One shouldn't be surprised to find Erik Prince popping up amid the chaos of the Afghanistan withdrawal. Or, that he is trying to profit from it.
Reports today indicate that he is offering to fly stranded people from the Kabul airport on his private plane for $6,500 — for extra, he will extricate people who are cannot get to the airport.
There are few details in the Wall Street Journal article and no sense where this nugget came from, or what kind of resources he has. A former Navy Seal, Prince is the founder of Blackwater, a private security company infamous for its work on behalf of the U.S. government in the early years of the 9/11 wars. He has had his hand in several incarnations and a litany of privateering schemes since then. Most recently he was accused (but has denied) of violating the arms embargo in Libya in a plot to arm militant Gen. Khalifa Haftar so he could overthrow the transitional government there. He has also been connected to a proposal to build a private army for Ukraine against the Russians. He has been tied to the UAE, Somalia and the Chinese government. In fact, his last company Frontier Services Group, co-founded in 2014, reportedly had a contract to train Chinese police in Beijing and build a training center in Xinjiang, home to the imprisoned minority Uighurs.
At any given time, Prince has had access to more than guns. He's had planes and even ships to battle pirates on the high seas. Most of his gun-for-hire proposals never pan out, and his multi-billion-dollar salad days with the federal government seem to be behind him. Maybe even his primo access to Capitol Hill (his connections to Trump put him in the hot seat during the Russiagate period, and his sister Betsy DeVos is no longer the education secretary) is gone too.
But that doesn't mean he's out of the game. Clearly, where there is human misery and conflict, Prince is around, nibbling at the edges of opportunity. Kind of like the "Howling Man," in that Twilight Zone episode:
Wherever there was sin. Wherever there was strife. Wherever there was corruption. And persecution. There he was also. Sometimes he was only a spectator, a face in the crowd. But, always, he was there.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is Editorial Director of Responsible Statecraft and Senior Advisor at the Quincy Institute.
Erik Prince arrives New York Young Republican Club Gala at The Yale Club of New York City in Manhattan in New York City, New York, U.S., November 7, 2019. REUTERS/Jeenah Moon
MUNICH, GERMANY — The Munich Security Conference started this Friday in a city recovering from an attack in which a suspect drove his car into a crowd of people, leaving 36 people injured on Thursday morning.
The international meeting also takes place against the backdrop of the German parliamentary elections on Feb. 23. Friedrich Merz, the chancellor candidate of the center-right Christian-Democratic Union (CDU) — which comfortably leads the polls with around 30% of support — could be spotted in the first row of the conference hall. Merz held a short meeting with United States Vice President J.D. Vance earlier in the day.
Neither yesterday’s car attack, nor the coming elections, were left unaddressed by Vance in his speech Friday. The vice-president described the attack (committed by an Afghan asylum-seeker), as one of the “horrors wrought” by Europe's migration policies. He noted that “no voter on this continent went to the ballot box to open the floodgates to millions of unvetted immigrants.” In addition, Vance expressed his fears that the German election results could be annulled, similar to the Romanian presidential elections in November.
Vance also accused European leaders of abandoning the core democratic values that led to the Soviet Union’s defeat in the Cold War. "The threat I worry the most about vis-à-vis Europe is not Russia, it's not China, it's not any other external actor. What I worry about is the threat from within, the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America," Vance said.
Although Vance had provided a preview to Friday’s remarks in an earlier Wall Street Journal interview, his words were received with some arched eyebrows in the media center serving as a working place for the journalists covering the conference. “Undiplomatic announcements” was the headline topping an article about Vance’s speech published by the liberal Munich newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung.
The vice-president’s words also sent shockwaves in the conference hall. One of the first to respond was Boris Pistorius, the German defense minister. Pistorius, scheduled to speak less than two hours after Vance, described the vice-president words as “not acceptable.” He added that “democracy was called into question by the U.S. vice-president for the whole of Europe earlier.”
In the panel discussion that followed, which focused on Europe's defense policy, participants expressed bewilderment about the lack of attention to Ukraine in Vance’s speech.
President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen had taken a radically different approach earlier in the day focusing on what she sees as commonalities between the Trump administration’s approach to the Ukraine War and that of the EU. She noted that “both the EU and the U.S. want an end to the bloodshed. We want a just and lasting peace, one that leads to a sovereign and prosperous Ukraine. And Ukraine should be given solid security guarantees.”
In another attempt to establish a bridge with the Trump administration, von der Leyen added: “Ukraine needs peace through strength. Europe wants peace through strength. And as President Trump has made clear: the United States is firmly committed to peace through strength.”
Asked about whether European countries would increase defense expenditure to 5% of the GDP as demanded by Trump (the U.S. currently allocates 3.4% of its GDP to such a purpose), the president of the European Commission did not want to provide a specific figure. Still, von der Leyen announced that the Commission plans to allow extra fiscal room to the EU member states by activating the escape clause for defense investments.
The EU’s GDP increased by only 0.9% in 2024 (with negative growth in Germany, the bloc’s largest economy). It remains to be seen whether European citizens will support lifting strict EU rules on public debt for defense spending (and not for social policies, for instance) at a time of low economic growth.
Von der Leyen’s conciliatory tone towards the U.S. regarding Ukraine contrasted with her remarks about Trump’s tariffs policies. Building on a statement released early Friday, the Commission president announced her preference for a negotiated solution to avoid a trade war between the U.S. and the EU but noted that, if needed, “we will use our tools to safeguard our economic security and interests.”
After rumors that the initially announced meeting might not take place after all, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had a bilateral encounter with Vice President Vance in the evening. Before the meeting, the Ukrainian leader said that his country wants “security guarantees” before any talks to end the war. Zelenskyy also noted that he is only willing to have an in-person meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin after a common plan is negotiated with U.S. President Trump.
Meanwhile, CNN reported Friday that the Russian government is assembling a high-level negotiating team that would engage in direct talks with the United States to put an end to the war in Ukraine.
On February 12, President Trump revealed he had talked to Putin about a peace deal in Ukraine, and Defense Secretary Hegseth gave a speech about what a peace settlement would not entail (NATO membership, US protection, return of occupied territories).
This left Ukrainians reeling with feelings of betrayal and being steamrolled, while European leaders looked shellshocked at finding themselves sidelined. I thought the right moment had arrived to finally write a long-planned article, on inclusive, people-centered peace-making, with my co-author Wolfgang Sporrer.
The next morning, I woke up to the inconceivable news that Wolfgang had died in his (and my) hometown, Vienna. The cause of his death, three days earlier on February 10, has not been publicized. He had been posting pictures from his latest assignment in the Middle East just days ago, along with his usual pithy comments on matters of war and peace.
In Europe, where the canceling of experts arguing for a negotiated peace between Russia and Ukraine has been far more ruthless than in the US, only a few brave souls have been sticking out their neck. Wolfgang was easily the most knowledgeable among them, having sat in on the consultations under the Minsk accords after 2015 and implemented the OSCE’s monitoring along the pre-2022 frontline in Ukraine, and later teaching conflict management, negotiation and mediation at the Hertie School, Germany’s premiere foreign policy school. He was also optimistic and constructive to a fault, convinced that peace was always possible if one approached it with a seasoned negotiator’s toolkit and attitude. His last article was titled “No War is Inevitable”.
Wolfgang first contacted me in summer 2022 on Twitter, as it was. Later, I realized there were curious parallels in our lives. We are not just both from Vienna, but our homes are just blocks from each other in the city’s 7th district. We had both studied law at Vienna University and Belgium’s University of Louvain-la-Neuve and then international relations in the US. Wolfgang served as the head of the human dimension unit in the OSCE special monitoring mission in Ukraine, and later at the EU delegation in Moscow.
In both places, I might have run into him when I dropped by to raise awareness about the human rights and peace issues I had found in my work with activists in remote regions. But I never did. I would have remembered a fellow Austrian, larger than life, with a twinkle in his eyes and an unending supply of shrewd anecdotes and thoughtful observations about the business of making peace, told in his old-school, gregarious Viennese accent.
What brought us together were the lessons we had learned from communities affected by armed conflict, he as a senior OSCE diplomat, I while working with grassroots women activists. Wolfgang took peace seriously, as an essential objective that should inform our grand strategies, as the fundamental condition for a good life and as a hands-on, skilled practice.
Wolfgang loved his craft. He stood out for always looking at peace from the point of view of average people: how they are affected by armed conflict, how their lives are in danger, and how we can restore their safety and security. He began and ended every conversation about war with ordinary people.
When asked about his ideas for ending the war in Ukraine, he declined to offer a peace plan and instead focused on process. He looked at it as a mediator: how do you get the parties to agree to sit at the same table? That would already be a first successful step. He kept reminding people that Ukraine and Russia were talking every day, at the Istanbul hub of the Black Sea Grain Deal. Wolfgang was a glass-half-full kind of guy, spotting openings and opportunity where others see only violent deadlock.
Last year, he proposed we write an article together, about inclusive, people-centered peace-making. We both thought this approach was curiously missing from discussions about ending the war in Ukraine, despite being recognized by many governments, the UN and academics as the gold standard for making peace: not only is inclusive peace-making better at ending armed conflict, with settlements that last longer and lower relapse rates.
It also produces a better peace, one in which countries rebuild faster, communities thrive more and enjoy greater safety and reconciliation. Examples of the sturdy settlements this approach produces include Northern Ireland in 1998 and Colombia in 2016.
How does inclusive peace-making (or inclusive diplomacy) achieve all this? By placing the human security, well-being and rights of people living in conflict-affected territories at the center of war-ending diplomacy. Peace has to deliver for the people who suffered from war. We achieve this by bringing these people right into the peace process, to the negotiation table. There, their concerns can be heard, put on the agenda and addressed, and they can envision creative solutions to intractable problems.
As a result, communities emerging from war will not be plagued by typical post-conflict dysfunction, deprivation and injustice that translate into friction and a renewed conflict. Ordinary people at the table and bread-and-butter issues on the agenda make the atmosphere calmer and more constructive overall.
Because men will be at any negotiating table by default, inclusive diplomacy means including women: comparative data from 40 conflicts shows that when women were part of peace processes, there was a far higher likelihood that an agreement will be reached, that agreement was more likely to be implemented and it was 35 percent more likely to last at least 15 years. These numbers are so remarkable that anyone serious about making peace cannot afford to ignore them.
While Western governments seem to have forgotten all about inclusive diplomacy and people-centered peace-making, countries from the Global South did not. A range of governments brokered prisoner exchanges. Last summer, Qatar prepared to mediate a partial ceasefire to halt attacks on energy infrastructure in both Ukraine and Russia, to protect civilians during the upcoming winter, though the attempt collapsed when Ukraine launched its incursion into Russia’s Kursk region. When China and Brazil invited others from the Global South to endorse their peace plan in September last year, it was updated to reference “inclusive diplomacy”.
Last month, Oleksyi Arestovych, one-time advisor of Zelensky and now one of his harshest critics, talked on one of his wildly popular YouTube streams about how any ceasefire or peace agreement would need to address everyday problems caused by war, occupation and displacement: regulate free movement of people, goods and services between territories occupied by Russia and those controlled by Ukraine, the mutual recognition of vital records and diplomas earned by young people on either side, protect the rights and interests of those forced to leave property behind and those buying such abandoned homes.
Government, he said, sounding like the aspiring presidential candidate he is, has to exist for the people, not the other way around.
I never got to write that article about inclusive, people-centered peace-making with Wolfgang. In this current moment, with Europe’s ruling elites aghast at the specter of peace and Ukrainians feeling betrayed and abandoned, he would have looked for openings to do things right, to build a good peace. He was fearless, brilliant and original, kind and supportive, and one of the most persuasive proponents of peace and diplomacy in Europe. Rest in peace, Wolfgang.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: Eric Poulin via shutterstock.com
The Pentagon is in the midst of a three-decades long plan to build a new generation of nuclear weapons, and it is not going well — so badly that the Air Force announced this week that it will pause large parts of the development of its new intercontinental ballistic missile, known officially as the Sentinel.
The pause will impact design and launch facilities in California and Utah and is projected to throw the project 18 to 24 months off schedule.
The project has been troubled from the start, when Northrop Grumman received a sole source contract to develop the system after Boeing withdrew from the competition, charging that the bidding process was rigged against it. And last year the missile underwent a Pentagon review when it was revealed that it was projected to cost 81% more than original estimates, boosting the price of procurement alone to $141 billion, with hundreds of billions of dollars more to operate and maintain the Sentinel over its useful lifetime.
Despite the runaway costs, the Pentagon decided to double down on developing the Sentinel, claiming that it was essential to deter other nations from launching a nuclear attack on the United States. In fact, at a time when “efficiency” is the watch word in Washington and other federal agencies are being dismantled as we speak, canceling the new ICBM is an obvious place to find savings, as suggested in a recent research brief by myself and my colleagues Gabe Murphy of Taxpayers for Common Sense and Julia Gledhill at the Stimson Center.
As enormous as the cost of the Sentinel is slated to be, that is not the only reason to put the system on the budgetary chopping block. Independent experts like former Secretary of Defense William Perry have argued, persuasively, that the new ICBM will make us less safe by increasing the chance of an accidental nuclear confrontation sparked by a false alarm of an enemy attack. The risk is grounded in the fact that the president would have just a matter of minutes to decide whether to launch U.S. ICBMs in a crisis.
Despite the costs and risks posed by the Sentinel program, it remains virtually sacrosanct in the view of the Pentagon and many members of Congress, on the theory that the nuclear triad — the ability to launch nuclear weapons from the air, land, and sea — is essential to U.S. security. But the triad was born out of bureaucratic politics, dating back to the 1950s fight between the Navy and the Air Force to get their piece of the nuclear budget pie. And it persists in major part due to pork barrel politics — the jobs and profits generated by spending inordinate sums developing and deploying new nuclear bombers, ground-based missiles, and ballistic missile submarines.
The ICBM lobby includes Northrop Grumman and its major subcontractors and members of the Senate ICBM Coalition, composed of members from states that host ICBM bases or major development and maintenance work on the Sentinel. The lobby has been remarkably successful in fending off any efforts to reduce the size of the ICBM force or even to study alternatives to a new missile.
Former Representative John Tierney of the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation has neatly summed up the problem:
“Not only are intercontinental ballistic missiles redundant, but they are prone to a high risk of accidental use. … They do not make us any safer. Their only value is to the defense contractors who line their fat pockets with large cost overruns at the expense of our taxpayers. It has got to stop.”
As President Trump and Elon Musk pledge to scour the Pentagon budget for potential savings, ending the Sentinel program and eliminating ICBMs from the arsenal should be at the top of the list, and a measure of whether the effort to streamline the Pentagon and end dysfunctional programs is serious.
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.