The National Interest published an article by Rebecca Miller headlined "Why the West Should Be Ashamed about Ukraine."
"Over the course of events that have transpired during the Ukraine crisis, there have been unwarranted provocations from Moscow, bouts of violence in eastern Ukraine, illegal referenda (and one annexation) and incessant finger pointing in all different directions. But one place at which everyone’s fingers should be pointed is Brussels," the article reads.
"Essentially, what the European Union has done is created a mess that it is unwilling to clean up. What’s worse is that it has not publicly owned up to its share of the fault (a large share at that) for the crisis in Ukraine and Putin’s adventurism. Much of the discussion on this topic has focused on the shortcomings of the Obama administration, punishing Putin, whether NATO expansionism led to where U.S.-Russian relations stand today, and so forth. While these are all valid sands in which to anchor debate, one topic that deserves more attention is the future of U.S.-European relations," the author writes.
"In terms of NATO, if Putin’s land grabbing were to continue or his attention were to turn towards Estonia or Lithuania, NATO would be obligated to get involved militarily. While it is unlikely that Putin is reckless enough to do anything forceful in these countries, the fact that it has even become a possibility is cause for concern," the article reads.
"However, if the EU’s unwillingness to do more to punish Putin for perpetuating instability in Ukraine is indicative of how it would act if the situation in Ukraine or Eastern Europe became more dire, then Obama should think seriously about how closely the United States wants to remain aligned with Europe. In terms of NATO, Obama would need to think about how involved the United States should be in European security and defense. This is a European mess, started on Europe’s turf, by the EU," the article reads.
"If both the United States and the EU are content with the parameters of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, then there is no reason not to continue with negotiations. Maintaining Europe as a strong trade partner would still be in the United States’ best interest. However, if the United States is going to continue to back Europe militarily, the EU should try harder to avoid conflicts with major powers that would ultimately call for U.S. involvement," the author writes."And in the future, Washington should be more careful about which EU agendas it supports, especially those agendas that risk drawing countries like Russia into unnecessary conflict with the West," the author concludes.
"If both the United States and the EU are content with the parameters of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, then there is no reason not to continue with negotiations. Maintaining Europe as a strong trade partner would still be in the United States’ best interest. However, if the United States is going to continue to back Europe militarily, the EU should try harder to avoid conflicts with major powers that would ultimately call for U.S. involvement," the author writes.
"And in the future, Washington should be more careful about which EU agendas it supports, especially those agendas that risk drawing countries like Russia into unnecessary conflict with the West," the author concludes.
