Ukraine, (South) East vs (North) West pic.twitter.com/wpQ01fAgsA
— ian bremmer (@ianbremmer) April 28, 2014
Despite not having any legitimate interest in the crisis in Ukraine the United States is continuing to fan the flames. Not only did the US play a role in violently overthrowing the democratically elected government in Kiev, now the US is trying to push its European allies into further conflict with Russia.
While members of the European Union are seeking ways to dissipate the conflict US officials want to raise the stakes with increased sanctions. A policy that thus far seems to have only irritated the Russians who are refusing to concede security issues on a bordering state to Washington.
As President Obama and his national security team struggle to increase pressure on Russia over its intervention in Ukraine, they have become entangled in a tense debate over how much emphasis to put on unity with European allies more reluctant to take stronger economic actions against Moscow.
So far, Mr. Obama has opted to stick close to the Europeans to maintain an undivided front, even at the expense of more punishing sanctions and quicker responses to Kremlin provocations. But some inside and outside the administration argue that the United States should act unilaterally if necessary, on the assumption that the Europeans will ultimately follow.
Act unilaterally and hope Europe follows? What exactly is the US’ role here? Or are we back to Victoria Nuland’s position on EU affairs?
The US has put troops in Poland and the Baltic States while trying to push Europe farther into the conflict and has now announced new sanctions. All this after helping overthrow the government in Kiev.
At some point the question of why the US is involved at all in this conflict should be asked, many US policymakers seem to still believe it’s their job to meddle in every country’s affairs. It isn’t.