Sucks to Be U(kraine)

Ukrainian leadership must be very weary these days.

It was reported yesterday that Russia has again escalated its conflict with Ukraine by threatening (again) to cut off gas supplies within the next two days if Ukraine cannot pay Gazprom, the Russian energy giant, what it owes. As fighting rages on in the east, winter rages on throughout Ukraine and Europe - natural gas is literally vital to the survival of many throughout the next several weeks. The natural gas dilemma also constitutes a severe economic threat to Ukraine, who has banned the purchase of foreign currency as its own continues to slide. Ukraine's economy is hanging on by a thread these days; any disruption in energy supplies would be catastrophic. Europe, too, is not in the most secure of financial positions - particularly the eurozone. With much of Western Europe's natural gas supply coming from Russia in pipelines that run through the Ukraine, they stand with as much to lose as Ukraine itself.

Courtesy of Telegraph

Perhaps most frustrating about Russia's threat is that the Ukraine alleges it prepaid months ago a sum large enough to cover their natural gas supply through the whole winter. So where is the discrepancy? It lies in Eastern Ukraine, which has been controlled by pro-Russian separatists for months. Russia has been pumping gas directly to the separatists through different pipelines in order to keep them warm as they serve as proxies in the fight to shatter Ukraine's sovereign borders. Russian President Putin is calculated in doing this: he can support those loyal to him across the border, without having to financially support them. All he has to do is argue that the region is technically part of Ukraine, so the energy supplied there comes out of Ukraine's budget.

Meanwhile, most likely according to Putin's plan, all of Europe is slowly destabilizing. Lithuania yesterday reintroduced conscription, out of fear of Russian aggression spilling over into its borders the way it did Ukraine's. Lithuanian leaders estimate adding 3,500 or so additional soldiers to their army each year, at least for the next five years. While not instituting a compulsory policy like their neighbor, Latvia has also pledged to ramp up its military spending and bolster its armed forces in the event of Russian aggression. If nothing else, the conflict in Ukraine has put the entire former Soviet bloc on edge as it creeps closer to an all-out armed engagement. Russia's unpredictability has only exacerbated anxieties.

And yet, the separatists in Eastern Ukraine march forward, this time to the port city of Mariupol. Should this be their destination, it would mark a significant shift in the conflict - Mariupol is on the way to Crimea, and it would indicate that the separatists are making an effort to carve out a path connecting their stronghold farther up north to the annexed Crimea. France's foreign minister has already warned Russia that this would be a red line, suggesting a retaliation of some sort, although this is a weak threat considering the fact that the conflict has lasted months without any direct military intervention from the U.S. or any European country. Should Ukraine fail to secure Mariupol, it's hard to see any real, effective response from the west.

Courtesy of Reuters

So what is Ukraine to do? For starters, it's time to give up the east.

This is a frightening suggestion, one that seemingly defies the logic that has kept the developed world relatively conflict-free in the 21st century. And there are major downsides - most notably, that it will be giving Russia what they want, and incentivizing similar action in other corners of the former Soviet bloc. But it is a necessary action, one that will mostly free Ukraine from conflict while stabilizing their economy.

As mentioned earlier, Russia has effectively equipped rebels in eastern Ukraine and enabled them to successfully fend off Ukrainian soldiers, while placing the entire financial burden of the roughly three million who live in the east on the shoulders of Ukraine. This is too large a burden for a country that is just barely remaining out of the grip of default, and undermines their military's position in the region. By ceding the region to Russia, the separatists will become Russian citizens; the three million that live there will look to Russia for financial support, and it will no longer be possible for Russia to wage conflict in Ukraine under the thin veil of the separatists being "Ukrainian citizens". Now, this is one belligerent nation attacking another - something that would garner a much swifter, and severe, response.

Ukraine will also be able to slowly allocate their meager finances elsewhere, such as industrial development (importantly, development that no longer relies on the fossil fuels Russia has stockpiles of), economic development, and independent energy supplies. This will be a long and difficult journey, but with the proper finesse, Ukraine can shift its economy and reach a modest stability that will allow for job growth and better ties with the eurozone. When (if) the conflict dies down entirely, foreign investment can accelerate this growth.

Courtesy of BBC

This is not a panacea, however. In the meantime, Ukraine and the rest of Europe must find alternative sources of energy in an effort to release themselves from the influence of Russian energy. Winter is far from over, and if Russia makes good on its promises to stanch the flow of natural gas, no amount of territory Ukraine cedes will save it from a humanitarian epidemic of unfathomable proportions. Energy must be sourced from Scandinavia, the U.S., and, if possible, the Middle East.

And finally, Europe and the U.S. must ramp up their support for Ukraine. There is a difference between neoconservatism and the war-mongering associated with it, and a calculated approach at how to support a struggling military that is defending itself against a truly existential threat. Great Britain pledged 75 military advisors to Ukraine, which is a great start. But until more arms are provided, and, more importantly, there is more humanitarian support from those who can afford it, Ukraine will continue to be on what appears to be the losing side of this conflict.

Ukraine has been at a crossroads for some time now. This conflict has killed thousands and is emerging as one of the greater crises Europe has seen since the breakup of Yugoslavia decades ago. The status quo is decidedly not working. Without a dramatic change in the strategy and overall goals of Ukraine and western Europe, nothing but a bleak 2015 (and probably longer) awaits, as Russia fortifies their foothold in Ukraine, potentially expands their aggression elsewhere, while the economies of the west erode.

Crisis Time for Ukraine

There is a new sense of urgency in Ukraine this week, as a major rebel offensive has shattered the five-month ceasefire agreement and brought the death toll up over 5,000 since the conflict started some nine months ago. Ukraine finds itself in a difficult position, as it struggles on two separate but completely related fronts: their floundering economy, and their military-occupied sovereign territory. Without major successes on both fronts, Ukraine may find itself in a dangerous position in weeks to come.

Earlier this week, the United States made headlines on the subject when President Obama suggested that he was considering delivering defensive weapons to Ukraine in order to assist in their fending off rebel onslaughts. This is a major new development, and indicates that there are very real concerns on the part of the Western world when it comes to the security and the stability of Ukraine. Months ago, there wouldn't even have been a debate on whether military assistance was necessary; today, it is a very real possibility.

Russia is understandably unhappy with President Obama's musings. The Kremlin has stated that any military support of Ukraine by Western countries would be perceived as a direct threat to Russia - a hypocritical statement from a country that used its military force to "liberate" part of Ukraine's sovereign territory just months ago, instigating the entire ongoing conflict. However, Russia's warnings should be taken with more than a grain of salt. Despite ramped up sanctions, Russia's ruble has stabilized, and while oil prices remain at unusual lows, it seems as though Russia may actually be able to weather their financial malaise.

The Ukraine, on the other hand, is having serious economic troubles. The hryvnia plummeted earlier today following decisions by the Ukrainian Central Bank to raise interest rates. Foreign reserves are at virtually an all-time low, and with the war raging on, Ukraine's bank accounts are draining. They need to stabilize their currency and get their finances in order quickly if they have any chance at avoiding a major default or forfeiting the war due to lack of money.

Because of this, there has been a renewed effort from the rest of Europe to broker a peace deal, and fast. Leaders from France and Germany were in Kiev today laying out the conditions of a new peace agreement that would hopefully put an end to the conflict - at least temporarily. Secretary John Kerry was also present, and while not an author of the peace deal, put American support behind it. This peace deal may be a last-ditch effort, and the significance of it is not lost on Ukraine. Without some sort of renewed ceasefire in the coming weeks, should the conflict intensify, Ukraine will find itself gasping for air and desperate from support from the U.S. and others that perhaps may never come.

Is Russia's Economy Doomed?

It's been one heck of a year for Vladimir Putin, who did the unthinkable in remaining one strategic step ahead of President Obama and the U.S. throughout some of the year's most newsworthy events: the annexation of Crimea, continued efforts to subdue the Syrian government, Iranian nuclear talks. For a while, it seemed as though President Putin held all of the cards, and that the U.S. was walking on thin ice by flaring up tensions with increased sanctions and other diplomatic tools. Unfortunately for Russia, it appears that President Putin has finally run out of leverage - Western sanctions are finally taking their toll. It was an economic collapse in the late 1980s, brought on by decades of Communism wreaking havoc on the Soviet Union's financial system, that finally brought the Union to its knees. Will history now repeat itself? And what will the implications be for the U.S., and the global economy as a whole?

Consumers buying up electronics. Courtesy of NYT

As global oil prices have continued to slide, so has Russian currency. In fact, Russia was poised to shut off natural gas supplies to Ukraine through the entire winter earlier this year, as retaliation for Western sanctions. Such a move would have likely thrust Europe back into a recession, as the European Union struggled to find natural gas supplies from elsewhere. However, that plan did not pan out as Putin had initially intended - during the last few days of October, Russia signed a deal with the Ukraine and the E.U. that effectively resumed natural gas supplies flowing to Ukraine in exchange for an agreed-upon payment (much of which was coming from the E.U). Obviously there were numerous benefits - for both sides - to this deal. However, the deal is indicative of a Russian economy that was already uneasy at the prospect of missing out on a major energy export deal for so many months.

30-day look at value of ruble vs. Brent crude. Copyright Bloomberg LP

Up until yesterday, the ruble had slid approximately 11 percent against the U.S. dollar so far this year. The Brent crude oil index was at a multi-year low, trading at less than $80 per barrel. And then, overnight, things got much worse for Russia. After Russia's Central Bank minted more than 600 billion new rubles in part of a bond-selling deal with Russia's state-owned oil giant, Rosneft, the effect that new currency had on global markets was devastating. With the ruble in free-fall and oil nearing a 5 1/2 year low, Russian finance ministers convened overnight and raised interest rates a whopping 6.5 percent, from the benchmark 10.5 percent to 17 percent in an effort to stanch the flow of capital. Unfortunately, this was not enough, and it appears that Russians don't see 17 percent interest as incentive enough to hold on to their currency. News outlets have reported a run on electronic and other high-end consumer stores, as citizens take advantage of the record-weak currency. Oil continue to trades low, and now Russia is stuck with commodities it can only export for cheap, a rapidly depreciating currency, and now, high interest rates that will make it harder to borrow. Earlier today the ruble's depreciation doubled, from its 11 percent on the year against the dollar to 22 percent. While reserves and general finances are better in Russia today than they were decades ago when they underwent their last economic downturn, it's safe to say Russia is on the brink of a catastrophic currency crisis.

Falling oil prices may be great for consumers in the short-term, but they are indicative of a downturn in the global economy, which is never a good thing. The instability that can result from the OPEC countries struggling to maintain their exports is something to be afraid of. And while relations have been icy in recent months between the United States and Russia, there are significant economic ties between the two nations that could prove to be costly for U.S. interests should Russia's economy collapse. Russia's currency needs to stabilize, and fast, before the damage spreads outside of their borders.

Obama's Tightrope Walk at APEC

In late 2009, President Obama arrived in Asia for the APEC summit as the U.S. economy was grappling with the repercussions from the financial collapse the year before. Still relatively new to his job as President of the United States, Obama arrived optimistic, and his promise of an American "pivot" to Asia largely defined the gathering.

Today, five years later, our beleaguered president arrives in Myanmar with a greatly improved economy back home, yet substantially less political capital to use to his advantage, and arguably more geopolitical concerns than the international arena has seen since perhaps the Cold War. The crisis in Ukraine earlier this year has caused a rift in U.S.-Russian relations, which will have ripple effects most certainly seen throughout Asia and especially in China; protests in Hong Kong have again brought attention to what has been at best a questionable human rights record for China; and the matter of the American "pivot" to Asian has yet to be resolved, but may see progress with more agreement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (or TPP). President Obama will have to remain disciplined in his approach to these issues and others, and strike a precarious balance between hard-line tactics and a more reserved, diplomatic strategy.

When President Obama speaks of the "pivot" to Asia, there is a common retort from officials in Russia: We are already there. Whereas a true rebalancing of the American projection of power would have paid quick and plentiful dividends five years ago, today is different. Perhaps the most significant repercussion to come from the crisis in Ukraine is it has pushed Russia and China as close together as they have been since the early Cold War years. A multi-billion dollar natural gas deal between the two countries that had been stuck in limbo for years was suddenly brought to the table and finalized expeditiously, easing Russia's reliance for natural gas exports away from Europe and providing China with nearly 20 percent of their natural gas needs for the next several years. In fact, it is a trade deal so large that it will effectively replace Germany with China as Russia's largest natural gas partner.

Militarily speaking, a projection of power in Asia is also simply less feasible today than it was years ago. Where we saw the winding down of wars in the Middle East at the last APEC gathering, this week's gathering comes just after more troops have been approved for deployment in Iraq. The fight against ISIS will continue to escalate in coming weeks (if not months), and these developments will hinder military influence elsewhere in the world.

On the economic side of the "pivot", implementation of the TPP is an equally significant obstacle. While 12 nations have participated in TPP negotiations over the years, China has not been one of them. Instead, China has been advocating for an alternative trade partnership, known as FTAAP, or Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific. Should China prevail over the U.S. in securing a new trade partnership, combined with Russia's increased exports to the region, it would effectively eliminate any possibility of an increase in American influence in the region. The United States remains a major trade partner with many of the countries in Asia, but it will not have much opportunity to expand on those partnerships without the TPP being signed.

While these issues remain at the forefront for the next week, President Obama will also have to express cautious support for Hong Kong protestors and find a way to urge Chinese leaders not to use violence as a means of bringing an end to the protests. And while the Hong Kong protests have been making headlines for the past several months, they are certainly not the only matter of dispute in the region. Arguments over many islands have been simmering, as well as other territorial disputes that could erupt into larger conflicts at any time. President Obama must be careful to remain on the sidelines of these issues, while influencing decision-making and keeping things deescalated.

Much has changed in the past five years since President Obama last convened with Asian leaders at the APEC summit, and he will undoubtedly have a more challenging time accomplishing items on his agenda this time around. However, at the same time, the stakes are much higher. President Obama must be pragmatic in his approach to tackling these objectives, while preserving what are already tenuously positive relationships with major powers like Russia and China.

This Means War?

A pro-Russian separatists looks at the crash site.
Courtesy Reuters/Maxim Zmeyev.

When I looked at my computer yesterday afternoon, I couldn’t believe my eyes. I thought something had gone terribly wrong with the BBC’s servers, or I was suffering from some serious déjà vu, because there was no way another Malaysia Airlines plane had crashed. There was definitely no way that it crashed over the Ukraine, or that it had been deliberately shot down. But as the afternoon wore on, it became apparent that the nightmare was, in fact, reality: a plane flying from a NATO member country to Malaysia had been downed with what looked like a surface-to-air missile strike, killing the almost 300 people on board and setting the stage for World War III.

Tensions are high, but rhetoric (with the exception of good old Uncle Joe) has remained relatively low-key as countries wait to find out who launched the attack. Calls for investigations by an international body, or by the Ukrainian government, have come from every corner. The UN Security Council will hold an emergency meeting today to discuss how the international community can move forward. Yet for a few hours yesterday, it looked, and felt, like NATO was about to go into Ukraine, and Russia would inevitably follow, and the world would be left to watch in horror as another global war broke out.

That the missile used to strike the plane was likely Russian-made is the one of the most dangerous aspects of this latest crisis. The Ukrainian government has been accusing Russia of supplying the rebel separatists in the east with advanced weaponry, including antiaircraft missiles, for weeks, and has been met with staunch Russian denials. Despite the accusations that the rebels or the Russians shot down the plane, representatives of the People’s Republic of Donetsk deny they can shoot down planes over 10,000 feet, and the Malaysia Airlines plane was shot down from 32,000. The rebels (and Pres. Putin) have accused the Ukrainian government itself of shooting down the plane, in an effort to earn the separatists international condemnation.

Yet one of the rebel leaders posted on social media Thursday that they had shot down a Ukrainian military transport, a suspected misidentification due to the similar colors in the Malaysia Airlines logo. Once the news broke that the plane was a passenger jet, the post was removed. The attack also came just one day after the US confirmed that Russia had fired its first missiles into Ukraine, and had imposed further sanctions on Russia as a result.

Given the climate of heavy suspicion against Russia and its separatist proxies in Ukraine, one can understand Putin’s call for peace talks this morning, as well as his direct request to the rebels that they lay down their arms. Yesterday, he had accused the Ukrainian government of the attack; today, he appears to have moderated his stance, but “did not address the key question of whether Russia gave the rebels such a powerful missile.”

Buk missile system, the suspected culprit.

One guess is, as has happened many times before in the US-Russia geopolitical struggle, Russia simply didn’t consider the consequences of arming a proxy war. Rebels often go against the wishes of their supposed masters, and it is difficult to control what inexperienced separatists will do with advanced weaponry once it has been given to them. It appears at this point that if the rebels did shoot down the plane, they did so believing that it was a Ukrainian military transport, of which they’ve already shot down two in recent weeks.

What is certain is that determining responsibility, while the first item on the international community’s agenda, will be difficult given the lack of access to the area. AP reports that to get to the crash site from rebel-held Donetsk, one must pass through five checkpoints with document checks at each. The confusion of the rebels who are currently grappling with an international incident with very little, if any, experience doing so, is apparent in the differing statements given by their representatives. While one reported this morning that no black box had been found, another said that eight of twelve recording devices from the plane had been recovered.

Compounding the tragedy are the three hundred lives that were senselessly lost in a conflict that most, if not all, had nothing to do with. More than collateral damage, their deaths represent the danger of arming proxy groups with such advanced and dangerous weapons, only to let them loose in another country. The victims included a large contingent of high-level AIDS researchers en route to an AIDS conference in Kuala Lumpur, and their deaths have caused an torrent of grief in the scientific community.

Whoever is responsible, the greatest danger now is that miscommunication or the lack of communication between the US and Russia will allow this international incident to spiral into regional armed conflict, one that would likely include Russia and NATO forces. Yet if Russia disavows the rebels, coaxes them into a cease-fire or peace deal, or even helps Ukraine to suppress them, this could be an opportunity to improve frosty US-Russian relations. If cooler heads are allowed to prevail, and a solution for the situation in the Ukraine can be found out of this tragedy, then the 300 lives lost will not have been completely in vain.

Obama's Foreign Policy (Or Lack Thereof)

In his commencement speech at West Point on Wednesday, President Obama addressed much of the criticism that has been thrown his way recently regarding his inability to project American dominance on the rest of the world in the same way his predecessors have done before him. Most people would agree that Obama has been leery of armed conflict since taking office in 2009, and justifiably so, after the two costly wars former President Bush thrust the U.S. into in the early 2000s. And certainly in certain contexts, isolationism can be an overarching framework that helps shape a country's foreign policy decisions - one has to look no further than the United States leading up to the Second World War, after World War I left such an awful taste in its mouth. However, President Obama has not used isolationism as his foreign policy framework; rather, he has no framework. And as his tenure as Commander in Chief winds down over the next few years, it's that very lack of framework that will come to haunt his legacy, and possibly set the global political arena on a path the United States will wish it had avoided.

Getty Images

Russia and the Erosion of Contemporary Geo-Political Norms

The powderkeg that is the northern Black Sea right now has been thoroughly reported on recently. As it stands this week, Russia has situated reinforcement troops on the predominantly pro-Russian Crimean peninsula, which is under Ukrainian sovereignty. Furthermore, with Russia’s highly valuable “Black Sea Fleet” located in Crimea, the peninsula holds significant value both culturally and logistically for Russian President Vladimir Putin. It’s no surprise, then, that he has more or less ignored calls for de-escalation from the Western world; some may argue that he has in fact done the opposite and escalated the situation further. Thursday, amidst fresh sanctions from the U.S. restricting visas for Russians and Ukrainians found to be exacerbating the tension, it was announced that Crimea would be holding a referendum on whether or not to secede from Ukraine and officially become Russian territory. U.S. President Obama has declared this referendum outside of the realm of international legality; however, its legitimacy in the eyes of the international community shouldn't be of significance. More alarming is the fact that it is happening at all, and that Russia appears to have the upper hand. Thursday’s referendum starts a very slippery slope that ends with last-century showmanship and a renewed emphasis on “spheres of influence,” things the United States cannot afford nor wants at this stage. While the past several weeks have brought about numerous developments, both positive and negative, the worst development is perhaps the notion that Russia is in the process of effectively deteriorating universal geo-political practices of the post-Cold War era, returning the international community to the much darker period of the second half of last century.

Crimean War Redux

By Guest Contributor Joel Klein
MA Candidate in International Affairs, Boston University

Kerry and Lavrov face off

Recently my fellow graduate student at BU and editor of this blog Vicky wrote an excellent piece on Russia’s invasion of Crimea. While a self-admitted non-expert on Europe or the Former Soviet Union her piece has some excellent analysis and is well worth the read. However as someone who aspires to be an expert on Russia and the Former Soviet Union I wanted to add my 2 cents partly as rebuttal but mostly to inform especially considering our media’s awful coverage. In many ways Vicky and I agree on the many of the United States foreign policy failures and problems in President Obama’s second term. I agree with Vicky’s Meta analysis, our grand strategy is non-existent and the second term National Security process is a disaster. I blame much of this on Obama’s poor second term national security team which possess few independent strategic thinkers.

What many are accurately calling Europe’s most dangerous crisis since the Cold War is a direct result of issues unsettled after the end of that particular “War”. This process along with recent blunders by the EU in particular, but also the United States and Russia, has brought us to this point. For this article I do not comment on these wider international relations issues but analyze the interests of Russia in initiating the Crimean crisis and the potential Western response.

Obama's No-Good-Very-Bad Week

As the crisis in Ukraine enters its fifth month since ousted President Viktor Yanukovych turned down an EU association deal in November, Russian troops have left their bases in Crimea and occupied the peninsula. Russian President Vladimir Putin claims the move is essential to protect ethnic Russians, who are allegedly at risk from militant nationalist, anti-semitic, and otherwise violent groups. While this claim is shaky at best, given Crimea’s strategic importance to Russia (whose Black Sea fleet is stationed at Sevastopal), it is not altogether shocking that Russia would move to secure the region in the face of growing instability in Ukraine.

What remains less clear are the options now open to US President Barack Obama in responding to the crisis. Wishy-washy and inexact condemnations and threats have left much to be desired, and many are already claiming that foreign policy is at an all-time low in Obama’s second term. One side of the aisle points out his weakness, while the other calls attention to the irony of this rhetoric. Yet few of these voices offer any tangible actions the President could take to diffuse the crisis, if not end it altogether. The following are some of the options the Obama administration has when it comes to confronting Russia on its recent incursion.

Are We There Yet? Revolution in the Ukraine

By Colin Wolfgang

Many saw last week’s deposition of Ukrainian President Yanukovich as a triumphant display of positive change stemming from a revolution of the masses. Obviously, this has been a topic of discussion on the Global Atlas for several weeks – even months – as Ukraine strayed from their Western ambitions to foster closer ties with the E.U. and leaned even farther into Russia’s nefarious embrace. As a brief recap, mass protests ensued, eventually dwarfing the previously colossal Orange Revolution protests of 2004, and the situation deteriorated into widespread violence in Kiev and the eventual ouster of President Yanukovich. To many, including myself, last week’s events seemed a harbinger for imminent peace in Ukraine and, hopefully, the integration into the E.U. that Ukraine’s economy so desperately needs.

The Maidan or Independence Square in Kiev, before and after protests. Courtesy Feeldesain.

Unfortunately, the story doesn’t end there – in fact, last week may simply have been the eye of the storm. Former President Yanukovich turned up in Russia yesterday, which should not be a surprise to anyone. His allegiance to the former Soviet empire was hardly masked during his wheeling and dealing with Russia over the past several weeks, and after being overthrown by his people, he has sought refuge in Moscow. With the Sochi Olympics being over, Russian President Putin likely has less deference for Western opinions on the matter, and will have no qualms about openly protecting a man who is being sought after by the transitional government in Ukraine for his role in the deaths of over 100 protestors.

Disappointment in Ukraine

Ukraine finds itself in a precarious situation these days. For weeks, there have been protests even bigger than those during the 2004 Orange Revolution, which was actually successful in calling for the ouster of (fraudulently) newly elected Victor Yanukovych. He came back into power, and until now enjoyed relative stability and burgeoning Ukrainian pride from people desperate to escape from the shadow of the former Soviet Union.

Will Diplomacy Really Save the Middle East?

Two weeks ago, President Obama was carefully weighing his options for a U.S. response to allegations that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons on civilians – options that included a unilateral military strike. In a world where these days, many countries choose to impress influence on others militarily, a military strike was certainly not out of the realm of realistic and understandable possibilities. However, the past week has demonstrated that countries can still work together, and get things done, without military force. Between the Syrian chemical weapons deal and the latest developments in Iran, President Obama has averted the political mess of a military strike and has new hope for peaceful negotiations in the Middle East.

I will be the first to admit that at the news of Russia’s diplomatic proposal for Syria to surrender their chemical weapons, I was extremely skeptical. The feasibility of actually destroying the weapons seemed not to have been considered, and Russia’s track record with cooperation did not reinforce any confidence in their ability to execute the plan successfully. And while I still have my reservations, things have moved forward as they were supposed to. Syria is documenting their chemical stockpiles, and once this assessment has been made, the next steps will be securing and eventually destroying them.

Meanwhile in Iran, the recently elected Prime Minister Hassan Rouhani has seemed more open to nuclear negotiations with the United States than his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, ever was. After years upon years of crippling sanctions imposed upon Iran not only by the U.S. but much of the Western world, perhaps this has simply been a long time coming. However, as my colleague Vicky pointed out, Prime Minister Rouhani and President Obama are the most politically aligned counterparts in the Iran-U.S. relationship in at least 20 years. Political incompatibility cannot foster cooperation, and it’s important to keep this in mind as Iran and the U.S. move forward in hopefully assuaging our nuclear fears once and for all while preserving Iran’s dignity and allowing nuclear energy creation in some capacity.

Diplomacy hinges on trust, though – something that the U.S. more or less lacks entirely when it comes to Syria and Iran. There is certainly reason to remain leery of these processes as they continue to unfold over the next several weeks and months. However, for the time being, this is a victory for Obama and a monumental indication to the rest of the world that diplomacy is not obsolete.

The Truth Behind Russia's Proposal on Syria

The world breathed a collective sigh of relief after President Obama's speech last night, a speech in which Obama indicated that a vote from Congress on military force in Syria would be put on hold while we once again revisited the idea of diplomacy. In fact, it's safe to say President Obama himself was breathing a sigh of relief, having averted what would have been a dramatic failure when Congress undoubtedly voted against authorizing military force. Instead, the world's attention has been turned towards Russia, who days ago unveiled their proposal for seizure of Syrian chemical weapons by the international community in place of any military action. True, this alternative satisfies the international community's need to stand up against chemical weapons and show that there are repercussions to their use, and also avoids dragging any other country's army into the conflict - nobody will argue that these are the main stipulations for any proposal put on the negotiating table. However, the proposal is nothing more than a vapid, empty attempt by Russia and Syria to delay any international reaction of substance. President Obama may have successfully avoided an embarrassing defeat by Congress of his authority to use military force, but the time for that will ultimately come when the veil has been lifted and Russia's proposal is seen for what it really is.

Does the G8 Still Matter?

The G8 summit, taking place this week in Northern Ireland, represents a yearly gathering of 8 of the world’s 11 most wealthy countries. Every year, world leaders from the Group of 8 meet to discuss primarily the global economy, but also pressing topics such as terrorism, world food supply, and this year, the Syrian conflict. Representing 50.1 percent of the world’s total GDP, there is no question that these eight countries hold more sway than most. Yet in the face of deep divisions between members such as Russia and the US, as well as the absence of China, India, and Brazil, does the G8 truly still have relevance in today’s world?

Where have all the good guys gone? How the West lost Syria

Events have not been kind to the Syrian rebels of late. Bashar al-Asad’s* victories in Damascus and its environs and suspected use of chemical weapons were the first blows. The arms shipment from Russia, Lebanon’s Hezbollah declaring outright military assistance to the regime, and the continued refusal of the West to provide meaningful aid have almost certainly spelled an end to the rebels’ hopes of military victory. Even the lifting of an E.U. embargo on arms to Syria does not mean that the arms will be forthcoming any time soon. The looming question remains: even if we wanted to support the rebellion with arms, who exactly would we give them to?

Sen. John McCain pays a surprise visit to Syrian rebels this week. Too bad for them he didn't bring any guns.

Certainly not Jabhat al-Nusra, the Al-Qaeda affiliate that has emerged as a power player on the rebel side. Despite their odious ideology, the Nusra Front has proved a great asset to the rebels, assisting greatly in the battle for Aleppo. Any rebel victory would mean that the group would have a say in Syria’s future, and if their positions thus far give any indication, most Syrians – who have traditionally been one of the most secular societies in the Middle East – would not like it. Aside from Jabhat Al-Nusra, a proliferation of other extremist Islamist groups have taken control of towns throughout Syria, as indicated in this Crisis Group report. They, too, have had enough military successes now that the Islamist share in a new government would be quite large.

What about the Syrian opposition’s leader, Gen. Salim Idris? Could we funnel the weapons through him? This, too, proves a challenging proposition. The West would have no way of knowing who the weapons were going to, especially given the shifting loyalties of rebel fighters on the ground to one faction or another. As the bloody conflict drags on, more and more fighters are being radicalized or simply want to join the strongest side, and that has been the Islamist groups. As discussed above, these groups are also intrinsically linked to the rest of the Free Syrian Army. If the West were to provide arms to the Free Syrian Army, it would have to accept that these groups are part and parcel of that movement, and that one day we could regret our decision to arm anti-American militias. Think Afghanistan, but in the dead center of the Middle East, right across the border from Iraq.

If Western leaders find it too risky to provide arms, the only two options left are to intervene with our own militaries, or let the Syrians fight it out and continue attempts to reach a negotiated settlement. The first option is not on the table. In fact, it’s so far off the table it’s down the street hiding in the neighbor’s house hoping to never be brought to the table. The second seems to be the most likely policy pursued by the West, said or unsaid. The rebels have already said they will boycott upcoming peace talks in Geneva, although Asad has committed to attending. It appears that they either still have hope of Western assistance, or the violence has been to such a degree that reaching an agreement with a man who slaughtered thousands of his own people is to onerous to imagine. It is an understandable sentiment, but at the same time a negotiated settlement might be the best option left for the opposition. It would guarantee them a place in a new government, and perhaps even offer the option of an exit by Asad. Otherwise, there is no telling how many more lives will be lost, how many more people will be displaced, and how much of a ruin Syria will be when the dust and blood settle.

The aftermath of a recent government massacre in Bayda. 

The sick irony of Lebanon interfering in Syria’s conflict less than a decade after the Syrian government pulled out of its own thirty-year-long occupation of Lebanon should be lost on no one. Syria is becoming Lebanon circa 1975-1990. This is a good and bad thing: despite a protracted civil conflict that dragged out for decades and spilled over into its neighbors, Lebanon’s civil war did not cause the region to implode. Yet the degree of spillover is might higher in the Syrian conflict. Lebanon’s civil war generated a million refugees in 15 years. Syria reached that number in two. Its potential to ignite a region that has already experienced so many upheavals in the last decade is much greater than that of Lebanon.

As I write this article, I hate the words I have to say. I loathe Bashar al-Asad. Any human being that is capable of the crimes he has committed deserves to be in a very, very small cell for the rest of his days. I wanted the rebels to win militarily from the outset of the conflict. If the West had acted a year ago, six months ago even, that could still be an option. But the hard truth is, there are no more good guys in this conflict. The rebel side has committed atrocities of its own and has increasingly been taken over by radicals and extremists. The “good guys” lost this civil war a long, long time ago. It’s not an answer than anyone wants, but the West and especially the United States chose it. We chose it by not acting. We chose it by not helping. Now we have to live with it; that, and the blood of nearly a hundred thousand Syrian people on our already very unclean hands. Unfortunately, the only outcome of this civil war appears to be the maintenance in power of a dictator, a proliferation of extremism, and millions of Syrians whose lives have unalterably changed for the worse. Faced with these facts, I can’t help but ask, what was it all for?

*Since I’ve been getting a lot of comments on this spelling, I believe I owe the readers an explanation. In Arabic, Assad indicates an actual doubling of the “s” sound, marked by a symbol known as a “shadda.” There is no “shadda” on Asad’s name, meaning that it is pronounced without the doubling of the “s.” Therefore, the proper transliteration is “Asad” with one “s.” BOOM four years of Arabic! Now you can go forth with that knowledge and feel superior about it.