The Brookings Institution is one of the oldest US think tanks and has a reputation for being fairly non-partisan. A policy analysis and recommendation from them is something that is likely to be taken seriously by a pretty broad spectrum of the Washington establishment. They have just an opinion alanysis looking at present realities in eastern Europe and central Asia. It strikes me a being worth some consideration because it likely reflects dominant government opinion. It is labeled as an opinion piece by three people with positions in the defense/national security establishment. The article was originally published in Foreign Policy magazine which is another establishment bulwark.
When Sanctions Aren't Enough
It should be clear now that the West has a Russian security problem. Twice in the last six years, the Kremlin has seized territory in a neighboring country on the grounds of protecting minorities or ethnic Russians and Russian speakers. In each instance, the rejoinder from the West proved to be inadequate. Now, this threat demands a broad response that goes beyond the steps taken to date, that will deter the Kremlin from further aggression.
They start with the confrontation in Georgia in 2008 and analyse Putin's increasingly aggressive approach to projecting Russian power and influence. They come to this conclusion.
The question now is how the United States and NATO should respond. President Barack Obama has designed financial sanctions to chasten the Kremlin for its aggression against Ukraine, and the European Union has followed suit. But Obama now needs to lead NATO in developing a security response -- the West needs to take seriously the possibility of future Russian aggression.
This view seems to be consistent with the plans that are coming out of today's NATO defense ministers meeting. This is not a matter of some immediate reaction to a temporary crisis but a long term reassessment and rebalancing of the global security picture.
They outline an approach of limited NATO involvement with Ukraine and recommend it as a model for other countries with similar relations to Russia.
There is no expectation that American or NATO forces should defend Ukraine from further Russian invasion. But there is every reason to help Ukraine to defend itself. First, the West should help Ukraine guard itself from Russian subversion. It should provide border control equipment and training to help Kiev keep Russian agitators and provocateurs from entering the country. Second, the West should also share intelligence with Ukraine about Russian efforts to destabilize the country and Russian military plans threatening Ukraine. Third, NATO should conduct regularly scheduled joint exercises in Ukraine. Finally, should the Russian military continue its threatening stance, NATO should provide anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, and appropriate training, that would raise the costs of any further aggression against Ukraine.
For the people who would like to see the US and the EU let Russia have its space and sphere of influence this approach will seem excessively aggressive. However, for the die hard hawks like Cheney and McCain it smacks of passivism. It seems to me to represent something of a middle road in terms of prevailing US opinion. It is more difficult to get a handle on prevailing opinion in the EU. The countries closer to Russia are looking for strong signals from NATO. Much of Germany is more ambivalent because of the economic implications of building barriers with Russia.