacekeepers backed by a
robust NATO force to rapidly enter the conflict zone and protect the
peacekeepers if conditions continue to deteriorate. An OSCE peacekeeping force
counters Russian fears of NATO expansion along its borders, and prevents
accusations of an occupying force entering Ukraine. It will also help enforce
the current cease-fires, provide civilian security, and, should Russia decide
end its intervention, provide the enduring security required to begin rebuilding
the devastated areas and implement demobilization of the rebels.
Utilizing only OSCE peacekeepers without a robust
force nearby could spur Russia into enacting a blitzkrieg-type strategy
aimed at cementing gains should the peacekeeping mission fail. Prepositioning a
robust and comprehensive NATO force outside the contested regions and separate
from the OSCE peacekeepers can deter Russia from taking more aggressive action.
The most successful interventions, for
example in Kenya, have occurred through the cooperation of regional actors as
opposed to a far-off power imposing its will. Utilizing the OSCE, supported by
NATO, provides a European solution for a European problem—but still backed by
the full strength of the United States.
Component 4: Clean Up the Mess
Professor Michael Ignatieff once said, “Every
intervention is political”. This counter intervention is no different. The U.S.
and Europe cannot enact a comprehensive strategy, without addressing the most
important step of any intervention. A post-conflict solution must provide for
demobilization and reconciliation of the combatants, as well as creating the
economic growth necessary to sustain peace.
The Ukrainian government will face the challenge of
demobilizing, not only, the Russian-backed separatists, but also the irregular
Ukrainian soldiers that have filled the gaps created by the weak Ukrainian
army. The South African reconciliation proves that although it is a painful and
difficult process, amnesty provides the greatest hope to reintegrate the fighters
back into society. Furthermore, Ukraine should work with the EU and the U.S. to
develop autonomy agreements that recognize the diverse character of the
regions, along with economic incentives and loans to help repair and develop
the destroyed provinces. These facts should help convince the rebels to adhere
to the ceasefire and accept the OSCE peacekeepers — eliminating the need for
the fifth component.
Component 5: Set and Enforce a Clear Red Line
There is no guarantee that the first four components
will convince Russia to end its Ukrainian adventure. To prevent Russia from
taking advantage of the ambiguity inherent during a peacekeeping situation and
cease-fire, the U.S. should set a date and declare that any non-Ukrainian heavy
weaponry located within Ukraine’s territorial limits will be destroyed after
that date.
Setting a deadline, and coordinating the
forces necessary to enforce it, will convey Europe’s resolve to guarantee
Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty to Mr. Putin, and push the rebels to the
negotiating table. Although it will require massive amounts of coordination,
and likely encounter heavy opposition, this red line is necessary to provide
credibility to the previous components. The U.S. and Europe must make it clear
that they are not trying to defeat the rebels. Instead, this component is
necessary in order to eliminate their ability to prolong or escalate their
conflict. Although the president has experienced trouble with red lines in the
past, this one is should be much easier to enforce than the red line he set for
Syria.
This plan is not perfect and will require deft timing,
coordination, and negotiation in order to overcome the inherent risk and be
successful. However, Putin has embarrassed the West as he seized another country’s
territory, and forced the U.S. and Europe to default on its obligation to
protect Ukraine in exchange for relinquishing nuclear weapons. Russia’s actions
have far greater geo-political implications outside of the region, and the time
has come to take stand in the name of democracy and international standards of
conduct.
Lt.
Kuriluk has served as a P-3 Instructor Pilot and Mission Commander over the
course of three deployments spread across six continents. He recently finished
his stint as the Navy’s two-year Politico-Military Masters Fellow at Harvard’s
Kennedy School of Government, and is beginning work at the Navy’s Office of the Assistant
Secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations and Environment.
No comments:
Post a Comment