Send the Sixth Fleet to Ukraine? To Do What?

Members of the Wall Street
Journal editorial board
want the U.S. to “deploy ships from the Europe-based Sixth
Fleet into the Black Sea, and send the newly commissioned George
H.W. Bush aircraft carrier to the eastern Mediterranean.” Their
counterparts at the Washington Post
fault President Obama because he thought he could “radically
reduce the size of its armed forces,” but say he could “play a
leading role” if he’s forceful enough. Senator John McCain
wants, “President Obama to rally our European and NATO allies.”
And House Speaker John Boehner
insists, “At what point do you say enough is enough? We are at
that point.” We’re at that point all right—of realizing that there
are limits to what even a superpower can do when a nuclear-armed
thugocracy like Russia decides to go romping, again, in one of its
traditional playgrounds.

Sixth Fleet? Really? Is Russia supposed to believe that the
United States is going to war to preserve Ukraine’s independence?
Do the pundits drawing a line want us to go to war to
preserve that independence?

Ukraine has a long and storied history, marked in part by the
need to draw its borders on maps in pencil. Surrounded by powerful
and quarrelsome neighbors, it has been carved up by…everybody.
It’s even been carved up by its own people, in a flurry of
mayflie-lived states that briefly filled the vacuum left by the
collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Russian Empire.

In the modern world, Ukraine has the misfortune to share a
1,400-mile
border with an increasingy assertive Russia, led by a cartoon
of a strongman, and a warm-water naval port
with Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. It’s also heavily dependent on its
neighbor for natural gas and
owes Gazprom, the Russian state gas monopoly, $1.55
billion.

Which is to say, Vladimir Putin and Russia have a lot of
leverage in Ukraine, short supply lines. and military forces
already in place.

The United States is in a position to wag its fingers, perhaps
impose some sanctions, but faces very real limits on the
credibility of its demands and threats. No matter how powerful the
U.S. military may be, any promises the U.S. makes to the Ukrainian
people as they face down some of the world’s worst neighbors are
going to be hollow and false. American officials can’t—and
shouldn’t—make promises that they’re in no position to keep. Hollow
assurances may lead Ukrainians to assume that they’ll get backing
that won’t materialize—just as many Hungarians
felt betrayed after NATO (understandably) failed to intervene
to support the 1956 uprising despite encouraging pro-freedom rebels
through Radio Free Europe and other official media.

Even worse would be the U.S. actually getting involved in the
conflict, though even uber-hawk McCain
concedes “there is not a military option.”

Whatever happens in Ukraine depends primarily on the ability of
Ukrainians to defend themselves and their independence. History
isn’t encouraging on that point, but Ukraine isn’t
defenseless, either.

But the United States isn’t in a position to correct all the
wrongs of the world. We look foolish when we can’t back up our
words, we might lead people to expect what can’t be delivered, and
we risk being drawn into conflicts in which we’re at a serious
disadvantage.

Taing a non-interventionist position recognizes the limits the
world imposes on even the most powerful players. It may not be
pleasant to have to watch events play out—but it’s better than
making them worse.