No Consequences, Just Lies

Early this morning, news broke that a ceasefire was reached in the nearly year-long conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The four-party talks in Minsk, Belarus involved Russia, Ukraine, Germany, and France, but not the United States. While the agreement is certainly welcome news, it will still take time to uncover whether it has any true substance.

Many observers are concerned that the agreement is solely on paper and that action, particularly on the Russian side, may not follow. Previous agreements to stem the war have failed and the conflict reignited.

Of interest is the clause that arms and troops will be withdrawn to a distance from the area of dispute. As recently as late January, however, Russia denied that its troops were in Ukraine. One can dispute official troops as opposed to other forms of military presence, but Russia's role in that military presence is widely accepted, despite Russia's consistent claims to the contrary. Despite the realities on the ground and their acceptance inherent within the agreement, there are no consequences for these past statements.

Russia has, of course, made the news in other ways this week that do little to help the overall situation and sense of mistrust, including claiming that it will be leasing military bases in Cyprus , which is in the European Union but not part of NATO, and denying a request by Ukraine to restructure that country's debt to Russia.

While the situation in Ukraine is not resolved by any account, there remains the possibility that this ceasefire may lead toward peace. At the same time, past statements that fail to accurately describe intentions on purpose do reflect what the future may have in store.

(Ukraine Crisis Map from National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine via Business Insider Australia)

Note: A neat interactive map of the crisis is also available.

Building on Trust: Why the US Isn't Getting Very Far in Israel

Israel and Hamas are, by all accounts, at war in Gaza. US Secretary of State John Kerry is in the Middle East, frantically working with Israelis and Egyptians to nail down some sort of halt to hostilities, since the United States cannot work directly with Hamas - a designated terrorist organization. He's not getting very far and it's not entirely surprising. 

(Source: Jack Guez/AFP/Getty Images via The National Post)

Kerry next travels to France, where anti-Semitic rioting has flared in recent days, to attempt to gain support for a ceasefire among European leaders. Earlier, the Israeli cabinet rejected Kerry's ceasefire proposal, which the US has since downplayed as a disagreement on final wording - that no proposal was formally put forth. Part of that rejection involves Israel asserting its objective to continue to destroy tunnels during any ongoing ceasefire. Nonetheless, Israel and Hamas have agreed to a 12-hour humanitarian ceasefire, beginning at 8 AM local time.

It's not shocking to see Israel and the US disagree lately; there's very little substance to the US-Israel relationship under the Obama administration. In fact, it could be argued that there's likely no trust at all among leadership in the two countries. Just this past week, Kerry was caught criticizing the Israeli operation in Gaza. In backtracking, Kerry could only come up with the something trite: "...war is tough. We defend Israel's right to do what it is doing..." Well, of course. In 2011, at the G20 meeting, President Obama was also caught making an offhand remark about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, suggesting that he was "fed up with him" and perhaps even agreeing with then-French President Nicolas Sarkozy that Netanyahu was a liar. Earlier in 2011, Obama rebuffed meeting Netanyahu in the US, a surprise given the close US-Israel relationship in the past. The two have met as recently as this past March, with Netanyahu clearly stating that he would do nothing that would hinder Israeli national security. The two have spent more time attempting to lecture one another than to truly discuss options for peace.

The nonexistence of any legitimate relationship clearly undermines cooperative efforts to bring peace to the region. The damage done to the relationship may prove to solely be superficial - something a change in leadership on either side (or likely both sides) may correct. At the same time, the failure to secure any significant gains, not only in Israel, but in the greater Middle East as a whole, is a legacy that the Obama administration does not desire. In addition to the current Israeli-Hamas war, there are wars, on one level or another, in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and Mali and political strife in Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey, Bahrain, and Iran (I'm sure I missed some). The toll in Syria alone may be as high as 160,000, not something that history or the administration can (continue to) easily brush aside.

The only options that remain during Obama's final few years in office are to make significant and serious decisions. The Washington Post suggests disarming Hamas; after all, how many political parties typically have a military wing (though it is important to note that some have in the past, including Israeli ones). Such bold action will not be easy, but any easy solutions have long since passed. It is time to make difficult decisions that bring change. Only with change can there be peace.