Mr. Zelensky visits America
Apologies for missing my post last week. I was sick and too busy sleeping to stay up to date on the news coming out of Ukraine and Russia. Fortunately (or unfortunately), I am better now and able to wade into the news from this week. There are two big buckets of news stories this week. First, news coming out related to the beginning of the UN General Assembly session and second, news about support for Ukraine related to the U.S. election. Zelensky was in the U.S. for the General Assembly kickoff and met with both Harris and Trump, not to mention Biden, Congressional leaders and visited a factory in Pennsylvania.
First off, the UN General Assembly session kicked off and, as is customary, world leaders gave short speeches to mark the occasion. Ukraine was obviously not the only issue addressed, but it was a major one. Outside of the normal calls for peace in Ukraine and condemnation of Russia, a few things did stand out.
President Erdogan of Turkey continued his recent, and somewhat surprising, calls for peace in Ukraine respecting Ukraine’s “independence and territorial integrity”. It is the last phrase, territorial integrity, that is somewhat surprising. Many in the West, as we will discuss below, call for peace in Ukraine with the assumption that Ukraine must give up some of its territory. For Erdogan to repeatedly highlight the importance of Ukraine’s territorial integrity suggests a much more pro-Ukrainian stance than in the past.
However, Turkey is also seeking to become part of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) group and is therefore also being careful not to upset Russia. In his speech, Erdogan tried to present Turkey as an objective mediator for peace, not only in Ukraine but also in the Middle East. That desire to please both sides and remain somewhat neutral may conflict with staying firm on Ukraine’s territorial integrity. We will have to wait and see how it plays out.
The President of Argentina, Javier Milei, gave a fiery speech critical of the United Nations on several fronts. He continued to express his support for Ukraine by pointing out how Russia’s illegal invasion violates the very core of the UN Charter. Milei has become the loudest supporter of Ukraine in Latin America and stands in stark contrast to Brazil’s current president, Lula da Silva (not to mention the previous president, Jair Bolsonaro). It is unlikely to have much material impact, but diplomatically and symbolically it is good for Ukraine to have the leader of one of South America’s largest countries continually offer support.
Perhaps the news that received the largest headlines was Putin, once again, raising the specter of using nuclear weapons. Almost every time Zelensky has met with Western leaders, or the UN has seriously discussed the situation, Putin has attempted to deter support for Ukraine with the threat of nuclear weapons. This time, he announced a change to Russia’s nuclear doctrine about when they would use nuclear weapons. The main revision is that Russia would consider an attack by a non-nuclear country that is backed by a nuclear country as a threat worthy of using nuclear weapons. Historically, international custom is that nuclear countries would not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries. This change is Russia signaling that they are reducing the restrictions to use nuclear weapons in an effort to scare the West away from supporting Ukraine.
The picture above lists all the threats Putin has made related to nuclear weapons. Color me skeptical that he will follow through with his latest. As I have discussed in previous posts, he knows that this will cause hesitation for some in the West, so it is beneficial for him to make the threats even if he has no intention of following through with them. However, the rhetoric is dangerous. And, reducing safeguards internally on using nuclear weapons is also dangerous. It underscores the need for the West to clearly demonstrate their support.
Putin’s nuclear threats are an example of extended deterrence. They are trying to prevent the West from engaging in particular actions. What is particularly striking is the absence of extended deterrence coming out of the West. For example, what if the U.S. said that if Russia doesn’t stop bombing energy infrastructure within the Ukraine, then the U.S. will give permission to Ukraine to use its missile to hit targets deep inside of Russia? Or, if Russia doesn’t stop targeting civilian targets (hospitals, orphanages, etc.) then NATO countries will shoot down missiles and drones that come close to member country airspace? The lack of such extended deterrence from the West shows how reactive the response and policy has been. Russia is almost always the first mover, and the West reacts cautiously, hoping that Russia will not do more. Perhaps it’s time to flip that dynamic.
Within the U.S. the biggest news was Zelensky’s various meetings with U.S. politicians. He met with President Biden, Vice President Harris, former President Trump, Congressional leaders, and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro. There were three purposes to all these meetings. First, Zelensky was looking to secure additional aid right now. The U.S. did announce a new aid package, that includes ammunition, missiles and some new equipment, worth $375 million.
Second, Zelensky was trying to get support for his peace plan. The peace plan has not been made public yet, but it’s safe to say it doesn’t include the territorial concessions that folks like Putin (or Orban or Trump) often mention when they discuss negotiating a cease-fire. Zelensky organized a peace summit in June, and he would like to have another one later this year. Ideally, he would get support from all the main players for his peace plan and that would be the result of the summit. However, early indications suggest that this is unlikely. Apparently, the U.S. did not respond with overwhelming support for Zelensky’s plan.
The third purpose was to assure continued support with whoever is the next president of the U.S. Support from Harris is not really in question. She had agreed to meet with Zelensky from the beginning and has always favored U.S. support for Ukraine. In her meeting with Zelensky she discussed the importance of Ukrainian victory and the role that the U.S. will hopefully play in this.
Attempting to get Trump’s support was always going to be more difficult. Trump initially declined to meet with Zelensky and in a few speeches in the middle of the week was very critical of Zelensky. He referred to Zelensky as a salesman, said that Ukraine would be better off if they had just traded some territory for peace, and suggested that Zelensky was taking advantage of the U.S. with all the aid they had received. This does not sound like a possible future president who will be supportive of Ukraine’s victory over Russia. This sounds like a possible future president who will threaten to remove support for Ukraine if they do not negotiate a cease-fire that involves losing significant chunks of territory. Trump has repeatedly said he will end the war within the first few days he is in office. The only way to do that is to force Ukraine to sign an unjust cease-fire.
The problem for Trump is that a majority in his party still want to support Ukraine. Perhaps he was convinced that his increased anti-Ukrainian rhetoric in the middle of the week was not good for him because he did agree to meet with Zelensky on Friday morning. Most of the meeting went fine, but in the press conference Zelensky had to stand next to Trump as Trump bragged about how good of a relationship he has with Putin, and while he relitigated the first “impeachment hoax”. Trump did offer sympathy and support for Ukraine, so it was at least better than what was happening earlier in the week.
One thing Trump said in his speech on Tuesday, for me, really illustrates the danger of Trump for Ukraine. He was discussing the idea that Russia’s victory is almost certain so support for Ukraine is futile. He said, “Somebody told me the other day, they beat Hitler, they beat Napoleon. That’s what they do.” The they is Russia. If you indulge me let me explain why I think this statement is so dangerous.
First, “somebody told me the other day”. This is Trump’s basis for fact. He is not referencing history, a book he read, or a report prepared for him by his foreign policy adviser. Just somebody told him this so it must be true. This is like in the last debate where his defense of the Haitians are eating dogs and cats statement was that he saw it on TV. Someone with such a weak basis for knowledge and truth is very vulnerable to misinformation and manipulation. Something that Russia is very good at taking advantage of.
Second, “they beat Hitler”. The Russians/Soviet Union beat Hitler. Not the U.S., not the USSR with the help of the U.S. and other allies. Just the Russians. Trump does not see the U.S. playing a positive role in world affairs, in the present or in history. He is not a patriot in the sense that he thinks American actions result in good outcomes for the rest of the world. Most presidents (most Americans) when asked who beat Hitler would say we did. Most Russians when asked who beat Hitler would say Russia did.
Finally, “they beat Hitler, they beat Napoleon. That’s what they do.” Trump, or rather this person who told Trump this, picked two wars that Russia was on the winning side of. As discussed above, Russia beat Napoleon and Hitler with help from allies, not on their own. But even more importantly, pretty much every other war, from the Napoleonic wars to the present, Russia has lost. They lost the Crimean War, the Russo-Japanese War, surrendered in WWI, lost in Afghanistan in the 1980s and lost the first Chechen War. These are the clear losses. The USSR’s involvement in civil wars around the world are also questionable in terms of their outcomes, and Russia’s actions in Syria are also debatable. The only war that Russia has clearly won is the second Chechen War, which they won by completely annihilating the people and towns of Chechnya. The historic illiteracy demonstrated by this statement is indicative of the vulnerability to misinformation and manipulation. Perhaps the person who told Trump this was Putin himself.