U.S. and Europe Have Limited Options to Deal With Ukraine Crisis

 © 2013 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

When Russian troops moved into neighboring Ukraine's Crimean peninsula on February 28, Russian leader Vladimir Putin said it was to protect his nation's interests and those of Russian people living there. This came after the Ukrainian parliament ousted pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.
Leaders in the United States and Europe, however, view the Russian incursion as an act of aggression and a violation of Ukraine's sovereign territory.
Although, as of this writing, there have been no reported military clashes, Moscow now has, according to Ukrainian sources, an estimated 16,000 troops in Crimea and has effective control of that peninsula. Crimea has strategic significance to Russia, as it hosts a Russian navy base and two air bases.
The Russia-based media source RT maintains that this claim of 16,000 Russian troops being deployed ignores the fact that the 1997 Partition Treaty between Russia and Ukraine allows the Russian navy to have 25,000 troops in Crimea, and that many of these were already there. For more of this Russian interpretation of events, see the RT article, Russia's 25,000-troop Allowance & Other Facts You May Not Know About Crimea. Be aware that RT, formerly called Russia Today, is funded by the federal budget of Russia.
Although the Western nations don't accept Russia's stated reasons as valid justification for Russia's current actions in Ukraine, most observers say that the objecting countries have only limited options for pressuring Russia to pull back. And so far, it appears that no threatened actions or diplomacy have caused Putin to alter his course regarding Ukraine.
The United States and its allies have ruled out military options, at least at present. And since Ukraine is not a NATO member, the United States and Europe are not obligated to come to its defense.
The European Union, which has significant trading connections with Russia, could pay a sharp price for confronting Moscow over Ukraine. In particular, somewhere between a quarter and a third of the EU's natural gas imports originate in Russia.
Among the options on the table, the West could impose economic sanctions on Russia, but the Kremlin has threatened to hit back if that happens. Russian lawmakers are drafting a law that will allow that nation to confiscate assets in Russia belonging to U.S. and European companies if it faces sanctions.
The United States has already put on hold all military-to-military engagements with Russia, including exercises, bilateral meetings, port visits and planning conferences.
Further, the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Britain, the seven nations that normally participate with Russia in an annual meeting of the world's industrial powers known as the G8 Summit, have suspended their participation in the upcoming summit that had been scheduled for June in the Russian Olympic venue at Sochi.
Prior to Russia being included, the seven nations were known as the G7. In 1998, they agreed to add Russia to reflect the changing geopolitical dynamic after the Cold War and breakup of the Soviet Union. Revoking Russia's membership would isolate Putin diplomatically, but at present, he seems little swayed by that possibility.
The Western leaders have also pledged a financial assistance package to Ukraine, and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry traveled this week to Ukraine's capital, Kiev, to show support for that country's new government.
Some have suggested that the United States could reverse its decision to scrap the missile defense site it had intended to build in Poland, and to which the Kremlin had objected. (The United States opted for missile defense systems located on U.S. Navy warships instead.)
Other options to pressure the Kremlin include visa bans, asset freezes and isolation by the international community on trade and investment, as well as ongoing diplomacy.
The crisis in Ukraine began three months ago when protesters took to the streets after President Yanukovych rejected an agreement to strengthen ties with the European Union in favor of seeking closer ties with Russia. The protests continued until the country's parliament removed Yanukovych, assigned his power to a temporary president and scheduled new elections. Yanukovych fled Kiev and is now in Russia.
This news story is still developing. Check with media sources for updates.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Russia Keeps Pressure on Ukraine With Crimea Stand-Off. BBC
Putin: Troops to Bases; Warning Shots in Crimea. ABC News
Analysis: Limited U.S., European Options in Ukraine. Washington Post
Western Leaders Scramble to Respond to Russian Incursion. Fox News
Timeline: How the Crisis in Ukraine Unfolded. Independent.ie
How the Western Press Is Getting It Terribly Wrong in Ukraine. Forbes
The Big Questions

1. In our personal lives, what is a Christian response to troublemakers who are intractable, uninterested in negotiating and not fazed by possible unpleasant consequences of their destructive actions?
2. What biblical models can we use when dealing with conflict? Is there any one of them that should always be employed? Why or why not? Are conflicts between nations (governments) different in kind than conflicts between individuals? Explain your answer.
3. Under what circumstances of conflict should peacemaking not be the immediate goal?
4. Do you think Jesus meant his teaching about turning the other cheek to be taken literally? Explain your answer. When the cheek being hit is someone else's, especially someone who is vulnerable, what is our responsibility?
5. Have you ever been in the position to forgive someone for something they did, knowing they did not consider themselves wrongdoers, or perhaps even that they were content with their chosen actions? Were you able to forgive?
6. How might your answers to the five questions above apply to situations of domestic violence?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Genesis 13:9
Is not the whole land before you? Separate yourself from me. If you take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if you take the right hand, then I will go to the left. (For context, read 13:1-12.)
When Abram and his nephew Lot, along with their families, flocks and herds, were living together in the hilly desert region of southern Canaan, it soon became clear that the land could not support both clans in close proximity. This led to strife between Abram's herders and Lot's. So Abram made the offer to Lot stated in the verse above. Lot chose what appeared to be the better land, and Abram made do with the other.
Question: This is one biblical model for handling conflict, but it means that the one making the offer must be prepared to come out the "loser" in the settlement. Under what family or relationship circumstances today might this model be a Christian way to handle a conflict?
Proverbs 16:14
A king's wrath is a messenger of death, and whoever is wise will appease it. (No context needed.)
Since this verse is in the Bible, it can be called a biblical model for handling conflict, though we may be hesitant to do so. The reality of appeasement is that it usually leaves the person doing the appeasing feeling unsatisfied, and it sometimes emboldens the aggressor to demand further concessions.
Questions: Are there any circumstances in everyday life where appeasement is the right and Christian thing to do? Can it ever be a step toward real peacemaking?
In the case of Putin, does this mean that we should simply give him his way (as happened with his intervention in Georgia in 2007) to appease him? Or does this suggest that we ought to be aware of the hornet's nest we will stir up if we stir up the wrath of rulers?
Jeremiah 29:7
But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare. (For context, read 29:1-14.)
After the people of Judah were forced into exile in Babylon, the prophet Jeremiah wrote them a letter with a thus-says-the-Lord instruction, that they were to work and pray for the good of their conquerors' city, Babylon, "for in its welfare you will find your welfare."
This biblical model applies at least to situations where we are the "defeated" or the "loser" in a conflict, and where the outcome is not the one we wanted.
Question: Where in your life might working and praying for the welfare of someone who has bested you be the right thing to do?
Matthew 5:39-41
But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. (For context, read 5:38-42.)
Jesus said this, along with some other startling things, such as "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (v. 44) in the Sermon on the Mount, while talking about dealing with those with whom we are in conflict. Notice that he did not add, "Of course, these things aren't really realistic when you're dealing with this week's crisis."
Questions: Where and in what forms have practiced the instruction Jesus gave here in the Sermon on the Mount? What was the outcome? What did you learn?
How many sermons or Bible studies have you heard which suggested you ought to put this into practice? When have you heard this text explained away (especially during times of armed conflict) from the pulpit?
Matthew 18:15-17
If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (For context, read 18:15-20.)
Questions: What would you call this biblical model for handling conflict? When have you applied it? What was the outcome? Would you use it again? Explain your answer.
Psalm 144:1
Blessed be the LORD my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle. (For context, read 144:1-11.)
Luke 22:36
[Jesus] said to [the disciples], "But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one." (For context, read Luke 22:35-38.)
Romans 13:4
... But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the [ruler] does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. (For context, read Romans 13:1-7.)
It is common and temptingly convenient to cite Scriptures that call for peacemaking and even non-violence. Yet there are a significant number of Scripture texts that also approve violence; the above are only a selection. Almost every Scripture in our alternate lesson, "Other News This Week," could be in the above list as well. To take the Bible seriously, we need to acknowledge that texts of both kinds exist.
That doesn't mean it is easy -- by no means! Christians have come to varying conclusions in doing so, and a discussion of Scripture, peacemaking, love, violence, war and the like is far, far beyond the capabilities of a one-hour Sunday school lesson.
Yet we want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the breadth and depth of this topic, and to explicitly avoid presenting or leading to simplistic answers.
Questions: What are some principles you might use to reconcile or be informed by these Scriptures and the others in this lesson? How and from where do you derive these principles? How does the aphorism "let Scripture interpret Scripture" apply?
Romans 12:18, 20
If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. ... "if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads." (For context, read 12:14-21.)
Here the apostle Paul acknowledges that living peaceably with all is not always possible, but that we should do as much as we can -- "so far as it depends on you" -- to be at peace with others.
In talking about heaping burning coals on an enemy's head, Paul is quoting Proverbs 25:21-22. In his commentary Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon (Immersion Bible Studies, Abingdon, 2011), TWW team member Frank Ramirez comments, "In ancient warfare, the mistreatment of enemy prisoners was commonplace. Against that, this bit of wisdom attributed to Solomon suggests doing just the opposite. If you really want to get even with your enemies, kill them with kindness. This counterintuitive advice just might work. It is actually a fairly sophisticated strategy for winning a war. Leaving embittered survivors only plants the seeds for the next war. But long-term peace and stability can result from unexpectedly kind behavior."
Questions: What are our Christian options when someone makes it impossible to live peaceably with him or her? What kindness might you heap upon that person?
For Further Discussion
1. As a group, decide what to name the biblical models for handling conflict in each of these texts: Romans 14:19; 1 Corinthians 7:15; Luke 14:31-32.
2. Respond to this: Lincoln was once asked why he tried to make friends with his enemies instead of destroying them. He replied, "Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?"
3. Comment on this: The Amish, who practice what they consider biblical nonresistance to evil, believe that in the face of evildoers, one must forgive. However, they differentiate between the biblical command to forgive (from the Lord's Prayer: "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors") with the work that is required for the next steps of pardon and reconciliation. Neither of the latter can be achieved without the sinner's willingness to engage in the work required for both.
4. Martin Luther King, Jr., like many other Christian saints, preached the necessity of nonresistance as the only means of combating evil with any chance of long-term success. On the other hand, he applied for a concealed handgun permit (and was turned down, due to Jim Crow laws), had armed bodyguards and was supported by armed groups such as Deacons for Defense and Justice. How do you think these practices relate to action on the international stage?
5. Name instances where bitter enemies have become friends and/or partners.
6. Have your class respond to the information found at "How do you handle workplace conflict?"
Responding to the News
Our options as individual Christians concerned with Ukraine include prayer and financially supporting humanitarian-aid organizations (often those run by our own denominations are the most effective at using our gifts for direct aid to those in need).
Leaders in our denominations might also be in contact with church/faith leaders in the Ukraine, as a show of support, if nothing else. Organizations such as the World Council of Churches and Church World Service will likely reach out in some manner. We may have the opportunity to give financially toward such work.
One TWW team member adds, "Trouble is, somehow prayer and sending money don't always feel like 'enough,' so we get discouraged and disheartened. We need to remember -- and remind one another -- that God took the small offering of the boy with five loaves and two fish and did something huge with it! He can do the same sort of thing today."
Regarding our personal conflicts, it's good to remind ourselves that Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God" (Matthew 5:9).
Closing Prayer

O Lord, be in the hearts and minds of all those who have the means and opportunity to work for peace in the places of conflict around the world, that peace may be an ever-growing phenomenon of life on earth, and a foretaste of the world to come. In Jesus' name. Amen.