March 5, 2014

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) told "Fox News' Sunday's" Chris Wallace that Russian President Vladimir Putin “is running circles around” the U.S. in his maneuvering on the global stage. Following Putin's military intervention into the Ukraine, I am totally in agreement.

To illustrate just how those circles are being run, Rogers pointedly said “I think Putin is playing chess, and I think we’re playing marbles. It’s not even close.” Talk about hitting the nail on the head.

Putin’s move to send Russian troops into Crimea following the ouster of Ukraine’s president is not an isolated incident. Rogers said Russia is expanding their border. Crimea was part of Russia through 1954, and Rogers noted a proposal in the Russian parliament that would allow Crimea to become part of the Russian Federation.

So what about President Obama's 90-minute phone call to Putin, warning to stay out of Ukraine? Putin is not afraid. I suspect Obama knows it and that's alright with him. After all, he has a golf game to play.

Monday, Russia declared the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Basically, Russia took Crimea without firing a shot. With this move, Putin has already won in Ukraine.

The pro-western movement in Kiev is basically on its own. The only question left is how far Putin will go with his intrusions, including a possible invasion of the pro-Russian East and the de facto bifurcation of the Ukrainian state. Either way, recent events on the ground have made this much abundantly clear: Nobody is going to stop Putin.

President Obama isn’t going to do anything of any consequence. America won’t leap into action over this. We will watch, as will Europe and the rest of the world, in dumbstruck impotence. And while it doesn’t feel good to say it, that’s really the only realistic option we have. Obama doesn't care. Obama is not into foreign affairs. He is inexperienced and leaves these issues to inexperienced "experts."

Here in America, the non-interventionist chorus as well as regional foreign policy experts are quick to point out the myriad reasons why Ukraine is not our problem, and to go beyond minimum action would be a grave mistake. So far, those voices are winning the argument and the Obama administration appears determined to feign resolve and look busy while the fourth-largest country in Europe inches towards civil war or absorption deep into Putin’s orbit.

With that in mind, here are five questions that get at the heart of the Ukraine crisis from a U.S. and European perspective. They explain the limitations on any U.S. response and are effectively a roadmap for how the Obama administration and the rest of the world will react as the Ukraine standoff with Russia continues to evolve.

First, Ukraine is not of essential strategic interest to for the United States. This makes many other questions and considerations about the Ukraine crisis somewhat superfluous. Ukraine is close to NATO geographically – but not actually part of NATO – and it is merely a transit point (but not a major producer) of natural gas bound for European markets. There is no Suez Canal or Straits of Hormuz-style choke point for global energy markets at risk. So Ukraine with its 45 million people is apparently of less strategic significance than Kuwait was with its three million. Democracy and rule of law sound great, but geopolitics is a cold-blooded business.

Second, there is no way to punish Russia bad enough to change Putin's mind. Putin’s Russia is built upon a tripod of nationalism, intimidation, and fossil fuels, and is not easily swayed by so-called “soft power.” Observers have pointed to the obvious similarities between the Russian federation’s modus operandi in Crimea today as compared to its 2008 incursion into Georgia. It looks like Putin is using the same playbook, and as South Ossetia and Abkhazia were annexed in all but name without consequence back then, why wouldn’t Putin stick with his winning formula? He will. The costs for meddling in Georgia were negligible compared to the benefits, and the same will be true from the Kremlin’s perspective on Ukraine.

Even more instructive are the limited U.S. and European options under serious consideration. The responses suggested so far by the “get tough” crowd include freezing some assets, banning overseas travel for certain individuals, and maybe moving the planned G-8 meeting from Sochi. These are the sorts of suggestions that keep think tank analysts employed, and allow our State Department and the EU bureaucrats to feel moderately useful, but in terms of efficacy they amount to shooting a .22 at a T-52.

Third, Europe is not willing to take harsh economic action against Russia. For all its love of green energy and tiny cars, Europe needs fossil fuel – especially natural gas – and Russia is the single largest supplier to European markets. About a third of all European oil and gas imports comes from Moscow’s pipelines. As much as the Germans may bristle at Putin’s bullying of former Soviet states like Ukraine and general disrespect of international institutions, they want to be able to heat their homes in winter. That’s a powerful incentive to look the other way while Kiev gets cornered.

Fourth, there is no way America, or its leaders think or want U.S. troops deployed into Ukraine. The U.S. public, tired of its own military fighting wars of liberation and reconstruction in the Middle East with mixed results, has absolutely no stomach for sending our men and women into a shooting war with Russians on the other side of the battlefield.

Despite this, many observers have pointed to Budapest Memorandum of 1994 ​as a possible anchor to drag the U.S. into Kiev’s mess. That’s not going to happen. The memorandum has no binding force on the U.S. or Britain, isn’t clear on what we would be bound to anyway, and ultimately, who is going to enforce it?

As an aside: Ukraine’s current conundrum serves as a lesson to all states with irredentist neighbors on their borders: if you can ever get your hands on nuclear weapons, keep them.

All of this leaves a question of whether there is any downsize to the US just letting the Ukraine situation play out. This is where the debate really begins. It seems in the short-term, President Obama will hold some meetings, give a speech or two, but for all intents and purposes, refuse any real action on Ukraine, and it won’t matter one bit for now.

The question of long-term impact on U.S. national security and global stability, however, requires a more complicated if not contentious answer.

An America whose word isn’t trusted and whose influence is waning leaves the world more open to conflict. Obama’s much derided “Leading from Behind” in Libya has transformed into “observing from behind” in Eurasia. The President of the United States – and the Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military in history – promised grave consequences on Friday afternoon if Putin did exactly what he chose to do mere hours later with his non-lethal invasion of Crimea. Nothing happened. Such brazen slaps in the face to the world’s lone superpower are an indicator of grave troubles down the road.

Today, Ukraine has problems and we don’t have to care. Putin will not stop there, though, and the autocrats of Beijing, Tehran, and other tyrants across the world are closely watching the response of an America that seems uncertain of its role and tired of its principles once we reach the water’s edge.

We believe that the Constitution of the United States speaks for itself. There is no need to rewrite, change or reinterpret it to suit the fancies of special interest groups or protected classes.