Tag: United Kingdom
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.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, September 6
– WOTR has major joint statement by several former SecDefs and CJCSs Background in WaPo.
– WaPo has Tom Ricks op-ed, less worried about civil war.
– Sebastian Mallaby is hopeful about Liz Truss.
– Politco discusses the congressional agenda this month.
– NYT explains where CHIPS money is going.
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:
Why thin gruel is still progress
The Balkans world is breathing easier today, after Belgrade and Pristina reached agreement to accept each other’s identity documents. Heretofore, Belgrade has been issuing its own identity documents to Kosovars crossing into Serbia, based on Pristina’s documents. That was done to avoid implied recognition of Kosovo’s statehood and independence. It has already announced it will issue a disclaimer at the border asserting the new agreement is for practical purposes and does not imply recognition:
Thin gruel is still progress
While Belgrade’s disclaimer suggests the larger issues at stake, the agreement is pretty thin gruel. It is only half the original problem, which also concerned license plates. These will presumably continue to have their state symbols covered to cross the border/boundary. We measure progress in the Balkans in millimeters. Still: compliments to the diplomats involved–especially EU negotiator Miroslav Lajcak and American Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Gabe Escobar!
There is encouragement to be found in the method: the US collaborated visibly with the EU. That kind of tandem effort is responsible for most progress in the Balkans in the past three decades. Balkanites will tell you nothing has changed. But there is a deep chasm between genocide and ethnic cleansing and quarreling over state symbols on license plates.
Zeno’s paradox applies
The reward for virtue is heightened expectations. Energy is perhaps the next subject to tackle. The existing agreement that enables a Kosovo subsidiary of a Serb firm to collect fees from Serbs who live in the Belgrade-controlled north of Kosovo needs implementation. It is common for people not to pay for utilities during wartime. Twenty years of free electricity is at least a decade too long. Kosovo Electric will also gain access to facilities in the north.
This kind of step-by-step, incremental progress is really what is needed right now. Neither President Vucic nor Prime Minister Kurti is ready to make the compromises required for what Balkanites call a “final” agreement between Pristina and Belgrade. Vucic resists recognition. Kurti resists the creation of an Association of Serb-majority Municipalities he thinks would violate Kosovo’s sovereignty. The day will come, but in the fashion of Zeno’s paradox. If you halve the distance between two human bodies every year, they should never touch. But for practical purposes, they do.
Not with Vucic however
“AVucic” is unlikely to be the signature on the final agreement. He has turned definitively in the ethnonationalist direction domestically and eastward internationally. While he still mouths platitudes about seeking EU membership, he is far more welcoming to Russia and China than to the EU and the US. Serbia has steadfastly refused to levy sanctions on Russia for the invasion of Ukraine and has welcomed the Chinese into its infrastructure, including telecommunications. Vucic is capable of extraordinary contradictions. As he renominated Serbia’s lesbian prime minister, he also announced cancellation of Belgrade’s Europride celebration in September.
Unfortunately, the West (that’s US, UK, and EU for Balkan purposes) has come to treat Vucic on most days with kid gloves, fearing that he will tilt even further east and doubting that any better is available in today’s Serbia. But the agreement on identity documents is a good lesson. Squeeze him hard and he yields. I hope the West’s diplomats haven’t exhausted themselves–they are going to have to continue to work hard to get both Vucic and Kurti to yes.
RSS - Posts
