Seven years after Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and the United States’ reaffirmation to support Ukraine’s territorial integrity, more than 127,000 Russian troops are positioned on Ukraine’s eastern border. Russia could double that number “in relatively short order” according to Secretary of State Antony Blinken. Warnings of imminent invasion, including from President Joe Biden, are increasing, as diplomatic negotiations continue to stall.
Following America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, the world — including China, Iran, North Korea and nonstate actors — is watching how and whether we will uphold our commitments to Ukraine. U.S. messaging promises “economic consequences” and a “swift, severe and united response” should Russia decide to invade.
Failure to follow through on these assurances, however, will not only condemn Ukraine’s national identity and its right to self-determination to the will of Moscow. It also will undercut American international leadership and invite further aggression from our adversaries and those of our allies.
China and Iran are taking note of U.S. resolve, or lack thereof, to test where the U.S. draws its line in the sand against authoritarian aggression and cooperation. China’s air force is escalating military exercises within Taiwan’s air defense identification zone, or ADIZ, while a joint Chinese and Russian military exercise has intruded on Korean and Japanese ADIZs.
Meanwhile, Iran continues to grow its nuclear stockpile, and Iran’s president is seeking to partner with Russian President Vladimir Putin to take on “the power of the Americans with an increased synergy between (the) two countries.” While the U.S. must respond to these individual acts of aggression swiftly and appropriately, we must also remember that missteps in protecting Ukrainian sovereignty will only deepen our adversaries’ impression that the United States lacks the conviction to uphold democracy abroad.
That’s why we should consider the strongest possible economic and diplomatic responses to a Russian invasion — everything short of deploying U.S. combat troops in Ukraine. After our 20-year military commitment in Afghanistan, we must realize that such open-ended military action abroad can undermine our security objectives and prevent the host country from building the capacity to stand up for itself. We must not repeat that mistake, but there is much we can do short of sending U.S. troops.
First, we must outline the economic and diplomatic consequences of any Russian troop movement into Ukraine. The administration should amplify these messages alongside our NATO allies to demonstrate U.S. and European resolve to support Ukraine against Russian aggression.
NATO allies have already discussed potentially cutting Russia’s largest financial institutions off from global transactions, sanctioning Russia’s energy sector and placing an embargo on American defense-related technologies. To raise the stakes appropriately, the U.S. should also respond with the threat of expanded sanctions on Russia’s arms export industry — the second largest on Earth — and strengthened enforcement against Russia’s evasion of current sanctions. The U.S. should also make clear we will do everything possible to prevent the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from going into operation.
While these steps are essential, we must also recognize the risk of Russian retaliation at the outset. Moscow would likely cut off natural gas sales to our European allies, and the U.S. would need to move swiftly to help them find supplies elsewhere.
Actions in support of Ukraine could also draw Russian cyberattacks against the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or SWIFT, which helps facilitate the plurality of international banking.
Russia has exhibited its willingness to launch cyberattacks that target critical infrastructure, including power grids in Ukraine, and reveal sensitive information, such as data from the Democratic National Committee. Now, the growing possibility of Russia being cut off from using SWIFT could make the institution a major target, especially given its vulnerabilities to North Korean disruption. An attack on SWIFT and similarly important entities would be consistent with Russia’s doctrine of “escalate to de-escalate” and serves as a reminder that as we must stand with Ukraine, we must also expect Russian reprisals for that support.
We must prioritize Ukraine’s territorial integrity, condemn authoritarian aggression and reassert our credibility. As the world and our adversaries watch our every move, we must focus on pursuing a peaceful resolution while reaffirming our readiness to stand with our democratic partners in the face of aggression.
That commitment carries a cost, but it is nothing compared to that of abandoning our friends and our values in the face of authoritarian aggression.
