Despite harsh words, stern faces, and economic threats by the West, Russia has not backed down in its claim on Crimea or its actions in Ukraine. More than a few people have been asking why Russia has been able to thwart Western efforts to curb its recent aggressive actions. Russia's obstinacy is frequently presumed to be because the West has been too diffident and dithering in its response and should take a harder line and act more aggressively. The error the those people are making is that they are underestimating Russia's resolve and resiliency. Basically, the reason Russia is able to thumb its nose at the West is because, unlike Libya, Iraq, and Iran, Russia is a scientifically advanced country. It is a developed country with a large and diverse economy that is deeply entwined with Europe's and has natural resources that are much in demand around the world, not the least of which is natural gas. It is a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. It can make life miserable for the U.S. around the world. It believes itself immune to Western military intervention because it has a potent military that, if unable to beat the West, can certainly bloody it. As if all that weren't enough, it can also incinerate the U.S. and Europe if it has to.
Certainly the West has economic leverage with Russia. The European Union is Russia's largest trading partner and accounts for nearly $300 billion in trade. The EU is the most important investor in Russia. It is estimated that up to 75% of foreign direct investment stocks in Russia come from EU Member States. The problem, however, is that EU imports from Russia are dominated by raw materials, in particular, oil (crude and refined) and natural gas which cannot easily or conveniently be replaced by other suppliers. Any significant rupture in trade could easily throw Europe's fragile economies into a tailspin and cause unrest. An economic struggle with Russia would come down to a contest of whose economy would buckle and whose population would take to the street first, Russia's or Western Europe's. The question then is how much economic turbulence Western European nations are willing to accept for the sake of Crimea and making a point with Russia. If recent history is any guide, Europe has shown little stomach for economic austerity and even less for foreign adventure. It is doubtful, to say the least, that Europeans would cheerfully tighten their belts further, let alone muster the will for any military adventure in the East, especially if one looks at the track record of Western adventures in Russia.
The U.S. and its allies have become accustomed to being able to bring wayward nations into line through a combination of economic actions, military threats, and political maneuvering. Despite the impressive results those actions have achieved around the world, it is unlikely such actions would cause Russia to yield in Crimea. Crimea is too important to Russia economically, politically, and more importantly, psychologically to surrender it. The favored, i.e. bloodless, measures that have proven effective in bringing other nations around are unlikely to work with Russia. Russia is simply too big, too powerful, too important, and has too many options to be bullied.
Throughout history, the Russian people have endured suffering and hardship in defense of their nation unimaginable to most in the West. They did so for czars, despots, and tyrants, not because they felt beholden to their government or their leaders, but because the Motherland called them to. Consider what they endured under Stalin. Despite the horrors of the 1930's, Russians still fought and died by the millions against Nazi Germany. So far the West has been careful in its response by carefully targeting unpopular "oligarchs" and politicians for sanctions. In frustration with the results, it is considering expanding sanctions. But it had better be very careful. If the West errs by overplaying its hand and thereby forcing Russians to choose between their country or their standard of living we risk rousing the Russian people and in doing so making the world a more dangerous place to live in.
The West should take a stand and lecture Russia. After all, it has an reputation to maintain. What the West should not do is get carried away by its rhetoric and step into a conflict that no good will come from.
Throughout history, the Russian people have endured suffering and hardship in defense of their nation unimaginable to most in the West. They did so for czars, despots, and tyrants, not because they felt beholden to their government or their leaders, but because the Motherland called them to. Consider what they endured under Stalin. Despite the horrors of the 1930's, Russians still fought and died by the millions against Nazi Germany. So far the West has been careful in its response by carefully targeting unpopular "oligarchs" and politicians for sanctions. In frustration with the results, it is considering expanding sanctions. But it had better be very careful. If the West errs by overplaying its hand and thereby forcing Russians to choose between their country or their standard of living we risk rousing the Russian people and in doing so making the world a more dangerous place to live in.
The West should take a stand and lecture Russia. After all, it has an reputation to maintain. What the West should not do is get carried away by its rhetoric and step into a conflict that no good will come from.
