In a recent White House brief, President Obama called the Russian invasion of Crimea a clear violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and international law. When assessing the Russo-Ukrainian crises in Crimea, the commander of European Command (EUCOM) and the Supreme Allied Commander of European Forces (SACUER) must account for U.S. interests in the region before deciding a proper course of action. This essay aims to assess four of the United States’ national interests through the perspective of EUCOM and SACUER. The first section will outline the role of EUCOM and SACUER in the European region and assess the overall problem of Russia invading Crimea. The second section will outline four of the United States’ national interests at stake: international order, trade and economic prosperity, energy supply, and freedom of the seas. In doing so, this assessment of U.S. interests in Crimea supports the options of non-intervention and a non-provocative stance in order to maintain long-term stability because the Russian invasion has only violated peripheral interests of EUCOM and SACUER.
One of EUCOM's primary roles is to strengthen NATO's collective defense and assist its transformation since the fall of the Soviet Union. This is accomplished through building partner capacity to enhance transatlantic security. EUCOM supports American interests in Europe as outlined in the National Security Strategy:
The security of the United States, its citizens, and U.S. allies and partners; A strong, innovative, and growing U.S. economy in an open international economic system that promotes opportunity and prosperity; Respect for universal values at home and around the world; and An international order advance by U.S. leadershi...
... middle of paper ...
...r responsibility in addressing its alliances and protecting the flow of energy resources in the European region. Use of force through NATO in Crimea is also not likely as the increased escalation of force or war is not worth risking lives in order to uphold the image of sovereignty of a non-NATO country.
Bibliography
"NATO Confirms Readiness for Ukraine's Joining Organization." KyivPost, accessed March, 16, 2014, http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/nato-confirms-readiness-for-ukraines-joining-organ-63797.html.
"NATO Launches 'Intensified Dialogu' with Ukraine." NATO, accessed March, 16, 2014, http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2005/04-april/e0421b.htm.
Lowther, Adam and Casey Lucius. "Identifying America's Vital Interests." Space and Defense 7, no. 1 (Winter, 2014): 39-52.
Obama, Barrack. "Statement by the President on Ukraine." , accessed March 17, 2014.
On March 24, 1999, the united countries of North Atlantic Treaty Organization, under pressure from the United States, launched an illegal assault upon a sovereign nation. The evidence is overwhelming that leaders within the United State government sponsored this decision with the extreme perseverance from President of the United States. NATO should have dismissed the request for assault and involvement for it was clearly illegal. It’s perpetrators showed total disregard for Article One of the NATO Charter, which incorporates by reference the United Nations Charter, Chapter One, Article Two, Sections Three, Four and Seven. These sections make it clear that NATO’s role is to be purely defensive. The aggression that NATO has undertaken did not come from or with approval of the UN Security Council, which NATO’s Charter clearly states numerous times that the UN Security Council will convene and approve of any such matter or action. It is a brutal violation of NATO’s Charter and of all principles of international law.
middle of paper ... ... After everything was dying down, Russia invaded Ukraine, and they started to get Ukraine back on track to what Russia wants them to be. Everything then again gets way out of control, and Ukraine is still today very out of control, and all the people want Russia out of their country, but they do not want to attack because Russia is their main power source. Works Cited Crowley, Michael and Shuster, Simon.
Henry Kissinger’s March 5th op-ed in the Washington Post was an attempt to influence policy toward the ongoing Ukraine crisis. The former secretary of state and decorated academic offered poignant insights and observations of the crisis and those involved. At a time when many opinion makers and influencers are sabre rattling, calling for confrontation with Russia, Kissinger adopted an opposing view, arguing for cooperation instead. The argument he formulates is served well by techniques of argumentation introduced by Chaim Perelman.
The article was tied to the concern over the situation of Crimean soldiers serving in the Ukrainian army after the Crimea’s legal status referendum held on 16th March 2014. As a result of this referendum and a string of events entailed, Crimea, formerly an autonomous republic within Ukraine, became a part of the Russian Federation, and those soldiers who had no...
International politics as one may imagine includes foreign affairs. This is why the topic and focus of this paper revolves around the current event within Eastern Europe. It will focus on both Russia, Ukraine, and the world, and from it, it will be analyzed by using the resources provided within class. After all it is a International Politics course, and one of the best ways to effectively put the skills and knowledge to use is to focus on an event or current event. The paper will attempt to go over in a chronological order of the events that has happened, and what is happening currently over in Ukraine. Afterwards, an analyzed input will be implemented providing reasoning behind Russia's actions, and actions of the world, and potentially some solutions.
Both Europe and the US have Europe and the US have larger influence and assets than Russia, with its emaciated political system and tired economic model. They seem to not comprehend the economic and political costs of protecting the morals that they allege to uphold. Lastly, Western leaders must acknowledge that appeasement does not necessarily guarantee peace and stability in Europe. When encountering a leader whose ideologies are that the weak can be beaten, western governments must show their determination, without giving up their resilience. Only then can the Ukraine issue be tackled without essentially endangering transatlantic security.
By minimizing the threats worldwide, not only do we make it easier for the United States to promote the policies that we want, but we also create many new allies. These new allies help to make up the coalition that was the aim of our defense policy. Also, these allies will be grateful for the help that we have given them and will recognize us as a true Superpower. The U.S. will be the superpower that has influenced the resolutions of conflicts that occurred in the world and they will also have the money to back up their actions. Therefore, the United States will be the sole superpower of a coalition of allies and they will be able to control what goes on throughout the international community. We will have reached the goal of our proposed defense policy and the country will be in a better position for doing so.
The author doesn’t forget to mention the relationship between USA and NATO. He thinks that Americans welcome NATO as a weapon for America’s affairs, not of the world’s. In his final words, it is suggested that either Europe should invite USA to leave NATO or Europe should expel America from it.
The perception of the global interests of America is shaped by the desired future that the American political elite is envisioning. A viable foreign policy strategy then will be simply the roadmap for achieving, to the greatest extent possible, the objectives which are substantiated by that desired future starting from the present condition of the international landscape. The means to achieve these objectives are determined by the relative power capability that America has at present, as well as the capability self-image in the context of the international landscape of the political elite; its world view. The prevailing world view often shapes the motivations of the decision-makers and consequently determines the perceived foreign policy objectives , as well as the very means to achieve these objectives.
"Why Crimea Is so Dangerous." BBC News. N.p., 11 Mar. 2014. Web. 05 Apr. 2014. .
Jack Donnelly states that “Theories are beacons, lenses of filters that direct us to what, according to the theory, is essential for understanding some part of the world.” These various theories, or lenses for viewing the world help us understand the way in which countries interact and why things occur in the field of international relations. The two main schools of thought in the field are Realism and Liberalism. One must understand these theories in order to be able to understand what is happening in the world. Understanding the filters that are Liberalism and Realism, one can look to make some sort of understanding as to what is happening right now between the Ukraine and Russia. The subsequent annexation of the province of Crimea by Russia is of paramount importance to multi governmental organisations like the United Nations and the European Union who are looking to understand this event from the Realist perspective as well as the Liberal paradigm.
In current global order, it is essential and perhaps only way for small states to create their grand strategy through adjusting their foreign policy of the powerful nation’s grand strategy plans. This ‘adaptation policy’ is achievable by joining to the strong and influential groupings, which are lead by strong and powerful nations. According to G. Johnson, who has been the Chairman of the International Advisory Board of the International Centre for Defence and Security, when he describes the relationships of three Baltic States with NATO and their security policy and strategy, he considered
2. Stability and Economic Growth in the Middle East If peace can somehow be established in the Middle East, the U.S. government might not have to spend as much money on the military as they do now. If the economies of the countries in the middle east become more stable and experience growth, this will give them more opportunities to trade with the United States, improving both the economies of those countries and the U.S.
The Cold War was a condition where there were geographic tensions between the countries allied with the United States and NATO against countries apart of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact post World War II. Although it has been 27 years since the end of the Cold War and tensions between the west and Russia have been at an all time high since 2014. Ever since the annexation of Crimea in March of 2014, Russia has received multiple sanctions which has lead to the tension between Russia and Ukraine. The United States and NATO troops have been sent into the war-zones of Kaliningrad and Eastern Ukraine to defend the Ukraine Separatists.
The Black Sea region is a disputed notion that is geographically bound to the actual area of the Black Sea, which comprises according to different sources: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, Macedonia, Montenegro, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Turkey, Ukraine and going beyond possibly integrating other countries that are economically, strategically and by means of security liked to the region (M. Aydin, 2004). This crossroad of geopolitical interests, economic routes and influence areas is turning out to be decisive for the future Wider Europe, as the biggest problems that arise before the continent (migration, frozen conflicts, energy security, weapons and drugs trafficking) as well as the biggest opportunities for cooperation are present here. Another way of defining the region is as a civilization crossroad in between Orthodox, Muslim and Western culture. After a series of events that threatened the whole base of the Western Civilization (9/11, War on Terrorism, military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq) have brought to attention this region as a potential solution to numerous security threats, as well as a stabilizing factor for the borders of the European continent. Yet, the region for decades was neglected by political scientists, reappearing as a preoccupation due to the factors mentioned above. This “Bermuda Triangle” of Western Security studies was largely ignored because it is situated at the periphery of three major security systems: European, Eurasian and Middle Eastern, being considered not so important for a long period of time. Before the emergence of the Soviet Union, the focus was on the Baltic States as well as on the Western Balkans, afterwards the aim ...