Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Why Europe is No Help, Or, Okay, Now What?
Even if President Obama demonstrated an appetite for imposing serious sanctions on Russia, it’s not at all clear that the European Union would support him. Why? From the London Spectator:
[T]he gaping rift between the EU and America stands exposed. The Washington hawks gained almost no traction in western Europe, where there was little appetite for conflict. Even if Russia didn’t supply a third of Europe’s oil and gas, other commercial ties still bind. EU trade with Russia was £280 billion in 2012. America’s total was a twelfth of that, little of it in hydrocarbons. No wonder the hawks have been frustrated that the EU won’t do more.
Upheaval in Ukraine has also seen Germany emerge as a major international player. Berlin, its diplomacy so often hobbled by residual 20th-century guilt, has moved decisively to protect its interests. The Russo-German axis, we realise, is strong and getting stronger. With great determination, many German firms have built lucrative Russian trading links over the last two decades. Along with the likes of VW and Siemens, thousands of ‘Mittelstand’ — small and medium-sized — outfits now operate in Russia’s far-flung regions, making everything from machine tools to plasterboard. Russia has become Germany’s biggest single-country trading partner — a relationship that has much further to run.
Such commercial links put the idea of a united western world baring its teeth at Moscow firmly in the last century. Berlin has staunchly resisted meaningful sanctions, ensuring the EU follows suit.
All this brings to mind an episode from the old days.
Not long after President Reagan took office, he imposed a ban on technology transfers to the Soviet Union, in effect making it impossible for American companies to help build the new Soviet pipeline to Western Europe then under construction. Who opposed this measure so fiercely that the President was ultimately forced to back down, lifting the ban?
Prime Minister Thatcher.
If even Margaret Thatcher insisted on doing business with the Russians, then David Cameron, Angela Merkel and all the rest will most certainly simply shrug off American efforts at real sanctions. The military option is off the table–and, really, who would want to see us start a fight over the Crimea?–and now imposing effective sanctions looks mighty difficult, too.
Dealing with Russia is going to prove…tricky.
Good people of Ricochet, your advice for President Obama?
Published in General
Lenin appreciates the homage.
Perfect.
Here’s a few more shows I’d like Barry to appear on, or be the prime focus of:
Between Two Tools
In Over My Head
Confused About Math
GeoPolitics, SchmeoPolitics
Community Organizing: The Secret of the KGB’s Success
A dithering fool doesn’t command much respect. For all of Bill Clinton’s faults, he wasn’t going to allow himself to get slapped around publicly like this, meaning he wouldn’t open his mouth to put himself in a position where he could get slapped around like this.
Barry’s biggest weakness is Barry’s unshakable belief in the fact that Barry’s pretty awesome.
Peter, I’m not sure President Obama would take any of the good advice from Ricochet listed above. I think Putin has three more cards to play in addition to any further expansion in Ukraine or elsewhere. Putin is a key player in removing chemical weapons in Syria, negotiations with Iran, and providing a base for logistical support to our troops in Afghanistan. He has real leverage over the president. Also, if Obama is not worried about whether Putin will test whether NATO is a tiger or a paper tiger, he should be. NATO is another burr under Putin’s saddle.
Canada sold wheat to the USSR, always with the understanding that those sales could be cut off at any time. If the USSR didn’t want Russians to starve, it couldn’t risk the wheat sales being cut off.
We used to be a Unilateralist (note: not isolationist) nation; it would be useful to return to that. It’s always good to have friends and allies, and it’s always good to consult with them before we act. But it’s best actually to act, and to act in what’s our national interest, and that alone. Full stop.
“Consult” does not mean “seek permission.” Our friends and allies will come along, and if Europe chooses not to in the present case, well, they’ve been a drain on our treasury for decades enough.
It’s time we started leading from the front, instead of trailing along from behind in an Orwellian leadership, and if we act alone, that’s OK, too: no one’s looking out for us, anyway. That, though, doesn’t absolve us of our Judeo-Christian duty to help the least among us. Rolling back an enemy’s march and growing strength is a happy side effect–and a worthy goal in its own right.
Eric Hines
Unilateralist and isolationist are two extremes on a pretty wide spectrum.
There are lots of options between the two poles.
Ditto.
As far as I can tell, Putin has done nothing at all for us on the first two counts. The logistical support question is real, however. We will have to make a choice. I believe Europe should be our priority.
Advice for Obama? Sure. Resign and let an adult take over. You’ll be a happier perpetual adolescent.
Professor, I agree that Putin has not been helpful on Syria and Iran. My point was simply that President Obama has invested a lot of his foreign policy here. Given his reluctance to reflect on the results of his foreign policy and change direction, he may be more reluctant to really face down Putin on sanctions. While I don’t expect much help from Germany on sanctions, I think the key is Great Britain and its London financial center. If Cameron signs on, that will really cripple Russia financially.
Peter,
I am impressed with all this new fangled sanction stuff and I sure hope that it works. You know me, I just like doing things the old fashioned way. You know, an ally gets in trouble and you send them a nice gift to lift their spirits.
In WWII the Russians were all down in the dumps because their country was being invaded by thousands of tanks. So we thought we’d just brighten their day and send them a nice present.
The plane was a bit strange. It wasn’t fast enough to be a good dog fighter but with the engine in the rear there was room for a little surprise. Yep, a nice 37mm cannon. With the cockpit heavily armored this thing was great at killing tanks. If your country was being invaded by tanks you’d really like this too. The Russians really appreciated our thoughtfulness.
…hmmmm..I wonder what would make those nice Ukrainians feel better. Wait.. I know just the thing to cheer up those gloomy guys.
I bet they’d just love some of these. It’s so important to be thoughtful and concerned about the feelings of others.
Regards,
Jim
Yes! The description made me instantly think of the Warthog.
Putin has the leverage of any extortionist over his victim–the timidity of the victim, and nothing else. Rahe is right that Putin has done nothing but actively hurt us vis-a-vis Syria and Iran. Wrt Afghanistan, Putin’s avenues of “support” there are quite limited–in a short time, we’ll be out of Afghanistan entirely, or we’ll have a skeleton force (relatively) easily supported through other routes.
There really is nothing, other than trying NATO in the Baltics, with which Putin can threaten Obama. Except in Obama’s feverish imagination.
Eric Hines
Build a ton more cruise missiles and other precision ordnance, MOAB, along with delivery platforms. These are cheaper, and they supplant a lot (not all) of the need for nuclear weapons through their precision.
On a point elsewhere in this thread, we do indeed need to attack Russia’s economy as well as the oligarchs’. This isn’t a matter of impoverishing an already poor population, this is a matter of making it economically far more difficult, if not impossible, for Putin to maintain his armies in the field. It’s how Reagan’s space-based arms race helped collapse the USSR: they couldn’t keep up, and the economic strain from the attempt was a bridge too far for an already fracturing economy.
Eric Hines
How on earth do you believe that Obama should go about persuading European electorates to stop worshiping at the church of warmism?
Actually, not so hard. Germany already is learning the economic aspects of that failure with the failures of its solar (in a cloud-infested region, yet) and wind “industries,” coupled with the elimination of its nuclear power supplies, leaving nothing but high energy prices and a need to go to coal and to buy natural gas from…somebody.
Eric Hines
I agree that there are hopes that Europe will turn around. I’m going to Italy to study European environmental law for a couple of weeks in May, where I hope to learn more about this. I don’t see what Obama can do to accelerate this.
You mean we should find some prestige project and force the Russians to spend money on it? Do you have any particular projects in mind? If we could get them to pair money we threw down a pit, that would be very good news, but most methods of impoverishing one’s neighbor without using military force are much less efficient than that. Improving American gas production and the like help by reducing the value of Russia exports, as does the arming of Russia’s foreign enemies (which makes Russia’s support for clients more expensive). Other than that, I’m not sure how we make Russia poorer. The experts appear to believe that personal, targeted, sanctions are more persuasive, because unlike the Soviets, modern Russians depend on their wives and “wives” being able to shop and attend nightclubs in London, Paris, Los Angeles, Miami, and New York.
Just noticed this thread after opening conversation on member feed. Only answer is for Obama Admin to mobilize the whole country to increase oil and gas exports to europe or any other Putin customer. Offer Putin’s customer’s a $5 a barrel rebate on whatever price (world price?) Putin is selling to them at. Pull the rug outfrom Putin with some good old-fashioned American free-market competion. May the best country win over European customers. This will sink Putin.
I don’t see what Obama can do to accelerate this [Europe’s conversion from its “green” energy].
He can’t. That just puts a premium on greatly expanding our own oil and gas production. This will both lower global gas and oil prices, drastically cutting Russia’s income, and it will make them cheaper and easier for Ukraine, eastern Europe, Germany, et al., to get from someone other than Russia, further reducing Russia’s income.
You mean we should find some prestige project and force the Russians to spend money on it? Do you have any particular projects in mind? And I’m not sure how we make Russia poorer.
Noting prestigious, just an arms race, like the space-based missile defense system was. Again Russia won’t be able to keep up–though they’ll feel obligated to try–and as a result of trying, they won’t be able to maintain their armies in the field. This isn’t about making Russia poorer, it’s about making their government fail utterly to get anything done. Just like the Soviet did.
The outcome is that Russia will be unable to maintain its armies in the field.
Eric Hines
I don’t think Obama will stop, but Europe has already slowed somewhat reversed some of the worst decisions with respect to warmism, so I hope reality will mug them some more, and possibly in the US the liberals will loose support from some of the private sector unions whose members are destroyed by these policies.
I think change takes longer than 2 years to have effect, so look at as long term policies that can effect future actions, say in Estonia, Latvia, etc. Even if Obama changed today, most economic policies would take 3-5 years to start to have real effects, but we have to start sometime, the sooner the better.
The standard talking point, is “It will take 10 years, so don’t do it” but on many things if we had started when first proposed we would have them today. Time for a solution is usually not a reason not to do something, if the thing makes sense for valid reasons.
This strategy depends on Russia seeing itself as an equivalent to the United States, as the Soviets did. That’s not Putin’s approach. Brezhnev really believed that the world would become Communist, and the Cold War was about global domination. Putin doesn’t want to convert the globe to a particular ideology; he just wants Russia to be secure in despotism. He needs the power to be unassailable, and to dominate his region, but not to achieve victory over America. We will have “Sputnik moments” in the sense that every now and again a foreigner will achieve something neat, but, other than the use of a modern nuke, no action of a foreigner could make the US appear scientifically backward and incapable. Putin would have no ability or incentive to compete in an arms race, or any other kind of race. Except for possibly personally engaging in dog sled racing, but that contest would not go well for Obama.
He needs the power to be unassailable, and to dominate his region, but not to achieve victory over America.
He wants not only to dominate a region, he wants to expand that region of dominance. This isn’t about ideology, this is about Russian power–and Putin’s personal power, the fate of all despots. It’s also a bastardized version of the Roman model–expand or fail–and with his economy already in serious straits, he desperately needs expansion.
That also underlies his need to keep up with us in an arms race–we’re the power that can stop his expansion, and we’re the power that can roll back his recent invasions and occupations.
There’s another benefit to an arms race. Stipulate, arguendo, that in fact Putin eschews keeping up with us in deployed weapons capabilities. We still have other enemies with whom we need to contend: the People’s Republic of China, Iran, northern Korea (whose terrain makes the task more difficult for present arms than does its army), terrorist organizations and their hosts.
The arms race *should* foster development of weaponry/units that can handle other than set-piece wars, too.
Eric Hines
I totally believe in increasing our military spending, but I don’t see how increased spending on US weapons manned by Americans directly messes with the Russians. I do think that it has a number of indirect benefits as regards the Russians; Taiwan’s territorial integrity helps maintain the paradigm of the Pax Americana, and the ability to respond to problems without sacrificing one’s ability to respond to other problems that arise or expand while the first problem is being addressed is obviously vital.
I don’t see how those would be much changed by Russian military spending, though, so I don’t see how a US increase would result in an incentive for a Russian increase. On another thread, Byzantine analogies are being presented, and I do see how the training and equipping of allied militaries would increase Russian interest in building arms.
I don’t think that Russia has much serious interest in expanding its region; it supports Eurasian dictatorships and expects to dominate the powers that the Soviets dominated. It bullies and cajoles other countries into supporting its aims (much of that by bribery involving oil), but Russian interest in the domestic policies of countries that were not enslaved under Brezhnev seems trivial to me.