Broken promises: What will our response be to Putin's Sudetenland?

In 1938 Adolf Hitler accused the Czechoslovakian government of maltreating German-speaking Czechs living in its area referred to as the “Sudetenland.” Seeking to avoid conflict, diplomatic efforts to deal with Hitler resulted in an agreement orchestrated by Neville Chamberlain of Great Britain to cede part of Czechoslovakia — without its consent — to Germany. The deal was agreed to by France along with the UK. Hitler saw diplomatic weakness and quickly moved his troops into the Sudetenland.

Fast forward. At the Hague on March 26 of this year, in the aftermath of Russia’s military seizure of Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula, President Obama gave a speech to representatives of the European Union and NATO. Of the 4,000 words he spoke, the most telling were these:

“What we will do always is uphold our solemn obligation, our Article 5 duty, to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of our allies. Of course Ukraine is not a member of NATO, in part because of its close and complex history with Russia. Nor will Russia be dislodged from Crimea or deterred from further escalation by military force.”

These words told Putin — and the world — that his military aggression into the Crimea will not be reversed, just like the Sudetenland 76 years ago. Then, Hitler was emboldened to continue his military seizures of parts of Europe leading to WWII. Few here believe Russia would start a world war and that is not Putin’s ambition. However, he absolutely harbors aggravation at how the dissolution of the Soviet Union left Russia with nationalistic scars. He was a KGB colonel during that time. Recently he shared his feelings about reestablishing Russian pride during an interview before the Sochi Olympics. Putin longs to build his federation to bring those Russian speaking people from former Warsaw Pact countries back into the “fold.”

Even worse than the loss of Crimea to Ukraine, Obama’s words left the door open to Putin to take similar action against any other non-NATO country on its border. ABC News described Obama’s speech as a “missile fired directly at Putin.” Far from it, it was pure acquiescence. NBC News’s Pentagon correspondent stated that U.S. officials said that we were “powerless to stop” further invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Thank you, U.S. defense officials, for giving another “green light” to Putin.

Specifically taking the military option off the table, even if you don’t intend on using it, is usually a diplomatic blunder and certainly was in this case. No, Ukraine is not a member of NATO, but we made a promise to it 20 years ago that we just broke. What the media and our nation’s leaders are not discussing with us is the 1994 Budapest Agreement. Signed on Dec. 5 of that year, it guaranteed Ukraine’s borders in exchange for the surrender of its Soviet era nuclear weapons back to Russia. Ironically, one of the signatories of the agreement was Russia. Boris Yeltsin signed for Russia, John Major for the UK, and Bill Clinton for the U.S. Below is the specific language from the document.

“The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.” Additionally, “...refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.”

The interim Ukrainian government has been calling on the U.S. and U.K. to honor the 1994 agreement to come to Ukraine’s assistance, since it upheld its end of the bargain.

How hypocritical is Russia’s action given their promise to Ukraine? There are upwards of 50,000 Russian troops near Ukraine’s border — a threat of further use of force. Besides Ukraine there were two other 1994 Budapest agreements signed by the same countries (U.S., UK, Russia) on the same day with the same language, with Belarus and Kazakhstan. Those two countries border Russia on its west and south and they both have Russian speaking people — albeit a minority — like Ukraine. What message do they get on our, the UK’s, and Russia’s promise to guarantee their borders? And in the rest of the world, what are Japan, the Republic of Korea, Israel, and others who have similar promises from the U.S., thinking?

This is not Russia’s first military incursion into a former Soviet state. Following the demise of the Soviet Union, Russian soldiers in the Transnistria region of eastern Moldova declared their loyalty to Russia and remained in Transnistria to protect Russian speaking Moldavians. To this day, Russia recognizes Transnistrian independence. In 2008, Russia used the “We need to protect Russian speaking people” ruse to invade the former Soviet country of Georgia capturing Southern Ossetia and Abkhazia. Russia declared them to be independent republics and its troops remain there today. Just days ago, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said recognition of Abkhazia and its fellow breakaway territory of South Ossetia are “irreversible.” So, if one wonders what Putin’s next annexation move might be, look to Southern Ossetia, Abkhazia, or Transnistria along with eastern Ukraine.

President Obama’s actions taken thus far regarding Ukraine fall well short of deterring Putin from further aggression and certainly make a mockery of the 1994 Budapest Agreement. Constitutional scholars are now saying the agreement, as written, has no specific enforcement language for the U.S. to militarily guarantee Ukraine’s borders because it was never ratified as a treaty by the U.S S.enate. How convenient for us. Tell that to Belarus and Kazakhstan.

Secretary of State John Kerry has been representing the U.S. efforts to de-escalate tensions. As of March 31, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has given two demands. First, that Ukraine decentralize its government to become a federation to allow increased autonomy to ethnic regions of the country. The second demand is that Ukraine agree not to move toward NATO membership. Thankfully, Kerry’s response was “nyet” until Ukraine’s leadership is part of the negotiation. Make no mistake about Putin’s intentions. Federalizing Ukraine is a step closer to further Russian annexation of parts of Ukraine. It is a “divide and conquer” strategy. Insistence that Ukraine not consider NATO membership is arrogant bullying of a sovereign nation.

What can we do to deter Russia short of military use? Hit them where it hurts, in their wallet. Beyond individuals, target the banks to block dealings with Russian companies. Although it takes time to develop, announce the approval of liquefied natural gas shipments to Europe, or cooperative ventures in Europe, to offset their dependence on Russian energy. Until that takes hold, economists remind us that using some of our strategic petroleum reserves could reduce the price of oil worldwide and cause an immediate reduction of Russia’s GDP. Fifty percent of Russia’s revenue comes from oil and natural gas royalties.

Russian aggression against Ukraine is not just a regional scuffle on the other side of the world. What happens there has global security implications. It could bring us into conflict, if not war, and have a horrific effect on our economy.

When a nation makes a promise, it must keep it. If we have no intentions on doing so, then we should have the guts to tell those who are depending on us to tell them the truth. The consequences of diplomatic “Tom Foolery” can lead to catastrophic escalation as happened in Korea in 1950 and Iraq in 1990. All considered, we shouldn’t be surprised if we hear that Ukraine, Belarus, and/or Kazakhstan decide to develop or acquire nuclear weapons; reversing the progress we made in nuclear weapons reductions as a result of the 1994 Budapest Agreement.

Tom Sward, of Bigfork, is a retired colonel in the U.S. Marine Corps.