Follow us on social

Shutterstock_561439453-scaled

Why I'm thinking differently about democracy building today

A trip to several countries in the wake of the Russian invasion conveyed a sense of why not all capitals are on board with the U.S. approach.

Analysis | Europe

Since the end of World War II democracy building has been a bedrock of American diplomacy. I’ve spent the better part of my career partnering with nonprofits, future elected leaders, and everyday citizens to build and strengthen democracy here at home. 

My fundamental belief has rested on the idea that helping to impart stable governance leads to stronger communities and states. This also reflects a long-held American view that the world is safer, happier, and more prosperous when countries derive their powers from the consent of the governed and, however imperfectly, uphold individual rights and human dignity. That has certainly been on the forefront of my mind since the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

But after completing a recent, month-long German Marshall Fund Marshall Memorial Fellowship across several European nations, I discovered that reality is significantly more complex, and certainly more nuanced, especially during wartime. 

In Brussels, I met with leaders from NATO and the European Union, and while the overwhelming theme was unity, the next four countries I visited had their own interpretations of the current war in Ukraine. One thing became clear — not all democracies are monolithic, and today’s Europeans are rightly proud heirs to free societies built from the ashes of fallen tyrannies. 

Visiting the Netherlands, Czech Republic, and Germany allowed me to understand how members of the EU view this conflict —they want it resolved quickly, with swift action taken against Russia and Putin. However, in Turkey, officials I met with (from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and members of parliament) had a different perspective. They viewed the war from a geopolitical position rather than one united with NATO and clearly different from EU member states. They are the only NATO member country that has not issued sanctions against Russia, and while officials say they believe in the “territorial integrity” of Ukraine, Turkey’s more neutral stance has put it in a better position to play mediator in any future negotiations, and in fact hosted talks in the early part of the conflict.

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s military has used Turkish drones in their fight against Russia. Until recently, Turkey kept its skies open to Russia after 38 countries banned Russian airlines from their airspace, but in late April, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu reversed course. 

Still, other nations are less apt to see the conflict play out through a lens of negotiation and have moved to sanction Russia for its aggression. In early April, the United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly voted to adopt a resolution to suspend Russia from the Human Rights Council. After the vote, Russia stated it was quitting the council. The EU, UK, U.S. and Canada have opted to put the most stringent economic sanctions on Russia, though so far the EU has opted out of cutting off energy imports from Moscow.

As expected, China, Iran and Syria were among those who voted against the UN resolution and sanctions, with Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa, Pakistan and Jordan among those who abstained on the condemnation. Many of the African nations see the conflict as a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia, and are resistant to cutting off trade with Moscow. For example, wheat and fertilizer are major Russian imports, with nearly a third of the continent reliant on that trade. As  many African countries are beginning to gain their independence economically, they are loathe to allow a new U.S. Cold War to usher in a new era of conflict.

Strategic Dependence

Meanwhile, India abstained from the UN General assembly vote, though Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi called for “an immediate cessation of violence” right after the invasion began. Other south Indian countries abstained from voting to remove Russia, while three central Asian countries voted no. The Central Asian countries of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan all voted against the UN resolution. But there is a growing solidarity among key nations who voted either against or abstained from Russia’s removal of the UN Security Council.

Ultimately, countries voted in the interest of their respective democratic independence, or dependence on their alignment with Russia versus the west. Many can harken back to times when they assumed aligning with the West would provide them future security from conflict, but they were left to build or rebuild democracy alone.

When historical nuance meets today's war it is understandable that nations have different interpretations about safeguarding democracy. My travels allowed me to shift my perspective. In this view, American exceptionalism is a myth and our foreign policy has often driven violence, rather than eradicating it. Expecting international leaders to follow our lead without accounting for our past failures would be blind policy. 

If history and this trip has taught me anything it is that our allies and friends have longer memories than the immediate threat they may face today. Democracy building is not just a game of offense and sometimes the best defense is little to no action until the timing is right and members of your team are strong enough to promote their own interests and build their own destinies. 

Photo: Tolga Sezgin via shutterstock.com
Analysis | Europe
Will US troops have to  go to war for Mohammed bin Salman? (VIDEO)
Biden's Saudi War Obligation

Will US troops have to go to war for Mohammed bin Salman? (VIDEO)

Video Section

Even as the war in Gaza rages on and the death toll surpasses 35,000, the Biden administration appears set on pursuing its vision of a Saudi-Israeli normalization deal that it sees as the path to peace in the Middle East.

But, the agreement that the administration is selling as a peace agreement that will put Palestine on the path to statehood and fundamentally transform the region ultimately amounts to a U.S. war obligation for Saudi Arabia that would also give Mohammed bin Salman nuclear technology.

keep readingShow less
Following a largely preordained election, Vladimir Putin was sworn in last week for another six-year term as president of Russia. Putin’s victory has, of course, been met with accusations of fraud and political interference, factors that help explain his 87.3% vote share.   If this continuation of Putin’s 24-year-long hold on power makes one thing clear, it’s that he and his regime will not be going anywhere for the foreseeable future. But, as his war in Ukraine continues with no clear end in sight, what is less clear is how Washington plans to deal with this reality.  Experts say Washington needs to start projecting a long-term strategy toward Russia and its war in Ukraine, wielding its political leverage to apply pressure on Putin and push for more diplomacy aimed at ending the conflict. Only by looking beyond short-term solutions can Washington realistically move the needle in Ukraine.  Since Russia’s full-scale invasion, the U.S. has focused on getting aid to Ukraine to help it win back all of its pre-2014 territory, a goal complicated by Kyiv’s systemic shortages of munitions and manpower. But that response neglects a more strategic approach to the war, according to Andrew Weiss of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who spoke in a recent panel hosted by Carnegie.   “There is a vortex of emergency planning that people have been, unfortunately, sucked into for the better part of two years since the intelligence first arrived in the fall of 2021,” Weiss said. “And so the urgent crowds out the strategic.”   Historian Stephen Kotkin, for his part, says preserving Ukraine’s sovereignty is critical. However, the apparent focus on regaining territory, pushed by the U.S., is misguided.   “Wars are never about regaining territory. It's about the capacity to fight and the will to fight. And if Russia has the capacity to fight and Ukraine takes back territory, Russia won't stop fighting,” Kotkin said in a podcast on the Wall Street Journal.  And it appears Russia does have the capacity. The number of troops and weapons at Russia’s disposal far exceeds Ukraine’s, and Russian leaders spend twice as much on defense as their Ukrainian counterparts. Ukraine will need a continuous supply of aid from the West to continue to match up to Russia. And while aid to Ukraine is important, Kotkin says, so is a clear plan for determining the preferred outcome of the war.  The U.S. may be better served by using the significant political leverage it has over Russia to shape a long-term outcome in its favor.   George Beebe of the Quincy Institute, which publishes Responsible Statecraft, says that Russia’s primary concerns and interests do not end with Ukraine. Moscow is fundamentally concerned about the NATO alliance and the threat it may pose to Russian internal stability. Negotiations and dialogue about the bounds and limits of NATO and Russia’s powers, therefore, are critical to the broader conflict.   This is a process that is not possible without the U.S. and Europe. “That means by definition, we have some leverage,” Beebe says.   To this point, Kotkin says the strength of the U.S. and its allies lies in their political influence — where they are much more powerful than Russia — rather than on the battlefield. Leveraging this influence will be a necessary tool in reaching an agreement that is favorable to the West’s interests, “one that protects the United States, protects its allies in Europe, that preserves an independent Ukraine, but also respects Russia's core security interests there.”  In Kotkin’s view, this would mean pushing for an armistice that ends the fighting on the ground and preserves Ukrainian sovereignty, meaning not legally acknowledging Russia’s possession of the territory they have taken during the war. Then, negotiations can proceed.   Beebe adds that a treaty on how conventional forces can be used in Europe will be important, one that establishes limits on where and how militaries can be deployed. “[Russia] need[s] some understanding with the West about what we're all going to agree to rule out in terms of interference in the other's domestic affairs,” Beebe said.     Critical to these objectives is dialogue with Putin, which Beebe says Washington has not done enough to facilitate. U.S. officials have stated publicly that they do not plan to meet with Putin.    The U.S. rejected Putin’s most statements of his willingness to negotiate, which he expressed in an interview with Tucker Carlson in February, citing skepticism that Putin has any genuine intentions of ending the war. “Despite Mr. Putin’s words, we have seen no actions to indicate he is interested in ending this war. If he was, he would pull back his forces and stop his ceaseless attacks on Ukraine,” a spokesperson for the White House’s National Security Council said in response.   But neither side has been open to serious communication. Biden and Putin haven’t met to engage in meaningful talks about the war since it began, their last meeting taking place before the war began in the summer of 2021 in Geneva. Weiss says the U.S. should make it clear that those lines of communication are open.   “Any strategy that involves diplomatic outreach also has to be sort of undergirded by serious resolve and a sense that we're not we're not going anywhere,” Weiss said.  An end to the war will be critical to long-term global stability. Russia will remain a significant player on the world stage, Beebe explains, considering it is the world’s largest nuclear power and a leading energy producer. It is therefore ultimately in the U.S. and Europe’s interests to reach a relationship “that combines competitive and cooperative elements, and where we find a way to manage our differences and make sure that they don't spiral into very dangerous military confrontation,” he says.    As two major global superpowers, the U.S. and Russia need to find a way to share the world. Only genuine, long-term planning can ensure that Washington will be able to shape that future in its best interests.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin (R) shakes hands with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden during their meeting in Moscow March 10, 2011. REUTERS/Alexander Natruskin/File Photo
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin (R) shakes hands with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden during their meeting in Moscow March 10, 2011. REUTERS/Alexander Natruskin/File Photo

Playing the long game with Putin

Europe

Following a largely preordained election, Vladimir Putin was sworn in last week for another six-year term as president of Russia. Putin’s victory has, of course, been met with accusations of fraud and political interference, factors that help explain his 87.3% vote share.

If this continuation of Putin’s 24-year-long hold on power makes one thing clear, it’s that he and his regime will not be going anywhere for the foreseeable future. But, as his war in Ukraine continues with no clear end in sight, what is less clear is how Washington plans to deal with this reality.

keep readingShow less
Georgia bill passes: Why the West needs to stay out of the protests

Demonstration at Georgia's Parliament in Tbilisi on May 12, 2024, the night before the vote on a law on foreign influence. (Maxime Gruss / Hans Lucas via Reuters)

Georgia bill passes: Why the West needs to stay out of the protests

Europe

Mass protests are roiling the Republic of Georgia as tens of thousands have taken to the streets against a proposed bill by the Georgian government on “foreign influence” that has worsened tension in an already polarized Georgian society.

That bill was passed Tuesday after turmoil in which punches were actually thrown between lawmakers on the parliament floor.

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis

Latest