POL214 op-ed 2: Putin is not insecure

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin solidified his hunger for control by invading Ukraine and disregarding attempts to fix a heavily suffering economy. Blaming the West for Putin’s aggressive actions simply evades his responsibility for disrupting international order.

Putin’s main goals include hindering NATO’s expansion / stopping Ukraine’s inclusion and perhaps reconstituting the Soviet Union. His aggressive persistence and strict prioritization of geo-political influence no longer puts Putin on the defensive.

The notable drop in oil prices over the last few months and the tightening of economic sanctions has stripped Russia of billions in budget revenue and exiled them from some of the world’s largest capital markets. The ruble’s dramatic decline to historic lows in December forced Russia’s Central Bank to hike up interest rates by 6.5 percent, putting it over 16 percent higher than the United State’s current market interest rate.

Putin’s prioritization of Ukraine over an alarmingly suffering Russian economy overshadows arguments for Putin’s insecurity. According to Russian supporters, the US and its European allies are to blame for Russia’s pushback in Ukraine. Putin has emphasized that NATO’s enlargement and the West’s backing of pro-democracy movements in Ukraine threaten Russia’s core strategic interests.  Supporters recognize Putin’s fear that NATO would host a naval base in Crimea, motivating his actions to annex the peninsula.

Despite signing peace deals in Minsk in September 2014 and February 2015, Russia continues to overrun Ukrainian troops, break ceasefires and endure fighting. As of this month, over 6,000 people have been killed in the Russian-Ukrainian crisis. Senator John Kerry reiterated the US and EU’s united diplomatic stances on Russia-Ukraine in a less-than-amicable meeting with Russia’s Foreign Minister.

Putin’s reactions to the economic sanctions are tenacious, not timid, in tone. After one Minsk summit, Putin responded, “I want to remind you that Russia is one of the most powerful nuclear nations…our partners should always be aware that no matter in which condition their governments may be or which foreign policy concepts they may pursue, it is better not to come against Russia as regards a possible armed conflict.”

While it is reasonable to see Ukraine’s attempts to move further west as potentially threatening to Russia, Putin’s characterization as completely fearful and insecure is misleading. Instead, he has instigated a powerful and comparably stable group of US-EU allies to impose harsh economic sanctions, further crumbling the Russian economy. Putin could take steps to ease these sanctions through negotiations, but he chooses to continue to exacerbate conditions in Ukraine and his own country. If Putin were truly fearful, would he let his country reach the brink of a recession, solely to keep Ukraine at least neutral? Is NATO to blame for Putin’s desire for control?

Since 1999, Russia’s GDP per capita doubled, providing Putin with an economic cushion and a sense of legitimacy. After being accustomed to Putin’s trend of economic success, it will be interesting to observe citizens’ reactions to the harsh realities of sanctions.  Large banks controlled by three friends of Putin have seen about $640 million of assets frozen in the US, Putin slashed Kremlin salaries and international reserves fell by 25 percent. Regardless, Putin has not abandoned his violent agenda in Ukraine and tolerates a distressing economy.

Obama and the EU continue to discuss expanding economic sanctions, but the impact of this stick-based method will depend on Putin’s persistence. Characterizing Putin as merely insecure and defensive to NATO and the West shields his unrelenting approach. If Putin were so insecure, he would be frightened that his once growing economy has touched record lows. He would not risk approval and financial capabilities by choking his economy in order to obtain a sliver of Europe. Instead, he has hastily reacted to Ukraine’s yearning for independence.

After breaking two peace agreements, watching sanctions aid a plunging ruble and reaching the edge of recession, Putin maintains his assertiveness. By portraying Putin as apprehensive, Russian supporters point blame towards NATO, who simply endorse the Ukraine acting freely. The West is not at fault for the 6,000 lives lost in the Ukrainian conflict, but Putin’s forceful approach is.

POL214 op-ed: Obama's moves with Cuba

President Obama’s move to normalize relations with Cuba ignores the advice of Cuban-American Congress members that further engagement will be more harmful than helpful. Discussions of funding for a US Embassy in Havana continue to spark controversy in Congress.

Alan Gross’s release gave the Obama administration too much false hope. Gross’s imprisonment shows the vulnerability of both the Cuban people and American visitors, shielded under Castro’s anti-democratic constraints. It demonstrates the long-standing lack of free speech and political opposition in Cuba, and a government that is unprepared to handle additional concessions.

Loosening economic policy towards Cuba derives from the impression that more money will mean more freedom for the Cuban people. However, this is not necessarily true. First, more money means additional funds for the Castro administration. This helps them cumulate power and damages the possibility of other political parties forming. Second, Castro’s government does not prioritize dialogue with Washington. Instead, the US providing concessions sends the message that Castro does not need to change his oppressive nature. This leads to a third point, that the movement towards economic engagement shows weakness. Keep doing what you are doing and eventually, the US will give in. Is this a safe message to send to ISIS?

Most baffling to me is the refusal to listen to the most informed members on the subject—Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), Senator Bob Mendez (D-NJ), and Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL). These are just 4 of the 7 Cuban-American Congressmen (and women) opposing further engagement with Cuba. This opposition comes from both the Democratic and Republican parties. Rubio and Ros-Lehtinen expressed their strong discontent with Obama unilaterally reversing US-Cuba foreign policy and emboldening the Castro regime.

Rubio responded to Obama’s State of the Union on US News, saying, “I don’t know of a single contemporary, reluctant tyranny that has become a democracy because of more trade and tourists. China is now the world’s richest tyranny, Vietnam continues to be a communist tyranny. And [Myanmar] Burma, even though they actually agreed to some democratic openings when the U.S. recognized them diplomatically, they have actually begun to take back a lot of those democratic openings.”

Cuba owes more than signs towards human rights and a less oppressive political culture. The Castro’s are accountable for $6 billion in assets seized from American citizens and businesses after the 1959 Cuban revolution. Those who agree with President Obama—that the embargo and current state of US-Cuba relations are outdated—fail to acknowledge recent acts and potential capabilities. If the country were ready for the embargo to be lifted, it would not have American prisoners until as recently as last month. It would not have a number of political prisoners still jailed for their anti-Castro sentiments. Let us not forgot the motivations behind upholding the embargo in Cuba: a communist, state-owned economy (still largely in place), previous cooperation with the Soviet Union, allowing missiles to nearly touch the Florida shore, and ties with Islamist tyrannies and other Latin American rogue states.

The relaxed travel restrictions to Cuba now make it seemingly easy to cross the border. Americans no longer have spending limitations during their visits and have permissible use of US credit and debit cards. However, there is too much uncertainty to allow such unrestricted travel and spending. With Gross’s release so recent, Obama cannot ensure that travelers will not be subject to the same consequences as Gross. Democratization is a long-term process, one to which Castro has not fully committed. Rather, American lives are at stake because of Obama’s obsession with being the popular kid at the international lunch table.

While it is difficult to confirm which solution will yield the most successful outcome for Cuba, Obama’s unilateral and rash thinking are most concerning. With 7 Cuban-Americans between the Senate and the House, representing both parties, it is unimaginable that Obama overlooks their opinions and expertise.  These are the members with the most relevant insight and first-hand knowledge. Hopefully the democratic process will triumph, and propping up embassies in Havana or loosening the embargo will not happen during this unfitting time.

Engaging with Castro and providing unwarranted concessions is a symbol that America will eventually submit to the most stubborn, anti-democratic nations. Conceding to Cuba’s long-standing oppressors has weakened the US’s international position and has damaged the hopes of political protesters in Cuba. If Obama would consider the voices of his fellow Cuban politicians, maybe he would recognize the issue.