Tag: United States
Stevenson’s army, April 17
– WaPo says US plans long term isolation of Russia.
– WSJ notes global debt problems.
– US Army adapts training to Ukraine.
– Ross Douthat wonders if Democrats could be locked out of power for year to come.
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:
Stevenson’s army, April 15
– Jake Sullivan revealed after a DC speech that President Biden frequently rejects unanimous NSC opinions.
– WaPo reports Russia has sent a formal demarche warning against sending weapons to Ukraine.
– CIA director says Russia might use nukes.
– Israel says it has tested a laser missile defense.
– FP says Russia is sending mercenaries to Mali.
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:
Realism and idealism point the same way
Lots of folks are seeing Russia’s aggression against Ukraine as a watershed. Charles Kupchan does it intelligently in the NY Times Monday. He thinks America needs to dial back its idealist ambitions to accommodate a realist world in which China and Russia could combine to challenge American power.
Biden’s preference
That level of generality, however, tells us nothing about how to end the Ukraine war.
President Biden is signaling his preference. He has already said Russian President Putin cannot (he later explained he meant should not) stay in power. Now he has used the g-word. Accusing Russia of genocide reinforces the impression that the United States is looking for person change, if not regime change, in Russia.
There are two routes to change in Moscow. A peaceful, non-violent rebellion would be the better. But Russians who protest the war have been unable to mobilize the necessary mass to make their point. Putin has overwhelming popular support for the war in Ukraine. Putin may have lost the international information war, but his increasingly autocratic regime appears to have won the domestic equivalent. Government control of the press has consequences.
A coup is the second option. Russian army officers could combine with oligarchs to deprive Putin of his presidency. But there too the path seems blocked. The Ukrainians have shredded the Russian army in northern Ukraine and killed a lot of generals. Western sanctions are depriving many of Putin’s oligarchs (and hopefully Putin himself) of ill-gotten gains. But there are few signs of dissent within the ruling elite.
The military option
Putin has abandoned negotiations for a settlement. He is intending instead to mount a major offensive in southern and eastern Ukraine. There Russia is interested in enlarging its area of control in Donetsk and Luhansk as well as establishing a land bridge to Crimea. Putin might even still be hoping to take all of Ukraine’s southern coast. That could link Russia to the Transnistrian area it controls in Moldova.
Military experts are suggesting the Russians have better odds of success in the south than they had in the north. The terrain is flat and more suitable to Moscow’s heavy armor. Supplies can flow directly from Russia and Russian-controlled Luhansk, Donetsk, and Crimea directly into Ukraine. Moscow has appointed a new military commander responsible for the obliteration of civilian areas in Syria. He has been doing likewise to Mariupol, a vital city on the southern coast. Ukrainian President Zelensky claims the Russians plan to use chemical weapons there:
The war in the south has already gone much better for the Russians than near Kiev and Kharkiv.
But the enemy has a vote. The Ukrainians seem to be prepared to defend Mariupol to the last brick. They have been stalwart as well near Kherson and Mikolaiv, which is on the way to Odesa. Arms are flowing rapidly from the West into Ukraine, though it is unclear whether the upgraded resources will arrive in time. Heavier armor, better artillery, and longer-range air defenses require training and elaborate logistical support.
The politics
The Ukrainians have been winning the battle for international support. The UN General Assembly backed civilian protection and humanitarian aid even before the Russian withdrawal from the north revealed its atrocities against civilians. But there are still key countries either sitting on the fence or supporting Russia. Prime among these are China, India, Israel, and Turkey. Lots of countries in Africa and the Middle East (in addition, for the benefit of my Balkan readers, to Serbia) are leaning in Moscow’s direction. “Not our fight” is the “nonaligned” motto.
The military situation inside Ukraine will affect the international politics of this war. If the Ukrainian army manages to prevent further Russian advances in the south and east, international opinion will swing in Kiev’s direction. If it loses more territory, the fence sitters will swing in Russia’s direction. Kiev is already under pressure from international commentators who claim continuing the war will only kill more people. But Ukrainians appear ready to continue what so far has been a successful effort to stem Russian advances.
Bottom line
The war is far from over. There is lots of mutual hurt, but no stalemate. Nor is their any way out. While both Russia and Ukraine say they are prepared to accept Ukrainian “neutrality,” their definitions of it remain far apart. Kiev wants international guarantees of Ukraine’s territorial integrity (including Donestk, Luhansk, and Crimea) and sovereignty, including by NATO members. Moscow wants Kiev to cede territory and sovereignty to Russia. There is no “zone of possible agreement” between these two positions.
For now, realism and idealism point in the same direction: the fight will go on.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, April 7
– Politico report shows many agencies acting on Ukraine.
– WaPo details Biden’s “deliberate but impulsive” response to Ukraine.
– NYT says Russia is bringing in mercenaries with May 9 plan for victory.
– German intelligence reports intercepts of Russians talking of killing civilians.
– WaPo reports on the right-wing Azov Battalion fighting for Ukraine.
– WaPo says India media echo Russia.
– On the other hand, Politico says many lawmakers want permanent sanctions on Putin’s Russia.[My take: Russia can’t be defeated militarily in a conventional war. The fighting can’t end until Russia is willing, either because the costs are too high or it believes it can’t achieve more. Thinking strategically, the pro-Ukraine side needs to provide some relief to Russia if it agrees to a cease-fire. Similarly, a regime-change goal only prolongs the killing of Ukrainians.]
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:
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:
Madeleine was no madeleine
The French tarts are spongy and sweet. That would not describe Madeleine Albright. The first woman to serve as Secretary of State, in my experience she was remarkably similar in public and private. A bit stern but clear and forceful, she would push hard for her perspective on world issues.
Some liked her, some didn’t
Those who agreed with her were pleased. Ask any Albanian in Kosovo, where a bust of her stands in the center of Pristina. Those who disagreed found her flinty. Boutros-Boutros Ghali, the Secretary General of the UN whose second term she vetoed in the Security Council, no doubt thought her unreasonable and inflexible. She strived to be tough but fair. She mostly succeeded.
My interactions with her in recent years were limited but positive. I was in Pristina when the Kosovars dedicated her bust a few years ago. Parading in the main street with Bill Clinton, the Kosovars gave her lots of applause. But she attracted far less attention than the much taller former President, whose statue in Pristina is full-length.
I testified with her in December 2020 at the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. She was as sharp and clear as always, pushing hard for democracy and human rights in the Balkans. Generous to and engaged with students, she spent an hour with my SAIS class studying relations between Belgrade and Pristina. She spent childhood years with her diplomat father in Belgrade. But because of the 1999 NATO bombing, Serbs mostly dislike her.
I also ran into her at a dentist’s office, but she was uncoiffed, so I thought it best to steer clear and avoid embarassment. I think I got that right.
Her brand
Wherever you are in the world, Madeleine’s name is instantly recognized. This is unusual. There are lots of people named Madeleine. To me, in person she was always Madame Secretary. But everyone in the State Department called her Madeleine when she wasn’t present. She was unique. She projected a clear and compelling image wherever she went. Straightforward and determined, she didn’t waffle or prevaricate. She told you what she wanted and pursued it, with skill and finesse but no hesitation. “Madeleine” was a well-defined brand.
Tony Blinken uses the same approach, though a bit more understated. After the years of Trump’s wild exaggerations and outright lies, clarity and care has returned to high-level statements on foreign policy. The hyperbole and prevarication of Trump’s incompetent Secretaries of State are gone. You may not like what the incumbent says. But you know he isn’t exaggerating and intends to be clear and compelling, not emotional and ambiguous.
This is not the unipolar moment
Madeleine was Secretary of State during the unipolar moment. The United States she adopted as her motherland could do anything it wanted in the world. The Soviet Union was gone. Russia was a basket case. China was not yet an economic powerhouse. Iran and North Korea were relatively small clouds on the horizon. That has changed, dramatically. Russia, Iran, and North Korea are serious regional challengers. China is a serious global challenger. Madeleine has left us at a difficult moment.
We would be wise however to remember what she stood for. A determined liberal democrat committed to human rights, she believed the United States had a unique role and responsibility: to defend a world order based on those rights. A refugee from the Nazis, she disdained autocrats and supported their victims. She sought a peaceful world in which freedom could thrive.
She represented the best of us. May her memory be a blessing,
RSS - Posts
