How science and tech collaboration with Russia and Ukraine could shape crisis resolution
What is going on in Ukraine?
Ukraine became an independent country on August 24, 1991, just prior to the fall of the Soviet Union. Ukraine was officially recognized in a number of international agreements, including the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, where Russia, Britain, and the United States agreed to respect Ukrainian sovereignty in implicit exchange for Ukraine’s yielding of their massive nuclear arsenal.
Since then, Russia has consistently acted in opposition to its signed agreements, annexing the Crimean peninsula in 2014 and upping its rhetorical referrals to Ukraine as an ethno-Russian region that was stolen from Moscow. The Minsk agreement that was brokered after the annexation of Crimea failed as a ceasefire due to repeated Russian interference and aggression in Russian-backed separatist regions Donetsk and Luhansk.
Post-Crimean Annexation, there have been eight years of instability between Russia and Ukraine. In early 2022, Putin set into motion a path of aggressive troop buildup along the Ukrainian border, while Russian-backed separatists intensified their shelling of civilian targets. As rumors of a formal invasion of Ukraine began to circulate amongst NATO countries, Putin did little to put them to rest, issuing statements that “Modern Ukraine was created entirely by Russia” and most recently, formally announcing Russian recognition of independence for Donetsk and Luhansk while ordering Russian “peacekeeper” troops into the regions.
Looking ahead, President Biden and other western leaders must be careful in choosing their strategy to avoid a large global war. Current solutions undertaken by the Biden administration include sanctions, diplomacy, and threats of military response. This article proposes that science and technology-based strategies for diplomacy and coercion may provide the most compelling method of conflict-resolution with Russia. Such strategies both starve Russia of what it wants now and cut off its opportunities in the future, encouraging limited adventurism should Russia hope to be a powerful nation in coming decades.
Science and technology as methods for coercion and diplomacy
Common methods to induce cooperation in political relationships are “carrots and sticks” or rewards and punishments designed to persuade a party to engage in a certain type of behavior. Traditional examples of carrots have included subsidies, trade agreements, and contracts. Examples of sticks include sanctions, tariffs, or military punishments.
The rapid progression of science and technology developments in the 21st century offers a chance for new stasis points of collaboration and contest in international relations. The Obama administration was the first to officially promote the use of science and technology collaboration to build relations, and since then, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) has been promoted to a cabinet-level position. Science and technology are unique because they are valuable and essential for economic and military growth, but also contain soft power persuasive components typically reserved for human rights measures.
Specifically, regarding Russia, science and technology could present valuable stasis points for negotiations. Below are three options for targeted use of carrots and sticks to disincentivize further Russian expansion into Ukraine.
- U.S. imposition of targeted sanctions on oil and gas.
Although Russia has a mixed economy, its lack of diversification and reliance on oil and gas exports place it in a precarious position, vulnerable to sanctions and economic constraints. The U.S. and its allies, specifically European allies, hold power to cut off most Russian oil exports by imposing targeted sanctions on the oil and gas industries. Currently, the European Union and U.S. have both sanctioned Russia in limited ways: the EU sanctions apply to over 27 Russian individuals and organizations and limit access to European capital markets while the U.S.’ sanctions thus far merely ban Americans and American companies from doing business in Luhansk and Donetsk.
Of course, the imposition of sanctions on oil and gas runs the risk of harming European nations which are reliant on Russian oil and gas. If OPEC nations, the U.S., and Canada can come to agreements about how to fill gaps in oil supplies while sanctions are ongoing, an agreement can be reached.
2. Arctic collaboration
Nearly one-fifth of Russia’s land mass lies in the Arctic Circle. As climate change heats regional permafrost, new areas of the Arctic are expected to open up for resource extraction and potential development. Russia has already taken steps toward militarization of the Arctic, but further development opportunities will depend on how newly freed lands are allocated. Governing bodies of the Arctic include the Arctic Council, which the U.S. is a part of. Given Russia’s vested interests in the Arctic, the territory presents a valuable space to bargain over in exchange for Russia stepping down and limiting aggression against Ukraine. Carrots over the Arctic could include allowing Russia to militarize in certain regions of the circle or granting them development permits for newly opened regions. Sticks concerning the Arctic might include U.S. and NATO promises to militarize in the Arctic or develop there should Russia refuse to step down.
3. Military response, arms sales, and tech transfers
A final option for the U.S. is to send troops, arms, or military technology to Ukraine and/or to engage in preemptive attacks against the Russian Federation upon signs of heightened aggression. With the U.S. and Russia holding the world’s largest nuclear arsenals, the threat of nuclear use is ever-present, but thus far, statements by both sides indicate a conventional war is more likely and preferable.
Until now, arms sales to Ukraine have included advanced weaponry such as Javelin surface-to-air missiles. Additional radar and sensor technology alongside more advanced weaponry could be sent, acting as a carrot to Ukraine for non-capitulation to Russian demands and a stick to Russia who might have dangerous American weapons on their border.
Currently, it is clear that Putin will not back down from his aggressive posture regarding Ukraine; the question is how to combine strategies to convince Russia not to invade Ukraine.
