2024 and Realpolitik's faulty assumption

Leaving the moral element out of foreign policy consigns good people to violation

Thanks for upgrading to a paid subscription. Writing is my job. Your support of that means everything to me.

The parallel phenomena - or perhaps mirror-opposite phenomena works better - on the post-American Right and Left regarding the two currently raging conflicts on the world stage persist.

Over at my old-school blog, Late in the Day, I look into the more egregious causes of each - the Left’s tolerance of blatant Jew-hatred in the case of the Israel-must-agree-to-a-ceasefire-now crowd, and the Trumpist Right’s dangerously myopic take-care-of-our-own stance regarding Ukraine.

But there are arguments for the same policies that strive for a more measured tone. At least attitudinally, they take their cue from Realpolitik, the approach to foreign policy that’s

based primarily on considerations of given circumstances and factors, rather than strictly following ideological, moral, or ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism. It is often simply referred to as pragmatism in politics, e.g. "pursuing pragmatic policies" or "realistic policies".

Realpolitik became the driving force during the time Henry Kissinger was the US national security advisor, as well as the stints in that role of Brent Scowcroft a few years later. Kissinger, of course, pursued detente with the Soviet Union and establishing relations with Maoist China. He said that great powers were going to have to strive for balance among them, that changing the whole nature of the dynamic was not realistic.

I guess there is something to be said for Realpolitik in one sense. Human history is really the story of hanging on with duct tape, nerves of steel, a sense of humor, and faith in a transcendent order. Stability has always been fleeting, everywhere.

But there’s such a thing as right and wrong. The Kissingerian approach would have us always merely tamping threats down, maintaining a status quo. It’s management. It doesn’t help right prevail over wrong, and that eventually dulls us morally.

It’s still with us, though.

Greg Priddy has spent his career focused on risk calculations in global energy markets. He currently has a piece on Israel at The National Interest that places the onus for calming things down on Netanyahu and his cabinet, as if choosing whether or not to escalate on either the southern or northern border is a matter of whim:

Netanyahu repeatedly flicks matches into the tinder of the Middle East, hoping that it will catch fire. The aerial attack on Iranian generals at a diplomatic facility in Damascus, which led to Iran’s well-telegraphed missile attack on April 14, certainly seemed to be intended to escalate. Still, Iran did not take the bait, clearly pulling a punch. The July 31 killing of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh during his visit to Tehran prompted President Biden to criticize it as “not helpful” to Gaza ceasefire talks, but Iran has thus not responded yet. Hezbollah’s response to the killing of one of their senior commanders at the same time was partially preempted by Israel and allowed to end without escalation. It is in this context that the attacks in Lebanon over the last two days should be seen. Even if there was a “use it or lose it” situation with the devices themselves, there was no compelling reason Israel needed to strike right now unless seen in the context of initiating a broader conflict with Hezbollah and possibly Iran.

The disregard for U.S. concerns and national interests is palpable. If another U.S. ally or partner undertook actions that risked drawing the United States into a major conflict against its will, there would be consequences. The timing also raises the question of whether there is an intention to impact the U.S. presidential race, given the support Donald Trump has received from figures on the Israeli extreme Right and the negative impact that rising fuel prices have historically had for incumbent parties in presidential races.

The United States absolutely should continue to support Israel’s security. Still, the relationship needs to be reset and perhaps made a bit less “special.

A “little less special.” Look, Israel is a Western nation. It’s located in the Middle East, yes, but it has a parliamentarian government, a robust economy as free as any Western nation’s is these days, and, of course, contributes Jerusalem to the Jerusalem-Athens formulation of the two distinguishing features of the West. And most of the ethnic groups in surrounding nations have a seemingly instinctual aversion to having Jews as neighbors. The first of many wars modern Israel has had to fight broke out the day after its independence was proclaimed.

A trade of Israeli hostages for Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails is not an even deal. Those prisoners are incarcerated because they committed acts that had as their aim bringing down the nation-state of Israel. They will commit more such acts if freed. The hostages in Gaza were attending a music festival, or going about their business in their homes.

And life in northern Israel has come to a halt. The families in communities there have fled due to Hezbollah rocket fire. They’re staying in hotels closer to the central part of the country.

If it’s not in US interest to once again stave off the multi-fronted assault on Israel, don’t know what is. A nuclear-breakout Iran is watching proceedings very closely.

Donald Trump, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. have jointly penned a column in The Hill titled “Negotiate With Moscow To End the Ukraine War and Prevent Nuclear Devastation.” It’s predicated on the framing of a stark choice: manage for the status quo, or we face the unthinkable:

Putin has signaled numerous times that Russia would use nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances. In September 2022, Putin said, “If the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, we will without doubt use all available means to protect Russia and our people — this is not a bluff.” In March 2023, he struck a deal with Belarus to station tactical nuclear weapons there. Earlier this month, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov announced that Russia would be amending its nuclear doctrine in response to Western involvement in the Ukraine war.

Imagine if Russia were providing another country with missiles, training and targeting information to strike deep into American territory. The U.S. would never tolerate it. We shouldn’t expect Russia to tolerate it either.

This game of nuclear “chicken” has gone far enough. There is no remaining step between firing U.S. missiles deep into Russian territory and a nuclear exchange. We cannot get any closer to the brink than this.

Actually, that has the odor of the moral equivalency doctrine William Appleton Williams put forth as a pillar of New Left thinking in the 1950s.

I liked the responses from prominent Ukrainians in the Kyiv Independent. Here are a few:

We asked five prominent Ukrainians what they thought of the piece.

Prof. Olexiy Haran

University of Kyiv Mohyla Academy, and research advisor at the Democratic Initiatives Foundation

"Frankly speaking, it seems that the authors do not understand the reasons for the war and Russia's aims. They are only repeating Russian lies. Escalation from the side of the West? Come on!

"The authors pretend they do not know the facts. In 1994 Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal – the third largest in the world – in exchange for territorial guarantees provided by the UK, the US and …. Russia.

"In 2010, Ukraine officially declared itself to be neutral. Until 2014, Ukrainians were strongly against joining NATO.

"And, nevertheless, Russia attacked Ukraine in 2014. Putin is openly saying there is no separate Ukrainian state, Ukrainians should be part of the 'Great Russian people.'

"He is annexing Ukrainian territory. The former Russian empire is trying to come back.

"According to the U.N. Charter Ukraine, as a founding member of the U.N., has the full right to defend itself. We may criticize the Biden administration but only for being slow in providing support and weapons to the victim of aggression.

"He is annexing Ukrainian territory. The former Russian empire is trying to come back."

"The whole country is being bombarded from the bases inside Russia, Ukrainian civilians are dying every day. Can Ukraine strike back on Russian bases?

"Or Russia should be allowed to continue to destroy the whole country. Instead, the authors of the article yield to Putin’s nuclear blackmail. They say: 'No vital American interest is at stake.'

"If Russia succeeds it will be a signal to all other tyrannies in the world to start aggressions and to use nuclear blackmail. We will live in a world of the jungle."

Dmitry Grozoubinski

author and former diplomat

"In order for there to be a nuclear exchange, the President of the Russian Federation has to decide to initiate it. It does not occur automatically when he gets angry or humiliated enough.

"He is not a video game boss with a slowly filling rage meter. This man, who lives in unbelievably luxury, obsessed with his own personal safety and status, has to consciously decide to die in nuclear fire. That’s the threshold.

"As I write this and perhaps even as you read it, the Toropets Arsenal, one of the largest arms stockpiles in Russia, is burning from what was reportedly a mass strike with over a hundred Ukrainian UAVs.

"It is over 500 kilometres from the frontline, and far closer to Moscow and St. Petersburg than to Kyiv, Kharkiv or Lviv. Yet the sky is miraculously free of nuclear missiles, and the horizon of mushroom clouds.

"Are we supposed to believe, as Donald Trump Jr. and RFK Jr. apparently do, that Putin is willing to end all life on earth over a strike on a strategic stockpile, but only if the munition that delivers it was made in a Western factory?"

Nataliia Shapoval

economist, and head of the Kyiv School of Economics

"Kennedy and Trump Jr. are wrong: complacency with Russia's nuclear blackmail doesn't reduce the risk of escalation for the U.S. and the world—it increases it. Yielding to Russia's threats emboldens Moscow and conveys that whatever Russia does, the U.S. can't stop them.

"Russia has been continuously probing the U.S. and NATO's responses to its violations of international law and human rights. So far, Russia hasn't faced any strong reaction. Russia violated the sovereignty of independent states in Europe; committed war crimes; kidnapped thousands of children; used U.S. technology to create deadly drones and missiles; collaborated with Iran and North Korea on weapon production; occupied a nuclear plant, risking a catastrophic meltdown; and destroyed one of Europe's largest water dams.

"Therefore, Russia has no motivation to pursue peace, neither through negotiations nor through war. And this is what Kennedy and Trump Jr. are not saying in their appeasement proposal: What leverage, what bargain with Russia will they offer in the negotiations?

"If the U.S. cannot offer deterrence and is not willing to give Russia a strong response — even by the hands of Ukrainian soldiers — because they don't have this leverage.

"Kennedy and Trump Jr. are effectively proposing to negotiate peace by allowing Russia to occupy Ukraine, making Russia NATO's neighbor, triggering massive refugee flows and genocide in plain sight."

I come back to the duct-tape-and-faith view of human history I expressed above. I’d wager that the reason complete smithereens has not been our fate so far is that a critical mass of those in a position to determine whether or not that would indeed be our fate believed that what is right, true and good should be pursued. And that means that unprovoked aggression cannot stand.