Debunking Credibility: ‘Ukraine Does Not Really Matter’

John Glaser, May 04, 2014

Over at Foreign Policy, Christopher J. Fettweis argues the hysteria in Washington over Ukraine is based on “pathological beliefs” about foreign policy. “The United States has no interest at stake in eastern Ukraine or Crimea,” Fettweis writes. “It is hard to imagine how any outcome here would affect the American people…”

Most importantly, Fettweis debunks the pervasive myth that the U.S. must do something to show its strength against Russia over Ukraine:

How we act now, it is commonly believed, can signal to Moscow (or to Beijing, or to Tehran) how we are likely to respond to provocations to come. Our inaction will encourage their belligerence.

There is a mountain of research from political science to suggest that this is an illusion, that credibility earned today does not lead to successes tomorrow and therefore is never worth fighting for. Others simply do not learn the lessons we wish to teach through our actions. Our rivals tend to believe that the United States will act in accordance with its national interest, rather than because of its reputation for resolve earned in previous crises. In fact, when countries back down in the face of provocation, often their rivals believe that they will be more aggressive in the future…

Worrying about the messages sent during this crisis, in other words, distracts us from what ought to be its central fact: Ukraine does not really matter.

I’ve written about the credibility myth numerous times. In Reason back in March, I argued against the ridiculous notion that Putin decided to take action in Ukraine because of Obama’s failure to enforce his “red line” and bomb Syria several months earlier. The credibility canard is a issue that is largely settled in the scholarship, but continues to inflict analysis among politicians, strategists, and policy wonks.

Kudos to Fettweis for saying what nobody else in the mainstream dares to: Ukraine does not really matter.




8 Responses to “Debunking Credibility: ‘Ukraine Does Not Really Matter’”

  1. Beyond empathy and concern for the innocent victims of violence, Ukraine surely doesn't matter to the US public, but IMF bankers and their cronies in the US expect to pull a few more billion from Ukraine. As usual, the US public's opinion won't matter if the bankers want war.

  2. There is another angle to the the Obama-manufactured Ukrainian crisis: the politics of distraction. Obama is suffering from the doldrums in public opinion polls. His administration has the reputation as running "amateur hour" when it comes to domestic and international issues. Take a quick look at his advisers and it is hard not to anticipate that result. ObamaCare and the latest Middle East peace initiative … need I say more. Obama and his "friends" may tank the Democrats in the mid-term elections. What better rejoinder than a little war to distract the voters and solicit a little patriotism for his cause … "rally around the flag boys!"

  3. Obama and the Democrarts are hoping that Russia will act soon against his coup in Kiev.

    Presently, it's having it's desired political effect in the US. The usual warmonger suspects like Sarah Palin and the other neocons are willing to guzzle down any and all CIA kool aid regarding Ukraine… And they aren't talking about Obamacare.

    There's a reason why Obama chose the May 25th date for the elections in Ukraine and that's to force Russia to act before the Democrats get too far into campaign season. It will give them time to recover public relations-wise while they stage the next destabiliation distraction…

    Everything Obama does domestically and internationally is designed to cause people to focus on ANYTHING but his failure as a leader of a degenerate elite and his own personal depravity as a human being.

  4. […] reiterated in a post last week why this line of thought, despite being so pervasive in the political discourse in […]

  5. […] reiterated in a post last week why this line of thought, despite being so pervasive in the political discourse in […]

  6. […] direction, without risking the breakup of the country itself.” Even if a recognition of this only happens on one side of the geopolitical divide, it will be a far more peaceful […]

  7. […] direction, without risking the breakup of the country itself.” Even if a recognition of this only happens on one side of the geopolitical divide, it will be a far more peaceful […]

  8. tanks in information
    you are really" good http://obatsakitpinggangtradisionalblog.wordpress