In his memoir "Chasing the Light," director Oliver Stone talks about America's angst over Vietnam:
"We were so proud, and then, when we couldn't achieve victory, we had to lie like we all do when we deny what we know is true — that we lost, and lost big-time, and all those technology-loving Pentagon warriors were at last revealed as failures, and those determined little Vietnamese had licked us."
Then why did we not try to avoid the same fate time and again?
In early December, the Quincy Institute, in concert with the Center for War and Society (San Diego State University), hosted Stone at the iconic USS Midway Museum to commemorate, in part, the 50th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War. Gregory Daddis, director of the Center for War and Society and professor of military studies, got a chance to ask Stone not only about his own service as an Army infantryman (which later inspired his 1987 film "Platoon"), but about his own frustrations with the cyclical nature of American war-making, right up to Russia-gate, and today's current conflicts.
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.
Top image credit: The nations of Bosnia, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Montenegro, Slovenia, Serbia and the United States join together to participate in the final field exercise during exercise Platinum Wolf 2016 at Peacekeeping Operations Training Center South Base, Bujanovac, Serbia, May 20, 2016. Sgt. Sara Graham. Marine Forces Reserve (MARFORRES)
President-elect Trump is reportedly advancing the idea that a large and heavily armed peacekeeping force from Europe (but including NATO members) could be introduced into Ukraine as part of a peace settlement there. It is important that this very ill-thought-out idea be shot down before it does serious damage to the prospects for an early peace and causes Ukraine still further human, economic and territorial loss.
According to the Wall Street Journal and Le Monde, this idea first emerged in private talks between French and British officials in November. It was discussed on Thursday by NATO foreign ministers in Brussels. Trump made the suggestion to French President Emmanuel Macron and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at a meeting in Paris on December 7.
Macron then traveled to Warsaw to discuss a plan for 40,000 heavily armed European “peacekeepers” with the Polish government whose officials, however, have so far given it a cool public response. In the words of Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk: “To cut off speculation about the potential presence of this or that country in Ukraine after reaching a ceasefire, ... decisions concerning Poland will be made in Warsaw and only in Warsaw. At the moment we’re not planning such activities.”
Friedrich Merz of the German Christian Democrats, almost certain to be chancellor after the elections due in February, has also distanced himself from the idea.
On the face of it, this idea might seem to reconcile several mutually contradictory pressures on the Ukrainian peace process: The Russian demand for a treaty that will permanently bar Ukraine from NATO membership; the Ukrainian demand for Western guarantees against future Russian aggression; Trump’s determination not to put U.S. troops on the ground or make additional and permanent U.S. commitments to Ukraine; and the real need for a substantial international force to patrol an armistice line.
There is just one problem: According to every Russian official and expert with whom my colleagues and I have spoken (most recently on Thursday), the idea of Western troops in Ukraine is just as unacceptable to the Russian government and establishment as NATO membership for Ukraine itself. Indeed, the Russians see no essential difference between the two.
Seen from Moscow, such a Western “peacekeeping force” would be simply a NATO advance guard that would provide cover for the gradual introduction of more and more NATO forces. Indeed, while President Zelensky has said that Ukraine “may consider” the idea of peacekeepers, it would only do so if it is also given a clear timeline for future NATO membership. If this proposal is put forward by General Kellogg, President-elect Trump’s choice as his Ukraine envoy, in negotiations, the Russian side will therefore reject it out of hand; and if it is insisted on, the talks will fail.
However, it seems likely that once European establishments — and populations — have had time to think about this idea, they will in fact let it drop. For the soldiers in this force would be placed in a position of considerable danger, which it is unlikely that their fellow citizens would tolerate. When Macron first suggested French troops for Ukraine earlier this year, opinion polls showed overwhelming majorities of French citizens opposing the idea.
The dangers should indeed be obvious. On the one hand, Ukrainians determined to regain Ukraine’s lost territories by provoking a direct war between NATO and Russia would have every incentive to try to create armed clashes into which the Western “peacekeepers” would be drawn.
On the other hand, if Moscow really wanted to test NATO and take advantage of future internal splits in the West, how better to do it than to threaten NATO “peacekeepers” in Ukraine rather than on NATO territory and thus not covered by NATO’s Article 5? There is either a deep cognitive dissonance or a deep dishonesty in Western hawks who warn about an alleged future Russian threat to “test NATO’s resolve” in the Baltic states proposing to give Russia a far greater and more plausible opportunity to do so in Ukraine.
In these circumstances, it seems obvious that in order for European governments and their military chiefs to agree to such a proposal even in principle, they would require ironclad and public guarantees from the Trump administration that the U.S. military would intervene with full force to rescue their “peacekeepers” if they did come under Russian attack.
This would mean very much the kind of commitment to Ukraine and to potential war with Russia that Trump and leading members of his team are determined to avoid. As the Journal article says, “French officials have made clear that the idea would need to involve some kind of U.S. backup, something it isn’t clear a Trump administration would consider.”
These factors are hardly obscure or hard to understand. Even if this is just a trial balloon, it is visibly full of holes, and the fact that it can have been hoisted even a few feet off the ground is therefore worrying. The appearance of this idea suggests that Trump and the European governments involved have received highly inaccurate information from their advisers about basic Russian positions. This suggests either extremely poor intelligence, or on the other hand that the advisers concerned are setting out deliberately to wreck a peace settlement. If so, then they are no friends to Ukraine; for every indication suggests that the longer this war goes on, the worse Ukraine’s position will become.
keep readingShow less
Top Image Credit: Donald Trump (White House photo)
Senior advisers for President-elect Trump’s transition team are weighing whether to launch military strikes on Iran’s nuclear program, according to a new report in the Wall Street Journal.
Although relevant deliberations are in early stages, the Journal reports that Trump’s allies and advisers view that Iran’s weakened state, with its ally Syria out and partners Hamas and Hezbollah critically undermined by Israel, presents a “rare opportunity to counter Iran’s nuclear buildup.”
The development follows previous hawkish statements on Iran from both Trump and some White House picks, including national security adviser designee Mike Waltz's recent comments that the incoming Trump administration would embark on a policy of “maximum pressure" against Iran.
“We have to constrain their cash. We have to constrain their oil. We have to go back to maximum pressure, number one, which was working under the first Trump administration,” Waltz said.
On the campaign trail back in September, Trump said he would threaten to “blow [Iran] to smithereens” if a presidential candidate faced threats from Tehran or another “threatening country.” (American intelligence officials had briefed Trump on alleged Iranian threats to assassinate him).
When asked about the prospects of going to war with Iran during an interview with TIME this week, Trump said “anything can happen. It’s a very volatile situation.”
Some incoming Trump officials and associates may believe that attacking Iran may deter its nuclear prospects. But disarmament experts say that striking Iran would likely galvanize it, making it more likely to develop nuclear weapons in response to a military attack.
Iranian officials have repeatedly denied interest in acquiring nuclear weapons Indeed, as Iranian former foreign minister Kamal Kharrazi said regarding possible Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities: “We have no decision to produce a nuclear bomb, but if Iran is threatened, we will have to change our nuclear doctrine.” And Javad Zarif, Iran’s vice president for strategic affairs, recently wrote in Foreign Affairs that Iran’s new president, Masoud Pezeshkian, “is ready to manage tensions with the United States.”
On one hand, Trump's Iran policy remains pliable as administration positions are finalized and discussions with regional players occur. Meanwhile, some of Trump’s top aides have signaled willingness towards restraint. Back in October, J.D. Vance, now vice president-elect, said “our interest very much is in not going to war with Iran…this is where smart diplomacy really matters.” And Elon Musk, a top Trump confidant, also reportedly met with Iranian diplomats at the U.N. last month in an apparent effort to diffuse tensions.
But many Washington hawks smell an opportunity and are pushing the incoming Trump administration to take a hard line. “I have, for a long time, been willing to call quite unequivocally for regime change in Iran," Sen. Ted Cruz said recently.
Others are hoping that Trump will stick to his instincts on refraining from further involving the U.S. military in more wars, especially in the Middle East and particularly with Iran. “Despite the chaos of his first term, Trump says he still wants a deal,” NIAC president Jamal Abdi recently noted in RS, adding though, that “Trump’s instinct to negotiate is likely to run headlong into his elevation of hawkish advisers who don’t believe in negotiations.”
Vladimir Putin has been humiliated in Syria and now he has to make up for it in Ukraine.
That’s what pro-war Russian commentators are advising the president to do in response to the sudden collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, according to the New York Times this week. That sentiment has potential to derail any momentum toward negotiating an end to the war that had been gaining at least some semblance of steam over the past weeks and months.
“Mr. Putin could intensify his costly offensive in Ukraine to recover some prestige,” says the Times. And he appears poised to do just that. This week, a Pentagon spokesperson announced that the Russians are on the verge of launching its new lethal intermediate range ballistic missile on Ukraine once again, saying they’re “trying to use every weapon that they have in their arsenal to intimidate Ukraine.”
Some Russian analysts say Putin is unlikely to be influenced by outside events, and dismiss calls for him to escalate in Ukraine as “noise.” And those calling for escalating Russia’s war in Ukraine offer few details on how a depleted Russian army can achieve such maximalist aims. But, as the Times notes, “they are united in their calls for the army to step up its assaults.”
Meanwhile, however, Moscow appears to be keeping the door open to negotiations. The Kremlin said this week that Putin’s goals of preventing Ukraine from joining NATO and solidifying control of the four eastern regions it took from Ukraine will be accomplished militarily or diplomatically, with the country’s spy chief even suggesting those goals are within reach.
Regardless of whether Putin decides to escalate in Ukraine, President-elect Trump still appears determined to end the war quickly once he assumes office next month. “There should be an immediate ceasefire and negotiations should begin,” he said on his social media platform Truth Social. He also said in an interview with NBC that he would be prepared to reduce military aid to Ukraine and withdraw the United States from NATO.
And in a new interview with TIME magazine, Trump criticized the Biden administration for allowing Ukraine to use U.S. long-range missiles to attack targets inside Russia.
“I disagree very vehemently with sending missiles hundreds of miles into Russia,” he said. “Why are we doing that? We're just escalating this war and making it worse. That should not have been allowed to be done. Now they're doing not only missiles, but they're doing other types of weapons. And I think that's a very big mistake, very big mistake.”
But while Trump appears to want a quick end to the war, he apparently doesn’t want the United States to play a primary role in implementing any such resolution. The Wall Street Journal reported this week that the outlines of Trump’s plan are starting to emerge based on his trip to Europe last week: “Europe would have to shoulder most of the burden of supporting Kyiv with troops to oversee a cease-fire and weapons to deter Russia.”
Russian troops are close to taking the strategic eastern city of Pokrovsk, according to Ukraine’s top general, the New York Timesreported. Gen. Oleksandr Syrsky said “unconventional decisions” would have to be made to bolster Ukrainian defenses although he did not specify what such actions would be.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen announced the disbursement of a $20 billion loan to Ukraine this week. Former UK diplomat Ian Proud writes in Responsible Statecraft that “the issue of how this latest $20 billion handout to Ukraine will be paid seems entirely secondary to the point that it won’t be the end of U.S. funding to Ukraine.”
The Pentagon announced a new security assistance package for Ukraine worth nearly $1 billion this week as, according to the Associated Press, “the Biden administration rushes to spend all the congressionally approved money it has left to bolster Kyiv before President-elect Donald Trump takes office next month.”
From State Department Press Briefing on Dec. 9
Asked about U.S. pressure on Ukraine to expand the pool of eligible draftees from 25 years old to 18, spokesman Matthew Miller said, “the decisions about the composition of its military force are – those are decisions that the Ukrainians have to make for themselves. What we have made clear is that if they produce additional forces to join the fight, we and our allies will be ready to equip those forces and train those forces to enter battle.”
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.