President Putin,

I have been enlisted to give my advisement on the international affairs going forward in Ukraine’s Crimea region. This as you know, is a hot button issue and should definitely be handled with kid gloves. You are under the watchful eye of the United States and the world; every move you make may have its consequences. It is of my opinion that the consequences may be tolerable based on the actions taken. The United States is a Nuclear nation therefore you must make a calculated decision based on the risk. This is not the first time that the United States and Russia have been locked at odds, with nukes just a push of a button away. This situation would have been mutually assured destruction. (1) This was during the Cold War era however and the presidents of the day were to say the least, realist. They would have jumped at the chance to get into a conflict with one of the few super powers of the day. This would have given the winner the superiority that all had desired. That scenario may not be the same as the circumstances of today. President Obama is in no way a Hawk; he is by all accounts a Dove and will probably avoid an all out war at all costs. Based on the most recent history President Obama has tried to remove the US from any conflict they have been involved in. This has been proven by the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and the spin down of troop numbers in Afghanistan. These are two Conflicts that he had inherited and really wanted nothing to do with. This has been the way he has operated and I believe it will be a foreshadowing of his actions in the future. On both fronts Obama has removed responsibility by contracting jobs out and dwindling the numbers in the US military have left them undermanned and ill equipped for an engagement such as this. The US has been fighting 2 wars simultaneously for the past 10 years. This has not allowed them to be able to completely focus any sort of defensive force in a certain area.

In Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama has opted for more of the surgical strike method of dealing with conflict. This has involved UAD’s and small specially trained forces carrying out smaller scale missions. Most of the other occupations have been subcontracted out to the private industry. Jobs such as Base security and intelligence have been outsourced to private industry and have limited the “boots on the ground”. In this administration, gone are the days of the large-scale forces on the ground to push a force out of an occupied area.(1) Those are the tactics seen during the first gulf war, when Saddam Hussein occupied Kuwait. This situation is quite similar to the one you find yourself in right now.(2) Kuwait had been part of Iraq during the Ottoman Empire but was separated in 1922 when the UK had given up its rule there. They drew an arbitrary line separating the two and making Kuwait a sovereign state. This had almost completely made Iraq a land locked country and limited its possibilities. (1) Occupation did not work in Saddam Hussein’s favor due to the world climate at the time, and the fact that President Bush of the time was not going to let Iraq take the land without a fight. (3) Today this might be a different situation all together. If you were to roll in to the Ukraine heavy, IE: with an armored force and lots of troops on the ground. Though you may receive some resistance, you may be able to muscle your way through it if you try and take the whole country of Ukraine at one time. This idea is based on the fact that the majority of the people on the country as a whole are pro Russia. If you try and take the Crimea region and then try for the country you may not be as successful due to the fact that you have already separated most of the pro Russian residents from the country as a whole.

I believe your best approach is to use “Smart Power” and petition the UN and create a coalition, there you can plead your case and get them on your side as the US did before they assisted the citizens of Kuwait. They received the full backing of the coalition before even attempting to push the Iraqi regime from the occupation of Kuwait. This fully worked in their favor because they had the support of the world in their efforts. (2) As they did, you can occupy Ukraine and assist the citizen by protecting the Pro-Russian residents from the Anti-Russian regime that is about to take power. With the backing of the world you will be able to complete your mission unimpeded. (1) In this scenario you can concentrate on winning the hearts and minds of the remaining 50% of the population in Ukraine in order to complete the ultimate goal. In conclusion a mix of both Hard and Soft Power or “Smart Power” would be the best option to getting this conflict resolved. The soft power would be the diplomatic negotiations with the UN and the ability to win over the hearts and minds of the Citizens in Ukraine. The portion of hard power would be the military might needed to get the do the protecting of the citizen from the Anti Russian Regime. (4)

Works Cited

1. Stork, Joe, and Ann Lesch. "Background to the Crisis: Why War?" Middle East Research and Information Project (MERIP) Nov. - Dec. 2003: 11-18. Print.

2. "Confrontation in the Gulf; Proposals by Iraqi President: Excerpts From His Address". The New York Times (New York). 13 August 1990. Pp. A8

3. Douglas A. Borer (2003). "Inverse Engagement: Lessons from U.S.-Iraq Relations, 1982–1990". U.S.

4. Nye, Joseph S., and David Welch. Understanding global conflict and cooperation: an introduction to theory and history. 8th ed. Boston: Pearson Longman, 2011. Print.