“You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext,” declared John Kerry on March 2 as Russia began its conquest of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula. Though he didn’t intend it, the U.S. Secretary of State was summing up the difference between the current leaders of the West who inhabit a fantasy world of international rules and the hard men of the Kremlin who understand the language of power. The 19th-century men are winning.
Monday, March 17, 2014
Welcome to the 19th Century. WSJ Editorial.
Welcome to the 19th Century. Editorial. The Wall Street Journal, March 17, 2014.
“You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext,” declared John Kerry on March 2 as Russia began its conquest of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula. Though he didn’t intend it, the U.S. Secretary of State was summing up the difference between the current leaders of the West who inhabit a fantasy world of international rules and the hard men of the Kremlin who understand the language of power. The 19th-century men are winning.
***
Vladimir
Putin consolidated his hold on Crimea Sunday by forcing a referendum with only
two choices. Residents of the Ukrainian region could vote either to join Russia
immediately or to do so eventually. The result was a foregone conclusion,
midwifed by Russian troops and anti-Ukraine propaganda. Russia's Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov dismissed Mr. Kerry's pleas for restraint on Friday in
London, and Russia vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution denouncing the
Crimean takeover a day later.
Next up
for conquest may be eastern Ukraine. Russian troops are massed on the border,
and on Saturday its soldiers and helicopter gunships crossed from Crimea and
occupied a natural gas plant on the Ukrainian mainland. Scuffles and
demonstrations in the eastern Ukrainian cities of Donetsk and Kharkiv, egged on
by Russian agitators, could create another “trumped up pretext.”
And
what is to stop Mr. Putin? In the two weeks since Russian troops occupied
Crimea, President Obama and Europe have done little but threaten “consequences”
that Mr. Putin has little reason to take seriously.
The
U.S. has refused Ukraine’s request for urgent military aid, and it has merely
sent a few NATO planes to the Baltic states and Poland. The Russian strongman
might figure he’s better off seizing more territory now and forcing the West to
accept his facts on the ground. All the more so given that his domestic
popularity is soaring as he seeks to revive the 19th-century Russian empire.
Left in
shambles are the illusions of Mr. Obama and his fellow liberal
internationalists. They arrived at the White House proclaiming that the days of
U.S. leadership had to yield to a new collective security enforced by “the
international community.” The U.N. would be the vanguard of this new
21st-century order, and “international law” and arms-control treaties would
define its rules.
Thus
Mr. Obama’s initial response to Mr. Putin's Crimean invasion was to declare,
like Mr. Kerry, that it is “illegal” because it violates “the Ukrainian
constitution and international law.” As if Mr. Putin cares.
The
19th-century men understand that what defines international order is the cold
logic of political will and military power. With American power in retreat, the
revanchists have moved to fill the vacuum with a new world disorder.
Backed
by Iran and Russia, Bashar Assad is advancing in Syria and may soon crush the
opposition. Iran is arming the terrorist militias to the north and south of
Israel. China is pressing its regional territorial claims and building its
military. And Mr. Putin is blowing apart post-Cold War norms by carving up
foreign countries when he feels he can.
The
question now is whether Mr. Obama and his advisers will shed their 21st-century
fantasies and push back against the new Bonapartes. Jimmy Carter finally awoke
after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, but Mr. Obama hasn’t shown the same
awareness of what is happening on his watch.
We’ve
written about the need for broad economic and financial sanctions against
Russia and its elites. Skeptics reply that Europe will never go along. Even if
that’s true—and that would mean a failure of U.S. diplomacy—it shouldn’t deter
the U.S. from imposing its own banking and financial sanctions. The world’s
banks can be made to face a choice between doing business with Russia or doing
business in America. We know from the Bush Administration's experience with
North Korea that such sanctions bite.
The
West must also meet Mr. Putin’s military aggression with a renewed military
deterrent. This does not mean a strike on Russia or invading Crimea. It should
mean offering military aid to Ukraine to raise the price of further Russian
intervention. Above all it means reinforcing NATO to show Mr. Putin that
invading a treaty ally would lead to war.
The
U.S. and Europe should move quickly to forward deploy forces to Poland, the
Baltic states and other front-line NATO nations. This should include troops in
addition to planes and armor. Reviving an updated version of the Bush-era
missile defense installation in Eastern Europe is also warranted, including
advanced interceptors that could eventually be used against Russian ICBMs.
Russia’s
revanchism should also finally awaken Europeans to spend more on their own
defense. The 19th-century men know that nationalism isn’t dead as a mobilizing
political force. Western Europe’s leaders will have to relearn this reality or
their dreams of European peace will be shattered. They need more modern arms of
their own in addition to America’s through NATO.
In
response to the Crimean referendum Sunday, the White House issued a statement
declaring that, “In this century, we are long past the days when the
international community will stand quietly by while one country forcibly seizes
the territory of another.” We shall see, but Mr. Obama first needs to
understand that America’s adversaries reject his fanciful 21st-century rules.
“You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext,” declared John Kerry on March 2 as Russia began its conquest of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula. Though he didn’t intend it, the U.S. Secretary of State was summing up the difference between the current leaders of the West who inhabit a fantasy world of international rules and the hard men of the Kremlin who understand the language of power. The 19th-century men are winning.