The meeting of NATO defence ministers and Munich Security Conference has left unanswered the question over whether the Biden administration will bring remaining U.S. troops home from Afghanistan by May 1, in accordance with the U.S.-Taliban agreement. The ambiguity of European and U.S. statements following the meeting may be intended to pressure the Taliban and Afghan government back to the negotiating table. But indecision this close to the deadline risks throwing away a one-time opportunity to leave Afghanistan.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s remarks at the NATO meeting assured partners that the “U.S. remains committed to a diplomatic effort to end the war,” but also that the United States will not take a “hasty or disorderly withdrawal” from Afghanistan after nearly twenty years. As a result, the Biden administration is pushing itself into a corner in which it will likely forfeit a one-time opportunity to leave by May without having to broker a new understanding with the Taliban, a path which would be fraught with risk and uncertainty.
The consequences of unilaterally ignoring the May withdrawal deadline will be the dissolution of the U.S.-Taliban agreement, placing U.S. soldiers back in the crosshairs of the Taliban, and an end to intra-Afghan negotiations. A peace agreement between the Taliban and the Afghan government may be unlikely if the United States leaves, but it is dead on arrival if Washington chooses to ignore the deadline altogether.
An endless U.S. war effort will be left as the only remaining option. The passing of the withdrawal deadline will coincide with the beginning of the Taliban’s fighting season and violence will surge even more. This will lead to calls in Washington to cease diplomatic outreach with the Taliban and increase troop levels. If President Biden resists these calls and instead seeks to leave Afghanistan, then any date he chooses will be labeled as “arbitrary” since the May deadline will have passed. This will most likely lead to a doubling down of the counterinsurgency effort of the last twenty years.
NATO partners may also pressure Biden to remain in Afghanistan. The NATO mission in Afghanistan known as Resolute Support was intended as a training mission and that largely remains the case for countries like Germany and Italy. But the majority of combat missions are U.S.-led and the Pentagon provides twice as many troops as the next largest NATO contributor which is Germany. The United Stateshas accounted for 67 percent of all coalition deaths throughout the war in Afghanistan with the U.K. and Canada accounting for the majority of the rest.
The NATO mission in Afghanistan remains a U.S.-led war and it is therefore reasonable for President Biden to pursue an exit that advances U.S. interests. Still, it is crucial that Washington provide partners who have supported Washington in Afghanistan adequate time to withdraw their own remaining troops. This is why the Biden administration should make it clear to NATO sooner rather than later that it is leaving Afghanistan.
Policy reviews are important but the world does not stop spinning as they occur nor do the opportunity costs. Regional diplomacy to push the Taliban toward a ceasefire and Kabul toward an interim government appears to be underway. The Biden administration should participate in such initiatives. But it should not use U.S. troops as a source of coercive leverage in diplomatic efforts because ultimately that runs counter to the goals of diplomacy. Now is the time to bring U.S. troops home before it is too late.
Thanks to our readers and supporters, Responsible Statecraft has had a tremendous year. A complete website overhaul made possible in part by generous contributions to RS, along with amazing writing by staff and outside contributors, has helped to increase our monthly page views by 133%! In continuing to provide independent and sharp analysis on the major conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, as well as the tumult of Washington politics, RS has become a go-to for readers looking for alternatives and change in the foreign policy conversation.
Adam Weinstein is Deputy Director of the Middle East program at the Quincy Institute, whose current research focuses on security and rule of law in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.
Then-Vice President Joe Biden during a tour of the largest military training facility in Afghanistan in 2011. (Photo by Chief Petty Officer Brian Brannon/public domain)|Afghan national army Chief of Staff Gen. Sher Mohammad Karimi meets Vice President Joe Biden during a tour of the largest military training facility in Afghanistan in 2011. (
Top photo credit : Rep. Mike Waltz (Phil Pasquini/Shutterstock); Sebastian /Gorka (shutterstock/consolidated news photos) and Alex Wong (Arrange News/Screenshot/You Tube)
On the campaign trail, Donald Trump promised a very different foreign policy from business as usual in Washington.
He said he would prioritize peace over “victory” in the escalating war in Ukraine, pull the United States back from foreign entanglements to focus on domestic problems, and generally oversee a period of prolonged peace, instead of the cycle of endless Great Power conflict we seem trapped in.
Yet if personnel is policy, as the saying goes, then Trump’s presidency will be far more in line with his Democratic predecessor’s foreign policy than with the vision he laid out over the past year. So far, his National Security Council picks have been a series of hawks with a history of opposing diplomacy and the end of U.S. wars, as well as favoring a more aggressive posture toward China, including intervening in a possible war over Taiwan.
Take Trump’s pick for national security adviser, Rep. Michael Waltz (R-Fla.). Since his selection, Waltz certainly talks in line with the more restraint-oriented vision Trump campaigned on, fretting about the Biden administration’s recent escalation in Ukraine and calling for a “responsible end” to the war there.
But until relatively recently, the Florida congressman viewed the war in very similar terms to those of his hawkish colleagues on the other side of the aisle, reacting to the Russian invasion by warning it “violates the very fabric of international norms” and threatens “our Western values,” lamenting that Biden had not been more confrontational with Russia beforehand, and calling for the United States to “support Ukrainian resistance efforts” and turn the country “into a bloody quagmire” for Russia.
Over the months that followed, Waltz backed escalating the war (“Send the damn MiGs,” he tweeted in March 2022), complained that U.S. policy on the war was a “fiddle fart” that provided just enough arms “instead of going for the kill, instead of going for the win right now,” and charged that Biden was “letting fear of escalation be the primary driver of our policy in Ukraine.”
Waltz has shifted since, but largely because he sees a U.S.-China confrontation as a bigger priority. Waltz views China as “the most threatening adversary America has ever faced,” believes that Washington is already locked in a “Cold War” with Beijing and must “curb” its power, step up military aid to Taiwan, and end the policy of “strategic ambiguity” over the island nation, which has been at the core of decades of successful U.S. policy balancing deterrence without tipping into disastrous war.
He has also disparaged diplomacy with the Chinese government, and thinks U.S. forces should have stayed in Afghanistan to hang on to Bagram Airfield for possible use as a “second front” in a future U.S.-China war.
The rest of Trump’s national security team holds similar views. Sebastian Gorka, nominated for deputy assistant to the president, sees the Ukraine war in literallyindistinguishableterms from hawks in the outgoing Biden administration: it is “unprovoked Russian aggression” that is not about NATO expansion but rather enlarging Russian territory; negotiations, peace, or an off-ramp are as futile as Neville Chamberlain’s deal with Hitler was; and the United States must continue military aid “to make the Russians bleed,” or Vladimir Putin will “take Poland and the Baltic states.”
Gorka is also a hawk on China, which he calls “the greatest threat to America.”
“We know the regime there wishes to have every nation in the world a defeated, vanquished nation, or a satrapy, a tributary nation,” Gorka said this past October, while giving a fawning interview to Gordon Chang, a discredited “China expert” who has repeatedlypredicted the imminent collapse of the Chinese state.
In his 2018 book, Gorka called China’s undoubted goal of becoming a world power, and partly doing so through economic investment in the Global South, a form of “irregular warfare” (even as he admits it is little different from the actions “of the West a couple of centuries ago”). He has repeatedlysuggested that China was about to invade Taiwan, including after its wayward spy balloon, gave former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy “kudos” for taking the inflammatory step of traveling to the island, and implied that U.S. lives should be expended to defend it.
Alex Wong, Trump’s pick for deputy national security adviser, agrees. Wong believes that Americans “have to be prepared for a level of tension, regional destabilization, and — yes — possible conflict [with China] that we have not seen since the end of World War II.” Wong noted he deliberately used that destructive, hot conflict as a reference point and not the Cold War.
A former foreign policy adviser for the super-hawkish Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and the merely hawkish 2012 Mitt Romney presidential campaign, Wong served most recently as vice chair of a congressional commission that recommended training Taiwanese troops on U.S. soil — a highly provocative move to China’s leadership.
Because China is, unlike the former Soviet Union, highly integrated into the “system of the free world,” Wong has said, the U.S.-China conflict requires not just “out-competing them but extruding” — meaning, pushing out — “China from certain systems, whether economically, technologically, politically.” What that means for Wong is not just continuing the Biden administration’s economic warfare with the country, but also “an increased U.S. military presence” in the Indo-Pacific and to “seriously look at new investments in strategic nuclear forces, intermediate-range missiles, our naval fleet, and certain capabilities tuned to turning back an invasion of Taiwan,” as well as “expand[ing] the aperture of our military alliances” in the region, specifically with Japan and under AUKUS.
Wong does seem to favor extricating the United States from Ukraine, but, like Waltz, it’s because he views “Ukraine as an unfortunate diversion of U.S. attention from the Indo-Pacific” and wants to “responsibly shift U.S. military resources eastward” — in a way that, to take his words literally, will ramp up conflict with China and see the U.S. go directly to war in the case of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
None of these appointments bode well for advocates of U.S. foreign policy restraint, let alone for those who voted for Trump hoping he would prioritize domestic problems over endless foreign wars. At best, Trump’s picks will seek to simply replace one dangerous, nuclear-tinged Great Power conflict with another. At worst, they will not do the former, and embroil the United States into two of the latter.
keep readingShow less
top photo credit: Men hold a Syrian opposition flag on the top of a vehicle as people celebrate after Syrian rebels announced that they have ousted President Bashar al-Assad, in Damascus, Syria December 8, 2024. REUTERS/Firas Makdesi
Embattled Syrian President Bashar al Assad, who had survived attempts to overthrow his government throughout a civil war that began in 2011, has reportedly been forced out and slipped away on a plane to parts unknown (later reports have said he is in Moscow).
Washington says it raced (in the words of the Washington Post) to help secure the country by engaging in airstrikes against ISIS weapons stockpiles and operatives Sunday night, and that it "strongly supports" a "peaceful transition" via an "inclusive Syrian-led process." According to Secretary of State Antony Blinken:
"After 14 years of conflict, the Syrian people finally have reason for hope. The Assad regime’s refusal since 2011 to engage in a credible political process and its reliance on the brutal support of Russia and Iran led inevitably to its own collapse," he said Sunday, adding that the U.S. will support international actions to hold Assad's regime accountable for its abuses and atrocities against its own people.
As for the rebels who have overthrown the government, "We have taken note of statements made by rebel leaders in recent days, but as they take on greater responsibility, we will assess not just their words, but their actions."
Enter Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) who had led the shocking and successful attack on Aleppo, Hama, Homs, and other strategic towns and cities in the northwestern region of the country this week. HTS is a Sunni Islamist group once linked to al-Qaida and the Al-Nusra Front and is still considered a terrorist group by the U.S. government (there is still a U.S. bounty on him), though for days, the mainstream media has been reporting that the group has rebranded itself as more moderate.
Photos Sunday morning showed cheering amid Sunni populations that had been opposed to Assad's rule and the victims of his brutal crackdowns over the decade, though the fighting had remained in a largely frozen state over the last few years until this week's uprising.
According to Al Jazeera, "opposition fighters" released their own statement on TV Sunday:
“The city of Damascus has been liberated. The tyrant Bashar al-Assad has been toppled. All the prisoners have been released from the prison of Damascus,” a leader of the group said.
“We wish all our fighters and citizens preserve and maintain the property of the state of Syria. Long live Syria,” he added.
It is not clear, however, how the news is being taken by the Alawite and Christian populations, Assad's support base, in Damascus, and how the new dynamics will affect the Kurdish advances (supported by the U.S.) in the northeast, the Turkish moves against both Assad and the Kurds, and Israel's interests in maintaining its control over the disputed Golan Heights (though there have been reports of Tel Aviv bombing Assad military assets in Damascus this morning and taking over the Golan Heights UN buffer zone ). Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly called the overthrow of Assad an "historic day."
Russia, too, has been involved in the war all along, and was providing airstrikes on behalf of Assad in recent days.
Egyptian officials out of the gate seemed to warn of factionalism and historically have no love lost for Islamist uprisings. In a statement they urged “comprehensive political process” to establish peace and support for Syria’s “sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity."
Turkey for its part, according to Al Jazeera, has said it is ready to help “guarantee security” in Syria, whatever that may mean. Iran, which has been a military supporter of Assad's regime, is urging against interference in Syria’s internal affairs. “Achieving this requires ending military conflicts as soon as possible, preventing terrorist acts, and starting national talks with the participation of all segments of Syrian society to form an inclusive government that represents all Syrian people,” the foreign ministry said in a statement.
Weighing in later Sunday, President Biden hailed the demise Assad. “It’s a moment of historic opportunity for the long-suffering people of Syria to build a better future for their proud country,” Biden said from the Roosevelt Room Sunday. “It’s also a moment of risk and uncertainty. As we all turn to the question of what comes next, the United States will work with our partners and the stakeholders in Syria to help them seize an opportunity to manage the risk.”
As of Sunday night, according to U.S. Central Command, the U.S. has engaged in no less than 75 airstrikes against ISIS targets to secure the northeastern part of the country. The U.S. military used using Air Force assets including B-52 bombers, F-15 fighter jets and A-10 aircraft, according officials.
“There should be no doubt — we will not allow ISIS to reconstitute and take advantage of the current situation in Syria. All organizations in Syria should know that we will hold them accountable if they partner with or support ISIS in any way,” Gen. Erik Kurilla, commander of CENTCOM, said in a statement. The U.S. currently has 900 troops in the country.
Meanwhile, Vice President-elect J.D. Vance posted on X a warning about celebrating when there are Christian minorities in Damascus at risk. "As President Trump said, this is not our fight and we should stay out of it."
(Ret.) Col Doug Macgregor warns that with all of the external interests, the fate of Syria is likely factionalism, if not a partitioning. "In the near term, Israel and Turkey divide Syria to their liking, while Moscow and Tehran prepare for talks in Doha and Tehran prepares for all out war with Israel and the United States," he tells RS. "In the long-run, the volatile mix of Kurds, Turks, Israelis and Islamist Arabs will make the partition of Syria tenuous."
For his part, Trump said on Truth Social Russia had "no reason to be there in the first place" turned the situation into another call for negotiations in Ukraine.
"They (Russians) lost all interest in Syria because of Ukraine, where close to 600,000 Russian soldiers lay wounded or dead, in a war that should never have started, and could go on forever. Russia and Iran are in a weakened state right now, one because of Ukraine and a bad economy, the other because of Israel and its fighting success. Likewise, Zelenskyy and Ukraine would like to make a deal and stop the madness. They have ridiculously lost 400,000 soldiers, and many more civilians. There should be an immediate ceasefire and negotiations should begin."
UK's Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the UK welcomes the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s “barbaric regime” and called for the restoration of “peace and stability.”
This story is developing and we will be updating throughout the day.
keep readingShow less
Russia's President Vladimir Putin speaks during a session of the Valdai Discussion Club in Sochi, Russia October 19, 2017. REUTERS/Alexander Zemlianichenko/Pool
On December 1, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed the budget law for 2025-2027. The Duma had earlier approved the law on November 21, and the Federation Council rubber stamped it on November 27.
The main takeaway from the budget is that Russia is planning for the long haul in its war with NATO-backed Ukraine and makes clear that Russia intends to double down on defense spending no matter what the cost. While the increased budget does not shed light on expectations for a speedy resolution to the war, it is indicative that Moscow continues to prepare for conflict with both Ukraine and NATO.
More importantly, the recently signed budget only reinforces Russia’s move towards a war economy at the risk of exacerbating growing problems in the domestic economy related to labor shortages and inflation.
According to Russia’s Ministry of Finance (MinFin), the largest portion of budget expenditures will be dedicated to national defense. According to published figures, 32.4 percent ($126 billion) will be specifically allocated to defense. In comparison, the figure for 2024 was 29.4 percent of the budget or $98 billion. In 2026 and 2027 the expected budget increases are estimated at $69.5 billion and $125.1billion, respectively.
The figures suggest that military expenditures are crowding out spending in other areas of the economy. Planned spending on "national defense" is more than twice that allocated to social spending. Defense expenditures are followed by social policy (15.7 percent), national economy (10.5 percent) and national security and law enforcement activities (8.3 percent).
In addition, the new budget threatens to exacerbate existing pressures within the domestic labor market. According to Reuters, heavy recruitment by the armed forces and defense industries has drawn workers away from civilian enterprises, as has emigration, pushing unemployment to a record low of 2.3 percent.” Figures from Rosstat indicate that unemployment is at the lowest level since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
Furthermore, last week Anton Kotyakov, the minister for labor and social defense, appeared before the State Duma where he announced that labor market demand by 2030 could face a deficit of 2.4 million people. The shortage is expected to be most critical in manufacturing, logistics and IT. The Labor Ministry is fearful that as Russia's labor woes intensify it may contribute to slowing economic growth.
Overall, Russia’s GDP growth, which is approximately 3.9 percent for 2024 according to the Russian ministry of economic development (MinEcon), will slow to about 2.5 percent in 2025 and level off at 2.8 percent by 2027. This contrasts with the International Monetary Fund’s estimate of 1.3 percent growth for 2025.
As a result of the new budget, MinFin forecasts an increase in state debt of nearly 50 percent in ruble terms through 2027. That would translate to 15 percent in 2023 of GDP to 18 percent in 2027. This runs counter to previous Russian economic policy that emphasized budget surpluses to counter Russia’s persistent inflation.
Inflation in Russia is currently running at about 8.7 percent. The MinEcon forecasts a decline to 7.3 percent by the end of the year. .
One result of the rise in inflation will be a 7.3 increase in pensions at the beginning of 2025. This will be higher than the expected figure. Pensioners make up a significant portion of Russia’s populace and can be a source of protest and public discontent. According to Sergei Chirkov, head of Russia’s Social Fund, more than 42 million people, or nearly 25 percent, will receive a pension in 2025.
It must be noted that Putin approved the increase in military expenditures as the United States announced that it is preparing a new $725 million military aid package for Ukraine. The assistance includes counter-drone systems, munitions for High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS), and antipersonnel land mines. Previously, President Biden committed to expending all allocated Congressional funds for Ukraine's military support before leaving office on January 20. His latest package brings the total U.S. aid to roughly $7.1 billion in Pentagon stockpiles since the start of 2023.
Thus, both sides continue to see doubling down as the only option both militarily and fiscally. Until this cycle of escalation is broken, the risk of direct conflict, possibly even nuclear exchanges, appears ever more likely. Indeed, the absence of restraint from either side appears to be the course of action at least until the change of U.S. administrations.
For Russia, expanded military expenditures are a worrying development for the long-term health of a Russian economy that continues to expend greater amounts of financial resources on its war versus NATO-backed Ukraine. According to the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), “for the first time on Putin’s watch, pure military expenditure is expected to rise above social spending, including social policy, education, and healthcare.” Moreover, CEPA notes “increases in overall tax rates contribute a larger share, not least because the extra revenue (including from a higher corporate tax rate) will be diverted into the federal budget and not given to the regions.”
Minister of finance Siluanov noted last week that overall regional budgets will shift from a surplus of one trillion rubles to a deficit of approximately 100 billion rubles in 2024. Declining finances in the regions are primarily attributable to declining exports and export revenues. He cites lower coal exports in the Kemerovo region as one example. This development is important as inhabitants of Russia’s regions are doing most of the fighting.
Combined with Russia’s labor shortages, fears of consumer inflation, and budget pressures on non-defense items, like pensions, education and social services, it is doubtful that the Kremlin can continue on this course indefinitely without risking popular opposition.
Likewise, the Trump campaign’s promises to reduce government spending and increase the real income of most American workers are likely to affect its support for Ukraine. While Trump will almost surely increase defense spending, it will probably not be directed to Ukraine if one believes his campaign rhetoric.
Russia’s leadership must understand this and, therefore, the condition of the Russian economy must be part of the formula for when and under what conditions Russia agrees to negotiations. Perhaps the newly signed Russian defense budget is a signal to the new Trump administration that Moscow is willing to up transaction costs of the war until it reaches a point where restraint and negotiation becomes possible if not necessary.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.