U.S. Leadership 2022: Ukraine, NATO, E.U., & Putin’s Aggression

SPC Assessment:

President Biden argued in 2020 that the United States must lead by example among free nations. As such the U.S. should execute novel action to bring a superpower balance of power to Europe’s frontiers by holding the line in Ukraine and beyond.

The Biden Administration must execute swiftly to be effective. This new level of action should seize decisive strategic advantages for free nations’ defense, freedom, and sovereignty as justified by recent history.

To allow autocracies to aggress and take resources, ports, facilities, and governance of free and neutral lands invites exponential autocratic aggrandizement of power in all hemispheres.

Situation Warrants a Strategic Change Imposed by the United States Beyond NATO Fortification

Citing the danger of NATO’s nearness to Russia, Russia has moved itself closer to NATO nations by aggressing against Ukraine. This creates a reasonable inference among free nations and NATO powers that Russia will repeatedly claim its sovereign neighbors a threat by mere proximity to justify more coerced expansion. For Russia’s sense of security it is enough for NATO to cite that it has never attacked Russia, even in Russia’s post-1991 weakness.

Russia’s aggression and persistence in war crimes will only stop with forceful, consistent command leadership by the U.S. and friends on all levels. Now, China has armed Serbia, perhaps in an effort to launder heavy arms purposed for Russia via scores of large military transport flights in recent weeks.

The U.S. Commander-in-Chief role includes a duty to strengthen American Armed Forces’ positions, deterrent status, morale, equipping, and to multiply the odds of victory and force protection against adversaries imposing conflict risks as Russia has in Ukraine.

Russia’s actions under Putin justify new U.S. strategic actions to avert world war and shorten the war in Ukraine. The Congress’ support of the President resides within its constitutional duty to provide for the common defense.

Emergency sessions, meetings, and secure communications in Congress are warranted. Pro-Russia members of Congress who are espionage and insurrection risks, should be denied security clearances for sensitive and clearance–oriented Congressional duties, or have their clearances revoked where they pose an informational threat to our troops’ lives.

Some Bold Yet Warranted Options: Possibility Thinking

Delays in consistent, forceful leadership action by the U.S. as Putin pushes his aggression and war crimes on Ukraine will increase chances that Putin’s regime and Silovarchy will see windows for potential success, and thereby hew to their dictator. Conversely, continuous actions projecting American strength enhance the likelihood that Russians will end Putin’s war and his reign.

1. The U.S. and U.K. could obtain full Armed Forces’ basing rights in the Port of Odesa, effective immediately in direct bilateral agreements with Ukraine, and not as binding on NATO’s Article 5 obligations. The treaty purpose: to maintain freedom of navigation and trade in the vital interests of the U.S.-Ukraine relationship, and to bring food prices under control in the interests of international stability and transnational security should Russia prolong its aggression.

2. The U.S. and U.K. could each obtain contingent full Armed Forces’ basing rights in the Port of Mariupol, Ukraine through direct bilateral agreement with Ukraine, and not as binding on NATO’s article 5 obligations, conditioned on Ukraine’s fighting the war to conclusion so as to liberate Mariupol, Ukraine from Russia; without U.S. and U.K. obligations to liberate Mariupol.

3. In concert with allies, the U.S. could assert control and air superiority over the percentage of the Black Sea represented by allied coastlines there, and as a matter of aids to navigation and the security of its forces in the Black Sea, in partnership with Ukraine to establish assets and operations on Ukraine’s Black Sea islands.

4. In the name of Freedom of Navigation (FONOPS) the U.S. and individual allies could break any and all Black Sea blockades on its trade partner, Ukraine, enabling it to exercise its rights of navigation, free trade, basing rights, and Ukraine’s right of humanitarian self-support. FONOPS would include anti-mining operations in the Black Sea. To secure FONOPS, trade, and basing rights, the U.S. and other nations could bring sufficient force to bear on the area to defend all forces taking part. These operations are of vital interest to the U.S. and international allies under pressure from elevated food and energy prices imposed by Putin’s unnecessary aggression on Ukraine.

5. The U.S. could provide cordons of anti-missile, anti-projectile, and anti-ship systems to protect its FONOPS, its basing in Odesa, humanitarian workers, and the city of Odesa, the security of which will be essential for U.S. FONOPS and basing rights agreed to with Ukraine bilaterally, without NATO obligations attaching.

6. The U.S. could enter individual bilateral treaties with Moldova, Georgia, and Turkey with enhanced Armed Forces’ basing rights for reinforcement of all Eastern Hemispheric missions, and urge Turkey, Greece, Georgia and Moldova to enter into quadrilateral security and trade agreements across the Black Sea in which the U.S. and NATO share vital interests in having robust, free, and independent buffers on land and sea between an aggressive Russia and NATO allies to reduce chances of clashes and escalation in the future.

7. The U.S. and Germany could blockade Belarus by Sea until attempts (de facto and claimed) blockades on Ukraine by Sea cease, and until Belarus ceases to support aggression and hostilities against Ukraine, demanding comity be honored under international law.

8. The U.S., Norway, Sweden, Finland, Poland, the Baltics, E.U., U.K., France, Spain, Morocco, Israel, France, Greece, Turkey and Germany could respectively team-up to assert naval and air superiority, advantage, and / or parity over the Baltic Sea, North Sea, English Channel, North Atlantic, and over the mouth and vast majority of the Mediterranean Sea. As a part of these arrangements, the Greek and Turkish members of NATO could agree to compartmentalize their territorial, resource, and navigation claims within a civilian-only negotiation and trade relationship aimed at collaborative treaty-making and resource sharing where feasible. The U.S. could then take the lead in bringing these two NATO members into a new era of positive, mutually beneficial relations.

Concluding Thoughts

The ideas above are designed to spark free nation possibility-thinking in view of the new, oppressive imposition of autocratic force against free, sovereign nations such as Ukraine, Georgia, and as suggested by Belarusian communications of malicious, lethal intent toward Moldova.

In view of China’s interference in the military balance of power in Europe shown by its arms shipments to Serbia, autocratic designs on Europe and NATO members are becoming clearer in recent months. Time is of the essence to act decisively and change the playing field.

Therefore, it is within the self-determination, sovereign, and self-defense rights of all free nations, or nations struggling to be free of autocratic actions against those rights, to enter into new arrangements, agreements, and joint defenses whether bilaterally, as blocs, and / or as individual nation states with vital interests adversely affected by Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, and telegraphed desires for autocratic aggression against sovereign nations elsewhere in the world, to include aspects of gray warfare and related black operations.

Skip to content