President Obama has stepped up and publicly supported Ukraine's new government:
Obama welcomed Ukraine's interim premier Arseniy Yatsenyuk to the White House and appeared by his side as both leaders sternly warned Russia that Ukraine would not surrender its sovereignty.
He repeated that Moscow would face unspecified "costs" if Russian President Vladimir Putin does not back down, and rejected a bid to hold what he called a "slapdash" referendum in Crimea.
Obviously, we aren't promising to go to war over Crimea. That's fine. I'm pleased with the public support.
With a referendum in Crimea on whether they should declare independence or join Russia coming on Sunday, I think this crisis is worthy of a presidential address to the people of Ukraine and especially Crimea.
Heck, to be really gutsy, go to Poland where American forces are exercising in order to gain maximum attention there. I'd suggest going to Ukraine but I wouldn't risk the president in that unsettled place where security would be very difficult on short notice. We wouldn't want an Archduke Ferdinand moment, now would we?
But regardless of where the speech is given, it should be given.
The president should tell the Crimean people that the West will not accept Russia's conquest of Crimea. He should tell them that they can help end this farce by refusing to participate in the rigged elections that can only end in Russian control of their lives.
The president can pledge that a Ukraine in the West will achieve economic advances and political freedoms just as their neighbors are making progress achieving within the Western system after they escaped Moscow's orbit.
Or Crimeans can enjoy the status of Abhkazia and South Ossetia which languish under Russian control, isolated from the world community because they are tainted by Russia's high-handed actions; and suffering additional hardships that will fall on Crimeans not because they have fears for the future, but because they have cooperated with naked aggression against an independent member of the international community.
The president can pledge that if Ukrainians perceive injustice--while denying the Russian inflammatory charges of abuse--that Western observers can be sent to calm the situation and make sure that all Ukrainians enjoy the benefits of democracy and Western economic ties, as well as shouldering the burdens of successfully making that transition.
The president could assure Crimeans that if they are concerned about freedom, that they should consider whether future votes--as if the Sunday vote is in doubt regardless of the voters' wishes--will be allowed to take place freely under Putin's control.
This effort could fail. It could fail to persuade Crimeans to stay away from the voting. Russia might have this rigged so thoroughly that it doesn't matter. Russia might even jam any broadcasts to Crimea. But we can exploit that, too.
But if Crimeans are simply afraid not to back the strong horse because they believe Russia's subliminal invasion is unstoppable, knowing the leader of the free world (stop rolling your eyes--we go to near-cold war with the leader of the free world we have and not the leader we wish we had) has an interest in their fate might make a difference.
And even if it fails, it could soothe the rest of Ukrainians and bolster those in the east who might be on the fence over Russian dominance.
I certainly won't mock the president for such a speech. As I've said many times, I don't expect a win every time we act. But I do expect that we act like we care about outcomes abroad and make efforts to bend them to our advantage and to defeat armed enemies when conflict breaks out.
Desperate times call for desperate methods. Unleash the speechifying and see if it can do any good.
