Tag: Ukraine
Peace in our time will bring more war
Pete Hegseth announced a major change in US policy on Ukraine today. The most unqualified Defense Secretary ever offered to appease Russia by
- Ending US support for Ukraine’s membership in NATO;
- Abandoning Ukraine’s war goal of regaining control of all its sovereign territory;
- Anticipating an end to most US assistance to Ukraine;
- Excluding US troops from any post-war peacekeeping force;
- Asking European allies to provide such a force without a NATO Article 5 guarantee.
This gives Russian President Putin everything he hopes for except direct and immediate control over the government in Kyiv.
This is not peace through strength
Hegseth claimed he was proposing peace through strength. But that is pure illusion. He is pulling the rug out from underneath Ukrainian President Zelensky. At best (from Ukraine’s perspective), his remarks would make Ukraine a buffer state between NATO and Russia.
But maintaining Ukraine as a buffer state would be impossible. The Europeans would need to monitor a confrontation zone between Russia and Ukraine that is more than 1200 miles long. Kyiv, abandoned by the US, would want nuclear weapons to ensure Ukraine’s survival. That Russia would not allow.
Another Russian invasion of Ukrainian territory would be just a matter of time. And in the meanwhile Russia would be doing everything it could to bring down Zelensky. That wouldn’t be difficult if he agreed to anything like what Hegseth proposes.
I hardly need mention that partition of Ukraine as Hegseth proposes will have a dramatic impact in the Balkans. Serbia will try to grab territory in Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as Kosovo. American and European troops will be at risk.
Worse: appeasement of Russia in Ukraine will be a signal to Beijing that Washington won’t defend Taiwan. Some of that damage may already have been done with Hegseth’s speech. He has undermined the deterrence he claims to find vital.
Real peace through strength is the alternative?
The Biden Administration pursued a Goldilocks policy on Ukraine. Enough support to make Russia’s territorial gains slow and costly. But not enough to provoke Russia’s use of nuclear weapons, which Putin has contemplated in the event Moscow faced calamity.
That worked well enough given its objectives. But it wasn’t enough–nor did it intend–for Ukraine to win the war. Kyiv, like Moscow, is struggling with manpower shortages. The only way for it to win the war is with overwhelming technological superiority. Ukraine’s forces have developed a lot of their own weapons and tactics. But they will need more unqualified US and European support to win.
The alternative to Hegseth’s appeasement is to provide that support. That would be real peace through strength.
A Ukraine win would strengthen the West
The implications of Kyiv winning are good for the US and Europe. Moscow would then need to abandon its imperial ambitions. Putin might survive using repression, but only as a much-diminished figure at home and abroad. Russia’s economy and demography will need rebuilding. It will be at least another generation before Moscow can threaten a neighbor.
Reasonable people in Moscow would quickly switch the position on Ukrainian membership in NATO. They would come to see that as the best guarantee of a Ukraine without nuclear weapons. They know better than anyone else that NATO membership has kept Germany non-nuclear.
Europe would gain enormously from the opening of a peacetime free market with Ukraine reconstructing itself. The US would get the privileged access to Ukrainian rare minerals it seeks.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Kosovo is democratic but complicated
Kosovo voted yesterday. The electoral mechanism seems to have worked reasonably well except for a cyberattack. That appears to have been overcome. Prime Minister Kurti (LVV) got 41%, his PDK opposition 22%, the LDK opposition 18%, and AAK (Ramush Haradinaj) 7%. Minorities will hold 20 seats. Turnout was relatively low (around 40%), despite a lively campaign. I haven’t yet seen how the preliminary percentages translate into parliamentary seats. That could change the picture.
For background, here is a primer. So far as I can tell, the EU observer mission has not yet reported its findings.
The winner loses…but the losers didn’t win
The Prime Minister led by an almost a 2/1 margin over his nearest competitor. But he lost his absolute majority in parliament. While minority votes could put him in the majority, he won’t get enough of them. He will now need the seats of either the PDK or the LDK to regain the majority. The freewheeling way he has governed will make that difficult. Both the PDK and AAK have said they are unwilling to govern with VV. Still, it can’t be ruled out, especially if he is willing to give up the prime ministry. The LDK seems more open to the idea.
The PDK, LDK, and AAK did not win either. Even if the PDK and LDK join together in coalition, they won’t have enough seats to gain the majority. Putting together a 3-party coalition isn’t going to be easy. Resentment of Kurti might help. The three opposition parties were united during the campaign in criticizing him. They don’t like his handling of the economy and blame him for strained relations with the US and EU.
What next
Parliamentary systems that produce ambiguous results of this sort generally need some time to work things out. Despite strains between them, I suppose President Osmani will give Kurti a chance to forge a parliamentary majority. If he fails, the PDK may get a chance to bring in a government that includes the other opposition parties.
If Kurti keeps the prime ministry in coalition with an opposition party, the US and EU will pressure him to consult more. They want him to show more flexibility in dealing with Serbia. That isn’t likely to produce results, given past experience.
Almost any conceivable alternative prime minister will try to reduce strains with the US and EU. All the other political parties have criticized Kurti for inflexibility.
But all have governed in the past, with not much better results when it comes to dealing with Serbia. Belgrade is likewise is inflexible in dealing with Pristina. It demands creation of an Association of Serb Majority Municipalities inside Kosovo with no quid pro quo.
The broader context
Kosovo’s future depends today more on what happens beyond its borders than on this ambiguous election result. Ric Grenell, Trump’s former envoy, is telling everyone in the Balkans he will again be in charge of the region. He loathes Kurti. Last time around, he tried to partition Kosovo. Likely he’ll try again. Or at least insist on self-governance for the Serbs in the north that compromises the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. And he’ll wield control over NATO accession as a stick. He’ll also wield USAID assistance, which will need to be unfrozen.
Even without the American push for partition, any discussion of partition of Ukraine will open the question in the Balkans. Russia and Serbia will encourage Republika Srpska to secede from Bosnia and Herzegovina. They will also try to get the Serb-majority north to leave Kosovo. Moscow and Belgrade will figure the US and EU will be unprepared to defend either country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
While the Trump Administration is bad news for Kosovo, so too are future elections in Europe. Further strengthening of the right in Germany this month will stymie EU expansion, already slowed to a crawl.
Kosovo is a good example of successful democratization in the Balkans. But it is also complicated, both internally and in the broader geopolitical context.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The bad ideas keep on coming
Two weeks have brought us these, just on the foreign policy front:
- Proposed take over Greenland, Panama Canal, Canada, and now Gaza.
- Eviscerated the world’s largest humanitarian agency, recalling all its overseas staff.
- Reached bogus deals to postpone promised tariffs on Mexico and Canada
- Failed to reach a deal with China, which retaliates.
- Arrested thousands of legal immigrants and try to deport them.
Gaza
Trump’s idea is to make Gaza “the riviera of the Middle East.” That’s not the crazy part. I’ve been there (between the two Intifadas, around 1999). Gaza would make a very nice resort community on the Mediterranean. It has beautiful beaches and a flat approach to the seaside. It could accommodate a good sized airport and seaport. When I was there, its hotels were capable of serving Kosher as well as Halal food, shipped from Israel.
But to accomplish his developer’s goal, Trump wants to remove the 2 million or so Palestinians who call Gaza home. When they visit soon, Egyptian President Sisi and Jordanian King Abdullah will tell him what they think of the idea. Neither is willing to accept large numbers of Palestinians even temporarily. Both think their more or less autocratic regimes would not survive such an influx. Neither would want to exclude the possibility of a Palestinian state in the future.
A US takeover of Gaza would require tens of thousands of troops for at least a decade of occupation. Not to mention tens of thousands of contractors to clear unexploded ordnance, clear rubble, and start reconstruction. The cost would be many billions even before beginning to construct the resort.
US occupation of Gaza would also end hopes of a Palestinian state. Hamas and Hizbollah terrorists, Houthi drones, and Iranian missiles would target the Americans. Defense would be costly. The opportunity costs of putting that many American troops into a static position in the Middle East would be astronomical.
The other real estate propositions
Trump’s other real estate propositions are no better. Greenlanders oppose becoming part of the US by a margin of more than 10/1. Canadians feel about the same way. Panama isn’t going to give up the Canal, which is not run by the Chinese, as Trump claims.
In short, none of these things are happening because they are all the fantasies of a failed real estate tycoon. Trump has been successful in tacking his name onto other people’s buildings, not in developing his own projects. That isn’t going to change.
USAID
I am no fan of USAID, but yanking its overseas personnel and abruptly closing its life-saving programs is irresponsible. Folding the agency into the State Department is not necessarily a bad idea. Canada, the UK, and Australia have all incorporated their aid agencies into their foreign ministries. But it has to be done carefully and thoughtfully, which is definitely not what we are seeing right now.
Aid should come in two varieties. One is unconditional humanitarian assistance needed to relieve human suffering. Food, water, health, and shelter for victims of natural disasters, poverty, and oppressive governments belong in this category.
The other is assistance on building governmental and nongovernmental institutions where people are striving for more open and just societies. Even if their governments are oppressive, we should be willing to consider assistance that will improve the situation. This latter type of assistance really does belong in the State Department. The humanitarian relief part should be freestanding.
Mexico and Canada
Mexico and Canada handled the tariffs well. They threatened to retaliate, then offered Trump concessions that they had already made during the Biden Administration. Canada is beefing up its border controls. Mexico has already deployed more troops to its border with the US. Trump swallowed these non-concessions and declared victory. Mexico did even better, as it got Trump to agree to limit arms trafficking from the US into Mexico. That has been a perennial Mexican complaint. Now they get to complain when the US fails to follow through.
It remains to be seen what will happen in 30 days, when the postponement of the tariffs expires. My guess is not much. Maybe another empty concession or two. Then return to the free trade agreement that Trump negotiated in his first term in office. Trump will declare it a win.
As for immigration, Southwest Land Border Encounters were way down already in November and December 2024. Trump can declare victory, ignoring the fact this was accomplished under Biden/Harris.
China
The 10% tariff on Chinese imports to the US is far less than Trump has sometimes bruited. Beijing was ready. It responded with both tariffs on imports to China from the US and limits on exports of rare earth metals. It also launched an antitrust investigation of Google and labeled a couple of US companies unreliable. Those latter moves are not for now important, but they may indicate one direction of Chinese policy in the future.
Americans buy a lot from China, on the order of $500 billion per year. Without equally priced other sources for the goods, the tariffs mean a $50 billion hidden tax increase on US consumers. That’s still relatively small. Wait until Trump gets to his 100% tariff.
Immigration
So far, the majority of people arrested in Trump Administration sweeps of immigrants have not been criminals. This isn’t surprising. All Administrations, including Biden’s, have kept themselves arresting and deporting criminal immigrants. Now the Administration has exceeded the capacity of Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facilities. So it is starting to release some detainees.
It is also flying hundreds on military planes out of the US to be repatriated. This is an expensive proposition. Someone will eventually tell the Defense Department to save its resources for a more useful purpose.
What could happen next?
Who knows. There is no lack of things we need to do. Trump can even be expected to stumble on a few.
Is there a better option for Iran than restoring maximum pressure? That is what the Administration is going to try to do. If that is preliminary to negotiations on both Iran’s regional malfeasance and its nuclear program, I’ll be for it.
The Administration seems headed for a tougher policy on Ukraine than many had thought possible. That’s good too, if it aims to end the Russian invasion and restore Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
But the ratio of good ideas like those to bad ones is unlikely to be high. The bad ideas keep coming because the President has so many of them.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A stronger American still fumbles
President Biden made a farewell appearance at the State Department yesterday. As a former Foreign Service officer, I’m of course delighted that he did this. It is especially important and timely because the Department now faces Donald Trump’s threat of loyalty tests and mass firings.
Biden’s understandably directed his remarks at justifying what his Administration has done on foreign policy. So how did he really do?
The bar was low
Certainly Biden can justifiably claim to have strengthened America’s alliances. The bar was low. Both in Europe and Asia the first Trump Administration had raised doubts. Allies could not depend on Washington’s commitment to fulfill its mutual defense obligations. Biden’s claim that compared to four years ago America is stronger because of renewed and expanded alliances is true. He is also correct in claiming he has not gone to war to make it happen.
The extraordinary strength of the American economy is an important dimension of this strength. Voters decided the election in part on the issue of inflation. But the Fed has largely tamed that and growth has been strong throughout. Manufacturing is booming, including vital semi-conductor production. Investment in non-carbon energy sources has soared. The defense industrial based is expanding.
Biden is also correct in asserting that America’s antagonists are worse off. Russia has failed to take Ukraine because of the US effort to gather support for Kyiv. Iran and its allies in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria are weaker. Only the Houthis in Yemen are arguably stronger than four years ago.
China is facing serious domestic economic and demographic challenges. But I don’t know why Biden claims it will never surpass the US. On a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis, it already has, though obviously per capita GDP in China remains much lower.
Some claims gloss over big problems
Biden is rightly proud that there is no longer war in Afghanistan, but he glosses over the chaotic withdrawal. He also doesn’t mention the failure of the Taliban to keep its commitments.
He vaunts progress on climate change, but without acknowledging that the goal of keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees centigrade will not be met.
Biden talks about infrastructure in Africa. But not about its turn away from democracy, civil wars in Sudan and Ethiopia, and the unresolved conflict in Libya.
He urges that Iran never be allowed to “fire” a nuclear weapon. That is a significant retreat from the position that Iran should never be allowed to have one.
Biden mentions the impending Hamas/Israel ceasefire. But he says nothing about Israel’s criminal conduct of the war in Gaza. Nor does he blame Israel’s right-wing government for the long delay in reaching a deal.
Biden’s legacy
At the end, Biden seeks to bequeath three priorities to Trump: artificial intelligence, climate change, and democracy. He no doubt knows that Trump isn’t going to take the advice on climate or democracy. He might on artificial intelligence, as his Silicon Valley tycoons will want him to.
Sad to say, Biden’s legacy will lie in other areas. Fearful of nuclear conflict with Russia, he failed to give Ukraine all the support it needs to defeat Russia. He was reluctant to rein in Israel for more than a year of the Gaza war. He failed to stop or reverse the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs. America is stronger than it was four years ago, but it has not always used that strength to good advantage.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Defending against Trump’s worst moves
I’ve already said what could go wrong in 2025. I’m not inclined to change any of that. If anything, the past two weeks has confirmed much of what I said on January 3. Trump has doubled down on his stupid proposals for Greenland, Panama (where China does not operate the Canal), and Canada. That is smokescreen. He is preparing to meet Presidents Putin and Xi. Those meetings have often led to unwarranted concessions on Trump’s part. Despite rumors of Trump’s dissatisfaction with Musk and MAGA’s attacks on him, Elon remains strong. He has also moved rightwards, to open racist and sexist tropes as well as support for fascists in Europe.
We are now a mere week from Inauguration Day. The issue now is how to defend against Trump’s worst moves.
Defeat these nominees
Presidents have more leeway on foreign than most areas of domestic policy. Unless it involves foreign aid, the President can do just about anything he wants abroad. This applies in particular to the US military and national security issues in general. It is crucial that the Secretary of Defense be someone trustworthy, reliable, and honest. Trump’s nominee, Pete Hegseth, is none of those things. Republicans willing to think about the risks should also be willing to vote against him.
The same applies to Tulsi Gabbard, the nominee for Director of National Intelligence. While that job is not the most important in the intel community, she is a disaster waiting to happen. She has been a shill for Syrian President Assad and Russian President Putin. As a candidate for an intel position, she would not get even a low-level a security clearance. She certainly shouldn’t get a top level one for the government’s main coordinator of 17 intel agencies.
One domestic policy issue on which a President can have his way is prosecutions. The nominee for FBI Director, Kash Patel, has spend the last four years listing Trump opponents he wants prosecuted. He has also fantasized about Trump’s revenge in, of all things, a children’s book. He should be blocked from confirmation by any Republican Senator who believes in the rule of law.
Other Trump nominees are dangerous. Pam Bondi as Attorney General and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Health and Human Services are both incompetent and deluded. But both jobs are pretty well insulated by law and regulation from the worst of what they want to do. They will try to change both the laws and the regulations. It will be up to Congress and the courts to restrain their worst instincts.
Hope Rubio and Waltz prevail
I don’t like any of Trump’s nominees, but some are better than those above. Mike Waltz as National Security Advisor and Marco Rubio as Secretary of State are within the spectrum of respectable. Both have been strong supporters of Israel in Gaza and Lebanon. Both have said they want to end the Ukraine war soon. Those wouldn’t be my positions, but they are not outlandish.
The problem is that these more respectable and knowledgeable names are not alone. Trump has also named Ric Grenell to handle Ukraine. Grenell is a failed Trump-appointed ambassador in Germany, special envoy for the Balkans, and Acting Director of National Intelligence. Trump has nominated Mike Huckabee as ambassador to Israel and Steve Witkoff as special envoy for the Middle East. Huckabee is an evangelical Christian and supporter of Netanyahu’s Greater Israel ambitions. Witkoff’s views on Israel don’t seem to be know. He is a New York lawyer and real estate tycoon.
I suppose in other circumstances this variety of nominees would garner praise. But there is a real risk that Waltz and Rubio are fig leaves intended to hide the junk. Grenell tried to partition Kosovo during the first Trump Administration. He will no doubt try that with Ukraine as well, if he gets a chance. None of the nominees seem prepared to rein in Israel. But Huckabee and Witkoff would be more likely than Rubio and Waltz to give Netanyahu a blank check. The portfolios of Rubio and Waltz will include relations with the Arab Gulf.
The problem from hell
Trump’s worst instincts have manifested on immigration. He has promised mass deportation. There can be no doubt that his nominees want to do it. Stephen Miller as White House deputy chief of policy and Tom Homan as border czar as have impeccable anti-immigration credentials. No one would accuse them of insincerity on the issue. But Homan has been trying to lower expectations. This is an area where law and regulation do constrain the new administration.
In the meanwhile, an intramural verbal spat has erupted between longtime MAGAtes like Steve Bannon and newcomers, especially Elon Musk. Musk and other tech giants want to keep or even increase H1B visas they use to import cheap foreign labor. Trump does likewise for his hotels and resorts. Musk and company will win this one, but the result will be an even more draconian crackdown on asylum-seekers. The MAGAtes regard them as “illegal” immigrants, though entering the US to seek asylum is legal.
The irony is that the US needs immigrants. Not only is the current labor market tight. We are not reproducing enough to grow the population at the rate needed to fund Social Security and other programs. Colleges are closing and we soon won’t have enough graduates. So while Republicans quarrel over H1Bs, the funding and personnel shortfalls get worse.
Immigration is the problem from hell because there is no political formula for doing what is needed. We need reform that will provide the person power while cracking down on real illegality.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Thanksgiving anxieties are justified
Today is the autumn pause the United States calls Thanksgiving. It is pretty much the most popular holiday across the entire population, marked by people of all religions and ethnicities. Unlike so many other American holidays, it is mainly noncommercial. We gather with family and friends for a giant afternoon meal to say thanks for whatever blessings have graced us.
I’m fine
We are in Savannah this year with two sons, two granddaughters, and two grandsons. We’ll go soon to a cousins’ beautiful house on the marshes outside of town for the traditional family feast. We’ll eat and drink as much as we all like. The generations will meet, the youngest for the first time, or refamiliarize themselves. We are, so far as I know, a prosperous and happy family. The family quarrels that plague some Thanksgiving dinners will be, thankfully, absent.
That said, I can’t help but note that I will not be content. The election result is a good part of the reason. While my personal welfare is not at stake, I fear for my country and its less fortunate citizens and non-citizens.
The economic risks
It is hard not to notice that the risks ahead are great. The current economic recovery began in 2009 under President Obama. President Trump’s botched reaction to the COVID-19 epidemic interrupted it, but it got back on track with President Biden. The growth trajectory has passed its 15th year. We are overdue for a recession, even disregarding the announced policy choices of the new Administration.
President Trump’s re-election makes one all but certain. His insistence on raising tariffs and expelling immigrants will re-ignite inflation. The Fed will have to slow or even reverse the decline it has begun in interest rates. Trump’s announced effort to shrink the Federal government will fail to reach its goal of cutting $2 trillion. But whatever layoffs the new Administration achieves will contribute to unemployment. The budget cuts will also slow the economy.
The social risks
While the economy slows, the new Administration will be cutting holes in the social safety net. Abolishing the Obamacare subsidies for health insurance isn’t going to happen. But the Republican Congress will seek to reduce them. It will also try to limit access to Medicaid, which provides health services to the poor. Trump won’t cut Social Security benefits, but he will try to raise the age of eligibility. Trump will aim to extend the tax cuts he introduced in 2017, which favor upper incomes. That will also be fine with me, but it still isn’t right.
He will also further limit abortion and LGBTQ rights and make education more Christian, less liberal, and less public. These are the essential demands of his evangelical base.
The political risks
Trump wants to prosecute his detractors. His two nominees for Attorney General are people who would gladly do that. Even unfounded investigations will cost Democrats and journalists both time and money. Such investigations will help him keep political opposition from growing. The Supreme Court’s decision to give official presidential acts with immunity will help to unshackle his worst impulses. With the two Houses of Congress under Republican control, he has little to fear from that corner.
Trump will want to appoint more Supreme Court justices, to guarantee continuation of the Republican majority. Justices Alito and Thomas can be expected to retire so that he can name younger clones. Press speculation suggests Trump wants a new FBI director. This despite the fact that the one he appointed in 2017 would normally serve ten years.
Trump’s re-election will embolden his base. It will continue to gerrymander House districts, limit voting rights, and destroy diversity programs. The goal will be to make those who hold power in America as white and male as possible. That is already clear in the Cabinet he has been naming.
Foreign policy
Trump’s future course in foreign affairs is more difficult to predict. The President has a great deal of latitude in foreign policy. Trump’s appointments so far are a mixed bag. Marco Rubio as Secretary of State and Michael Waltz as National Security Adviser are well within the normal political spectrum. So too is Ukraine envoy Keith Kellogg. He is an advocate of giving Ukraine what it needs to reach a satisfactory negotiated settlement with Russia.
None of those are friends of Russian President Putin. But Tulsi Gabbard is. If confirmed, she will be Director of National Intelligence. Teamed with a very partisan John Ratcliffe at CIA, Trump can be assured of no resistance from the intel community.
Trump’s choice of Mike Huckabee, an evangelical stalwart, as ambassador to Israel guarantees a pro-Netanyahu policy. On Palestinian issues, including Gaza and the West Bank, we should expect Trump to be even more pro-Israel than Biden.
On lots of other foreign policy issues, there are few indications. Waltz is a China hawk but it is not clear what that will mean for the American commitment to Taiwan. In the past, Trump has been a “maximum pressure” guy on Iran. But what that might mean now that Iran is a nuclear threshold state isn’t clear.
The State Department will no doubt suffer a serious purge as well as a massive voluntary exodus of talent. But will that liberate Trump to do as he pleases? Or will it limit capabilities and lead to focus on future issues? Hard to tell.
Bottom line
Trump menaces many of the values I am grateful for. Thanksgiving anxieties are justified.
RSS - Posts
