Welcome to Home and Away. I spent the bulk of the week away in the Middle East—more precisely the Persian or Arabian Gulf. I will discuss what I heard there later on; but for now, I will focus on a few other stories.
Navalny
A U.S. spacecraft landed on the surface of the moon for the first time in more than fifty years, but here on earth it was a mostly dark week, defined more than anything else by the murder of Alexei Navalny and the dramatic appearance of his widow at the annual Munich Security Conference only hours after the news broke. What has followed since his death is a debate over how best to respond. In addition to the more than 500 sanctions that the Biden administration announced this morning, there is also a renewed push for the seizure of some $300 billion in Russian reserve assets that have been sitting in Western financial institutions since being frozen two years ago following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The problem with relying on more sanctions to accomplish anything new is that we are up against diminishing returns, since so much associated with the Russian economy has already been sanctioned. Actually, it is worse than that, as the impact of the existing sanctions has been modest given Russia’s continued ability to export oil and gas and the unwillingness of dozens of countries to sign onto the sanctions. And there is the historical record strongly suggesting that sanctions rarely accomplish much of consequence. This is not an argument against the sanctions – they can be useful as a signal and can impose costs on their targets – but no one should harbor any illusions about the impact they are likely to have on either Putin’s position or policy.
Whether to confiscate frozen Russian financial assets has been a topic of debate since the opening days of Russia’s invasion. There are pros and cons to this approach. These assets would be transferred to Ukraine to pay for the mounting rebuilding costs necessitated by Russia’s destructive aggression. And there is precedent for such seizures, such as Iraq’s reserves following its invasion of Kuwait in 1990. There are also arguments against, including the potential for Russia’s retaliatory seizure of Western assets in Russian institutions, the precedent it would set for other governments such as China’s, and the possibility it might weaken the dollar’s status as a reserve currency. Seizure would also remove what could be an incentive for some future Russian leadership to reach a negotiated settlement with Ukraine, partly to gain access to the funds.
I see two other problems with seizing Russian assets for reconstruction efforts. It is too soon to start large-scale rebuilding of Ukraine given that the war continues and is likely to for some time. And the funds would not provide Ukraine with what it needs most right now, which is arms and ammunition. All of which is to say that seizing Russian assets seems tangential to the current challenges Ukraine faces.
So how should the West respond to Navalny’s murder? I am drawn to taking a page from George Kennan’s playbook and the containment doctrine that provided guidance throughout the four decades of the Cold War. Kennan’s focus was less on altering the internal dynamics of the Soviet system than on frustrating its expansionist ambitions. Kennan believed that doing so might eventually unleash internal pressures within the USSR that would weaken it from within, but this for him was secondary if only because it was uncertain to occur. Kennan instead prioritized the application of counter-pressure wherever the Soviet Union sought to expand its control as the best way to moderate Moscow’s behavior. In other words, Kennan believed U.S. policy should focus on shaping the Soviet Union’s foreign policy rather than on attempting to change its domestic political system.
Today, as we mark the end of the second year of this phase of Russia’s war against Ukraine and the start of the third, that logic calls for providing more military aid to Ukraine. Any doubts of the necessity for doing so were erased by the fall of the city of Avdiivka, a former stronghold for the Ukrainians. The loss of this city (and the capture of an undisclosed number of Ukrainian troops in the process) is a direct result of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives’ failure to support both a friend in need and principles fundamental to international order. Alas, it is not clear whether or when this stance will be reversed.
Since we are on the subject of the unconscionable, it is impossible not to mention Donald Trump’s response to Navalny’s murder: “The sudden death of Alexei Navalny has made me more and more aware of what is happening in our Country,” he wrote. “It is a slow, steady progression, with CROOKED, Radical Left Politicians, Prosecutors, and Judges leading us down a path to destruction. Open Borders, Rigged Elections, and Grossly Unfair Courtroom Decisions are DESTROYING AMERICA. WE ARE A NATION IN DECLINE, A FAILING NATION! MAGA2024.”
Much has been said about these comments; much more could be. At minimum, they strengthen the already powerful argument that Trump is demonstrably unfit (for reasons to do with both character and policy) to hold the office of president of the United States.
Nikki Haley, for her part, is staying in the race despite the tall odds against her in Saturday’s South Carolina primary and beyond; in basketball lingo, she is hanging around the rim. This is a good thing, as it is important that Trump’s unfitness to be president be pointed out by Republicans as well as Democrats. In addition, she is focusing her campaign message on Trump’s stance toward Russia, which will hopefully raise awareness among voters about his dangerous positions. Yes, this will take her out of vice-presidential consideration, but as Mike Pence nearly learned the hard way, that ostensible honor can be a poisoned chalice. In return for her efforts, the Party might turn to her if Trump suffers a major legal setback before November. More likely is that she is boosting her prospects for 2028 and increasing her chances of becoming a major voice in the post-Trump Republican party.
Middle East Morass
As I said at the outset, I am back from a short trip to parts of the Middle East. There is a widespread view there that the United States is applying insufficient pressure on Israel and an associated concern that what is transpiring in Gaza is radicalizing a younger generation of Arabs, leading them to support the Palestinian cause that was near irrelevant to them five months ago. It is also doing much to damage Israel’s image, even with those in the region who were warming to it. I don’t see any of those in a relationship with Israel severing ties, but nor do I see anyone (including the Saudis) moving forward without a serious policy adjustment by Israel.
Disappointment with the United States also stems from what is viewed as a consistent lack of American preparedness to take on Iran, dating back to Trump’s refusal to forcefully defend Saudi Arabia after Iran struck its oil facilities in 2019. Indeed, there is the worry that renewed signs of isolationism in this country—mixed somewhat contradictorily with greater U.S. focus on Asia and Europe—will leave our friends in the region more vulnerable to Iran, especially if it continues to advance its nuclear program.
In the meantime, the United States used its veto (for the third time since October 7) in the UN Security Council, quashing a ceasefire resolution judged to be one-sided and in competition with ongoing attempts to negotiate a new pause in the fighting along with an additional hostage release. It is worth highlighting, though, that in the wake of this veto, the United States finally drafted and circulated a draft resolution of its own, one that states opposition to Israel carrying out a ground offensive in Rafah (at the edge of Gaza near Egypt). It also calls for a temporary ceasefire.
What is noteworthy about the draft resolution is less its content than its existence. It is a rare but welcome sign of a more independent U.S. policy toward Israel, as Netanyahu is still advocating for a ground operation in Rafah. It comes in the wake of U.S. sanctions levied against some settlers perpetrating violence against Palestinians in the West Bank. Hopefully these moves are a sign of things to come, i.e., additional independent American initiatives, including articulating a political path that would increase the odds that both Israeli and Palestinian partners for peace emerge, as what is painfully clear is that months of high-level entreaties seeking to influence Israeli behavior have had little effect.
Any doubts as to Israeli intentions in and around Gaza were erased by detailed reports in the media of a document presented to Israel’s security cabinet Thursday evening. The blueprint calls among other things for unlimited Israeli military operations in all of Gaza coupled with an open-ended occupation, the creation of a buffer zone inside Gaza along its border, a reliance on local leaders with no links to Hamas (the document does not mention the Palestinian Authority), the area’s reconstruction only after Hamas’ defeat, as well as demilitarization and deradicalization.
What is increasingly apparent with every passing day is that this Israeli prime minister and government are heading in a direction fundamentally at odds with the preferences of the United States, Arab governments, and much of the world. The real question is whether Israel can be influenced or stopped. It is anything but certain it will be. As a result, we are most likely heading toward a future defined by open-ended Israeli occupation and low-level war in Gaza, sporadic violence or worse between Israel and Hezbollah in the north, and drift (occupation along with settlement expansion) in the West Bank. The one-state non-solution is on the verge of becoming even more of a reality than it already is, with what I believe will prove to be tragic results for Palestinians, for Israel, and for Israel’s relationship with the United States and much of the world. Sorry to begin and end this week’s newsletter on such a sober note, but it is hard to avoid reality when it is so clear.
As always, some links to click on. And feel free to share Home & Away.
Richard Haass in the news
Friday, February 16: Bloomberg Wall Street Week on foreign policy and the 2024 U.S. presidential election. MSNBC Morning Joe on the death of Alexei Navalny.
Sunday, February 18: CNN Fareed Zakaria GPS on the war in Gaza and the possibility of the war widening.
Thursday, February 22: BBC News on U.S. approach to Israel.
Podcast
Check out The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens