Welcome to Home & Away—or what Michael Gordon of the New York Times refers to as “Home Alone.” And welcome to the second day of spring, which officially began yesterday, March 20.
Standing by Your Man
It is not every day you come across Tammy Wynette and Ukraine in the same sentence, but let me explain why today is the day. Tammy Wynette, as many of you will recall, is closely identified with the 1968 country music classic: “Stand by Your Man.” Which raises one of this week’s central questions: Who will Donald Trump stand by? Vladimir Putin or Volodymyr Zelenskyy? Much depends on the answer.
The past week has left matters up in the air. President Trump had an extended phone call with Putin on Tuesday, followed by a phone conversation with Zelenskyy a day later. The ostensible purpose of the call with Putin was to elicit his support for the full, unconditional 30-day ceasefire that Washington and Kyiv had put on the table last week. Putin showed no interest in this proposal, instead suggesting his readiness to embrace a temporary mutual prohibition on attacking energy infrastructure.
This was less an act of good faith on his part than an effort to avoid being seen as the principal impediment to peace. It also reflected Moscow’s beleaguered economy’s reliance on energy and Kyiv's continued ability to strike oil and gas sites deep into Russian territory. Nonetheless, Zelenskyy agreed to this 30-day ban on attacks on energy sites, although whether and when it might kick in is anybody’s guess. So too is what would follow. In the meantime, intense fighting continues unabated.
More telling is what Putin pushed for beyond this limited agreement, principally an end to all foreign military and intelligence assistance to Ukraine and a freeze on any recruitment and training on the part of Ukraine’s military. To state the obvious, this is the stance of someone who is in no rush and sees “peace” as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Putin remains focused on his long-term objective of bringing Ukraine under Russian control. Cutting a deal with the United States over the head of Ukraine—one that would leave Kyiv largely unable to mount an effective defense against renewed Russian attacks—would be consistent with Putin’s belief that Ukraine ought not to be an independent sovereign entity.
The Trump administration has done itself no favors by openly distancing itself from Ukraine, an action that removes Putin’s incentive to agree to a ceasefire. Or by agreeing to bilateral talks with Russia without insisting on a parallel Russia-Ukraine channel. Or by introducing and publicly discussing considerations favorable to Russia into immediate ceasefire talks that ought to be left for a second, final-status phase. Here I would include issues such as permanent territorial adjustments and NATO membership. The best chance for the peace that President Trump seeks is to keep it simple: a ceasefire in place backed by continued U.S. military and intelligence support for Ukraine, support that would incentivize Putin to sign and honor a ceasefire.
So, we know what Putin wants, and we can see that Zelenskyy will accept a ceasefire in place so long as he has the necessary backing and is not pressed to permanently give up Ukraine’s legal claims to its occupied land. What we don’t know is where Trump and his administration stand. The president clearly wants peace, but still unclear are the terms. In short, what kind of peace?
The stakes are great here, not just as regards Ukraine, but beyond. What plays out with Russia will have a significant effect on the future of Europe, on whether China uses force against Taiwan or North Korea against South Korea, and on how the United States is perceived both by its many friends and allies and its enemies around the world. What little is left of the global order hangs in the balance.
As we attempt to discern the administration’s position, the February 2020 deal the first Trump administration signed with the Taliban should give us all pause. It was done over the head of our Afghan partners through direct talks with the Taliban and paved the way for a swift Taliban takeover of Afghanistan a few years later. Hopefully the price Joe Biden paid both domestically and internationally for implementing Trump’s deal will lead Trump to think twice before abandoning Ukraine to a similar fate. All of which brings us back to Tammy: Which man will Trump stand by?
Back to the Future
It has been a while since I’ve written on the Middle East, a respite I expect many of you appreciated. It is impossible to avoid the topic this week, if only because the Middle East is again looking like nothing so much as the Middle East. As predicted when the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas was agreed to, there is little interest on the Israeli government’s side in fulfilling its second phase, which calls for an open-ended ceasefire and the full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in exchange for the release of all remaining hostages. Getting the hostages back home is still not Prime Minister Netanyahu’s top priority, as a permanent ceasefire risks sinking his right-wing coalition government and ushering in elections where he could well fare poorly. At the same time, there is no interest on the part of Hamas in giving up all the remaining hostages as without them there would seemingly be no incentive on Israel’s part to hold back in its operations in Gaza.
So, we are pretty much back to where we started, with Israel halting the entry of aid into Gaza and carrying out military operations against Hamas, operations that continue to degrade the terrorist organization but that also cause widespread civilian casualties. Arab efforts to come up with a viable postwar plan for Gaza have come to naught. The same holds for Trump’s mass deportation plan. We are looking at a future that resembles the past in Gaza: intermittent Israeli attacks, a dysfunctional Gaza in which Hamas, local gangs, and the IDF co-exist, and little in the way of fruitful diplomacy. Even worse, it is quite possible that the West Bank (home to 3 million Palestinians and 500,000 Israeli settlers) will increasingly come to resemble Gaza more than, say, Switzerland given ongoing Israeli operations and the weakening of the Palestinian Authority.
The other news from the region is that the United States has begun attacks on the Houthis in Yemen. I have no problem with this move even if it won’t eliminate the Houthi threat. The Iran-backed Houthis have been interfering with Red Sea shipping (causing delays and hiking costs in the process) and will doubtlessly continue to do so. The use of force also signals to the leadership in Iran that it could be held accountable for its proxy’s actions and that military strikes against Tehran also remain an option if diplomacy fails to place an acceptable ceiling on the country’s rapidly progressing nuclear program.
Order in the Court
I began this edition by noting that March 20 was the first day of Spring. It also marked two months of the second Trump administration. What we have seen among other things is an unprecedented assertion of executive authority. An article in the New York Times summed it up well: “Mr. Trump is trying to consolidate control over the courts, Congress and even, in some ways, American society and culture. His expansive interpretation of presidential power has become the defining characteristic of his second term, an aggressive effort across multiple fronts to assert executive authority to reshape the government, drive policy in new directions and root out what he and his supporters see as a deeply embedded liberal bias.”
To the extent there has been any effective pushback, it has come not from the Republican-controlled Congress, which has walked or, more accurately, run away from its constitutional responsibilities, or the Democrats, who continue to wander in the political desert with favorability ratings that have for good reason fallen to 27% or 29% in recent polls. It is possible that Democrats, and even some Republicans, may find their voice and their courage if economic numbers continue to deteriorate, as they are almost certain to if more tariffs are introduced. The Federal Reserve this week raised its forecasts for both inflation and unemployment and lowered its projection for growth. There is a name for this trifecta—stagflation—and if it comes to pass, the president’s support will fall or even plummet. But for now, he is riding high.
What pushback there has been against the unprecedented and at times unlawful exercise of executive power has come from parts of the media (including even the Wall Street Journal and New York Post) and above all from the judiciary, the subject of Article 3 for those following events on their constitutional scorecard.
Not surprisingly, the president and many of his most ardent supporters have seen fit to attack the judiciary for fulfilling its constitutional obligation to check the executive branch when it strays from the law. This week, Trump called a judge he disagreed with a “radical left lunatic” and called for his impeachment, which a cohort of House Republicans are now preparing. The vice president has argued that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.” Border Czar Tom Homan has stated “I don’t care what the judges think.” Elon Musk has accused judges issuing rulings he disagrees with of mounting a “judicial coup.”
Things reached a point this week where Chief Justice John Roberts felt compelled to issue a statement saying, “For more than two centuries it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
That rebuke was welcome, but it doesn’t directly address the even more serious matter of the executive branch ignoring rulings with which it disagrees, including one recently issued by federal judge James Boasberg, who for various legal reasons sought to block what he saw as illegal deportations of several hundred Venezuelans (allegedly gang members although the administration has admitted that many do not have a criminal record) to an infamously dangerous El Salvador prison. Despite Boasberg’s temporary restraining order, the administration proceeded with deportations. There is no getting around it: this is the stuff of an existential crisis in our democracy, one which rests on checks and balances rather than the primacy of any single branch of the federal government. We postpone introducing mandatory national civics education into our schools and colleges at our collective peril. It is hard to see how the dismantling of the Department of Education will improve matters.
What is going on here at home is not unique, though. Globally, other democracies are likewise succumbing to illiberalism. In Turkey, police have detained the mayor of Istanbul as he was about to be named the opposition's candidate seeking to defeat long-time president Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the next election. And in Israel, the Cabinet defied the country’s attorney general to back Bibi Netanyahu’s firing of Ronen Bar, the head of Israel’s internal security agency (Shin Bet), for reasons that include his unwillingness to drop an investigation into close aides of the prime minister. At Home and Away, liberal democracy is fighting for its life.
If all this makes you crave escape, I don’t blame you. One diversion I heartily recommend takes place on another court: the basketball one. Court of Gold is a six-part series on Netflix that tracks the men’s basketball competition at the 2024 Paris Olympics. It is so good that you don’t even have to be a fan of the game to enjoy it.
As always, some links to click on. And feel free to share Home & Away.
Richard Haass in the news
Monday, March 17: Stay Tuned With Preet Bharara (What Putin, Zelensky, and Trump Really Want)
Tuesday, March 18: Network 20/20 (The New Rules: The U.S. in a Shifting World Order with Richard Haass)
Tuesday, March 18: Katy Tur (Is There a Path to Peace? 'Every Moment' Ukraine Exists Is 'Thorn in Putin's Side')
Check out The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens