© Getty Images
Transatlantic Toughness
Maintaining Momentum on Ukraine

After an initially timid U.S.-EU response to the Ukraine crisis, tougher sanctions against Russia and better coordination are making an impact. More, please.

Published on: May 8, 2014
Michael Singh is managing director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
show comments
  • qet

    First and foremost: what about Crimea? Is the goal of all of these sanctions and IMF loans and NATO troops in border countries not only to halt but to reverse Putin? Or do we just write that off to geopolitics. Hey–you win some, you lose some, right?
    Second: the word “sanctions” is sprinkled liberally throughout the piece, with no actual mention of what these are nor an analysis of their relative effectiveness and the method of their effectiveness. The chaos that passes for “political debate” in this country is all in evidence here: it is assumed by the author that his tossing around of phrases like “sectoral sanctions,” “tools,” “multi-lateral” and “proactive, multi-pronged” convey actual substance. This is politics and policy as a board game–just move your little plastic piece onto Latvia and presto!–it is now immune from attack. I hear the word “sanctions” regurgitated by all sorts of persons and I never understand what is meant. Sure, I could do the research myself, but isn’t that the job of the author, to actually impart some knowledge to me, a lay reader, because he is some sort of specialist or expert? I know this is only a blog post, but given its length, it is not unreasonable to have expected some actual substance.
    Damn, I wish I could get a job like this author. I could churn out stuff like this all day long and still have time to watch Game of Thrones re-runs. Or, I could just develop a foreign policy jargon randomizer, press a button and have my machine spew out “serious policy analysis” by the truckload. Heck, I might even get asked to do a Podcast or appear on Fox.

  • Corlyss

    The usual fatuous nonsense from the striped-pants crowd.

  • Arkeygeezer

    The civil violence in the Ukraine does not directly threaten the United States. It may be disturbing to the European Union, but they do not want to get involved in it. The EU would rather have the U.S. get involved in it. Why don’t we let the Ukrainians resolve their own problem? This is what we are doing in Syria with the only consequence being a Syrian refugee problem.

    • Fred

      Sudentenwhat? That’s a European problem. A few islands in the Pacific? Who cares? That’s an Asian problem. The Sudanese want to saddle us with some Jihadi terrorist? Piffle, that’s a North African problem.

      • Arkeygeezer

        Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were American problems that required military action. How many American lives do you want to sacrifice to “save the Ukraine for democracy?”

  • wimroffel

    “The crisis in Ukraine initially caught Western officials off-guard”
    The author must have missed the Nuland tape. He must have missed the Biden and Brennan visits to Kiev and the following uptick in violence in Ukraine’s East.

    The author claims a lot of concern with “the Ukrainian people” but fails to mention that just an uprising – that according to opinion polls was only supported by a minority of the population – has overthrown an elected president. Sure, that president wasn’t very popular any more and somewhat corrupt, but Obama is doing rather bad in the polls too yet no one claims that an uprising should be organized to overthrow him.

    The author shows a lot of concern for the Ukrainian economy. He fails to mention how much two US sponsored “revolutions” have done to harm that economy. Business likes stability…

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.