The downing of Malaysia Air Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine, what President Poroshenko has called an act of terrorism, should finally shake the United States and Europe out of their complacency and get it across that the West simply cannot insulate itself from an escalating military conflict at its doorstep. There is a war underway in Ukraine in all but name, manifest as a civil war, but one with powerful undercurrents of a state-on-state conflict. Time is long overdue for NATO not only to openly state, but also to act on the premise, that Russia is a party to that war. And the U.S. must acknowledge that the sanctions regime—either in its more robust American version or in its watered down European variety—has failed to de-escalate the conflict. Even amidst reports of declining Russian stock values and visa restrictions for Russian notables, Putin is digging in, the level of violence in Ukraine is growing, and weapons are flowing across the Russian-Ukrainian border unimpeded. This is not a new Cold War; rather, it’s 18th-century history in the re-making: A bare-knuckled, neo-imperial fight to the finish, led from Moscow, to carve out a Russian sphere of privileged military and economic interest in Europe as part of Putin’s global strategy to counterbalance the West.
It is time for President Obama and Europe’s leaders to address directly their respective publics and tell them that Ukraine is not a conflict of two competing narratives but in fact a struggle by a weaker state to preserve its sovereignty and territorial integrity against internal and external pressure applied by its vastly more powerful neighbor. Simple geopolitics should convince the skeptics about what is at stake for the Transatlantic alliance: If the government in Kiev fails to bring the security situation in the country under control, the Ukrainian state itself may implode, bringing about a dramatic deterioration on NATO’s already tenuous northeastern flank. For those who would prefer not to think in terms of power politics, there is also a values-based judgment to be made here. For even in the corrupt game of international politics, there are times that call for clarity of purpose and a principled stance. Today Ukraine is such a case.
It is time for the West to take sides. Notwithstanding arguments about Russia’s historical control over the territory of today’s Ukraine, or Moscow’s claim to be the protector of the Russian ethnic diaspora, Ukraine’s choice of a pro-Western orientation deserves our support simply because it is in our interest. And yes, although few in Moscow want to hear it these days, a Western-leaning Ukraine is ultimately in Russia’s interest as well: As the power shift to Asia accelerates, Russia will need more not less interaction with the West. A stable, democratic, and Western-looking Ukraine is the best long-term solution to the geopolitical dilemmas that have bedeviled Eastern Europe for centuries, and that we erroneously believed had been laid to rest with the collapse of the Soviet empire. A Ukraine in a geostrategic limbo or, worse still, forced into Putin’s Eurasian project, will become a lasting black hole of ethnic strife along Europe’s borders, with a new round of competition for the “Middle” looming in the not-too-distant future.
If anyone still believes that there is a fix that would allow us to defer the choice Putin forced on the Transatlantic community when he seized Crimea, let him remember that economic sanctions have failed to de-escalate or resolve this situation. Likewise, to speak directly to the flight MH17 tragedy, there is no technical solution to protect commercial airlines from high altitude air defense systems, including an obsolescent system like the Buk, which was allegedly used by the rebels to shoot down the plane. Unless we require civilian airliners to carry countermeasures, any plane flying into the region will be in danger. Offering Ukraine anti-ballistic missile batteries to defuse the threat will not work either, for “tail-chasing” a missile launched from the ground against an airborne target with another ground-based interceptor is technologically all but impossible.
While Russia continues to deny any responsibility for the downing of the plane, it is undeniably guilty of putting surface-to-air missiles in the hands of untrained and poorly controlled rebel units. Even if we were to stipulate, as some allege, that the Buk system used in the shoot down was captured by the rebels from the Ukrainian military, it is absurd to argue that a militia could have deployed such a weapon without the explicit approval or acquiescence of the bordering great power that supports it. If the investigation confirms that the downing of the Malaysian aircraft was done by the Russia-supported rebel force, whether intentionally or inadvertently, this will drive the confrontation between Russia and Ukraine to an ever more dangerous level, pushing the idea of a negotiated settlement that much further away.
Ukraine’s progressively weakened ability to control its airspace has played a part in this tragedy, and thus U.S. and European technical military assistance to Ukraine has a role to play here as well—two roles, in fact: First, it would increase the deterrent capability of the Ukrainian military with respect to the possibility of an all-out Russian military assault in support of the rebels. Second, and equally important, it would increase the speed and effectiveness of the Ukrainian military’s own operation to suppress the rebels and restore full control over it sovereign territory and airspace. Without such assistance, the situation in eastern Ukraine will grow more unpredictable with each passing day. More lives will be lost, both military and civilian, and prospects for reconciliation will become more remote.
The final point that U.S. and European leaders need to make to their publics is that the war in Ukraine is already impacting directly on NATO and the Transatlantic community. An ancillary result of the Ukrainian war is the accelerating militarization of Eastern Europe, with a sub rosa arms race now underway. The conflict in Ukraine has reordered the security landscape, pushing frontline NATO border states like the Baltics and Poland to seek a U.S. military presence as reassurance against Russian aggression. Poland is in the process of acquiring an anti-ballistic missile system, accelerating the decision-making process due to the urgency of the changing situation. At the same time, Russia is moving forward with ever more frequent troop concentrations along the Ukrainian border, Iskander missile drills, and the deployment of S-300 missile batteries to Belarus. Russia has also ratcheted up its troop strength on Ukraine’s border, as well as its direct support for the rebels.
Moscow’s immediate goal is to prevent the consolidation of the government Kiev. Still, Ukraine has progressed with the election of a new President, and, within its limited capabilities, it has moved to do what any sovereign state would: take action to eliminate an armed rebellion on its territory. The Western response has been singularly tepid. Thus far the preferred approach of the United States and Europe has been to manage escalation and seek a compromise solution. This response has accomplished little, as it gives Russia no real incentive to pull back. It also fails to recognize that the idea that there are two equally aggrieved parties in Ukraine that only need to find an equitable compromise is a delusion.
For now as the investigation of the MH17 tragedy unfolds, commercial airlines will need to bypass the area of conflict by a wide margin. But in the long run there is only one solution to the growing threat the war in Ukraine poses to the West’s ability to operate commercially in the area: an end to that war. Supporting the Kiev government, including direct military assistance, should now be the top priority for the United States and its European allies.