‍Stakeholders 

Amid rising tensions between Russia and Ukraine, the European Union and NATO have both threatened to place sanctions against Russia.  Denmark's foreign minister said on Monday that the EU is ready to impose "never-seen-before" economic sanctions if Russia attacks Ukraine. European nations can primarily block access to Western technology for new Russian oil and gas projects, as done in 2014 after the annexation of Crimea.

The EU package also includes placing export controls of critical goods for “artificial intelligence and weaponry, quantum computers, lasers, and space.” President of the European Commission ​​Von Der Leyeyn further asserted that the $11bn pipeline “Nord Stream 2 cannot be excluded from the sanctions list”. Nevertheless, Europe is unlikely to touch Russian energy supplies, given Europe’s and Russia’s mutual dependence on gas imports and exports, respectively.

European nations are also sending military aid to Ukraine.  Estonia sent javelin anti-armour missiles, while Latvia and Lithuania shipped Stinger anti-aircraft missiles. Turkey has also sent anti-tank drones, and Britain has sent anti-tank missiles and troops. Meanwhile, for fears of inflamed tensions with Russia, Germany is instead sending a field hospital.

Nonpartisan Reasoning

According to the New York Times, The Biden Administration claims that further escalation would kill up to 50,000 civilians and prompt a refugee crisis in Europe. Meanwhile, Russia continues to deny planned aggression towards Ukraine. However, the risks of military escalation between Russian-backed separatists and Ukrainians are high. Top Russian legislator Andrey Turcak proposed to send in even more arms to the separatists, though the suggestion was downplayed by President Putin’s senior aide Dimitry Kozak.

Nevertheless, Ukraine’s Security Service has recently reported finding evidence of “weapons deliveries to the separatists from Russia, including mines, mortars, and explosives.” Kremlin proxies have also found proof of a prepared Ukraine offensive on Donbas, leading people to believe that such provocation will be used to justify a “false-flag” military incursion.

Policy Options

Though they occur simultaneously and consist of overlapping policy goals, there are three distinct methods of persuasion the West may use to prevent an invasion: 1) diplomatic; 2) economic; and 3) military. Escalation through the levels is non-linear, and present conditions demand the use of all three, but drawing the important three-pronged distinction provides a more workable lens with which to analyze the conflict. 

Diplomatic

The necessary pretext for successful diplomacy is relative military inaction. NATO and the U.S. have been hesitant on this front, only moving troops into Eastern Europe – not Ukraine – as Russia has ramped up its own deployments. It is imperative to diplomatic efforts that, unless forced into a confrontation by the Kremlin, the West remains quiet, especially given that U.S. intelligence has uncovered Russian plans to stage an incident to provide the justification for an invasion.  

Even with these precautions, Russia and the West are at a diplomatic standstill. Moscow demands, among other things, the permanent barring of Ukraine from NATO – a non-starter for Washington and its allies. Macron’s meeting with Putin yielded little results, as a Kremlin spokesman reported that “in the current situation, Moscow and Paris can’t be reaching any deals.” As diplomacy stalls, the West must turn to its other policy options in an attempt to restart productive conversation. 

Economic

The U.S., EU, and aligned countries have already begun to place targeted sanctions on individuals within the Russian power structure. The Treasury Department hopes these efforts will “target, undermine, and expose Russia’s ongoing destabilization effort in Ukraine.” In the case of rising tensions, confrontations, or full-fledged invasion into Ukraine, the West will place additional, more generalized, sanctions on Moscow. The success of this economic tactic is far from guaranteed. Specifically, with the Kremlin, the track record of sanction effectiveness is mediocre; eight years after the U.S./EU bloc levied sanctions to dissuade Russian advances, Moscow still occupies Crimea.

Attempts to cut Russia off from Western-controlled financial institutions may make war-fighting a more difficult effort, but it would be far from “killing the regime.” Russia is increasing its own dollar and gold reserves, and Chinese-Russian economic cooperation has, particularly recently, filled the gap left by exiting European financial systems. Leveraging the economic might of the West will remain an important component of conflict management, but alone, it won’t suffice. 

Military

The responsible handling of the Ukrainian conflict will come down to effective and non-escalatory force-posturing. In order to minimize escalatory risks, NATO and the U.S. should continue their efforts to prevent a Russian invasion through more indirect tactics – chiefly, financially supporting Ukrainian efforts and engaging in numerous arms deals. The list of Western-backed military aid headed to Kyiv is extensive:

• Turkish Bayraktar TB2 unmanned aerial vehicles (which have stalled Russian progress in the past and may “tip the balance”) and various stand-off missiles5,31
• U.S. “small arms, munitions, counter-mortar radars, [ . . . ] two refitted former US Coast Guard patrol vessels,” and five Mi-17 helicopters per the Ukraine Freedom Support Act passed in 2014
• Estonian Javelin anti-armor missiles
• Latvian and Lithuanian Stinger ground-to-air missiles
• Britain will loan $1.3 B to help construct Ukrainian naval assets

Resolving inefficiencies in the Ukrainian military via arm sales best achieves Western goals: preventing a Russian invasion while avoiding a direct NATO/U.S.-Russia confrontation.