Feb 25, 2022 BIDEN ANNOUNCES SEVERE SANCTIONS ON RUSSIA FOR UKRAINE INVASION
- Yesterday, U.S. President Biden condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and announced a new tranche of sanctions that target Russian elites, top banks and state-owned enterprises, and technology exports to Russia.
- Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been met with wide international condemnation as Western countries work on a unified response to include severe economic sanctions and ensure NATO’s readiness.
- Putin warned other countries that any attempt to interfere with Russia’s operation would result in “consequences they have never seen,” a statement many observers considered a veiled nuclear threat.
- Continued military operations are likely to result in a refugee and humanitarian crisis in Eastern Europe as Ukrainians flee to neighboring countries, especially Poland.
“Putin chose this war, and now he and his country will bear the consequences,” U.S. President Joseph Biden asserted yesterday afternoon in a speech condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Biden announced a new tranche of sanctions that target Russian elites, top banks and state-owned enterprises, and technology exports to Russia. He emphasized that the coalition of partners aligned on the response to Russia represents over half of the global economy. He now turns to steps to protect NATO allies, including a summit today to map out steps “to strengthen all aspects of our NATO alliance.” But while U.S. troops have deployed to NATO’s eastern flank and additional troops will deploy to Germany, Biden makes it clear that the U.S. military will not be fighting in Ukraine.
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s announcement of a “special military operation” against Ukraine on February 23 signaled the commencement of Russia’s invasion of the country. Following an extraordinary session of the UN Security Council on the 23rd, it is expected that the U.S. and its allies will put forward a resolution condemning Russian action. Notwithstanding the anticipated Russian veto and possibly Chinese abstention, the resolution will likely aim to politically isolate Russia and could create pathways for further actions. Although the Ukrainian call for Russia’s expulsion is not likely to deliver results in the Council, it could potentially lead to a process in the General Assembly challenging the Russian Federation’s assumption of the former Soviet Union’s seat in 1991. Soon after Putin’s announcement, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy delivered a national address announcing Russia’s strikes on military sites and border posts and introducing martial law across the country. Moscow’s actions have been met with international condemnation as Western countries work on implementing a unified response—including more severe economic sanctions intended to progressively shift Putin’s calculus in Ukraine—and ensure NATO’s resilience and readiness on the Alliance’s eastern flank.
Emergency meetings have been held and/or planned at the multilateral level among NATO, EU, UN, and G7 members. Putin’s latest moves follow his decision to recognize the Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic on February 21 and the signing of mutual cooperation agreements between Russia and the two breakaway regions. Russia’s actions come on the heels of months of escalation and planning along Ukraine’s borders, where Russia positioned nearly 190,000 troops while also conducting military exercises in neighboring Belarus. Putin also warned other countries that any attempt to interfere with Russia’s operation would result in “consequences they have never seen.” Many observers have considered this a veiled nuclear threat.
Continued military operations are likely to result in a refugee crisis in Eastern Europe as Ukrainians flee to neighboring countries, especially Poland. American officials have estimated that a nationwide attack on Ukraine could result in between one million to five million refugees, largely centered in Poland. The Ukraine-Poland border is open, and Poland is preparing to host refugees from Ukraine, the Polish interior minister said. A host of countries with Russian minorities are raising concerns of a “Donbas problem,” that Russia will use the same false pretenses against them because of minority Russian-speaking populations. Concerns have been raised in Moldova, as well as in all three Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—also NATO members) which have ethnic Russian minorities; in Latvia and Estonia, these communities make up about one-quarter of the population. In Europe, as elsewhere, such rhetoric in Russia’s statements and the possibility of additional “Donbas problems” hearkens back to the worst periods of war and conflict in the twentieth century.
The conflict currently playing out in Ukraine also risks influencing future crises around the world, as U.S. adversaries exploit gaps in alliances and influence for their own strategic objectives. Russia’s actions represent a clear and present danger to the rules-based international order and the multilateral system, with several UN member states highlighting that this was an unprovoked and aggressive action with severe consequences for civilians. Moreover, states that are usually vociferous defenders of the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and non-intervention have been restrained, highlighting the chasm between states determined to challenge Russia’s actions as colonialist expansions and those unwilling to risk economic and political benefits from the relationship.
As one manifestation, Western allies have highlighted risks of disinformation and propaganda campaigns designed to obfuscate information and break Ukrainian and NATO morale. Russian-backed and aligned online actors are being echoed and likely supported by China and even state-owned media in China. Specifically, there has been a spike in disinformation peddling anti-NATO and anti-U.S. sentiments. Historically, China has learned from Russian disinformation campaigns and tailored Russian tactics to fit Beijing’s playbook. Disinformation narratives that are explicitly anti-U.S. and anti-U.S. multilateralism may be adopted and adapted to influence sentiments in the Indo-Pacific theater in the future. Taiwanese officials are understandably nervous that Beijing may take advantage of a distracted West to ramp up pressure on Taipei amid the crisis in Ukraine—particularly at a time that the principle of self-determination and sovereignty is under assault. Now, the world awaits the verdict on whether sanctions will be enough to curtail Putin’s ambitions and limit the civilian and democratic impact in Ukraine.
At the direction of President Vladimir Putin, Russia has committed staggering acts of aggression against Ukraine. Its invasion is brazen in substance and style. Russia is threatening to overthrow the government in Kyiv. It seems to flaunt the flimsiness of its pretexts. Though always thuggish, Putin once seemed averse to risk. Now he has taken a world-shaking gamble whose ultimate implications neither he nor anyone else can foresee.
For Americans, this is a dangerous moment, and a disorienting one. The United States has spent much of the past three decades dealing with powers much weaker than itself. Even so, it has learned painful lessons about the limits of its power and its capacity to do harm as well as good. These lessons may be difficult to recall in the face of Russia’s deplorable and ongoing attack. But they have become only more important now, as the United States confronts a great power and nuclear peer capable of inflicting damage well beyond Ukraine.
Months ago, U.S. President Joe Biden took the use of force in Ukraine off the table. Still, a nonmilitary confrontation between the United States and Russia likely poses greater risks to the safety and well-being of the American public than did even the recent wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, in which the United States was a direct military participant. Yesterday and today, the United States and its European allies announced severe sanctions against the Russian government, banks, and individuals, with more punishments to come. These measures, stronger than many expected, amount to warfare by economic means, and they will effectively be permanent.
In recent decades, the United States has imposed crippling sanctions on relatively small states like Cuba, Iran, and North Korea, incurring little cost to the U.S. economy. Russia, by contrast, is a great power and may retaliate in kind, sending oil, gas, and food prices higher. It could mount cyber attacks that spur cycles of retaliation. In the worst case, conflict could escalate into a hot war. What is particularly challenging is that no number of sanctions would likely stop Russian aggression in Ukraine, and there is no obvious threshold by which American and European leaders can feel satisfied that they have done enough. The demand to “do more” will persist no matter how much policymakers in fact do. So, the desire to punish Russia, however justified, will need to be tempered by two considerations: What are the costs and risks of retaliation? And how likely are additional sanctions to change Russian behavior for the better, given the alternative possibilities that they may strengthen Putin’s grip on the Russian economy, make him more desperate and reckless, or drive Russia and China closer together?
An exclusively punitive outlook could also inhibit America’s handling of the conflict in Ukraine itself. Even before Russia launched its attack, influential figures proposed that the United States should arm a prospective Ukrainian insurgency, imagining that Ukraine could become “Russia’s Afghanistan.” Military aid should be considered, but not before it becomes clearer what kind of operation Russia is mounting, who would receive U.S. support, and what battlefield objective could be pursued. In Syria, the United States trained and equipped rebel forces, only to lengthen the war without dislodging dictator and President Bashar al-Assad from power. America’s experience in Afghanistan makes for a curious model to emulate. In the 1980s, the United States aided the forces from which al-Qaeda would emerge. For the past two decades, it created a client state dependent on U.S. support and continual violence. If Putin has launched a reckless, poorly calculated military adventure, the United States should hardly follow suit.
For too long, the United States has ranked the impulse to stop evil above the imperative to help those in need. Let this time be different. The United States, despite having limited military options at its disposal, has every ability to assist Ukrainians who flee for their lives. The Biden administration should welcome those who seek to resettle in the United States. It should press European allies to do the same and mobilize U.S. agencies to help them. “We must have courage and self-confidence to cling to our own methods and conceptions of human society,” diplomat George Kennan cabled from Moscow in 1946. Kennan was writing at the start of the Cold War. It is advice to heed at what may be the start of another.