The political campaign in the US is gaining momentum. At the moment, both Republicans and Democrats are busy struggling to win the presidential nomination (the election will take place in November 2016). In the Democratic camp, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is still effectively an unchallenged nomination leader. Meanwhile, the 17 Republican candidates are waging heated battles to become a nominee for the Grand Old Party.
Given that a Democratic president has occupied the White House for two consecutive terms, it is expected that the next president will be Republican. History has not seen Democrats win three consecutive presidencies. That is why the world’s (and America’s) attention is glued to the Republican contest.
The second Republican debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, could offer an insight into who is who among the GOP candidates.
In the run-up to the debate, some American observers believe that the GOP candidates should open the debate with the war in Ukraine as they assess challenges to American interests abroad. “If Russia prevails in this ex-Soviet republic, the Kremlin’s appetite for aggression in Europe will grow, and Russian President Vladimir Putin will get closer to his ultimate goal: to break NATO. With the shattered alliance and American credibility in shreds, our ability to act elsewhere around the globe will be diminished considerably. It’s time we put Russia back in its box. To do this, we need to explode three myths about Ukraine,” emphasizes Jeffrey Gedmin, senior fellow at the Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, in his “Memo to GOP Presidential Candidates: Bust Three Myths about Ukraine.”
First myth: Ukraine is a purely European problem, and the EU can lead in resolving the crisis.
“For Putin, Ukraine is a vital piece on a larger chessboard. He needs Ukraine – with its resources, industrial capacity, and Black Sea access – in order to grow and secure his Eurasian empire. The ex-KGB man smells weakness and craves power. That’s why he’s invaded Georgia and cyber-attacked Estonia, and wages war today in Ukraine,” remarks Gedmin.
He goes on to explain that the EU cannot counter Putin as the current migration crisis, like the Greek financial turmoil, reveals deep fissures in the European project, and the last thing Brussels wants is confrontation with Russia. Consequently, it is only through strength that Russia’s lust for Lebensraum could be killed off. This means America must lead. Otherwise, Putin gets what he wants: an East under Moscow’s thumb, an EU in disarray, a NATO alliance cowed, feeble, and feckless, and US credibility decimated for years to come.
Second myth: there is no military solution to the Ukraine problem.
The truth is, any winning strategy on Ukraine must include a robust military dimension. A serious fight will give the Kremlin second thoughts about probing elsewhere in the region. Turning easy victory into a bloody and difficult adventure can also help in the long run to deflate Russian nationalism.
Third myth: it is the wrong time to give money to Ukraine. We need to wait until corruption has been eradicated and the war is over.
It is true, Gedmin writes, that in the long term, “Ukraine must be free from war if its economy is to have a chance to stabilize and develop. It’s also true that corruption plagues Ukraine, and Ukrainian oligarchs and kleptocrats will not disappear overnight. Economic progress – like winning the war in the east – will be expensive. It will entail setbacks. It will take time. But the costs of action must be weighed against the costs of inaction. Lose Ukraine, embolden Russia, damage NATO, fracture Europe, and further weaken American credibility. This is a path we can hardly afford. Let’s see who among the candidates gets the big picture.”
Indeed, presidential candidates have plenty of food for thought. At the moment, most of them simply state the fact that the current occupant of the White House is weak, which is why Putin has no respect for him. In particular, this is a recurrent motif with billionaire Donald Trump, leader among the Republican candidates, who carries out his campaign under the slogan “Make America Great Again!” and whose chances for nomination are pretty high.
But then a question suggests itself: what has to be done to make Putin respect the US president. We can only hope that the second Republican debate will shed more light on the matter. Meanwhile, “Five Questions GOP Candidates Should Answer about Putin,” set by journalist Terrell Jermaine Starr who writes regularly on Russian and East European policies, could help us understand it.
What does Ukraine mean to America, and what does America lose by not helping Kyiv defend itself against Russia? If Trump says Obama’s approach is “weak,” what is a “stronger” option – especially one that Europe would be on board with because the success of sanctions hinges on Brussels’ cooperation, asks Starr.
Senator Marco Rubio says NATO should reaffirm its open door policy to any aspirant, including Ukraine and Georgia. But is he or any other candidate ready to go to war with Russia over Georgia and Ukraine, wonders the journalist.
During a press conference in Berlin, Jeb Bush mentioned something important: America cannot isolate Moscow to the point where “we push them into the arms of China.” And since China, whose economy is four times the size of Russia’s, sees Russia as a huge financial risk, a question suggests itself: is there a way for America to exploit this? It would be interesting to hear Bush discuss how possible it is to leverage China to rein in Putin’s expansionism, suggests Starr.
Senator Rand Paul wrote in Time last year that there is no real military option for the US in the Ukraine conflict. Does he still believe that? And does he still oppose the bipartisan support in Congress for Washington to arm Ukraine with lethal weapons?
Do we even know what Putin’s endgame is? Moreover, Starr stresses that it will be important for the candidates to articulate how America can respond to Putin’s aggression in Europe and, now, Syria. For now, he sees most GOP suggestions on how they would better deal with Putin as all hat and no cattle. “Trump is on stage. I’m sure whatever he says about Putin will be entertaining. I just hope that he does not pull a Putin and enter the stage bare-chested on a horse,” concludes Starr.
Indeed, most Republicans declare harsh action against Putin. During his European tour, Jeb Bush called Putin a “bully,” and the Kremlin, “corrupt.” In May Senator Rubio urged to “rollback Russian aggression.” Scott Walker calls for “standing firm against the Russian threat.” Ben Carson says that the US “must be determined” and lead the world “forcefully.” And Carly Fiorina “would act instead of talking to Putin.”
COMMENTARIES
“THE REPUBLICANS CAN MAKE AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY CLEARER AND BETTER ALIGNED WITH TODAY’S CHALLENGES”
Volodymyr OHRYZKO, former minister of foreign affairs, Kyiv:
“It would be important for me to hear at this second debate, firstly, whether the US understands geopolitical importance and weight of Ukraine in today’s world, and secondly, whether there is enough political will in the US leadership to carry out practical policy in support of Ukraine, based on the answers to the first question, which would mean containing the Russian Federation. Should American politicians clarify their priorities and answer these two questions, I think we would have it easier here in Ukraine. It is obvious that Ukraine is for the US not just another country tens of thousands kilometers away, but a country where the crucial choice is being made: will the Western civilization grow stronger or will it begin the process of its weakening, internal dissolution, and eventually degradation, or will it, on the contrary, strengthen itself, move forward, and grow into an even greater world power. Accordingly, the question is whether today’s American leaders are ready to go beyond talking about something and take practical action, whether they feel responsibility and have political will for it. If the answer is ‘yes,’ the US has a great future ahead, and if it is ‘no,’ the aggressive Russia will quickly realize it and do what it wants, as it does today in Ukraine and Syria.
“I was offended by the Kremlin’s another declaration to the effect that Russia had supplied weapons to Syria and would do so in the future, with any Western warnings of negative impact on anything being the least of Russian worries. If the West will continue such a policy of compromises, it will mean that Syria will be followed by other countries, other crises. Force can be countered only by force, not necessarily military force, but force still. The US and Europe have plenty of opportunities for it.
“The Republicans have a lot of campaign issues on which to earn the support of the American public. The Democrats’ foreign policy demonstrated unwillingness to call a spade a spade, and tended to look for ways to avoid a situation where one must make difficult but responsible political decisions. So, the Republicans have a good opening now to point to these less than successful foreign policy moves of the current and previous administrations and use it to promote themselves. I think the Republicans can, if they return to power, make American foreign policy clearer and better aligned with today’s challenges. I think that they will be ready to accept the challenge rather than pretend that it is not here, for otherwise, the geopolitical role and importance of the US will gradually but steadily diminish.”
“I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE NOTION OF UKRAINE AS A U.S. ALLY APPEARING IN THIS DEBATE”
Yurii SHCHERBAK, former ambassador of Ukraine to the US, Kyiv:
“We see that one country, Russia, having become an authoritarian and aggressive nation that is gradually returning to a kind of combination of Stalinism and Fascism, is very dangerous globally. I think that the leaders of the US, including Republican ones, have to discuss this issue, because it is a direct challenge to existing security architecture of the world and a direct challenge to the US.
“If America does not respond to this challenge now, when Russia threatens not only Ukraine, but also Eastern European countries and Arctic interests of northern countries, including Canada, when it sends planes to test air defense systems of NATO member states, when it discusses using nuclear weapons, that country will become dangerous. This is precisely the matter that should be discussed during the Republican debates.
“The Ukraine issue should be seen in the global context rather than in the limited framework of a regional conflict, where many are trying to place it now. After all, Ukraine is now at the center of world history, a worldwide tornado that rages on its territory. Ukraine has encountered hybrid and information warfare, and I must say that no country in the world is completely insulated from such wars. Ukraine’s experience should be studied by all free and democratic countries in the world, including the US.
“Ukraine is still waging a war without getting any substantial quantities of arms which could increase its defense capabilities. I think this is a shame for democratic countries and especially the US. I would like to see the notion of Ukraine as a US ally appearing in this debate.”
