Ukraine: the difficult management of Obama on the crisis

For President Obama is one of the most difficult periods of his mandate in the soil of foreign policy. The deepening of the crisis in Ukraine requires the USA a state of alert since the heart of Europe, without the proper support of the EU, fought between geopolitical interests and economic interests. What is sacrificed is the respect of international law, that Moscow is violating with impunity for too long now. Conclusive evidence of the passage of the Ukrainian border and effective means of Russians now seems established. A little valid justification of a humanitarian commitment of Moscow in favor of the pro-Russian populations, while the theme Malaysian civil aircraft shot down, probably by its Russian missiles, apparently shelved without any justice to the victims. Washington is reluctant to get involved in a military confrontation far more risky than any opponent of Islamic fundamentalism; here we are in a land far more undermining of the Middle East. The balance of the western countries, although traversed by the crisis, are far more crucial to the world economy, Syria or Iraq. If the intention not to use force by the White House is certain, it is also sure that Washington does not intend to defer to the behavior of Putin and tip once more to a kind of diplomatic solution. Tougher sanctions on Russia will be the instrument that will be used to bring Moscow into the rails of international law. For the USA, the Russian incursion into the territory of Ukraine is a clear symptom of expansionary policy to stop at any cost, that already after the events in Crimea have not produced any consequences for Moscow if not economic sanctions, for the moment absorbed with some difficulty, combined with international condemnation without substantial effects. Obama's position is difficult because within the Western camp there identity of views, the United States is the dominant position of Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, who argues that the lack of reaction to the threat of Moscow would trigger a process too expensive to sustain for American diplomacy. The fear inside the United States that Moscow is to proceed in its expansionism in a totally unpunished; it is, as demonstrated by the facts of a justified fear, which can not even be discussed in the headquarters of the UN Security Council for the obvious Russian veto, as well as the less obvious parts of China, as the situation that has arisen over the head sharply to the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states, at the base of the doctrine in Chinese foreign policy. It is clear that only special interests, against the United States, determine the hostile attitude of Beijing. But if at home Obama must contain attitudes that border interventionism, with the EU is struggling with too much prudence of the European countries, which have adapted reluctantly sanctions against Russia, because of the loss of income resulting from the import ban . In reality these positions relate to most Western countries of the European Union, but which are also the most politically significant, while the nations which belonged to the Communist bloc are those most involved in Obama to call for a greater effort to contain Russia, in virtue of their past inside the iron Curtain. The most likely remains therefore to a tightening of sanctions combined with assistance and military supplies to the Ukrainian army. This decision could raise the confrontation between Washington and Moscow in a dangerous manner and affect all major international problems present; think of Syria, where the Russian role may be determined by the outcome of the conflict. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian issue will be the focus of the NATO summit on 4 September, which will take place in the UK, where the Ukraine, presumably officially ask the help of the Alliance; it will be a political step that will have more impact on a crisis that, in the meantime, it is hoped suffers a stop.