Niko Kolis
nkolis@uwyo.edu
Russia’s recent military stand-off in the Crimean region of Ukraine has sparked debates on whether or not international responses to aggressive military actions such as this are strong enough to deter warfare.
President Obama has communicated closely with European countries in the handling of this delicate situation; a course of action that has made him the target of criticisms.
“Obama is getting knocked around pretty good by right wing internationalists,” said Ambassador Marc Wall, the Senior Visiting Scholar for Global and Area Studies at UW, “and frankly I don’t buy into that.”
The important geographic position that Russia possesses on the international stage forced cautious action by American policy makers when deciding what should be done when Russian forces massed along the border of Ukraine.
“The fact is that this is Russia’s backyard, and we don’t have any good military options,” Wall said.
Beyond the glaring military challenges that the situation posed, the U.S. is in no state, diplomatically or otherwise, to initiate military action by itself against another country.
“The best thing we can do is make sure that there’s no daylight between us and the Europeans,” said Wall. “It makes sense to work closely with the Europeans so that Putin can’t exploit any gaps between us. I think Obama is doing the right thing; whether it works remains to be seen, though.”
Obama has often received negative commentary from various media outlets due to his close ties with Europe and the high esteem with which he is viewed in the countries there.
While it is a popular norm to criticize a president of the opposing political party for anything and everything they do, this is one way in which Obama’s detractors miss the point entirely.
The increasing complexity of the global stage does not allow for unipolar action on the part of the United States. The hegemonic power that was once enjoyed by this country has slowly disintegrated over the past decade. America will be increasingly forced to capitalize on the multilateral ties formed by international treaties and institutions if it is to effectively mold the world to meet its security and economic goals.
This trend has been clearly followed during several incidents throughout the Obama-headed administration.
“Maybe Putin would have thought a little more carefully about [Ukraine] if Obama hadn’t been so ready to cooperate with Russia on Syria,” Wall said. “However, I think Obama did the right thing then, with Syria, along with making the right choices now.”
America can no longer afford foreign policy debacles such as the Iraq War, agreed upon by the majority of international scholars to have been one of the costliest mistakes the U.S. has made since the Vietnam War.
“Appearing weak” is a far more preferable fate when the payoff is avoiding the costly actions of military operations. Even more so when the far-reaching effects can destabilized a region that demands the financial support of the U.S. in order to rebuild.
Foreign policy objectives such as this detract from our ability to piece together the multitude of issues we face in the domestic sphere, such as failing infrastructure, social/economic inequality and financial deficits.
Utilizing the plethora of multilateral institutions at our disposal to address international security threats is the only way America will flourish in coming years.
