The
crisis over Ukraine has all but frozen official communication between
the United States and Russia. The Russian reaction to the political
upheaval in Kiev — the absorption of Crimea, and the armed intervention
in eastern Ukraine — and the American responses to those actions have
brought about a near-complete breakdown in normal and regular dialogue
between Washington and Moscow. Relations between the two capitals have
descended into attempts by each side to pressure the other, tit-for-tat
actions, shrill propaganda statements, and the steady diminution of
engagement between the two governments and societies.
Reports
from the NATO summit meeting that ended in Newport, Wales, on Friday
indicate that the United States and its allies will respond to Russia’s
intervention and violence in Ukraine with an escalation of their own —
including further sanctions, enhanced military presence in front-line
states, and possibly greater support for Ukraine’s armed forces. This
amounts to more of the same, with little if any assurance of better
outcomes.
What
the Western strategy lacks is an equally vigorous diplomatic approach
to ending this conflict. Diplomatic efforts should aim to provide
Ukraine and its neighbors with a future that can sustain peace and
security for all countries in the area; re-establish respect for the
core principles of Europe’s political order; and open the way for more
productive American-Russian relations.
As
three former United States ambassadors who served in Moscow, we believe
that the time is right for American leadership in a serious diplomatic
effort to achieve these ends. Each of us has seen the high price paid
when relations and dialogue between Washington and Moscow break down, as
in the effort to prevent Baltic independence at the end of the Soviet
era, the Kosovo crisis and the insurgency in Chechnya.
Each
time relations broke down, there was a high cost to the cause of peace
and security for both the United States and Russia, as well as their
allies. Our experience convinces us that creative, disciplined, serious
active diplomacy — through both official and unofficial channels —
provides the one path out of destructive crises and a reliance on
violence and confrontation. So-called Track 2 dialogue between nonstate
actors — experts and groups of individuals on both sides — can also play
a useful role.
For
now, fortunately, a cease-fire agreement announced on Friday by
President Petro O. Poroshenko of Ukraine and President Vladimir V. Putin
of Russia appears to be holding. It is also encouraging that the
parties have begun discussion about how to maintain the halt in fighting
and address the political issues that will have to be tackled to bring
about a lasting settlement.
There
is ample reason to treat this opening with caution. But this potential
opportunity should not be allowed to slip away. This is a moment when
American leadership will be essential. The terms of any durable
cease-fire must, of course, provide for adequate numbers of
international observers, most appropriately from the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe, to ensure that no side exploits the
halt in fighting.
Any
lasting agreement must also build on the fragile political process
begun over the weekend. That process must involve the search for
agreement on fair and equal treatment, and adequate political
representation, of all Ukrainians; on respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty
over its territory; and on international cooperation to rebuild
Ukraine’s economy.
Firm
and unwavering support by the United States for these principles will
be critical to the success of any negotiated outcome. The resumption of
regular dialogue between Moscow and Washington will be central to the
restoration of relations.
Fortunately,
the arrival in Moscow of America’s new ambassador, John F. Tefft,
provides an opening to enhance communication and dialogue. A seasoned
career diplomat with previous service in Lithuania, Georgia and Ukraine,
as well as Russia, Mr. Tefft brings to Moscow a capacity to express
American views and positions clearly and to listen to and explain
Russian thinking to Washington. His arrival gives both governments an
opportunity to rebuild relations and to move away from the present path
of confrontation.
Reinvigorating
American-Russian diplomacy will be challenging. The negative effects of
the Ukraine crisis are part of a broader downturn in relations over the
last few years. The escalation of violence in Ukraine, and rising calls
among Europeans and Americans for more forceful action and tougher
sanctions to confront Russian military activity, have increased the
prospect for further escalation and a further downturn in bilateral
relations.
Although
spokesmen and leaders in Washington have suggested that Russia has an
“off ramp” to extricate itself from the present situation and the United
States is ready to cooperate in that effort, this uphill path is strewn
with rocks and largely uncharted. Additional sanctions, increased
military pressure and battlefield escalation will not, by themselves,
help define a way forward.
Only
the use of diplomacy can help Mr. Poroshenko take advantage of new
openings to define his country’s relations with its neighbors, restore
Ukrainian sovereignty and effect a permanent end to the bloodshed.
Sanctions and further efforts to escalate political and military
pressure, and reliance on unilateral action without accompanying
diplomacy, would all but assure continued suffering for the people of
Ukraine.
It
is time for the United States to use its diplomatic assets, including
our new ambassador in Moscow, to take active leadership of diplomatic
efforts to resolve the crisis over Ukraine and set American relations
with Russia on a new, more productive course.
Jack F. Matlock Jr. was the United States ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991. Thomas R. Pickering was the United States ambassador to Russia from 1993 to 1996, and James F. Collins from 1997 to 2001.
