Category: Uncategorized
Stevenson’s army, April 5
– WSJ describes some of the US planning about release of intelligence information.
-Reuters reports US blockage of Russian debt payments.
– FP writer on the options for arms control now.
– NYT reports on China’s pro-Russia propaganda.
– In WSJ Walter Russel Mead discusses “Biden’s ugly options” in Ukraine. Of course they are the West’s ugly options as well.
The first option, helping Ukraine win, is the most emotionally appealing and would certainly be the most morally justifiable and politically beneficial, but the risks and costs are high. Russia won’t accept defeat before trying every tactic, however brutal, and perhaps every weapon, however murderous. To force Russia to accept failure in Ukraine, the Biden administration would likely have to shift to a wartime mentality, perhaps including the kind of nuclear brinkmanship not seen since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. With China and Iran both committed to weakening American power by any available means, a confrontation with the revisionist powers spearheaded by Russia may prove to be the most arduous challenge faced by an American administration since the height of the Cold War.
But the other two options are also bad. A Russian victory would inflict a massive blow to American prestige and the health of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, especially if the West were seen as forcing Ukraine to surrender to Russian demands. Freezing the conflict is also perilous, as this would presumably leave Russia holding even more Ukrainian territory than it did following the 2014 invasions of Crimea and the Donbas. It would be hard to spin this as anything but a partial victory for Russia—and Mr. Putin would remain free to renew hostilities at a time of his choosing.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The nice thing about winning elections
I can do no better than the OSCE in evaluating Serbia’s presidential and parliamentary elections. They were conducted on an “uneven playing field” that favored the incumbent President and parliamentary majority. Media coverage and government resources favored them. There was not much more than a token opposition. Alternation in power was not a real possibility. Serbia has reverted to semi-authoritarianism of a contemporary sort. Lots of political brouhaha, but little real competition.
Serbia’s shame
This is a shame, as it make Serbia a less than ideal candidate for what it says it really wants: EU membership. The EU will be lenient. That is its longstanding habit with Belgrade, which has the great virtue of implementing much of the acquis communautaire. Where Serbia is wanting is implementation of the Cophenhagen criteria for democratic governance.
Not only is its electoral playing field uneven, but Belgrade continues to laud war criminals and fails to prosecute human rights violations during the now more than two-decade-old conflict in Kosovo. It hasn’t even prosecuted the murderers of the American Bytyqi brothers killed in Serbia in 1999. Its press not only ignores past Serbian human rights violations but continues to use hate speech against Kosovars.
In addition, the incumbent government coalition has been enthusiastic for what it terms the “Serb world,” which amounts to little less than Slobodan Milosevic’s Greater Serbia. We see in Ukraine the consequences of irredentist ambitions of this sort. Russian President Putin is likewise fond of the idea of a “Russian world” that denies the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. The result is war and war crimes. The “Serbian world” idea forebodes nothing better. It is a clear and present danger to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Kosovo.
Vucic won his first presidency on a pro-EU platform. He won the second on a pro-Russian one. He has refused to join in sanctions against Russia, while paying lip service to Ukraine’s territorial integrity. It’s a pretty trick, if you can pull it off.
Success entails choices
Still, there is little reason to doubt that President Vucic has the support of the majority of the Serbian electorate. The question is what he will do with his electoral success. He can continue to encourage Serbian world fantasies, or he can decide to make Serbia into a serious candidate for EU membership. The latter will take courage. Vucic’s main political competition comes from ethnic nationalism and ultra-nationalism, not from liberal democrats. The nationalists are not only a political threat, but also a physical one. They killed Prime Minister Djindjic for fear he would give Kosovo away. They could kill again.
Tough choices in Kosovo too
Kosovo Prime Minister Kurti likewise has strong political support. He faces a domestic political scene that generally opposes concessions to Belgrade. He too needs to choose whether to take the political risk of reaching an agreement that will entail compromise with the enemy. The EU, which has been ungenerous to Kosovo in denying it a visa waiver program, complicates his calculus. Whether Brussels would reward Kosovo for an agreement with Serbia is doubtful, not least because countries like France, the Netherlands, and above all Hungary are hostile to Pristina. Promises made might not be kept, as with the visa waiver.
The nice thing about winning elections
Both Vucic and Kurti are now in a position to make choices. I really don’t know what they will do. If the past is a guide, neither will pursue a definitive agreement that ends the standoff between Pristina and Belgrade. But the past is only a guide if people don’t change their minds. We’ll have to wait and see. The nice thing about winning even unfair elections is that you can do what you want.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Russians are weakening but Ukrainians need more help
President Putin today repeated the lie that he started the war in Ukraine to prevent a Nazi attack on Russia and Russians. Foreign Minister Lavrov was telling the internationals that negotiations might produce results. The Russian army is recruiting fighters from Syria and the appealing for military help from China. All these are signs of Russian weakness.
Putin has failed to convince the Russians
Most important is Putin’s continuing need to repeat his false justifications for war. Calling the Jewish President of Ukraine a Nazi is unconvincing to you and me. But Putin knows how much his citizens, with good historical reason, hate anyone labelled a Nazi. He has also tightened control over the Russian media. Many Russians may not know or believe Zelensky is not only Jewish but a native Russian speaker. Zelensky broke into Russian speaking to the US Congress today when appealing to Russia’s citizens to end the war.
Putin has failed to convince many Russians that the war is justified. The demonstrations against it have not been massive, but they are not tiny either. People who attend them risk serious penalties. The Russian “justice” system can impose penalties of up to 15 years just for calling the “special operation” a war.
Lavrov has failed to convince the international community
Lavrov is telling the internationals a compromise on Russian terms is possible. This is the same liar who denied Russia had any plans to invade Ukraine. He has even said that it has not done so. He is not at all credible. Russian demands have remained the same. Moscow wants a demilitarized and neutral Ukraine that can never join NATO as well as slices of Ukrainian territory. These the Russians want to include not only Crimea and the parts of Donbas their proxies already controlled before the invasion. None of those propositions is reasonable from the Ukrainian perspective.
Zelensky has admitted Ukraine will not be able to join NATO anytime soon, which is a statement of fact. Saying it out loud was presumably intended as a gesture to the Russians. They however don’t seem interested in anything less than a permanent legal guarantee. That proposition is a non-starter with Washington and most of Europe.
The Russian army is bogged down
The intended Russian blitzkrieg in Ukraine has bogged down. Logistical problems, poor planning, and lack of will to fight have reduced the Russian army to a siege force. It is shelling civilian areas, including so-called “humitarian corridors” it agreed would be safe. The Russian air force has failed to establish full dominance in the sky but continues to rain cruise missiles, smart bombs, and dumb ones.
Zelensky’s priority in his speech to Congress today was air defense. He admitted the no-fly zone he wants isn’t going to happen. But he appealed for fighter aircraft and air defenses instead. I suspect he’ll get what he is asking for, despite Pentagon resistance. The Poles and others seem ready and willing to transfer the stuff. It will put them at risk of Russian attack. President Biden will have to decide whether that risk is so great he wants to risk a Russian win in Ukraine.
The Russian appeals to Syrian fighters and Chinese military supplies are a clear sign that things are going badly on the ground in Ukraine. The Syrian fighters they can get for a song. They may not be worth much more. The Chinese military supplies are higher value. The US is opposing them vigorously. Ditto with Chinese help in evading sanctions, which may be more important. Russia today will likely default on dollar-denominated bonds. You only do that if you don’t have the hard currency required. Even if Moscow pays at the end of the 30-day grace period, creditors will be reluctant to risk a dime more on Russian official debt.
That doesn’t mean things are good for Ukraine
Russia’s problems don’t mean things are going well for Ukraine. The bombardment of its cities is taking a huge toll on property and lives. It would only take a lucky shot to kill Zelensky. The Russians are laying waste to the Ukrainian countryside. They are bogged down but inching closer to Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Odesa with every passing day. Kherson is in Russian hands. They are pulverrizing Mariupol.
But Ukrainians have demonstrated they are willing to fight. They may be losing ground, but they are not weakening. The Russians are weakening, but they started out much stronger. The best that can be said for this war is that the outcome is not yet certain. The Ukrainians will need more help.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, March 16
– Pew shows US support for Ukraine.
– NYT reports burst of centrism in Congress.
– Biden signs bill with more aid.
– WSJ reports more aid planned.
– NYT says US military wants more operations in Kenya.
Just in time for our intelligence topic in class, an old but still relevant report on how Congress handles classified information.
Yesterday Charlie also distributed this:
Prof. Cohen has a new piece in Atlantic that criticizes US policy and comments on Ukraine.The most important paragraphs are these:
The American fear of escalation has been a repeated note throughout this conflict. But to the extent American leaders express that sentiment, or spread such notions to receptive reporters, they make matters worse, giving the Russians a psychological edge. The Russians can (and do) threaten to ratchet things up, knowing that the West will respond with increased anxiety rather than reciprocal menace. We have yet to see, for example, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin telling the world what a wretched hand the Russians are playing militarily, and how superior ours is—a message he is particularly fit to deliver.
As for the nuclear question: We should not signal to the Russians that they have a trump card they can always play to stop us from doing pretty much anything. Nuclear weapons are why the United States should refrain from attacking Russia directly, not why it should fear fighting Russians in a country they invaded. Only a few years ago, the United States Air Force killed Russian Wagner mercenaries by the hundreds in Syria; American and Russian pilots tangled in the skies over Korea and possibly Vietnam. Nuclear deterrence cuts both ways, and the Russian leadership knows it. Vladimir Putin and those around him are ill-informed but not mad, and the use of nuclear weapons would threaten their very survival.
I disagree. Maybe we make the Russians feel better if we say we won’t fight a nuclear war with them, but we shouldn’t ever fight such a war. The entire world will be a more dangerous place if anyone ever uses another nuclear weapon in anger. So we should say it because it’s true and it’s right. And while our policy is sympathetic but not locked in to no first use, Russian policy is openly “escalate to deescalate.”
Eliot Cohen thinks the Russians won’t mind if we kill their people outside Russia’s borders. We would and we do. But we have tolerated sanctuaries, as painful and frustrating as they are, for geostrategic reasons. We didn’t want Russians or Chinese to fight us in Vietnam, or a nuclear-armed Pakistan to retaliate against attacks on the Taliban and its allies there.
Does this mean that we are telling the Russians that they have a trump card they can always play to stop us from doing pretty much anything? Not at all. We are telling them that we will NOT do pretty much anything to prevent their conquest of Ukraine. We will do many things, including providing weapons that Ukrainians will deploy in their own country to fight the Russians. But we will consciously limit our direct involvement because that is in our interests.
Nuclear weapons force all combatants to be especially careful. We should not be killing Russians anywhere in a deliberate and sustained policy. We have important security and humanitarian interests in Ukraine, but no vital national interest.Yes, Nuclear deterrence cuts both ways. It should deter both of us from climbing the escalation ladder for less than existential reasons.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Slam the door shut on Open Balkans
Miodrag Vlahović is the former minister of foreign affairs of Montenegro and the first Montenegrin ambassador to Washington. He is now president of Montenegrin Helsinki Committee. He writes:
Russian aggression against Ukraine has provoked a dramatic change in the Western approach to Russia. Confrontation with Russia has re-united the Euro-Atlantic community and given a new raison d’etre to NATO. It will have profound effects in the Balkans too.
The EU and US have been failing
The Balkans have endured years of futile US diplomacy and ineffective EU efforts to move all six Western Balkan countries towards EU membership. The main reason for their poor results was their effort to appease Serbia. That modus operandi was particularly present during the Trump administration. The American bottom line was simple: economy will resolve all the other issues. Karl Marx would agree.
EU diplomacy in recent years entered the murky waters of of changing borders and territorial swaps on an ethnic basis. That process failed but evolved to a vague “Open Balkans” proposition. It ignores not only the existing Berlin Process for regional co-operation, but also the regional CEFTA framework for trade. It would give leadership in the region to Serbian President Vučić and Albanian Prime Minister Rama, encouraging their Greater Serbia and, consequently, Greater Albania ambitions.
The consequences are evident
As a consequence of this ineffective diplomacy, Western Balkan countries’ advance towards EU membership has stalled. Three (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, and Montenegro) have expressed serious reserves concerning the logic and potential effects of Open Balkans. Pro-EU Balkan politicians and civic activists think hard-line nationalism, emanating mainly from Belgrade, has caused serious degradation of regional security and stability.
Russian hybrid activities have contributed, as they have in many Western countries, the US included. Russian media and their outlets, combined with an orchestrated round-the-clock campaign of Belgrade-controlled media, have encouraged Serbian nationalism and its allies throughout the region.
Serbia has enjoyed “privileged status” in the West for years now. The US and EU hoped to “save” Vučić from Russia’s bear hug. Appeasment from the West allowed the step-by-step takeover of Serbia from the East.
Now things should change
This appeasement of Russia’s main client in the region is no longer a viable policy.
“Open Balkans,” supported by both the State Department and the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, should end. It was leading the entire region off the EU track.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine requires prompt action in the Balkans:
- Accelerate EU membership negotiations as the first priority on the Euro-Atlantic Balkans agenda. The region should return to the “regatta principle,” that is EU accession on the merits of individual candidates.
- Provide a credible time-table for NATO accession of Kosovo as well as Bosnia and Herzegovina. The sooner, the better.
- Offer Serbia the same. Even if its internal politics and declared “neutrality” militate against NATO membership, the “open door” policy is crucial.
- Make Bosnia-Herzegovina a functioning, civic political system. Changes of election laws based on ethnic denominations will not help. The Dayton constitutional framework needs change.
- Revive the Berlin Process, especially cultural co-operation and educational programs. They are the best training for accession talks with EU.
- Promote civic and non-nationalist political forces and their leaders throughout the region.
All these measures will take time and energy. The magnitude of problems and wasted years make the task difficult. The Balkans has never been a place of easy solutions.
Open the doors to NATO and the EU
This is a time to be resolute. The Ukraine war makes delay unwise and appeasement foolish. The US and EU should slam the door shut on Open Balkans and open the doors to NATO and the EU.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Humanitarian corridors are a bad idea too, but what’s better?
I’ve already said that a no fly zone won’t fly. It risks bringing the US into direct conflict with Russia. That’s a bad idea because the escalatory ladder could end in a nuclear exchange. That would be far worse, especially for Americans, than anything happening now.
Humanitarian corridors are target-rich
Another much-ballyhooed proposal would establish humanitarian corridors for the safe evacuation of civilians from population centers. They too are not a good idea. For the Russians, any territory on which adversaries gather to evacuate is a target-rich environment. They have demonstrated unequivocally in Syria that they will attack evacuation routes. They have already done it again in Ukraine in recent days. The Red Cross has said one designated humanitarian corridor leading out of Mariupol is mined.
Far better would be an international effort to stop the shelling that gives rise to the humanitarian corridors proposal. Mariupol is under siege. The Russian army is shelling the city’s civilian areas, targeting among other things hospitals:
Both the siege and the shelling are war crimes. International humanitarian law permits attacks only on belligerents, not civilians, the means to supply them, or medical services.
Stopping the sieges
How to get the Russians to stop? Ideally, the Russian commanders would have refused to shell civilian areas or lay siege to population centers. They know full well those are war crimes. Since they have not seen fit to do the right thing, every Western general who knows one of them should be calling to object. Russian commanders should understand that for the rest of their lives professional soldiers will view them as war criminals, not colleagues.
That isn’t likely to work, so we come to military solutions. The Ukrainian army would break the sieges if it could. One possible move would be airdropping humanitarian supplies. This too doesn’t work well. It is hard to target them to the right people. The planes carrying the supplies are the flying equivalent of sitting ducks. They are slow. They don’t carry much. Lacking their own active defenses, they are vulnerable, especially as they descend to drop supplies.
If the Russians won’t agree to stand off, the transport planes would need to be protected. That is not a pretty picture. It is also one that could lead to direct conflict between the Russians and NATO.
Another possibility is for the Ukrainians to surrender some population centers to enhance the defense of others. That is apparently what they did at the beginning of the war when they moved air defenses from the south to Kyiv. This would risk losing more of the southern coast, including Odesa. It is not an attractive proposition. But if it were to lead to a major defeat of Russian forces aimed at besieging Kyiv it might be worth the cost. Abandoning Kyiv to enhance defense of Odesa is too risky. Once the capital is gone, defeat can’t be far off.
Only winning will save the civilians
The Ukrainians face an adversary who doesn’t care about international humanitarian law. Winning the war quickly would save the most civilians. That isn’t likely. The Russian offensive has stalled, so Putin will double down. Odds are the Russians will continue waging their war of aggression, targeting of civilians, and besieging of population centers. Humanitarian corridors are a bad idea, but what’s better?
PS: Here for your viewing pleasure is a little something about Foreign Minister Lavrov, who is supposed to be negotiating humanitarian corridors:
RSS - Posts
