US policy towards the ongoing Ukraine crisis is undoubtedly unsatisfactory and inadequate so far. No suspicion that just debating whether Ukraine should get arms or not and delivering incessant imbecile lip service, rather than providing armors or taking grave measures to bring a halt to this war proves the US is reluctant to get engaged in this crisis. A rare instance can be found in international politics that defends imposing economic sanctions to stop a war. What the US is doing now regarding the crisis based on only sanctions intriguingly depicts that this erstwhile superpower is going to lose its credibility of playing a ‘major’ hegemonic role.
The US playing an impactful role in NATO could take robust and effective measurements but its disinclination in this respect will bring about many negative consequences in the future. Scholars argue the US will have suffered from such type of pessimistic and despondent policy in these rainy days for Ukraine. While the US is still pendulous in providing arms to Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky is gravely concerned with NATO’s role to protect its nation. The US and NATO members should ponder; this is not just a question to their future role but also their ‘liberal, humanitarian, and democratic portrayals of ideological stances.’ It is well-palpable that the US, in this respect, will envisage mass agitation and criticism.
The US et al were continuously babbling that Zelensky might not be skeptical about their support to Ukraine and imposing sanctions on Russia, by contrast, Bloomberg reported that the US is not going to impose sanctions on Russian crude oil. Imposing on ‘particular’ areas and giving room to ‘other goods and products’ proved that the US is just prejudiced with its self-interest not others’ miseries. Thus, this has been another negative value for its credibility. Still, no major military measurement, no impactful sanction, no major policy to bring peace and to stop the war has been taken by US and NATO. How bizarre the ‘interest” is in international politics! If ‘interest’ doesn’t ensure the credibility of acceptance then what would it be termed?
Coming to the question on Russia’s aggressive strategy through making breakaway states- Donetsk and Luhansk-, which great power would be pleased with seeing another great power diverts its neighbor from its realm that would be a peril for its security? No state would be happy with such insecurity and the dire political nature of other states. Then why should Russia be? The US would never be pleased with seeing Manuel López Obrador as a disciple of Putin and as a threat against the US security.
To the extent of securing trustworthiness with its allies and other states they must follow more transparent policies that would bring peace based on their liberal lessons, not war based on ‘liberal reasons for war.’ War never brings good upshots for humanity.
However, Putin’s strategy to make proxy states and invade others bringing a ludicrous explication on international law is not new. Putin exploited the same strategy in invading Georgia in 2008. On the other hand, the US and its NATO allies could not map any meticulous policy to save Ukraine from such invasion though they preserve vigorous strategic experiences. Therefore, the Ukraine crisis is NATO’s failure, not Russia’s. Russia is solely concerned with its security which led it to be notorious like the US was notorious towards Iraq only based on groundless perceptions of so-called WMD. That is why Obama called it ‘a war of choice’ and brought a halt to this war in 2011.
“This morning we are alone in defending our country just like yesterday. The most powerful forces in the world watch from afar. Have yesterday’s sanctions persuaded Russia?” These Zelensky words exhibit the grim portrayal of the US and its NATO’s ‘rational foreign policy and realist dogmatism.’ Showing liberal plantain and breaking ray of hope by realist policy will head other states’ reliability and fidelity on the US toward a dire brink in the near future.
Zelensky might be astute to foresee US’ reluctance to provide a total help in this region. He might learn from the first European war of the 21st century, the Russo-Georgian war in which Putin followed a similar strategy to invade Georgia by making proxy states- South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The Crimean crisis of 2014 could be another instance for the Zelensky government.
Reports say NATO warships had left the Black Sea before Russia began the invasion. This current leads us to speculate, ‘a friend in need’s a friend indeed’ is a doubtful proverb. It actually doesn’t work when it comes to talking about ‘interest’ going beyond the humanitarian issue. However, looking at the AUKUS treaty, during its formation, France had to give up more than just a pact, a partnership of $90 billion with Australia only for the so-called “rational” policy of the US and UK that had been termed as “Stab in the Back” by Macron. Macron didn’t give up on keeping hope on the Biden government though he expressed a sole disquiet. Therefore, if this offishness and isolationist type of development in US and NATO policies continues further, it leaves no suspicion that this will envisage a drought of acceptance in the coming days.
However, to conclude, China is economically and militarily growing at a nimble pace in the Indo-Pacific region and around the world, Russia is strengthening its military exercises in the West frontier but still the US is paying less heed to these calculations. The United States of America, an “erstwhile” global superpower, and its NATO allies must be concerned with their future role in the world order. To the extent of securing trustworthiness with its allies and other states they must follow more transparent policies that would bring peace based on their liberal lessons, not war based on ‘liberal reasons for war.’ War never brings good upshots for humanity.
