Tag: United Kingdom
The West needs to rebalance Balkans policy towards tough love
The US Congress has now conducted hearings on the Balkans in both the Senate and House. Members from both sides of the aisle evinced discomfort with Biden Administration policy. It has leaned heavily towards appeasement of Belgrade and has failed to react strongly to secessionist moves in Bosnia. What is the alternative?
The US is oblivious to the obvious
Administration officials are fond of reiterating the laudable 1990s strategic objective: Europe “whole and free.” They are oblivious to the obvious. It is not happening anytime soon. President Putin has forced the drawing of a new line in Europe. The Russian-dominated parts Europe will remain for now on the Eastern side of the line. This includes Russia and Belarus as well as parts of Georgia (Abkhazia, South Ossetia) and Moldova (Transnistria). The remaining questions are about Ukraine and the Balkans. Will the line go through them, or will they join the West?
In Ukraine, conventional warfare will answer the question. In the Balkans, it is already decided. For the foreseeable future, there is no serious prospect that Serbia or Republika Srpska (the Serb-dominated part of Bosnia and Herzegovina) will join the West.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
For the RS, that is obvious. Its president, Milorad Dodik, is a wholly-owned Russian proxy. He is doing his best to end any accountability to the Sarajevo “state” government. The RS parliament has already passed legislation denying the validity of Constitution Court decisions. It is only a matter of time before it passes legislation claiming state property, which the RS needs as collateral for its international loans. The international community’s High Representative will presumably annul all secessionist legislation from now on, but how he will enforce his decisions is not clear.
Dodik may not proceed all the way to declaring independence, as even Serbia would be reluctant to recognize the RS. But whether he does or not, RS will remain attached to the East so long as he is in power. The only hope for getting rid of him is to bankrupt the entity and bail it out with Western financing, conditional on his resignation and an end to secessionist ambitions. It is not yet clear whether Washington and Brussels have the stomach for that.
Serbia
Serbia is different. President Vucic is hedging between East and West. He plays Washington and Brussels off against Moscow and Beijing, hoping to get all he can from all four. Belgrade has a policy of military neutrality, for example, and conducts exercises with both NATO and Russia. Serbia buys weapons from both East and West. It ships weaponry to both Russia and Ukraine. Belgrade has refused to align with EU sanctions against Russia, but it votes against Russia on some General Assembly resolutions denouncing Russian aggression.
This Yugoslav-style “non-aligned” foreign policy is linked with ethnic nationalist domestic politics and ambitions for regional hegemony. Judging from ongoing anti-Vucic demonstrations, there are a lot of Serbs who aren’t happy with the current regime, which they view as violent, corrupt, and repressive. But the only viable electoral opposition to Vucic stems from his Serbian nationalist right. He has all but obliterated the liberal democratic opposition, which was weak to begin with. He controls most of the popular media and judicial system in addition to the executive. The Serbian security services and their allies in the Serbian Orthodox Church are wedded to Moscow.
In the region, Vucic aims to create the “Serbian world,” analogous to Putin’s “Russian world,” an idea that supported the invasion of Ukraine. In its weakest form, the goal is Belgrade political control over the Serb populations in neighboring states. Belgrade has already achieved that in Montenegro and Kosovo. In Bosnia, only Dodik, whose interests are not congruent, stands in the way. In its stronger form, the Serbian world entails annexation of territory Serbs occupy in neighboring countries and creation of Greater Serbia.
Rebalance the policy
Belgrade has not moved one inch closer to the West in the six years of Vucic’s presidency, despite consuming a truckload of diplomatic carrots. Strengthening of his links to Beijing has more than compensated for any weakening of his links to Moscow. The RS has spent 17 years moving towards secession. It is not going to reverse course without vigorous pushback. This situation requires a more realistic Western policy in the Balkans.
We need to lower expectations and raise incentives. Dodik’s RS and Vucic’s Serbia are not going to voluntarily embrace the West. The US, UK, and EU will need to starve the RS of all Western funds in order to end Dodik’s secessionist ambitions. They will also need to end Serbia’s immunity from Washington and Brussels criticism. Washington recently sanctioned Aleksandar Vulin, Director of Belgrade’s Security Intelligence Agency, for corruption, drug and arms trafficking, and supporting Russia’s malign influence. That was a step in the right direction. The EU should do likewise. A public demand for Vulin’s removal as well as for the arrest and extradition to Kosovo of the thugs who attacked NATO peacekeepers in May would be another.
Possible benefits
Rebalancing toward Serbia and the RS would have the great virtue of testing not only their intentions, but also Moscow’s and Beijing’s. Moscow under current conditions is not going to want to increase funding to the RS. China hopes to use Serbia as an entry point to Europe. Beijing might think twice about investing in a Serbia that is on the outs with the EU. We could well be happily surprised if China and Russia decide to cut their losses and leave Serbia and the RS on the Western side of the new division of Europe. If they don’t, we will at least have saddled them with significant burdens.
Rebalancing could also help to revive the moribund dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina. Washington and Brussels have focused their pressure on Pristina, which has no hedging option and has traditionally bandwagoned with the West. There is a long history of Pristina responding better to carrots than sticks. Even longer is the history of Belgrade responding better to sticks than carrots. If Vucic saw Washington and Brussels coming after him with a stick rather than carrots, he would be inclined to hedge more in their direction. Tough love would bring better results than appeasement.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
So it fizzled. When will the next time come?
Yesterday’s insurrection and impending coup is today’s fizzle. Yevgeny Prigozhin has agreed to turn the Wagner troops around while he expatriates himself to Belarus. Ostensibly he and Putin reached an agreement, with Belarus’ President Lukashenko mediating, to avoid bloodshed. The Wagnerites get amnesty. Putin gets to stay in the Kremlin.
Question marks
I suppose it could be that simple. After all, if you are a Russian patriot, civil war is not appetizing. But there are still lots of question marks. Why did Prigozhin light the fuse? Why did he decide to abandon the effort? Did he fail to get support he thought would be forthcoming from others? Why did Russian forces not attack the Wagner column? What did Putin agree to do in exchange for the standdown?
Then there are the longer-term questions. Can Prigozhin really be safe in Minsk? Will this incident weaken Putin’s hold on power? If you are a Wagner fighter do you really believe there will be no retaliation? Are you willing to stick with an enterprise that apparently lost the contest? How will this incident affect the extensive Wagner operations in Africa and Syria? How do you feel if you are a Russian soldier on the front lines in Ukraine? What about ordinary Russian citizens? Does Chinese President Xi think Putin is a reliable partner?
Cracks are showing
Prigozhin for weeks has been complaining loudly about Russian Defense Minister Shoigu and Chief of Staff Gerasimov. Prigozhin accuses them of incompetence, failure to supply Wagner’s forces, and even an attack on his men. Neither Shoigu nor Gerasimov has been seen for a few days. Putin appeared to come down hard on their side in the pissing match with Prigozhin, but it is also possible he has agreed to sack them, but we’ll have to wait and see.
In any event, the Wagner fizzle suggests Putin’s hold on power is not quite as tight as many imagine. Prigozhin can’t be the only discontent almost a year and a half into a war that has gained Russia little and cost a lot. The crackdown that is sure to follow the Wagner non-coup could widen the fissures in the ruling elite. But there is still little sign of popular willingness to challenge the Kremlin.
Keep the popcorn for next time
Some will worry that Putin falling could bring chaos to a nuclear-weapons state. Or put those weapons into the hands of someone like Prigozhin. Those are legimate concerns, but there is little the West can do about them. The US, UK, and Europe are bystanders who can do little more than keep up their support for Ukraine and hope that somehow Moscow decides to cut its losses and leave. In the meanwhile, it was a good show while it lasted. If you haven’t finished your popcorn, hold on to it. Next time might not be far off.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, April 12
– NY magazine has a summary.
– WSJ reports on Hungary.
– Guardian traces sources.
– Reuters says Iran shipped weapons via Syria relief flights.
– Guardian says UK special forces are in Ukraine.
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, with occasional videos of my choice. 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:
Stevenson’s army, April 5
– FP warns Northern Ireland deal likely to fail.
– China’s EU ambassador explains PRC policies.
– WSJ says Russia isn’t getting aircraft spare parts.
-Defense News says China it outselling Russia in arms.
– Our brownbag guest, Mike Mazarr of Rand has a piece on the Middle Powers.
– David Ignatius says the Saudis are sending us a message.
– It’s always good to check on recent CRS products. You’ll find things like this report on International Trade and Finance.
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, with occasional videos of my choice. 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:
Stevenson’s army, December 20
– The omnibus bill. including appropriations across the government and the Electoral Count Act as well as other measures, has been released. Here’s the reporting by Politico and RollCall. Also the bill text and summaries by Democrats and Republicans.
– NYT summarizes the growing criticism of the Supreme Court’s seizure of power from the other branches.
– Guardian reports the embarrassing breakdown of German Puma tanks.
– Vox tries to make sense of the crisis in Peru.
– NYT discovered that a newly elected GOP Congressman faked most of his resume.
To me, the blame goes to the Dems for inadequate oppo research. Punchbowl notes:
Yet the DCCC can hardly be accused of ignoring Santos’ candidacy. The campaign arm compiled an 87-page opposition document in August complete with dozens of social media posts, financial filings and information on Santos’ employment with a scandal-ridden corporation. The bulk of the research centered on Santos’ false claims of voter fraud, his hardline anti-abortion rights stances and support for conspiracy theories.
But the DCCC appears to have missed out on fact-checking basic biographical information, such as Santos’ education and employment. The NYT also revealed that Brazilian authorities charged Santos for making fraudulent purchases with a checkbook in 2010.
There are actions the new Congress could take, as a CRS report indicates.
WOTR hasa good historical summary of Truman, Eisenhower & Kennedy policies on Taiwan.
Charlie added this interesting note later:
I was exchanging reading recommendations with a friend and realized that there have been a few books in recent years that actually changed my mind regarding what I thought happened in history. I read a lot of disappointing books — too shallow, too heavy, too incomplete — but I generally enjoy revisionist historians, especially if they have a provocative thesis and ample evidence. If you want to buy one of these, the best place to look is https://www.bookfinder.com/ So here’s a short list:
World War I: I’m now persuaded that Russia shares much of the blame for the start of the Great War by its policies to dominate Turkey and by mobilization during the July 1914 crisis. After deep dives into long-hidden Russian archives, Sean McMeekin showed in The Russian Origins of the First World War that even Barbara Tuchman got the sequence wrong by relying on the falsified memoirs of the Russian Foreign Minister. McMeekin’s books on Russian diplomacy and the July crisis changed my view of German war guilt, though Austria-Hungary still deserves shared blame with Russia. See also his Russian Revolution, July 1914, and Stalin’s War, which describes World War II from Stalin’s viewpoint rather than the usual FDR/Churchill one.
Philip Zelikow’s The Road Less Traveled persuaded me that leaders missed a chance to end the war in December 1916 with a poorly staffed peace initiative by Woodrow Wilson that was undercut by Secretary Lansing and “Colonel” House.
FDR’s boldness: I had long admired Franklin Roosevelt’s strategic bravery in maneuvering the United States in support of Britain and against Hitler, believing that he was just ahead of public opinion, skillfully pulling it along. Lynne Olson’s Those Angry Days persuaded me that, much of the time, FDR vacillated, doing less than many of his advisors urged and hoped. He still was a great leader, just not quite as bold as I had thought.
World War II: James Lacey’s The Washington War, a bureaucratic politics analysis of FDR’s leadership, persuaded me that administrative and economic policies had as much to do with America’s ultimate success as its military operations. Phillips Payson O’Brien’s The Second Most Powerful Man in the World: The Life of Admiral William D. Leahy, Roosevelt’s Chief of Staff persuaded me that Leahy was far more influential on FDR’s war policy than General George Marshall. Jonathan Schneer’s Ministers at War: Winston Churchill and His War Cabinet persuaded me that much of Britain’s success was due to the way the cabinet worked together; Churchill dominated, but the cabinet mattered.
Postwar American policy: Derek Leebaert’s, Grand Improvisation: America Confronts the British Superpower, 1945-57, persuaded me that Britain hoodwinked America into doing what it wanted until the collapse at Suez. Samuel F. Wells, Jr.’s Fearing the Worst: How Korea Transformed the Cold War, convinced me that American misjudgments in the Korean war made the nuclear arms race with the USSR more likely. Serhii Plokhy’s Nuclear Folly: A History of the Cuban Missile Crisis, persuaded me that JFK lied about his policies and we came dangerously close to a full-scale nuclear war.
Slave Power’s influence on foreign policy: I never thought that slavery and its perpetuation had much impact on American foreign policy until I read Matthew Karp’s eye-opening history, This Vast Southern Empire: Slaveholders at the Helm of American Foreign Policy.
Karp details how the South dominated key foreign policy posts and consciously advocated policies to protect and even extend slavery in the decades before the War of the Rebellion. Defenders of slavery really had a “deep state.”
The Revolutionary War: I used to have a typical American high school student’s view of our war for independence as a story of brave patriots, toughened at Valley Forge and led by George Washington, who finally triumphed at Yorktown. Two books have changed my understanding of that conflict. One was Andrew Jackson O’Shaughnessy’s of British politics during the conflict, The Men Who Lost America. He argues that the British gave up for broader strategic reasons. Add to this Holger Hoock’s Scars of Independence, which describes the local violence on both sides and the mistreatment of Loyalists during and after the war. The good guys won, but they won dirty.
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, with occasional videos of my choice. 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:
Zelensky knows how to get what he wants
I was preoccupied with granddaughters when Ukrainian President Zelensky elaborated his 10-point peace plan at the Bali G-19 (G20-Russia). It merits some attention.
He started with a convenient falsehood:
I am convinced now is the time when the Russian destructive war must and can be stopped.
This is an indirect way of denying that Ukraine is responsible for the failure to negotiate an end to the war, which some in Washington are wanting. Zelensky knows that President Putin shows no sign of interest in serious negotiations (beyond a ceasefire that would enable Russia to recover from recent defeats). Certainly not on the terms that Zelensky proceeds to outline:
Radiation and nuclear safety
Fearing another Chernobyl-type accident, Zelensky wants immediate surrender of the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power to Ukraine and the IAEA as well as restoration of its vital connections to the grid. He invites the IAEA to all of Ukraine’s 15 nuclear power plants as well as the Russian-occupied Chernobyl corpse.
Compellingly, he calls also for an end to Russia’s nuclear threats on the basis of “the Budapest Memorandum and respective capabilities of the signatory states.” The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances of 1994 provided explicit US, UK, and Russian guarantees of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity within its then existing borders. In exchange, Ukraine surrendered the Soviet nuclear weapons on its territory and entered into the Nonproliferation Treaty.
Food security
Zelensky celebrated the existing agreement that has allowed 10 million tons of Ukrainian grain exports. He proposed expanding the scheme to 45 million tons this year and making it of indefinite duration. Clearly he is trying to win over grain-importing African and Middle Eastern countries that have sat on the fence or even supported Russia.
Energy security
Zelensky denounced Russia for trying to “turn cold into a weapon.” He claimed Moscow’s air attacks had destroyed about 40% of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure as well as capacity to export electricity to neighbors. Ukraine wants air defense systems and a UN mission to assess the damage and restoration needs. Kyiv also wants limits on what Europe pays for Russian oil and gas (for oil this was tentatively announced today).
Zelensky calls the attacks on energy and water facilities “terror,” presumably because the facilities are civilian. The attacks are intended to accomplish a political purpose, breaking Ukrainian will to fight. The Russian claim that the facilities are “dual purpose” and therefore legitimate targets might be valid in a legal war, but not in a war of aggression.
Release of all prisoners and deportees
Zelensky wants the thousands of captured Ukrainian military and civilians released, including 11,000 children whose names are known and tens of thousands more. Surprisingly, the Russian Defense Ministry has admitted to deporting 200,000 (!) children, supposedly from dangerous areas. Forced displacement is a war crime.
Zelensky angrily denounced the International Committee of the Red Cross for not providing assistance with access to prisoner camps and finding deported Ukrainians: “This self-withdrawal is the self-destruction of the Red Cross as an organization that was once respected.” He also indicated a willingness to release Russian prisoners the Ukrainians hold, “all for all,” including the deportees.
Implementation of the UN Charter and restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity
Zelensky cites Article 2 of the UN Charter. Based on “the sovereign equality of all its Members,” it requires states to refrain from the threat and use of force “against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”
Russia, Zelensky demands, “must reaffirm the territorial integrity of Ukraine.” That demand he suggested is not negotiable.
Withdrawal of Russian troops and cessation of hostilities
Justice
Zelensky wants Russia to withdraw from the entire territory of Ukraine and to restore its border with Russia. This presumably also means Crimea, though he did not say so. He pledged that this will end hostilities, meaning I suppose that then Ukraine would cease fighting.
Justice
“This is what stokes the greatest emotions,” Zelensky says. The Russians are leaving behind in territory Ukrainian forces liberate “torture chambers and mass burials of murdered people.” Russian air strikes he claimed had killed 430 children. He questioned what will be discovered in the future in a place like Mariupol. Resistance to the invasion there was particularly strong and fighting intense.
Zelensky wants a special international tribunal for Russian aggression against Ukraine and international compensation at Russian expense. Kyiv has proposed a UNGA compensation mechanism. Nothing of that sort can pass in the UNSC, where Moscow sits as a permanent member. Kyiv will also submit a proposal for the special court.
Ecocide, the need for immediate protection of environment
Shelling has destroyed forests. Mines, chemicals, and unexploded ordnance contaminate the land. Burned oil, chemical, and sewage plants as well as animal carcasses pollute the air. Coal mines are flooded. Zelensky says this includes a mine used for a nuclear test in 1979 that poses a threat to nearby rivers and the Black Sea. Zelensky wants experts to come help with all these environmental issues.
Prevention of escalation
Zelensky blames the Russian aggression on Ukraine’s lack of alliances. He also warns Russia might repeat it if Kyiv doesn’t get “effective security assurances.” These Kyiv has elaborated in a draft Kyiv Security Compact. It proposes to formalize a coalition of the willing to ensure Ukraine can defend itself. The willing would include US, UK, Canada, Poland, Italy, Germany, France, Australia, Turkey, and Nordic, Baltic, Central and Eastern European countries.
This is essentially the coalition supporting Ukraine already (and thus with a lot to lose if there were to be a recurrence of the war). Ukraine would not become a member of NATO, but key NATO allies would form a purpose-built post-war security architecture.
Confirmation of the end of the war
If there is political will, Zelensky hopes for a quick end to the war. He cites the positive experience with the grain exports, which is a product of UN and Türkiye mediation between Ukraine and Russia. He thinks that model might be repeated.
Conclusion
That would be nice. There is only one fly in the oinment. Russian President Putin would have to decide to give up on a war in which he has sacrificed something like 100,000 troops killed or wounded as well as massive defense materiel, surrender all the territory he claims to have annexed, explain to Russia’s citizens that he tanked their economy and destroyed their army without gaining anything, pay massive compensation, and be branded forever a loser.
Those are all things Zelensky wants, but they will only happen with Russian military defeat. Zelensky knows that.
RSS - Posts
