Tag: Ukraine

Foreign Policy

Ukraine – What if I’m Wrong?

Bob Claude |

Source; Adobe Stock Photos

Escalation or Negotiation?  That is the question as the Russian invasion of Ukraine grinds on. Negotiation is still the better course as I previously argued, but it requires the participation of two parties willing to compromise.  Ukrainian president Zelensky has already said that he is willing to accede to Russian demands to renounce any prospect of joining NATO and potentially accept the loss of the Donbass region and Crimea. These are the concessions that Russia sought before the war, yet Putin has not recognized them and agreed to a ceasefire. Recent reports about the negotiations are encouraging, but Russia still has not apparently dropped its contemptuous condition that Ukraine effectively surrender first by ceasing resistance to the Russian invasion.  Putin apparently has yet to accept the reality of his mistakes, specifically

  1. Russian military failure in the field due to continued logistical and operational failures and successful Ukrainian resistance
  2. The ferocity and extent of Western economic sanctions and the resulting economic damage to the Russian economy
  3. The success of Ukrainian information operations in rousing sympathy and international support.

A recent article applying relevant international relations theory to the war discusses, among other things, the “commitment problem” gripping Putin at this point.  Having convinced both himself and most Russians of the necessity of the war (see this on the “Z “ campaign) , he cannot accept less than a victory, especially since failure would endanger him personally. If this is true, the current targeting of civilians and brutality may herald an escalation that endangers NATO members such as Poland and the Baltic states. Indeed, he may intend to convert the past failures into apparent strengths, to wit,

  1. Since Russian forces thought the invasion would be easier, they refrained from using their best weapons and most sophisticated strategy, which was designed for a full-scale war with NATO.  Thus, their capability in such a war may be more formidable than it appears now.
  2. Putin has already called the Western sanctions an economic declaration of war against Russia. He could thus use them to rally the Russian people in support of a wider war.
  3. The regular broadcasts of shelling and civilian deaths may sow fear among other nations of confronting Russia. 

How will we know which path the conflict will take?  If Putin abandons his unrealistic demand for unilateral surrender and agrees to a ceasefire, then a negotiated solution may be possible.  If he fails to do so, the next breakpoint will be whether the Russians make good on their threat against the outside flow of weapons into Ukraine.  If they escalate by attacking the supply lines in Poland, it will trigger NATO’s Article 5 obligation to defend Poland, probably by an air strike against the source of the attack. We would then have the right to escalate by declaring a partial no-fly zone over western Ukraine purely as a defensive measure. Russia would certainly hesitate to challenge the zone since it could lead to its expansion over all of Ukraine.

The key to ending the war lies, as usual, in both sides deciding to cut their losses and accept a difficult peace. The West will have to be ready to convince the parties to accept such a result by offering to lift the more onerous financial sanctions on Russia once such an agreement is reached. Ukraine would have to give up its dream of NATO membership and sovereignty over the Donbass and Crimea.  Without such an agreement, the best case scenario may become the de facto creation of an East and West Ukraine reminiscent of Cold War East and West Germany.  Whatever the outcome, one thing is certain. Russia’s invasion, the successful Ukrainian resistance, and the potentially catastrophic effects of the war on the rest of the world means the United States must finally recognize and prepare for a new upsurge in nationalism-based international relations. The next post will discuss the implications for us here in the US.

Foreign Policy

TR’s Message to Ukraine, and America

Bob Claude |

Russia’s vicious and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has rightfully drawn the condemnation of the world. Make no mistake – whatever other causes may exist, it is Vladimir Putin who began this war to extend his dictatorship and to resurrect the old Soviet Union.  The Ukrainian people’s defiant and dogged defense of their country exemplify these words of Theodore Roosevelt.

TR’s heart, soul and perhaps body would have been with Ukrainians as they fight for their freedom. We Americans also need to embrace TR’s words and the attendant difficulties ahead for us. Russia, as well as China, have shown the vaunted “international rule of law” to be simply an elitist illusion.  They want to rewrite those rules to reflect the reality of great power competition at best and promote their authoritarian models at worst

If America wants to win this fight, we must accept the sacrifices necessary to build our military and economic resources while working to end the Ukraine invasion.  The President’s promises in his State of The Union speech to ease the effects of sanctions does this cause no good. The best way to show American resolve is to declare an immediate embargo on Russian oil and other imports and force Russian oligarchs to divest their American assets.  We can then unify to cover the shortages with our own oil & gas as much as possible. 

We also should immediately end NASA’s partnership with Russia and demand they vacate the International Space Station.  The Bush-Clinton-Obama Administration’s reliance on Russia for access and operation of the ISS is one of the worst strategic decisions in American history. Thanks to SpaceX and other commercial entities, we now have our own launch platforms for access. There may be, however,  other operational issues that were improvidently assigned to the Russians. If so, it is time for an “Apollo 13” moment where American engineers meet this crisis with the determination and ingenuity that marked the Apollo moon landing program. We can do it and we must.

At the same time, Russia needs an incentive to negotiate an acceptable peace with Ukraine.  The West should thus telegraph to Putin that the barrage of economic sanctions will be eased when such an agreement is reached (see this article). Without such an “off-ramp”, Putin will not only continue the war, but perhaps even widen it to include the Baltic states, thus directly engaging NATO. This is a war we must prepare for, but are not yet ready to fight.

Russia’s invasion has galvanized world opinion against it and the brutal values it clearly stands for. The threat will not go away after this war has ended.  Indeed, our current divisions and failure to prepare for it means we face three to five risky years of exposure. If America and democracy is to prevail, we must accept the sacrifices necessary to build the unity and strength of the American people. Remember that the Soviet Union fell because it lost the socioeconomic battle, not a military one.  TR reminds us that if we build on the strength of our values, we will win yet again.

Foreign Policy

Slouching Towards War

Bob Claude |
Leeds, England – April 20 2018: – An old blue French postage stamp of World War One soldiers in trenches in the Battle of Verdun
Source: Adobe Stock

The more you know about the past, the better prepared you are for the future.

Theodore Roosevelt

In her classic history of the causes of World War I “The Guns of August”, the great historian Barbara Tuchman chronicled how rigid alliances and overweening national pride sparked one of the deadliest European wars.  The Biden Administration’s approach to the Ukraine crisis risks making the same mistakes. If a Russian invasion occurs, it will happen partially because of Biden’s confusing rhetoric which fails to heed the lessons of history. 

The similarities to the drivers of World War I are eerie.  Like today, that conflict began in an Eastern European state that was not formally aligned with any of the major European powers. In the case of World War I, the conflict was sparked by the assassination of a prince of the Austro-Hungarian empire by a Serbian nationalist in Serbia.  Austria-Hungary openly talked about annexing Serbia into its empire. When Austria mobilized to invade Serbia in retaliation, Russia backed the Serbs out of pan-Slavic loyalty. This drew Austria’s ally Germany into the conflict and Russia’s ally France in response.  Britain tried to distance itself, but joined the war when Germany invaded Belgium, also a nonaligned nation. In the end, two great European alliances sleepwalked into a bloody conflict not because of any direct threat to their national security, but due to ethnic and national pride and outdated alliances.

Today, the Biden Administration is hyping a threat to a country unaligned with us and thus risking a wider conflict. Their stated reasons appeal to the worst instincts of unipolar liberal hegemonism.  Indeed, by constantly talking about the imminence of an invasion, we are goading the Russians to do it by poking at the inferiority complex they have had for centuries.

A foreign policy realist would see Ukraine as an opportunity, not a crisis. We start with the basic premise that we make our foreign policy, not Putin or any other nation. Our short-term goal should be to declare that while the US supports Ukrainian sovereignty, it is not in our national interest to defend it and so Ukraine is not a candidate for NATO membership.  The President’s disclaimer of intent to station missiles in Ukraine was helpful, but then contradicted by rhetoric threatening to impose “long-term consequences that will undermine Russia’s ability to compete economically and strategically”. See the President’s statement of February 15, 2022 here. Instead, any talk of economic and other sanctions should be measured and leave room for tougher action in future conflicts. Otherwise, we risk the mistake of driving Russia to consider a wider conflict against the Baltic states and other NATO members.

Moreover, we should not be dictating Ukraine’s foreign policy any more than Russia should. This means we should not be negotiating with Russia about Ukraine’s future if simply because it implies acceptance of a permanent Russian sphere of influence in Eastern Europe   In a G0 world of increasing equality of power, it should be our long-term policy to oppose this kind of domination. Biden betrays his stated commitment to “the right of countless countries to choose their own destiny, and the right of people to determine their own futures”, when he negotiates with Russia about Ukraine’s future and threatens Germany with a promise to stop the Nord Stream pipeline. A better response would be to use this opportunity to discuss a restructuring of NATO to tailor it to current and future European geopolitical realities; in particular, Europe’s economic strength and thus capability to defend itself from Russian aggression.

Theodore Roosevelt was not afraid of war, but also was an avid historian. He was also proud that no American soldier had bee killed during his time in office. He would have appreciated the lessons of the guns of August and the importance of tailoring our foreign policy to the particularities of the times (see this previous post).  The United States needs to cool the rhetoric about Ukraine and save our economic and military gunpowder for more serious threats to our national security in our own hemisphere and elsewhere.