Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
“President Joe Biden urged Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday to ‘de-escalate tensions’ following a Russian military buildup on Ukraine’s border… Biden also told Putin the U.S. would ‘act firmly in defense of its national interests’ regarding Russian cyber intrusions and election interference, according to the White House. Biden proposed a summit in a third country ‘in the coming months’ to discuss the full range of U.S.-Russia issues, the White House said.” AP News
“The Biden administration announced Thursday the U.S. is expelling 10 Russian diplomats and imposing sanctions against several dozen people and companies, holding the Kremlin accountable for interference in last year’s presidential election and the hacking of federal agencies.” AP News
Many on both sides call for the US and NATO to support Ukraine against Russian aggression:
“Russia’s military buildup [in Ukraine] is a test of western resolve… London is hawkish in relations with Russia (especially since the Skripal poisonings), but Paris and Berlin tend to be more cautious in confronting the Kremlin. There are commercial as well as strategic issues in play – not the least of which is a pipeline project for carrying Russian gas to Germany. The European Union is not well set up for foreign policy coordination. The continent is reliant on America for its security in ways that test Washington’s patience…
“[But] The wider the divisions within NATO, the more room Mr Putin sees for his trouble-making manoeuvres. And that puts Ukraine and the stability of eastern Europe in peril. There is no easy way to handle Russia when its foreign policy is conditioned by paranoid nationalism and cynical playing to a domestic audience by means of stoking international conflict. But the starting point for democracies on both sides of the Atlantic must be unequivocal solidarity with a sovereign state that has already suffered from Kremlin territorial aggression, and is threatened by it once again.”
Editorial Board, The Guardian
“In 1999 Putin, a then largely unknown politician, was installed atop the Russian power system. Shortly thereafter, Russian troops entered Chechnya, with Moscow establishing direct control of the country by May 2000. By year’s end, Putin’s approval rate had jumped to 84%. Several years later, with his approval rate down to 66%, Putin invaded Georgia. His approval rate quickly elevated to 88%…
“By November 2013, economic problems had sent his job approval ratings south once more (to 61%). But with the 2014 invasion and annexation of Crimea, his popularity rebounded to 89% by summer of 2015. Putin’s approval rating has trended downward since April 2018… Forewarned is forearmed. The West needs a clear strategy to prevent new Russian aggression against Ukraine…
“Ukraine needs an immediate boost for its defensive capabilities. If nothing else, the United States and U.K. need to live up to their promises in the 1994 Budapest agreement, under which Kyiv de-nuclearized in exchange for guarantees of its territorial integrity and sovereignty, provided by three nuclear states: the U.S., U.K. and Russia. We know where Russia stands in this situation. There is a need for greater clarity from the U.S. and U.K.”
Mamuka Tsereteli and James Jay Carafano, Fox News
Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander James Stavridis writes, “Will Putin actually invade again? The good news is that it seems less likely than in 2014. The Ukrainian armed forces are better armed and trained, largely with U.S. assistance. But with Putin, you never know — and he may believe the U.S. domestic turbulence and division, coupled with the obvious challenges of the pandemic on both sides of the Atlantic, are sufficient distractions. He’s made similar bets before — in Syria and Georgia as well as Crimea — and is willing to take a chance and deal with the consequences later. The best course for the Biden team is to look [into] the eyes of the man the U.S. president correctly called a ‘killer’ — and call his bluff…
“That means providing Ukraine more offensive weapons, especially antitank and anti-armor surface-to-surface missiles, and commensurate training for the Ukrainian armed forces directly by the U.S. European Command. It also means sending U.S. naval warships to operate in the Black Sea… placing additional sanctions on Russia in general and Putin’s cronies in particular in response to the SolarWinds hack and the Navalny poisoning; and continuing NATO engagement with Ukraine, including placing it in a Membership Action Plan, a precursor to joining the alliance.”
James Stavridis, Bloomberg
Other opinions below.
“The administration called the new sanctions ‘sweeping,’ and compared with the grudging steps previously taken by Mr. Trump, they were. But punches were pulled. U.S. banks were banned from purchasing ruble-denominated Russian debt, but only in the primary market; other international investors will likely still buy Russian bonds knowing they can be resold to U.S. institutions…
“Six Russian cyber firms were targeted, all of which have close ties to the military or intelligence agencies. But Russian energy and mineral firms that bring in the bulk of the country’s foreign earnings were left untouched — as were the several dozen oligarchs who prop up the regime and manage Mr. Putin’s personal wealth.”
Editorial Board, Washington Post
“[Edward] Fishman, the former US sanctions official now at the Atlantic Council think tank in DC, explained that sometimes the sanctions and punishments you don’t use can be more effective than the ones you do. ‘Sanctions are most impactful as a threat, before they’re imposed, to deter future actions by another government,’ he told me. ‘What Biden is showing is he’s not going to hold back when it comes to sanctions against Russia, but he has more arrows in his quiver.’… If Biden had used up every sanctions and diplomatic option available to him, Putin may have just gone ahead and invaded Ukraine anyway because he’d have no further moves to fear, experts said.”
Alex Ward, Vox
“Biden's suggestion on Tuesday that the two leaders hold a summit in a third country is a welcome one… In addition to speaking about the points of friction, a summit would help the two nuclear-armed countries find ways to deal with their differences, and potentially reinforce areas of common interest. Both countries are interested in arms control, stopping nuclear proliferation and preventing international terrorism. Neither Moscow nor Washington wants to see a nuclear Iran or an aggressive North Korea.”
Frida Ghitis, CNN
“Moscow has been adding troops in the area for weeks; it now has 40,000 troops in Crimea and 40,000 more elsewhere along the border. That’s more than 10 percent of Russia’s entire military manpower…
“Biden’s response? Send in warships — only to call them back after Russia hinted it would target them. He also called Putin on Tuesday to ask for an in-person summit (which the tyrant declined) and give the ‘United States’ unwavering commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.’ But similar tough talk in the Obama years didn’t save Crimea — nor did later US sanctions on Russia. Yet Biden’s now imposing new sanctions in hopes they’ll work this time…
“The Russian president for life (he just signed a law leaving him in power until 2036 — when he’s 84) won’t be deterred by anything except truly credible threats. President Barack Obama couldn’t pull that off. Is Biden going to do any better?”
Editorial Board, New York Post
“Whether in the Soviet or the post-Soviet times, every summit with a US president brings a very substantial domestic political bounce to the Kremlin’s denizens… To the Russians, a summit trumps everything else, including the just-announced sanctions on Russia and the expulsion of 10 Russian diplomats from the US. In what they will see as a clear win for Putin, he responded to Biden’s insult by flexing his muscles, and the American president is now begging for an audience with the Kremlin chief…
“The Biden administration’s foreign policy strategists may have been possessed of some deep — very deep — strategic considerations inaccessible to amateurs, but until they show their hand this hasty summit looks like an unforced and costly error. Interpreted as a reward for the threat of an aggression — which is exactly how Putin will interpret it — it is precisely the wrong way to begin Biden’s four years of dealing with Moscow.”
Leon Aron, American Enterprise Institute
