|
|
Independence Monument, Ukraine | Photo: Juan Antonio Segal, Flickr
|
|
The war in Ukraine has drifted out of sight, and maybe out of mind, for most of us. The desperate fervor of the news cycle has moved on to other stories, so if we want to keep up with what’s going on in Eastern Europe, we have to go looking.
Traditional political wisdom would say that domestic politics plays more heavily into elections than foreign policy. The Biden administration looking to November has turned its attention away from the foreign policy challenges that swamped the last 18 months and toward the many crises at home. Part of being informed without being conformed is resisting the cycle of reaction; staying with stories that are important beyond the next election cycle, controlling our own attention, and imposing a set of convictions on the news scene rather than inheriting the flavor of the week.
With that in mind, I’ve tried to find some stories and articles this week to direct our gaze away from the most current, perhaps to some of the news that is most important.
“Kissinger vs. Soros on Russia and Ukraine” - Walter Russell Mead, The Wall Street Journal
What wisdom can be gleaned from comparing Kissinger and Soros? “Both men believe that American values and interests make the defense of peace in Europe a primary goal of American foreign policy. Both see themselves as defenders of what is best in Western civilization. Both see the war as a major shock to the world system and fear the consequences of a long military struggle. Messrs. Kissinger and Soros both believe that Russia is ultimately a secondary problem for American policy, and that the future of U.S.-China relations is of much greater significance in the long run.”
Mead highlights the significant differences in the two outlooks; Soros is more ideological; Kissinger is more pragmatic. Kissinger sees a path to peace through de-escalating the war and settling for Russian control of some Ukrainian territory. Soros favors the complete destruction of the Russian regime. At this moment, neither option is a guaranteed possibility. There’s still a long way to in this war.
“We Can’t Be Ukraine Hawks Forever” - Ross Douthat, The New York Times
Ross Douthat takes a position between Soros and Kissinger. He favors hawkish action against Russia on paper, but maybe not as much in theory. Everyone has been surprised by Ukraine’s fighting strength and Russia’s military incompetence, but the sides are so disparate that bolstering Ukraine will only become more difficult for the West. Can Ukraine go beyond defense to take their territory back? How many more aid deals with the U.S. and the EU approve for a stalemate?
Douthat’s prescription is to know our limits; “The danger now is that the practical achievements of our hawkish policy encourage the opposite kind of theorizing, a hubris that squanders our still provisional success.”
“What America Will and Won’t Do in Ukraine” - President Joe Biden, The New York Times
The Biden administration has given mixed messages about their strategy in Ukraine, so it’s a welcome sight to see the President making his case in the New York Times. Biden states his goal: “America’s goal is straightforward: We want to see a democratic, independent, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine with the means to deter and defend itself against further aggression.”
He intends to send more advanced weapons and billions of dollars of aid to Ukraine (which Congress did approve) so that they will be able to come to the negotiating table in the strongest possible position. Diplomacy led by the Ukrainians appears to be the solution he’s aiming for.
The unanswered question, though, is to what extent will the President go to attain this goal? Earlier he called for Putin to be ousted from power (a comment the White House walked back). But is that the only available solution is Putin does not negotiate?
“Now Is No Time to Go Tentative on Military Aid for Ukraine” - George Will, The Washington Post
Will takes up this position but goes one step further. In Davos last week, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said the world could count on Germany to aid Ukraine against Russia. This might appear to be a change of policy, Will points out, since Germany has continued to buy Russian oil and has not provided the tanks and artillery it promised to send. The world will have to step up to defeat Russia.
In Will’s mind, victory has two components; first, fighting must end with a weakened Russia, and second, the boundaries must return to the way they were before the most recent invasion. “Putin wanted to restore his nation’s swagger. Russia now limps into a shrunken future as a moral pariah, its stumbling military in the shadow of an enlarged NATO.” With this vision, Will stops short of many hawks who want to see Crimea won back for Ukraine, but he calls for the world to go on the attack to prevent a “victor’s peace.”
“Why Putin Will Never Fully Conquer Ukraine” - Robert Service, The Spectator
One of the clearest lessons of the war so far is the tremendous resolve of the people of Ukraine. Led by their unlikely leader, Volodymyr Zelensky, they have shocked the world with their fighting spirit. What many - including Putin - thought would be a two-week overrun has turned into a vicious stalemate. The upshot is that Putin’s ideological foundation for the war turned out to be wrong. The Ukrainians do not see themselves as Russian and they don’t want to be a part of Russia. For this reason, even if Putin takes back territory, he will never truly conquer Ukraine. Over time, his gamble will continue to look worse. Even his own officials will have to wonder, was all of this worth it?
|
|
|
|
