Trudy Rubin: A framework for a response to Putin

The Philadelphia Inquirer Published:

George Santayana famously said, "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it." But when it comes to Russia and Ukraine, Western leaders can't seem to decide which century's lessons they should take to heart.

When Vladimir Putin's forces invaded Crimea, a stunned Secretary of State John Kerry initially opined: "It's a 19th-century act in the 21st century." In other words, 21st-century rules of an interconnected world barred anything as atavistic as forceful seizure of European territory. Kerry was so stunned he could only suggest as punishment that Russia be kicked out of the club of G-8 industrial nations.

Initially, German Chancellor Angela Merkel seemed equally flummoxed, saying she thought "we had transcended" 20th-century conflicts over territory. Germans are now debating whether World War I or II holds the more relevant lessons for Crimea: Should Europe go slow on Putin lest it sleepwalk into war as it did in 1914? Or does it need a military response to Putin's anschluss of the sort Europe failed to provide in 1938 when Hitler annexed Austria?

The problem with swallowing Santayana's warning whole is that history never repeats itself to the letter. Any attempt to base current strategy on what happened 75 or 100 years ago is likely to end badly for all concerned.

Yes, Putin has reintroduced into Europe the pre-1945 concept of annexing territory by force -- which has not been seen since the onset of the nuclear era. He can't justify this practice by claiming he has a duty to protect Russian speakers outside Russia proper (who weren't in any danger). "That's like saying France has a duty to protect French speakers in Belgium or Switzerland," says Francois Heisbourg, director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Heisbourg says it's time for Europe to abandon its illusion that hard power is passe, and to "secure our own strategic borders." This does not mean, however, that it's time to gear up for World War III.

But it does mean President Obama, Kerry, Merkel, and other European leaders need to abandon the fantasy that Moscow -- or Beijing -- would never use 20th-century military tools.

It also means Western leaders -- especially Merkel -- must not get caught up in overwrought World War I analogies (fueled by a spate of books on the 100th anniversary of 1914). That could prevent them from sending a very strong message to Putin when Obama meets European Union leaders in Brussels.

The idea is not to go to war with Russia, but to convince Putin that he faces serious consequences should he invade Ukraine proper -- or try to annex bits of other small, ex-communist neighboring nations.

So far, the signals from the West have been too weak to impress the Russian leader.

But European nations, heavily dependent on Russian gas, investment, and markets, have been far more timid. Yet Europe is in a good position to do far more.

To make the point more bluntly, the Group of 7 (now minus Moscow) should declare that if Russian troops enter Ukraine proper, that will automatically trigger sanctions on badly needed foreign investment in Russia's energy sector, similar to sanctions on Iran. Given Putin's dependence on Gazprom profits, that should get his attention.

"It is very important to show Putin he cannot play the clock, that we have the staying power and he doesn't," says Heisbourg. That will require paying attention to the lessons of the 20th century while using 21st-century economic weapons that are as powerful as guns.

------

ABOUT THE WRITER

Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial-board member for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Readers may write to her at: Philadelphia Inquirer, P.O. Box 8263, Philadelphia, Pa. 19101, or by email at trubin@phillynews.com.

------

©2014 The Philadelphia Inquirer

Visit The Philadelphia Inquirer at www.philly.com

Distributed by MCT Information Services

----------

PHOTO of Trudy Rubin available from the "Columnist Mugs" section of MCT Direct.

_____

Topics: t000002774,t000002537,t000016746,t000040342,t000016748,t000181717,g000362697,g000362669,g000219715,g000362667,g000224489,g000362690,g000065696,g000215489,g000221444,g000221463,g000362661,g000065564,g000225747,g000065584,g000066164

Want to leave your comments?

Sign in or Register to comment.

  • I agree with Ghost.

    And, repeat, that the answer is quite simple. Hurt  Russia economically and at the same time make the US energy independant. Open up gas and oil exploration on public lands. Nearly every state in the Union could be experiencing the growth of high, very high paying jobs like N. Dakota and TExas.  Tax revenue would increase dramatically, arguments about miinimum wages would be mote, gasoline prices and all energy prices would fall, we could be exporting oil and gas within 2 years and thus taking the wind out of Putin's sails.

    But will never happen as long as obama fears the cut off of funds from the envirornmental lobbys more than he fears the American voters.

  • Rubin presents the wisdom of a fool. It is not as if Putin cannot respond in ways detrimental to the U.S. Examples include from undermining U.S. efforts to prevent Iran from getting the bomb to a strong anti-American alliance with China.

    What if China acts up at the same time Russia moves in the Baltics. Thden what, institute the draft? Nuke Moscow? 

    Neocons like Rubin should think before they write. No wonder Putin is running circles around her and her ilk.

    America is drowing in debt. We have no business militarily defending borders thousands of miles away when we won't even defend our southern border from the alien invasion of millions.