By Eli Lake
Monday, March
14, 2022
As Russian tanks and commandos invaded
Ukraine last month, the UN Security Council held an emergency session. Vladimir
Putin had just set the United Nations Charter ablaze, and there was nothing the
ambassadors gathered in Turtle Bay could do about it.
Presiding over this impotent pageant was
Russia’s envoy, Vassily Nebenzia. He looked alternately bored and bemused as
the diplomats on the Security Council pleaded with him to stop a war that they
had gathered to prevent. Nebenzia insisted that Russia’s maneuvers were
defensive and limited to the Donbas region even as events in Ukraine
discredited him in real time.
All of it was too much for Ukrainian
ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya. As his Russian rival gazed at his phone, Kyslytsya
pleaded with him to call Russia’s foreign minister and stop the invasion. But
the Ukrainian’s most profound question was not for the Russian ambassador, but
for the United Nations itself. Why should Russia retain the Soviet Union’s
permanent seat and veto on the Security Council more than 30 years after the
end of the Soviet Union? And what did it say about the UN that an arsonist was
chairing a meeting of the fire department?
This is the kind of question America and
her allies need to study in the weeks ahead. Whatever the outcome of the war
for Ukraine, we are living in a different world now. In the new world, Putin’s
Russia is not a part of the community of nations. It is a threat to the
community of nations. Consequently, the international system created after
World War II must be revised. The free world is again engaged in a cold war
with a country whose capital is Moscow.
None of this should have come as a
surprise, though it clearly has for many people. Putin has probed the West’s
resolve for nearly 20 years. He launched wars of aggression against Georgia in
2008 and against Ukraine in 2014. But there was always a fig leaf to mask the
obscenity of Putin’s acts when it came to international law. In 2014, Putin did
not acknowledge that Russian military forces had entered Ukraine. Instead, he
used “little green men,” soldiers and mercenaries without uniforms or insignia,
to annex Crimea. In Georgia in 2008, he baited Tbilisi to strike first at
separatists his spies had supported.
His other predations have also featured
plausible deniability. Putin has launched cyberattacks on pipelines and banks.
He has ordered assassinations of political foes abroad. His regime has flooded
social media with conspiracy theories and lies. His hackers have interfered in
Western elections.
But now Putin is not bothering to hide his
hand. Annexing Crimea and recognizing the independence of separatist states in
Donetsk and Luhansk were not enough. He was determined to swallow all of
Ukraine in plain sight for the world to see, betting that the world would do
nothing to stop him.
Putin miscalculated. Ukraine’s government
didn’t collapse in the first days of the war. President Volodymyr Zelensky did
not flee Kiev. Instead, he filmed cellphone videos of himself and his cabinet
promising to keep fighting. And despite its dependence on Russia’s natural gas,
Europe unleashed unprecedented economic warfare on Moscow, barring some Russian
banks from the SWIFT financial-messaging system, banning Russian flights in
European airspace, and freezing the assets of the Russian billionaires who have
enjoyed comfortable lives in London, Paris, and Rome for more than two decades.
President Joe Biden has also unleashed sanctions on Russia and promised that
Putin would now be treated like a pariah.
Even Putin’s erstwhile allies have been
shocked by his brazen aggression. Hungary’s Viktor Orban condemned Putin’s war.
Germany has now committed to spend 2 percent of its gross domestic product on
defense, a revolutionary change. It has also suspended construction of the Nord
Stream 2 pipeline. Even historically neutral Switzerland, a country that hid
Nazi gold in World War II, agreed to freeze the assets of Russian oligarchs.
The International Olympics Committee voted to ban Russia from international
competition. And Russian citizens, at great personal risk, took to the streets
in protest.
This was a hinge moment. The response to
Putin’s war has been the equivalent of an economic and diplomatic blockade,
forcing Russia into the arms of a dangerous neighbor, China. The prosperous
countries where Russia’s most talented citizens would rather live are now
closed off
As I write, the blockade is reactive. It
is aimed at coercing Russia to withdraw from Ukraine. This is what President
Joe Biden had in mind when he mused, just as the war was breaking out, that the
new sanctions might force Putin to reevaluate his choices “in a month.” But
they also should be the first steps in a break with the autocratic world.
Such a break will require a commitment to
isolate Russia in the near term, and, over time, China, from the international
system and global economy; deter future aggression with a credible threat of
military force; and nurture freedom movements in the autocratic world with a
long-term goal of democratic change. It requires a combination of strategic
separation, national resilience, and international solidarity.
This is the strategy to accomplish it.
1.
RESIST THE
CHINA DELUSION
Since Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon
opened relations with China a half century ago, American strategists have tried
to play China against Russia. At a moment when Putin himself is broadcasting
wild theories about Russian history and threatening to use nuclear weapons,
there is a temptation to continue this approach. Since China might now have
reason to also fear Putin, we could isolate Russia by reaching out to China—or
so the theory goes.
It won’t work.
China and Russia have already started
aligning. In January, both countries, along with Iran, held their third joint
military exercises in the Indian Ocean. Before the opening of the Winter
Olympics in Beijing, Putin met with Xi Jinping and released a joint statement
declaring that the partnership between their two countries knew no limits. A
few days after Germany suspended the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, Russia’s Gazprom
consortium announced a new contract to build a pipeline to China. We can expect
China to offer Russia loans to keep its economy afloat. China may even make
good on its threat to build an alternative to the SWIFT financial-messaging
system.
This cooperation is happening not because
America has missed diplomatic openings. Rather it is because China and Russia
share a common interest in thwarting the U.S.-led international order. Neither
country wants to live in a world where the sovereignty of weaker and smaller
nations is inviolable. Neither country wants to play by common rules of trade,
banking, and international finance. Neither country wants to respect the
freedom of its citizens. And both countries need an enemy to justify their
autocratic rule.
For now, the priority must be stopping
Russia. But the West must prepare to make a break with China as well.
Since the end of the Cold War, American
and Western strategy has sought to tame China and Russia through inclusion in
the international system. If we could entice China and Russia, so the theory
went, to cooperate when it came to threats to the global commons and induce
them to join international institutions such as the World Trade Organization,
both nations would be obliged to play by the same rules that restrain
democracies. And if over time the West traded with Russia and China to make
their countries more prosperous, then a middle class would emerge demanding
more freedoms at home.
This strategy has failed. Chinese and
Russian elites grew fabulously wealthy and used their wealth to corrupt Western
democracies. America and Europe grew dependent on Chinese manufacturing and
investment and on Russian energy and natural resources. All the while, both
countries have eroded the international institutions the West had hoped would constrain
them.
Consider what has happened to Interpol,
the organization that is supposed to share real-time information on criminals
between federal police. In 2018, China disappeared the president of the
organization, a Chinese national named Meng Hongwei, on a visit back home. He
only emerged in public two years later for a politicized trial where he was
sentenced to 13 years in prison for alleged corruption. So did China lose its
seat on Interpol, after effecting such regime change? Of course not. To this day,
China, Russia, and other dictatorships continue to abuse Interpol’s system for
alerting the world about criminal fugitives, issuing so called “red notices”
for their political opponents, all the while harboring hackers, arms dealers,
and other thugs.
Another example of how selective
engagement with China and Russia failed is the deal the Obama administration
struck in 2013 to rid Syria of chemical weapons. Here, the Russians played an
important role. After Barack Obama threatened military strikes against Syria’s
regime to punish its use of chemical munitions, the Russians brokered a deal
for Syria to give them up. But there was a hitch. Syria’s dictator, Bashar
al-Assad got to keep some of them and indeed would use them again and again. It
would be nice to believe that Assad had fooled America and Russia back in 2013.
But when Assad began gassing his people again, Russia had already sent its air
force into Syria to fight on Assad’s side. Not surprisingly, Russia has used
its veto at the UN Security Council to shield its Syrian client.
2.
ALTER THE
INTERNATIONAL
SYSTEM
A new strategy should seek to limit
diplomatic engagement with China and Russia, but not to entirely cut it off.
All three countries should remain engaged in nuclear arms control. The hotlines
and transparency measures the Soviet Union and America created in the 20th
century show that it’s possible to wage a cold war and still reduce the risk of
nuclear war. Democracies should also keep their embassies open to monitor the
stirrings of freedom movements inside Russia and China.
But the days of seeking Russian and
Chinese support for UN Security Council resolutions about Iran’s nuclear
program, to name one example, should be over. Russia and China see such
cooperation as leverage over the West. It’s troubling that the Biden
administration is still seeking to finish an Iran nuclear deal brokered by
Russia. It sends the message that Putin’s regime is not really the pariah Joe
Biden now says it is and should be.
Along these same lines, America should
conduct an audit of all international organizations to determine where it is
possible to expel Russian and Chinese diplomats or whether there is a need to
create new institutions to replace them.
This has happened before. After the Third
Reich took control of Interpol’s predecessor in 1938, several allied countries
began to withdraw their membership. Interpol was not reconstituted until after
World War II. Following that model, the State Department should declare a new
policy toward the UN Security Council. It’s time to stop pretending that it is
a font of international law when a country like Russia remains a veto-wielding
permanent member. With that in mind, Western diplomats should explore the
prospect of demoting Russia’s status on the grounds that there was no General
Assembly vote for Russia to join the UN after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
If that doesn’t work, America and its allies should issue an ultimatum: It’s us
or Russia. If the UN cannot or will not demote Russia’s status, then the West should
undertake to build an alternative to the United Nations that excludes Russia
and eventually China.
A successor to the UN would have many
long-term advantages for the free world. It could introduce clarifying
standards for states to enjoy a kind of first-class global citizenship.
Countries that launch aggressive wars, violate nonproliferation agreements, or
extinguish internal political opposition would be ejected. Their seats would go
to free governments in exile. So Belarus, for example, would be represented by
Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, the school teacher who won her country’s 2020
election.
3.
END OUR
DEPENDENCY ON THEIR
MARKETS
We need to separate ourselves from Russia
and China economically, to the extent possible. This has already begun to
happen with Russia and to a degree with China. But the free world must do more.
This means removing restrictions on fracking and fossil-fuel exploration in the
U.S. and Europe and revitalizing the nuclear-power industry on both sides of
the Atlantic. French president Emanuel Macron has already started this process.
Germany should follow his lead. Europe and America should also support Israel’s
natural-gas pipeline to the continent. None of this should preclude efforts to
find sources of alternative green energy. But until wind and solar can power
nation-states, the West has to focus on freeing itself from Russian energy by
producing its own.
Economic separation also demands a
strategy to address China’s and Russia’s control of the global market for rare
earth minerals and metals. Those materials are needed for everything from the
production of car batteries to guided missiles. Today, to take one example,
China alone could disrupt America’s aircraft industry if it decided to stop
selling neodymium and praseodymium to the West. And so the allies need to form
a consortium to create a secure supply chain of these materials that bypasses
China and Russia. It should form part of a broader campaign, already underway
for the past few years, that frees the supply lines for critical industries
such as military, computer technology, aircraft, and auto sectors from
dependence on China.
Finally, a policy of economic separation
should also take on China’s campaign to build digital and physical
infrastructure in the Third World by offering a better deal. America and its
allies are already behind in this game, but they are not out of it. For
instance, the U.S. and European allies should subsidize Western telecom
companies so that they are in a position to provide emerging markets an
alternative to China’s cheap 5G cell towers produced by Huawei.
4.
FOCUS ON DETERRENCE
AND RESLIENCE
Energy independence and new supply chains
are two crucial elements when it comes to protecting the free world’s economies
from China and Russia. But the West also has to prepare for the prospect of
military confrontation. Here, the goal should be both deterrence and
resilience.
This means, first, that America should
prepare for the possibility that China and Russia will launch European and
Pacific wars at the same time. The Pentagon must revive long-standing American
doctrine that was ended in 2014—the doctrine that says we must be ready to
fight and win two wars at once. That would require a significant buildup of
forces to Cold War levels, along with committing at least 5 percent of GDP to
defense spending (it’s currently about 3.75 percent). Along these lines, NATO
allies should authorize a permanent presence in states that border Russia. A
similar strategy should be pursued against China. Now would be a good time to
knit together the mutual-defense agreements that the U.S. already has with
Australia, South Korea, and Japan and renew a military alliance in the Pacific.
Over time, the alliance should expand to include the Philippines, Vietnam, and
Indonesia.
A new military strategy should also
prepare for the unconventional threats that China and Russia pose to America.
For instance, China has, in the past decade, developed anti-satellite missiles
capable of blinding America in time of war. In response, the Pentagon should
build up the capability to rapidly relaunch communications satellites in such
an event.
The new military mobilization should also
provide anti-ballistic-missile defenses to major cities in America, Europe, and
the Pacific. Ronald Reagan’s pursuit of missile defense terrified the Soviets.
A commitment to deploy these systems should remind the Kremlin that it stands
to lose much more than the West in the horrific event of a nuclear exchange.
The U.S. government has over the past
decade bolstered the defense of the computer networks that control everything
from the electrical grid to the U.S. banking system, or what is known as
critical infrastructure. Comparatively little has been done to prepare for the
chance that hackers will succeed in disabling them. Doing so requires the
revival of the Cold War concept of civil defense. Every American city, town, and
county should designate officials to take charge in the event of a
cyber-created natural disaster, from blackouts, floods, or the contamination of
the water supply. In addition, the federal government should begin to build
more redundancy into electrical grids, gas pipelines, and water reservoirs,
with a plan to restore infrastructure that could be disabled through cyber war.
We established some of these emergency procedures after 9/11 and could adapt
them.
5.
DEMONSTRATE
SOLIDARITY
The most potent advantage the West has
over autocracies is that the free world is a magnet for genius fleeing tyranny.
This human capital has been an engine of American ingenuity and creativity
since its founding. In this respect, it is not enough to quarantine Russia and
China. America should also welcome their dissidents, artists, engineers,
doctors, lawyers, poets, and scientists—and offer them a better life in the
United States rather than sending them home to use our knowhow to their native
advantage. Over time, this brain drain will weaken China’s and Russia’s ability
to keep pace with Western innovation.
There is an opportunity for creative
statecraft. To wit: The children of Chinese and Russian elites should be barred
from U.S. universities. But the children of Chinese and Russian dissidents
should be given scholarships. Immigrants to the free world are also an
important window into the tyrannies they have fled. At moments when tyrants
teeter and demonstrations fill the streets, the U.S. government should consult
with the Americans who know these countries best. It’s important in this
respect to distinguish between solidarity and regime change. The goal is to
support democratic movements as they arise, not to direct them. But the
long-term strategy should be to align with Russian, Chinese, Iranian,
Venezuelan, Cuban, and North Korean movements that demand citizens’ rights as
free peoples.
America also should strengthen Radio Free
Europe and Radio Free Asia to meet the demands of the 21st century. This would
entail building on existing programs to help dissidents and activists shield
their electronic communications from their regime’s secret police and pursue
satellite technology to provide uncensored Internet in Russia, China, and other
despotic countries. This is especially urgent in Russia, where Putin has banned
most Western social media.
This approach should also be adopted by
Silicon Valley, which should be actively discouraged from serving as tyranny’s
cat’s-paw. In 2021, Google and Apple both removed an app from their online
stores in Russia that had been developed by the organization of dissident
politician Alexei Navalny. This should never happen again. Russia seeks to
erase Navalny from its Internet. American tech companies should make it a
priority to amplify his organization online in Russia.
Finally, solidarity programs—modeled on
the heroic work that Jewish Americans did to help free refusenik Jews during
the Cold War—should be adopted by American civil society. Newspaper editors
should partner with what is left of a free press in China and Russia. Lawyers
and scientists should do the same with their counterparts. This would raise the
costs of extinguishing freedom for the Chinese and Russian regimes.
Some may dismiss a solidarity strategy as
a form of hopeless idealism. And it’s true that in the past decade dictators
have proven more resilient than democracy movements. But this calculation
discounts a lesson of history. Tyrants will always view the example of free
peoples determining their own destiny as an existential threat, lest their own
citizens demand those freedoms for themselves. America’s leaders should never
forget this and understand that alliances with tyrants are temporary, but the
bonds with free peoples endure.
6.
ASSERT
MORAL CONFIDENCE
Zelensky’s bravery in the face of
overwhelming odds has proved a reminder that great peril can produce great
leaders. America is in desperate need of such leadership today. Our country has
been mired in self-doubt. We have forgotten who we are. The nationalist right and
the socialist left don’t agree on much, but they both regard America’s recent
wars as moral abominations and the country’s economic realities as marks of an
irredeemable corruption. Who are we to judge or intervene, when we have
tortured prisoners and droned wedding parties? Who are we to promote equality
when we have income inequality?
It’s time for both parties to soundly
reject this myopic politics. American global leadership is the only way that
weaker democracies can survive. It is the only chance for long-term peace. And
for all the ugly chapters in American history, our enemies have done and are
doing and will do worse. We remain a beacon of hope for all people who struggle
for freedom, whether we know it or not.
Rejecting the recent myopia and division
requires some faith in the American people as well. The campaign against
“disinformation”—much of it based in the idea that stupid Americans were wildly
susceptible to Russian manipulation—has resulted in pointless censorship. We
should not make that mistake again. Consider that all of Russia’s propaganda
and bribery in Europe, aimed at weakening the continent’s resolve during a war
like this, has failed miserably. Putin’s menace and Zelensky’s heroism
galvanized Europeans and their leaders to impose unprecedented sanctions on
Russia and reinvestment in their militaries in record time. There is no need to
ban Russian state propaganda from the Internet. Moscow’s lies are
self-discrediting.
This moment should also stir the
Republican Party to take a hard look at its future. Donald Trump is too
enamored with strong men to carry on America’s tradition of fighting tyranny.
He views their amorality as a new kind of realism. Republicans have every
reason to look higher.
And so, too, does Joe Biden. He is the leader
of the free world—but he seems be more concerned about his position as the
leader of a domestic political party whose elites have spent the past two years
embracing the idea that America was born in evil and is awash in racist sin
even now. He has greeted the challenge from Putin with resolve, but he has also
defaulted to a strangely passive notion that Putin will fail in his goals
because “freedom” will somehow triumph over “tyranny.” That’s not how it works.
Tyranny must be resisted and boxed in as a precondition for freedom’s eventual
victory. It will not happen on its own. It never does, and it never will.
If Biden cannot find a way to greet this
moment by saying unambiguously that we are the good guys, that our cause is
just, and that we are engaged in a titanic struggle with evil regimes that
believe that the only way they can rise is if we fall, history will dub him a
dominated weakling.
We must prepare for the long struggle
ahead. The world has changed. We must change along with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment