Tuesday, April 11, 2023

America’s Ukraine Policy after President Biden’s Visit to Kyiv



US President Joseph Biden made a long-awaited visit to Kyiv on February 20 in order to show that the United States would be firmly committed to help Ukraine from Russian invasion. In his subsequent visit to Warsaw, he re-emphasized that Russia would never win in Ukraine, and its neo-czarism was destined to fail (“Biden in Warsaw: ‘Ukraine will never be a victory for Russia’”; Hill; February 21, 2023). Though the Biden administration sent Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin to Kyiv before, and Biden himself met Ukrainian President Volodymir Zelensky in Washington, they were so cautious as not to provoke Russia to resort to nuclear warfare. Also, antiwar voices driven by MAGA Republicans and the woke left, frequently under the influence of the conspiracy theory, were hurdles to American commitment to Ukraine.

Despite such foreign policy constraints by extremist isolationist populists the right and the left, it is essential to know how American experts, who understands American role on the world, see the prospect of the ongoing war after Biden’s visit. Quite noticeably, some of those who are skeptical to help Ukraine refer to ex-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Professor John Mearsheimer of Chicago University frequently, to disguise themselves as consummate realists, thereby propagandizing their views that the United States is reluctant to get involved in this war and allied nations be careful enough not to be drawn into the war caused by a handful of warmongers among the Washington establishment. But, no matter how great their reputation is, neither Kissinger nor Mearsheimer represents the whole Americans. Self-styled realists, MAGA Republicans, and the woke left do not either. I do not know the background of each one of those disengagement advocates, but some of them behave as if they synchronized with specific ideological groups in America, whether right or left. In any case, it is wrong to believe that the majority of the public and policymakers in the United States are against helping Ukraine. I would like to mention viewpoints of American foreign policy opinion leaders to deny such disinformation, without partisan bias.

Regarding diplomatic implication of Biden’s visit, Professor Eliot Cohen at the Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University, comments that Biden came to Ukraine at the critical moment when China was rumored to send weapons to Russia, and Russia was launching massive offense in Donbas to retake occupied lands to commemorate the anniversary of the “Special Military Operation” (“Biden Just Destroyed Putin’s Last Hope”; Atlantic Daily; February 21, 2023). Russian President Vladimir Putin counted on reluctance and political divide on the Western side to help Ukraine, but Anne Applebaum of the Atlantic mentions that his poorly-grounded hope was shattered when Biden finally visited Kyiv to meet Zelensky (“Biden Went to Kyiv Because There’s No Going Back”; Atlantic Daily; February 21. 2023 or here). This is the precedence for Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s visit there as the last leader of G7 nations, which posed restraints to Putin’s diplomatic demonstration of strong Sino-Russian solidarity through hosting Chinese President Xi Jinping to the Moscow meeting (“Japanese and Chinese leaders visit opposing capitals in Ukraine war”; BBC News; March 22, 2023).

Also, we have to understand its domestic implication against “TrumPutin”. As commented by David Rothkopf of the Daily Beast, people around the world reconfirmed the Helsinki US-Russian summit in 2018 that President-then Donald Trump favored Putin’s Russia over American and allied national security organizations, and was willing to abandon Ukraine (“Biden’s Trip to Kyiv is the Ultimate Humiliation for Putin—and Trump”; Daily Beast; February 20, 2023). Why? That is because he detests "the world America made", and takes a hostile view of the “neocon globalist establishment” in the Department of State, the department of Defense, and intelligence agencies. Furthermore, he blames them warmongers who plot World War III of nuclear powers. That real estate agent has no understanding of Russian infringement of rule-based world order and territorial integrity. Ex-Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger raised a critical concern with Trump’s malicious attack on American national security agencies and outrageous praise for Putin. Actually, Kinzinger did not run in the last midterm election, because his party was taken over by rightwing extremists. We have to watch carefully, how Biden and his centrist fellows beyond partisanship strike back those ideocratic isolationists.



Those isolationists and disguised realists need to understand why a lukewarm compromise with Putin’s Russia is more dangerous than Ukraine’s unyielding resistance to squeeze out invaders. When Putin’s invasion had become increasingly imminent, Robert Kagan, who was a foreign policy advisor for the presidential election campaign of John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton, commented that his assault on Ukraine would be just the beginning of his ambition to reestablish historical Russian sphere of influence in Eastern and Central Europe, when Baltic states and Poland were nonexistent, and Warsaw Pact nations were virtually ruled by the Soviet Union (“What we can expect after Putin’s conquest of Ukraine”; Washington Post; February 21, 2022). Therefore, we understand that an immediate ceasefire while Russo-Ukrainian territorial issues unresolved would just destabilize the whole of the region, and it is by no means any step toward peace. Rather, China would be prompted to impose critical pressure on Taiwan and other East Asian nations. In view of this, Former Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul of the Obama era, tells explicitly that a half-way peace is an illusion, because Putin is firmly determined to conquer Ukraine by all means, and believes that Russian endurance will prevail over Western guile and technology, as he sees Americans and Europeans are unenthusiastic and divided. It seems to me that his success in the election interference for Brexit and Trump seems to have emboldened him excessively. Therefore, McFaul argues incremental military support to Ukraine does not work, and also, sanctions on Russia should be as coercive as possible (“How to Get a Breakthrough in Ukraine”; Foreign Affairs; January 30, 2023).

Since it is almost impossible to settle a peace agreement through diplomatic talks, we have to explore how should the United States crack down Putin’s bigoted ambition from military perspectives. Regarding the strength and capability of the Russian armed forces, ex-US Army General David Petraeus commented that their exercise prior to the invasion was irrelevant to supposed operation in Ukraine, and they were poorly trained to implement inter-service coordination within their own forces (“What We’ve Learned from the War in Ukraine”; Foreign Policy; January 10, 2023). That implies the failure of Putin’s nation building for decades implicitly, and the Western alliance should consider how to help Ukraine defeat such a dull and inept Goliath Russia. Currently, Ukraine is on the second stage to retake in the east and the south. Though anti-interventionists are skeptical of further military aid to this country, in an interview with CNN, Petraeus evaluates highly of their morale and competence to restore their territory in this war, because Ukrainian soldiers understand the objectives of this war clearly, while it is questionable whether Russian soldiers understand that as they are disproportionately recruited from ethno-sectarian minorities of Dagestan, Buryatia, and Krasnodar. Also, he says that Ukraine has made substantial achievements in recruiting, training, equipping, organizing and employing additional forces, with the support of the US-led Western alliance.

From his comment, we can infer the following points. The opinion poll may show high approval for Putin’s illegitimate invasion, but that is quite unreliable, because most of the Russky do not mind the plight of those ethno-sectarian minorities as long as they manage to live normal life every day. The Russky are not determined to sacrifice their life for their mother land. In addition, the governance in Ukraine can be improved after the war potentially, in view of rapid organizational restructuring of its military in parallel with Western support. Consequently, Petraeus supports Biden’s determination, though he comments that the president should have sent next stage weapons such as tanks and fighter jets much earlier (“Gen. David Petraeus: How the war in Ukraine will end”; CNN; February 14, 2023). It was Britain that provoked Germany and other NATO allies to make up their mind to send tanks to Ukraine. Also, the Sunak administration is the first among trans-Atlantic stakeholders to train Ukrainian pilots for NATO standard fighter jet. Meanwhile, America vacillated whether to boost military aid before Biden’s visit to Kyiv. Remember, General Petraeus defeated terrorists in Iraq through the surge. His viewpoints as a military strategist are combat-proven, which is not the case with Mearsheimer.

Even from MAGA Republicans’ favorite FOX News, ex-Army General Jack Keane argues against isolationism. He is completely at odds with rightwing populist anchorman Tucker Carlson at this TV station. Keane helped Petraeus plan the 2007 surge in Iraq along with Frederick Kagan of the Institute for the Study of War. Regarding the ongoing war in Ukraine, he agrees with Petraeus, mostly. Furthermore, he argues against isolationist obsession with nation building at home. Fiscal conservatives do not tolerate massive but necessary spending for Ukraine, but Keane tells them that a Russian victory in this war would embolden China and Iran. Also, he refutes xenophobic right-wingers who believe that America should care more about the US-Mexican border, rather than the Russo-Ukrainian border. That is because both issues are completely irrelevant each other, and the border control problem at home cannot be resolved through an abandonment of Ukraine (“What would a win in Ukraine look like? Retired Gen. Jack Keane explains.”; Washington Post; March 6, 2023). Like Petraeus, Keane is also a combat-proven military strategist.

As the United States and NATO allies are providing further military aid, there are some issues to be considered in the phase of Ukrainian counteroffensive. The most critical one is whether Putin would resort to nuclear attack on Ukraine, if he saw the war disadvantageous for Russia. Joseph Cirincione, President of the Ploughshares Fund, points out that the Biden administration has taken effective measures. They told directly to Russia that a use of nuclear weapon would bring fatal consequences, because the Western alliance would resort to further measures on Russia through various economic, diplomatic, cyber, and conventional military responses. Also, China and India would not tolerate a nuclear attack, despite their long friendship with Russia (“Why Hasn’t Putin Used Nuclear Weapons?”; Daily Beast; February 9, 2023). Regarding such sensitive Sino-Russian relations, ex-Ambassador McFaul questions Putin’s deployment of nuclear weapons in Belarus, because it contradicts with the joint statement of the Moscow meeting between China and Russia, which denies the use of nuclear weapons in this war. Putin may have broken international promises frequently. Therefore, McFaul argues that the United States drive a wedge between both countries (“Are Putin and Xi as Close as Everyone Assumes?”; McFaul’s World; March 28, 2023). Meanwhile, China exploits Russia’s preoccupation with Ukraine, as President Xi Jinping demanded Russia to rename Russian Far East geographical names into Chinese ones, such as Vladivostok into Haishenwai, for example (“Russia will never recover from this devastating collapse”; Daily Telegraph; 1 April, 2023 or here, and “China Challenges Russia by Restoring Chinese Names of Cities on Their Border”; Kyiv Post; February 26, 2023).

Another issue is strategic value of Crimea. Ex-Commanding General of the US Army Europe and Africa Ben Hodges (Lieutenant General) talks about this repeatedly. Come to think of it, this war has not begun in February 2022, but March 2014. Hodges says that Russia could obstruct Ukrainian export of food from Odesa and Mariupol as long as it occupied Crimea, even if the whole of Donbas were liberated. Also, massive missile launch from there would continue to be a critical threat for Ukraine (“Russia’s Nuclear Weapons More Effective as Propaganda, Retired US Lieutenant General Says”; VOA News; February 1, 2023). Hodges is also a veteran of America’s most recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and his opinion is combat-proven as well. Quite interestingly, Hodges refers to an article by Professor Rory Finnin of Cambridge University on Twitter, which articulates historical legitimacy of Ukrainian sovereignty in Crimea and other Russian occupied areas in the east and the south.



According to Finnin, Crimea has been persistently plagued with ethnic cleansing, violence, and so forth throughout the Romanov Russian and the Soviet rule in history. Therefore, the majority of the residents preferred to stay in Ukraine before the 2014 invasion. Finnin reviews history since the Crimean Tatar Khanate, which dominated Crimea and neighboring steppeland along the coast of the Black Sea and Azov Sea, before the conquest by Catherine II. In the 19th century, Alexander II Russified this peninsular by sending immigrants from the mainland. After repressive Stalin rule, Prime Minister-then Nikita Khrushchev decided to transfer impoverished Crimea from Russia to Ukraine in 1954 (“Why Crimea Is the Key to Peace in Ukraine”; Politico; January 13, 2023). From such backgrounds, if Ukraine retakes Crimea from Russia, historical and cultural implication of it will be insignificant.

Nevertheless, we still need to be cautious of MAGA Republicans, no matter how they are bigoted and poorly aware of international affairs. William Kristol, Director of Defending Democracy Together, mentions repeatedly that the Republican Party today has become too Trumpified, and increasingly America First. Typically, he criticizes a recent article of National Review Online defends cold-blooded and fake realism Florida Governor Ron DeSantis that the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine is just a territorial dispute and irrelevant to American national interest (“What Ron DeSantis Got Right in His Ukraine Statement”; National Review Online; March 18, 2023).






Deplorably, DeSantis does not even strike back constant verbal abuses by Trump. It seems that the Florida Governor is afraid of the risk to challenge the former president who has become the standard bearer among MAGA Republicans (“Why Does DeSantis Keep Letting Trump Take Shots at Him?”; Bulwark; March 29,2023) (“Trump widens lead over DeSantis in 2024 GOP presidential nomination showdown: poll”; FOX News; March 22, 2023). Rather than winning the presidential election by himself, DeSantis may think of solidifying his position in the party through assisting Trump as Chris Christie did in the 2016 election. Moreover, MAGA Republicans are so infuriated with recent indictment of Trump by the Manhattan District Attorney of New York County that they deny due process of law in this procedure through agitating the fear of “liberal establishment” (The unhinged GOP defense of Trump is the real ‘test’ for our democracy; Washington Post; March 31, 2023). Such conspiracy theory can easily lead to Lindbergh isolationism, and we must be vigilant how much will those MAGA Republicans obstruct serious foreign policy effort to help Ukraine, in view of the 2024 presidential election.

Those who are skeptical of Western support for Ukraine, including fake realists who actually synchronize with the far right and the far left in the United States, seem to worship Mearsheimer so much. But America is the land of the free, and opinions there are diversified. The keypoint to understand America’s Ukraine policy is to review such diversified opinions beyond partisanship, but focus on highly professional ones. There is no partisan bias in my choice of pundits. Robert Kagan was a foreign policy advisor for presidential candidates of both parties. Michael McFaul was the Ambassador to Russia in the Obama era, and is currently a Senior Fellow at conservative Hoover Institution, Stanford University. Also, pay more attention to combat-proven opinions and analyses. Among some of such ex-generals whom I mentioned, David Petraeus has made unrivalled achievements in the battle field. He is also a renowned scholar of military strategy who received a Ph.D. degree from Princeton University. He is due to publish "Conflict: The Evolution of Warfare from 1945 to Ukraine" this October, which is coauthored with British historian Andrew Roberts.　More importantly, ex-General is completely unbiased against the Biden administration.

John Mearsheimer may be a big name, but I would rather say that a careful observer of American foreign policy should "stop admiring him" for his academic fame. We must think again how much his opinions and analyses represent those among policymakers and the public in America. Most importantly, I wonder why so many experts and people in the media do not take combat-proven viewpoints more seriously to foresee American strategy in Ukraine. This is a war, and there is no prospect of immediate diplomatic negotiation for ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine, or Russia and the West.
Posted by at No comments:
Categories ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)