The View from Right Field

“Russia Might Decide Aggression Is Worth Risking”

Gideon Rachman wrote in Tuesday’s Financial Times about the future of the EU as a superpower, “a geopolitical force.”¹  He concluded: “The EU used to be called a peace project.  In the modern world, it is more of a power project – and rightly so.”  However, in arguing for the EU as a superpower, I thought Mr. Rachman understated the risk of Russia, as I wrote in this letter to the editor that was published in today’s Financial Times²:

“In his argument for the EU as a superpower (‘Europe rightly aspires to be a power project,’ October 8), Gideon Rachman admits that it ‘lacks the military muscle to back up its geopolitical ambitions’.  However, he says that, ‘even if the US pulled all its troops out of Europe, which is unlikely, it would still be a huge gamble for Russia (or anyone else) to risk military aggression against a collective with the size and wealth of the EU’.

How Do You Know an Attack Is an Attack – And How to Respond to It?

Last weekend, oil facilities in Saudi Arabia were attacked by missiles and drones in what was, in effect, an act of war.  Houthi forces in Yemen claimed responsibility for the attack, but they were not widely believed.  More likely suspects include Iran (or groups within Iran, if not the Iranian government itself) or Iranian-backed groups in Iraq.  The point of this post, however, is not that Saudi Arabia was attacked last weekend, but that a week later, people can’t agree as to who did it.  And even if a likely attacker is identified, they’ll just say they didn’t do it, and at least some people will believe them.  Or at least they will say we don’t know for sure, and we need to wait for further investigations before we do anything. 

I realize some people will say that Saudi Arabia is in the Middle East: How can we tell who is attacking whom in that part of the world?  Plus, they are all dictators or religious fanatics (or both), so who cares.

Does Anybody in Washington Care About Ukraine?

The answer, of course, is no.  Fortunately, at least some other people do, as can be seen by French President Emmanuel Macron’s meeting on Monday with Russian President Vladimir Putin.¹  When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, annexed Crimea, and supported (including with Russian troops) a separatist revolt in eastern Ukraine, Barack Obama pretty much did nothing.  As I mentioned in my post on Monday, President Obama threatened tough sanctions but wound up, (in the words of The Economist), imposing “underwhelming ones”.  He refused to sell defensive, anti-tank weapons to Ukraine on the theory, I guess, that you can stop fighting by not giving victims the means to defend themselves.  He said, as I also mentioned Monday, “Do people actually think that somehow us sending some additional arms into Ukraine could potentially deter the Russian Army?”  (Answer: Yes.) 

Ultimately, it was German Chancellor Angela Merkel who led the effort, along with France, to try to negotiate an end to the war with Russia.²  Chancellor Merkel’s efforts led to the Minsk II agreements, but implementation of them has been limited, to say the least.  President Obama left the White House without having done anything substantive.

Russia and China: Dangers and Opportunities. But Is Anybody Paying Attention?

Protests in Hong Kong have extended into their tenth week, with the airport in Hong Kong being shut down over the weekend.  Meanwhile in Moscow, and elsewhere in Russia, there are growing protests with respect to upcoming local elections and efforts by the Vladimir Putin regime to prevent opposition candidates from running in those elections. 

The protests in Russia have been met by force and large numbers of arrests.  Beijing has yet to intervene in the Hong Kong protests, but one wonders how long that restraint will last.  In both Russia and the People’s Republic of China, government-controlled media have limited dissemination about the protests, but I am sure some information is seeping around and through Putin’s barriers and the Great Fire Wall.

Foreign Policy in 2020: We Need a President Who Has Thought These Things Through.

While the world looks at the possibility/risk of war between the United States and Iran (understandably), let me suggest that I hope we have people thinking about Russia, China, and our future relations with them.  I doubt very much that President Trump is doing this or that he has asked anybody to do this.  However, perhaps people such as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and/or National Security Adviser John Bolton are having it done at the staff level.

As for the Democratic candidates for President, maybe some of them are thinking about this, though it seems most of them are focusing on how to stand out among the twenty-some candidates running.  And in-depth foreign policy analysis isn’t the kind of issue that is going to separate you from the crowd.  (I don’t know how you tie foreign policy to “free” stuff, which seems to be what many of the Democrats are talking about.)  Still, hopefully some of them are actually thinking about this some – because it is important. 

Jamal Khashoggi: What’s Worse? Foreign Policy Edition.

What’s worse (it’s easy until you think about it):

(i)  Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi journalist, has been living in self-imposed exile for the last year, while writing articles critical of the Saudi government for, among others, The Washington Post.   On October 2, he enters the Saudi consulate in Istanbul and is killed at some point thereafter, while in the embassy, by people connected with the Saudi government.

(ii)  Between October 2015 and December 2015, five employees of Causeway Bay Books, a bookseller in Hong Kong, disappear.  At least two of them disappear while in the People’s Republic of China, one while he is in Thailand, and another in Hong Kong itself.  All five are later confirmed to be in the PRC in connection with an alleged investigation of an old traffic incident involving one of them.  Causeway Bay Books sold political books, banned in China, that were critical of the Chinese government.

The Policies of Donald Trump and the Trump Administration

A commentary in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal bring up a fascinating point: The difference in ideas and policy between Donald Trump and the Trump administration.  In this case, Ukraine.  While President Trump doesn’t seem to care about Ukraine, and has told aides he doesn’t want to get involved in the question of Russia’s support of Ukrainian rebels occupying part of eastern Ukraine,¹ the Trump administration has actually been very supportive of Ukraine.

According to Judith Miller in the Journal:

“Ukrainians say Mr. Trump’s policies are surprisingly supportive of Kiev and hostile toward Moscow. In some ways they believe Mr. Trump has been much better than his predecessor.

Another August 8 Anniversary: Georgia, 2008

I am referring, of course, to the Georgia of Tbilisi, not Atlanta.  Ten years ago today, during the Olympics in Beijing, Russia invaded Georgia.  Robert Kagan recalls what happened: 

“Vladimir Putin struck one of the first major blows [against the liberal world order] when he sent Russian forces into South Ossetia in neighboring Georgia in support of Russian-backed separatists.  The Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili, fearing a full-blown invasion, ordered his troops to attack [i.e., attack the Russians who were in Georgia], thus springing Putin’s trap.  Using the Georgian attack as a pretext, Putin launched that full-blown invasion, with tens of thousands of troops, fighter aircraft and elements of the Black Sea Fleet all pre-positioned and ready to move the instant Saakashvili acted.”

The West pretty much ignored the Russian attack.  Even though Georgia had contributed more troops to the war in Iraq than any other non-NATO country, George W. Bush refused to provide military equipment.  We only provided humanitarian aid (like the Obama administration did in Ukraine).

When Trump Meets Putin: Will He Agree NATO Should Not Have Expanded East?

It looks like Donald Trump may be meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Vienna before the NATO meeting in mid-July.  If they meet, I am sure President Putin will raise his complaint about Eastern European countries joining NATO.  Given that President Trump agreed with Kim Jong Un of North Korea that U.S.-South Korea military maneuvers constituted “war games” and were “very provocative,” the very terms that North Korea uses in its propaganda to criticize the maneuvers, it is entirely possible President Trump will agree with President Putin.  The fact President Trump thinks NATO members are ripping off the United States perhaps makes it even more likely he will agree with President Putin.

However, if President Trump does agree with Russia on this, then he will be wrong, very wrong.  The historical record is unclear as to what the United States and USSR agreed with respect to NATO expansion when Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to German unification and the right of a united Germany to stay in NATO.  While the official documents didn’t contain any promises about NATO expansion, it is possible the Soviets understood NATO wouldn’t expand as it did.  But regardless of what the Soviets, now Russians, understood back then, there is nothing wrong with the NATO expansion that occurred. 

The Return of One-Man Rule: Increasing Risk in China

In my prior post, I talked about the tendency in foreign affairs to assume that things will continue as they have been.  I looked at Russia and the risks that may come from Russia as it declines.

The country, however, that could be an even greater risk is one that seems the very opposite of instability right now: China.  While The Economist saw Russia as a declining power, it said “China is clearly a rising one that has time on its side”.  Such a view fits with President Xi’s reelection last year and his changes to both the Chinese constitution and the party/governmental structure this year.  It certainly seems that President Xi is in control and that China has the time – and stability – to play the long game.  Once again, I wonder,