Arrogance or obligation
Why the crisis in Ukraine is more complex than it looks
Responding to Crimean independence is not straightforward.
The United Nations Charter obliges permanent Security Council members - China, France, Russia, the UK, and US – to guard peace, security and human rights globally. Forgetting the competing demands of peace-vs-security and security-vs-human rights, to call any party arrogant when they intervene is not only a cliché it reveals an incomplete grasp of political necessity.
Consider the options of France, the UK and US - bound as they are by the North Atlantic treaty that excludes Russia and China: Do or say nothing. Say something. Do something.
It makes tactical sense to say big things but do small things; to posture in public while negotiating in private. Political communication is complicated by what domestic factions and international audiences want and need to hear.
How does the White House appease gun-toting Republicans without starting WWIII? How does 10 Downing St stay tough on the EU while fulfilling its NATO and UN obligations?
Russia has an understandable historic sense of insecurity; terrain to the south and west offers no natural impediments to would-be invaders. Air and sea power is useful but possession of ground wins wars. So Russian belligerence is rational. It’s a last line of 'pre-war' defense after a belt of friendly, buffer states between itself and potential enemies. High concentrations of Russian expatriates and descendants in neighboring countries create a third line that can be quickly activated to secure the second.
The loss of Ukraine leaves a hole in that belt.
Although ethically questionable, it makes sense for Russia to annex eastern Ukraine (at least as far as the Dnipro).
European Ukraine must talk tough, mobilize militarily, restrain its neo-Nazis and move quickly for anschluss with the EU.
The worst possible outcome is one in which all involved lose face irrevocably. War is then the only option.
The UN is a product of the Allied victory that ended WWII. Though the world has changed, the international community still has weak, untimely mechanisms for limiting the human cost of rogues and tyrants.
The UN Declaration on Human Rights does not accommodate the anti-‘democratic’ actions of Moscow and Beijing (at home) or (mostly Republican) Washington abroad. The three players undermine those rights in different frequencies, proportions and impacts.
Let them say what they will. Judge them by their actions given the constraints imposed by their risks and obligations.
