Political Sciences: US Response to Russia’s Actions

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

The action of Russia in Crimea and Ukraine is of great concern to the United States and its western allies because it signifies aggression. The Ukrainian populace managed to oust their ineffectual and fraudulent regime after demonstrating for three months. The country’s parliament observed the democratic ideals by pardoning all political prisoners that the government had detained without trial.

The country’s constitution drafted in 2004 gives people the right to fair trial whereby the due process should always prevail. However, the overturning of events in the country never augured down well with the Russian government forcing the Vladimir Putin to authorize his soldiers on 28 February to occupy Ukraine with claims of providing security to Russian nationals living in the border. This was an infringement on the Ukrainian territorial integrity.

The Russian president connived with the Crimean rebels to organize a referendum to determine whether the citizens of the Crimean Peninsula wanted to reunite with the Russian Federation.

Even though the results of the vote favored Russia, it suffered a setback because members of the G7, EU, and the NATO were quick to denounce the move terming it a plot to deprive Ukraine of its rightful position as a sovereign state. Irregularities marred the voting process since international watch bodies were absent, and the presence of the Russian military influenced the vote.

While Russia has been aggressively reasserting its position as the region’s hegemony, the United States under the leadership of Obama and the western powers have been silent on the Ukrainian crisis. The EU member states have drafted several sanctions, including cutting trade links and withdrawing visas for the powerful individuals associated with the Russian president.

However, implementation of these sanctions is problematic given the fact Russia is Europe’s major supplier of oil and gas through Gazprom. The current leadership of the United States under Obama assumes that Europe is currently safe and Putin is willing to cooperate in realizing collective security interests. However, the current actions of Russia suggest otherwise because it is willing to go an extra mile to protect its interests.

This calls on the United States and its western allies to act before things get out of hand. Apart from the annexation of parts of Ukraine, Russia is forming a strong economic and political relationship with its former colonies, such as Abkhazia and Armenia. Russia does not see the taking over of previous colonies as a violation of international law as it believes these countries are part of the Russian Federation.

Putin’s administration decided to give the American rebel Edward Snowden asylum, which proves it poses a serious threat to the American national interests. From a realist perspective, the United States should intervene, but military intrusion is unattainable given the current nature of the international system.

The current American foreign policy towards Europe is insufficient in protecting weaker states, such as Ukraine given the fact the country focuses too much on strengthening trade ties with Asia, especially the Asian tigers such as China, Singapore, Taiwan, and Malaysia.

This shows that the American foreign policy makers are missing something and they have to act urgently to avert a crisis that Russia is likely to bring in Europe. This entails readjusting the relationships with the aggressor to ensure the continent remains safe and free from belligerent actors.

The US and its western allies should consider designing short-term and long-term policies that will serve to deter Russia’s aggressive behavior. Reviewing America’s missile defense policy will play a role in silencing Russia in the long-term because the strategy was tested and found effective during the Cold War era.

In the bipolar world order, Russia and the United States could not engage in military actions against each other because of mutually assured destruction. In other words, there was a strategic balance between the two countries as far as ballistic missiles were concerned. Russia has proved that it can apply military force to achieve its strategic interests hence the United States should consider enhancing its ballistic missile defense in Europe to safeguard its national interests, as well as the interests of its allies.

Reports in Russia suggest that the country is engaged in diversifying weaponry, a program that was set up just after the Cold War. While Russia is planning to pump close to fifty-five billion dollars to the military industry, the US is simply allocating eight billion dollars to the industry. Russia is modernizing the types of armaments it has, and it currently obtained intermediate-range ballistic military hardware, which is some of the arms forbidden in the Nuclear Weapons truce.

While the US had accepted to drop its military ambition towards Russia, the current actions in Ukraine should serve as a motivation in assessing the missile defense plans. For instance, the Obama administration should consider implementing Bush’s missile plan that aimed at developing X-band radar, which is a military weapon with high capability of tracking events in Europe.

The short-term strategies include showing commitment to the already existing military organization in the region by providing adequate resources. The US should move to assure NATO members in East and Central Europe because they are wary of Russia’s military capabilities.

Obama regime should convince these states that NATO has the power to contain the spillover effect from the Ukrainian conflict; hence, their territorial integrity is already secured. Additionally, the US and its allies in Western Europe have to enact meaningful sanctions that go beyond punishing only twenty individuals in Putin’s government and friends. The US should target senior government officials in charge of policy formulation, as they are responsible for interfering with Ukrainian sovereignty.

These sanctions should include freezing their bank accounts and withdrawing visas. Fortunately, the United States has a policy enshrined in the country’s constitution, denying people associated with gross misconduct entry into the country. The Sergei Magnitsky Act permits the regime of the day to slap monetary sanctions to influential Russian business people and political leaders who donate finances towards programs aimed at infringing on human rights.

The US has to work with European countries in dealing with Russia about its actions in Ukraine and the entire East Europe region. For instance, the US should agree with France to stop selling assault ships to Russia. Similarly, it has to persuade Spain to deny access to the Russian navy in the North African front. The START treaty is flawed because it gives Russia an advantage meaning the US should consider pulling out of this military agreement because it affects its military decisions.

Bibliography

Evans, Alfred. “Putin’s Legacy and Russia’s Identity,” Europe-Asia Studies 60.6 (2010): 899-912.

Shchetko, Nick. “Ukraine government forces clash with rebels in Donetsk.” The Wall Street Journal, 29. 9 (2014):1-21.

Shively, Phillips. Power & Choice: An Introduction to Political Science. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012.

Click Here To Order Now!

Political Sciences: US Response to Russia’s Actions

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)