Tag: United States
Stevenson’s army, December 10
-New Yorker has a long article on the Afghan collapse based on newly obtained documents.
– The House approved a big bill trying to reduce presidential powers, including some measures opposed by Biden administration.
– Israel want US refueling in case of attacks on Iran.
– Lawfare explains how new Senate-confirmed cyber director has more real power than unconfirmed advisors [like National Security Adviser].
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to 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:
Democracy on the defensive, but not lost yet
I read the Biden/Putin phone call on Tuesday and the Summit of Democracies differently from many others. The former was a clear even if not conclusive win for the US. The latter is more equivocal.
President Putin went into the phone call having mounted most of an invasion force and demanding a binding legal prohibition on Ukraine joining NATO. He came out accepting an official-level dialogue with Washington on European security. That is a win for Biden, even if the invasion force remains in place for now. Moscow will continue at the dialogue to demand a commitment that Ukraine not join NATO, but the Americans won’t yield on that.
Ironically, the best guarantee that Kiev won’t join NATO lies in the current NATO members, few of whom are prepared to take on an obligation to defend Ukraine from Russian aggression. Redoubling the irony: Putin’s mounting of an invasion force has convinced any loyal Ukrainian that NATO membership is highly desirable. That makes two own goals for Putin: he has spent a fortune on an invasion force that was unnecessary and counterproductive.
The Summit of Democracies convening remotely today is harder to judge. It is one more sign of what we already know: democracy is under attack both in the US and in many places abroad. The Republican campaign against the validity of the 2020 US election and Republican legislation limiting the franchise in many states have cast doubt on whether the US can survive as a democracy. Events in Myanmar, Sudan, Belarus, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, and other places have cast more than doubts. Democracy in all those places has suffered severe setbacks in the past year. Not to mention Russia, Serbia, Hungary, Brazil, and other countries that are suffering longer-term erosion of at least semi-democratic institutions and processes. Not to mention the survival of long-standing authoritarian regimes in Syria, Jordan, the Gulf, China, Thailand, and Vietnam.
What good can the Summit of Democracies do? It is difficult to judge. I suppose preparations for it in countries invited and reactions to it in countries not invited may marginally increase pressure for upholding democratic values. Certainly Washington is well aware of its own limitations as a leader of the democratic world and convener of the Summit. The Biden Administration isn’t doing all it might, as it has hesitated to eliminate the anti-democratic filibuster in order to pass Federal voting rights legislation, but it is prosecuting January 6 rioters and suing states that limit voting rights in Federal court.
There is a possibility that some would-be authoritarians in other places will find themselves pressured and even on the ropes, but the overall trend appears to be in their direction. Authoritarians have learned how to weather less draconian political environments, as totalitarian control has become far more difficult due to modern communications and social media. They have also learned how to help each other survive, in order to avoid any domino effects, especially among neighbors. The pendulum has swung in the authoritarian direction, due in part to the corona virus epidemic and the consequent economic slowdown as well as the rallying cries of ethnic/sectarian/linguistic/racial nationalists.
The pendulum can also swing in the other direction, but the Summit looks incapable of making that happen. A successful Russian invasion of Ukraine, or US agreement to block Ukraine from NATO membership, would make things much worse than they already are. Democracy is on the defensive, but not lost yet.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Jaw-jaw is better
The Russian buildup on its border with Ukraine looks increasingly like a real invasion force. While Moscow has already built a bridge from Russian territory to Crimea, which it annexed in 2014, President Putin would also like a mainland connection along the coast through Mariupol. Or he has signaled he might settle for an agreement with Washington that Ukraine and other immediate neighbors of Russia will never join NATO. The deployment of 100,000 invasion-ready troops is expensive, but Russia is still relatively flush despite the decline of oil from more than $80 per barrel to less than $70. Putin is using military threat to gain what the West has successfully denied Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union more than three decades ago: a “near abroad” sphere of influence Russia regards as vital to its security.
Moscow claims it is reacting to NATO threats, but there is no real sign of those. Putin knows that NATO is an inherently defensive alliance, one ruled by consensus that is difficult to achieve. The Alliance will not deploy troops to defend non-member Ukraine. If the balloon goes up, it will be Kiev’s responsibility to respond to a Russian invasion. While it did poorly at that in 2014, when the Russians took Crimea as well as Luhansk and Donetsk, the Ukrainian army has improved since then and received a modicum of assistance from the US, in particular defensive Javelin missiles to counter Russian tanks. Presumably Washington is also providing Kiev with satellite and signals intelligence.
There is an obvious off-ramp from the current confrontation: the Minsk II agreement that provides for self-governance for Luhansk and Donetsk in return for re-establishing monitored control of the border with Russia and withdrawal of illegal armed forces from Ukrainian territory. But Russia has no interest in self-governance anywhere and uses proxy forces inside Ukraine to ensure that control of the border remains in exclusively Russian-friendly hands. The Germans and French led the negotiation effort that produced Minsk II, but they haven’t got the diplomatic clout to make it stick with Moscow. Even if the US were to weigh in heavily, it is not clear Moscow would be prepared to implement Minsk II.
While Putin’s statecraft in using the threat of military force may look promising, it could turn out badly. It is not clear Russia would win a war with Ukraine. Even without one, any patriotic Ukrainian might conclude from the current situation that membership in NATO and the EU is the most promising way of defending the country and enabling it to prosper. Russia is just too big and relatively well off for Kiev to confront alone. While Russia might bite off another morsel in Ukraine’s southeast, political and economic conditions in the Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine are miserable. Ukraine’s best hope will be to prove itself far better at governing and prospering than Moscow. That should not be impossible, as Russia is a declining petro-state of no particular distinction in benefiting its citizens.
In the meanwhile, the West will need to react to any military move on Russia’s part. The usual response is perhaps the best it can do: rhetorical condemnation, tightening and expanding sanctions, and increasing military, economic and political assistance to Kiev. The alternative is unattractive: agreement to close the doors of NATO and the EU to Ukraine, Belarus, and other neighbors of Russia. That would demonstrate that sabre rattling is a successful strategy and would no doubt lead to more of the same. We should not go to war with Russia over Ukraine, but nor should we cave to Russian intimidation. Jaw-jaw is better.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, November 26
Charlie writes for Black Friday, an entirely unrelated consideration:
Like many Americans, I grew to admire Winston Churchill as I learned more about him. Early on, I bought a recording of some of his most famous speeches and marveled at his stirring words. I happened to be in London at the time of his funeral and felt that I was part of a great historic moment. I have often quoted some of his witty sayings, even though many now seem to be apocryphal. I was thrilled to visit the Churchill War Rooms and see the actual place where so many consequential policies were formulated.
I have just read Geoffrey Wheatcroft’s critical and revisionist biography, Churchill’s Shadow, which adds a lot of negative facts to the ledger assessing Churchill’s legacy. Wheatcroft savages Churchill’s reputation by quoting from letters and diaries by contemporaries, who point out his flaws — inconsistency, hypocrisy, frequent inebriation, social isolation, and so forth. He also repeats many statements which Churchill later disavowed or pretended he never said. [And he quotes Churchill as saying of war cabinet meetings, “All I wanted was compliance with my wishes after a reasonable period of discussion.”]
There has been too much hagiography about Churchill. It’s time for a fuller picture of his human qualities, including his failings, as well as his political accomplishments, including their blemishes. Like most successful politicians, he was vain, ambitious, and self-centered, better at tactical adjustments than consistency or strategy. He was a loving though patriarchal husband, but a poor parent. He drank too much and stayed in power too long.
And he was a racist, demeaning all but white, Protestant, English-speaking people much of the time. Sadly, so were many if not most of his Victorian era contemporaries. Nevertheless, I am not ready to pull his statues down or shatter the busts simply because of those abhorrent views. His political accomplishments were world-historical and worthy of honor despite their flaws.
The most useful correctives I found in Wheatcroft’s books were on lesser points.
– He was a defender of the Empire to the bitter end.
– His own history books were group-written and fabricated to enhance his roles.
– He had some surprising and consistent policy views, including support for a national health service and other social programs and support for Zionism.
– He exaggerated his friendship with FDR and his areas of agreements with the Americans.
– Many of his wartime strategy proposals were profoundly unwise [Gallipoli, Norway, Greece, Singapore].
– He strongly favored terror bombing in World War II, despite earlier and later misgivings.
And yet…in 1940 especially he rallied a defeated force and a demoralized nation — and onlookers in America — to fight back and join together in common cause. He did that, and it’s unlikely anyone else could have.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to 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, November 19
I’m traveling so missed some Stevenson’s army, but here it is for today:
– After a record-breaking speech by leader McCarthy, the House is expected to vote on the domestic programs bill. Meanwhile, the Senate can’t get a UC on NDAA because various Senators want their amendments to be included.
– Promised Hill staff pay raises haven’t come.
– NYT says Iranian missile attack on US forces was in retaliation for Israeli airstrikes.
– FP says US has put more troops in Taiwan.
– Axios says US is ignoring religious liberty report’s criticism of India.
– A Saudi intelligence official has written a memoir.
-And David Brooks sees a pattern in young conservative thinking.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to 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:
Siyasa Podcast: Episode 1: US-Iran negotiations and the region — with Vali Nasr
The first episode of podcast Siyasa, which discusses Middle East policy and politics.
Episode 1: Are both sides interested in reaching a new deal? What are the main obstacles? What do the Saudi-Iranian negotiations in Baghdad mean for the region? The podcast’s host Ibrahim Al-Assil discusses these and other questions with professor Vali Nasr.
You can also listen to the podcast on:
Spotify
Google Podcast
The podcast will be available on Apple podcast within a few days.
RSS - Posts
