Tuesday Open Thread [3.4.14]

In a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, McCain (R-Ariz.) said the “blatant act” by Russian President Vladi­mir Putin “cannot stand,” even as he acknowledged that the United States does not have a realistic military option to force Russian troops to withdrawal.

And that, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with the Republican Party war hawks led by John McCain and Lindsay Graham. Their foreign policy vision essentially boils down to this formula:

TOUGH TALK AND THREATS + ? = PROFIT

Where profit can either figuratively mean policy success (i.e. regime change, or Russian withdrawal from the Crimea) or literally mean profits for defense contractors. Republicans resort first and always to military threats whenever a crisis occurs, because they truly believe it is the only way to 1) express and demonstrate the greatness of America and our strength, and 2) it is the only way to achieve American foreign policy goals.

And yet, even John McCain, the belligerent war monger that he is, admits that we cannot go to war with Russia. So what is the point in threatening a military option? If you cannot back up a threat, doesn’t that make you appear even weaker?

Michael Cohen counters the neocons among our punditry and in the Republican Party:

You don’t have to listen to the “do something” crowd. These are the same people who brought you the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other greatest hits. These are armchair “experts” convinced that every international problem is a vital interest of the US; that the maintenance of “credibility” and “strength” is essential, and that any demonstration of “weakness” is a slippery slope to global anarchy and American obsolescence; and that being wrong and/or needlessly alarmist never loses one a seat at the table.

The funny thing is, these are often the same people who bemoan the lack of public support for a more muscular American foreign policy. Gee, I wonder why.

Andrew Sullivan:

How to deal with an authoritarian leader, increasingly paranoid about the West, his greater regional aspirations turned to dust, who is now wielding military power in a manner more reminiscent of the Cold War than of anything since? One obvious response is counter-provocation, of the kind that John McCain and the Washington Post editorial board would instinctively prefer. It seems to me that, given how Putin has reacted to Western pressure so far, this would merely invite more recklessness.

The saner approach is to try and mollify some of Russia’s legitimate concerns about Ukraine – the rights of the pro-Russian Ukrainians in the East, for example, some of which were suspended (and now restored) by the new Kiev government, while persuading him of unstated but profoundly adverse consequences if he ratchets up the use of force even further. David Ignatius – unlike the breathless neocons on the WaPo editorial page – makes the case very effectively [yesterday]. What our goal must be now, above everything, is avoiding any pretext for a Russian invasion of Eastern Ukraine.

And the truth is: this is very much in Russia’s actual interests. Its stock market and currency are in free-fall this morning, but a full-scale invasion of Ukraine would mean a mutual bloodbath, effectively destroying Russia’s standing in the world, tearing up its relations with the major powers, including, possibly China, and rendering it a rogue, primitive, paranoid power, whose elites would be cut off from the global trade and financial markets they rely on.

Jacob Heilbrunn observes that Obama “has few tools at his disposal to compel a change in Russian behavior”:

Rather than threatening Putin, Obama should continue to seek to offer him an exit strategy–just as Putin offered him one out of Syria. By all accounts, this is what Obama is seeking to do. Such a course won’t satisfy the nostalgic cold warriors in Washington, but it would defuse a conflict that should not be allowed to jeopardize the West’s relations with Moscow.

Kaplan offers a way forward:

Perhaps Obama could offer assurances that he won’t offer Ukraine membership in NATO (that’s not a live issue anyway), nor will he push to revive the plan for Ukraine to join the European Union. This latter pledge would be a big deal:

The protests were set off when Yanukovich cancelled plans for a formal association with the EU, after Putin lured him back into Moscow’s bed with a $15 billion aid program. In exchange for these assurances, Putin would call off his shock troops, recognize the Ukrainian parliament’s ouster of Yanukovich (whom Putin never liked anyway), and allow Ukrainian elections to go ahead this May, perhaps under international observation. Obama could present the deal as a victory for democracy (the Ukrainian people will decide!). Putin could swallow the deal, believing that a pro-Russia candidate might win (legitimately or otherwise). In any event, the Ukrainian politicians will have been shown what Putin could do if they get out in front of their skis again.

As for what the President has already done, the United States announced Monday it would boycott the upcoming Paralympic Games in Sochi to protest Russia’s incursion into Ukraine, as a State Department spokesperson said it was “likely” that the U.S. would impose sanctions on Russia. The boycott effectively means a presidential delegation will not be attending the games, but the athletes will. A symbolic move. More real moves:

State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki said Monday that sanctions on Russia were increasingly probable, given the escalation in tensions. “At this point we’re not just considering sanctions. We are preparing options and we are likely moving down that path if things proceed.”

British government officials are also boycotting the Winter Paralympics in Sochi, Agence France-Presse reports. Prime Minister David Cameron said Sunday he thought it would be “wrong” for government ministers to go to the Games given the unfolding events in Ukraine.

The boycott is the first definite measure Western leaders have taken to isolate Russia following Putin’s unprovoked attack in Crimea. Other measures discussed include expelling Russia from the G8 (which also includes the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Japan, Italy and Canada) and imposing economic sanctions on the country.

Further, the President called on Congress to pass a Ukrainian aid package so that they can put their very fluids

[P]resident Obama reiterated his view that Russia’s actions in Ukraine represent a violation of law and said that his “interest is seeing the Ukrainian people determine their own destiny.”

President Obama recognized the fact that there are many Russians in Ukraine, but pointed out that there also many Ukrainians in Russia. Those interests could be reconciled, he said, “but what cannot be done is for Russia, with impunity, to put its soldiers on the ground and violate basic principles are recognized around the world.” Obama said “the strong condemnation” of Russia by the international community “indicates the degree to which Russia is on the wrong side of history on this.”

Obama said that if Russia continues, the U.S. would lead a global push to “isolate” Russia and weaken its economy beyond steps already taken with respect to suspending plans for the G-8 summit planned for Sochi this summer. Obama tried to give Putin a way out by offering to support a mechanism to guarantee the safety of Russians in Ukraine, but said that if Russia presses forward with military action it would, over time, be “a costly proposition.”

Obama, who reiterated America’s support for the new Ukrainian government, also sent a message to Congress, calling on them to pass an aid package for Ukraine when they return from vacation. “I’ve heard a lot of talk from Congress about what should be done, what they want to do,” he said.

“One thing they can do right away is to work with the administration to help provide a package of assistance the Ukranian people in that country. When they get back in, assuming the weather clears, I would hope that would be the first order of business, because at this stage there should be unanimity among Democrats and Republicans that when it comes to preserving the principle that no country has a right to send in troops to another country unprovoked, we should be able to come up with a unified position.”

Emphasis mine. Another thing John McCain and the evil loud neocons have done is that now, everyone laughs at that bolded line when it is uttered by an American leader. Thank you Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, for weakening American leadership by lying us into an unprovoked war.