Tuesday, December 20, 2022

When the War Ends, What will Ukraine Resemble?

 My latest is in the International Policy Digest. 


We’re nearly a year into Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and there is no indication that the war is about to end. The war at times resembles the bloody battlefields of the First and Second World Wars than a conflict involving modern 21st-century militaries. There is also no indication that either side is prepared to negotiate. The potential is there for a long protracted, slogged-out fight where at various times, both Russia and Ukraine achieve some short-term advantages but nothing permanent. It is like round 12 of 15 in a prize fight where the two protagonists are strong enough to fight on but not able to seal the knockout punch.

Where or what is the end game for the war? While some argue that a divided Korea is a possible outcome for Ukraine, a partitioned Germany is equally likely.

A divided Korea is a permanent fixture of a war that technically never ended. The Korean War may have been the first major Cold War conflict. The fighting between the North and South was a proxy fight for China, the USSR, and the United States. The military advantage shifted back and forth from 1950 to 1953. Eventually, all sides wearied from the fight, culminating in an armistice that simply declared a temporary end to the fighting, leaving a nation divided and no resolution of the various claims. Nearly 70 years later, the two Koreas persist as one of the last Cold War flashpoints, with the possibility of hostilities resuming always on the horizon. It is a state of drizzled peace and war, similar to many days of weather many often experience.

This could be the fate of Ukraine. Unlike Korea, there is no legal principle supporting Russia. Its 2014 annexation of Crimea, Donbas, and Luhansk was illegal under international law. The 2022 Russian invasion and annexation of four of the latter’s regions is similarly illegal under international law that dictates that states renounce the use of force to resolve grievances including over border sovereignty. International law makes Russia’s actions clearly illegal, compelling that Ukraine is entitled to all of its lost territory returned. Yet right is often not might, and there is no indication Russia and Vladimir Putin will willingly retreat and respect Ukraine’s sovereignty.

Neither Ukraine nor Russia has an interest or incentive to end the war. For Russia and Putin, it is about maintaining a zone of influence. It is about national pride. It is the ‘Vietnam Syndrome’ with a Russian accent. The war is going badly and no Russian elite, including Putin, wants to admit defeat. He has made victory in Ukraine a test of personal will and his ruling legitimacy may now be tied to the war. Instead, pump more money, arms, and dead soldiers into it. Inflict more damage on Ukrainians in the hope of breaking their will, beating them into submission, or simply exhausting their will to fight. Perhaps at some point, Russia as a supposed superpower can outlast a weaker opponent.

Moreover, others such as China do not want to see Russia lose. With Ukraine supported by the U.S., NATO, and the European Union, it is a test of West versus East, or democracy versus authoritarianism. If Russia were to lose, what of China’s claims to Taiwan?

For Ukraine, the U.S., and the West, it is in part a war of principle to uphold the post-WWII international order. For Ukraine, it is a battle of survival, of national identity, and the right of self-determination to join Europe. Additionally, the U.S. sees this as an opportunity to weaken Russia, with the incentive for the war to go on as long as possible to hasten what is seen as the latter’s inevitable long-term decline.

There is no game plan for peace. No game plan for victory. No incentive to end the hostilities. The fight could go on for years, but probably will not. At some point, the bell for round 15 will sound and the active fighting will end. But how? Yes, one can see one side or another achieving a military victory, but the odds are against it.

In September, I was at a conference in Lithuania in part to promote my new book, Europe Alone: Small State Security without the United States. The book looks at the role the U.S. has traditionally played since WWII in European security needs. Among the several contributors were faculty at the Lithuanian Military Academy. One of them said back then that the fighting will go on until the two sides agree to not fight anymore. They will not agree to peace, they will not agree to resolve their grievances, and they will not agree to legitimate and permanent territorial boundaries. Moscow and Kyiv will fight to get as much land as possible before declaring a truce.

This may be Ukraine’s fate. Whether by that point it has recaptured Crimea, Donbas, and the other annexed regions is not clear. But the lines drawn then will be the basis of a divide between Ukraine and Russia, Ukraine and East Ukraine, or the Republic of Ukraine and the People’s Republic of Ukraine, what the names will be is not clear, but Ukraine may be a divided state.

The answer may be a divided Ukraine similar to what we see on the Korean peninsula where territorial claims are never solved and the threat of war breaking out at any moment is always present. Welcome to the new hot peace or cold war.

The other answer is a divided West and East Ukraine. The former will be an EU member state, and possibly a NATO member. It will prosper like South Korea while watching the remainder of Russian-occupied Ukraine go the fate of East Germany. One nation, two states, temporarily divided on a permanent basis. Russia will not have to declare defeat, but it will be vastly weakened. Ukraine wrongly loses territory but gets stronger and prospers as a result. Eventually with a weakened Russia unable to support its client states much like the USSR was unable to do, the client state of Ukraine gets absorbed by its stronger neighbor.

The question thus becomes, is the end of the war similar to Korea or Germany and how long will it take to get to the answer?

Saturday, December 3, 2022

It’s the Message not the Messaging: The Future of the Minnesota Republican Party

 


Republican operatives such as former House Speaker Paul Ryan  among others believe their party has a problem.  For Ryan it is Trump, for others such as Annette Meeks, a former Republican candidate for Lieutenant-Governor in Minnesota, it is a lack of vision, messaging, or even a failed state nomination process that produces candidates out of  touch with suburban voters. 

All this may be correct but something more fundamental may be at root.  It is not the messaging but the actual message or vision that is the problem.  And it will grow as a problem into the future as the Republican Party faces an existential crisis in the coming years as its base is literally dying out.

America needs viable party competition, including a viable Republican Party.  There is no democracy in the world that is a one-party state.  The parties too must reflect  majority preferences, tempered by respect for the rights of minorities.  But  to win elections and govern parties must build coalitions and form majorities.  This means they need to reflect majority preferences or face oblivion.

Yet what Ryan and Meeks do is confuse the symptom with the cause.  For Ryan, he sees Trump as the problem. Jettison the latter from the Republican Party and it can return to  "Reagan 2.0,” a party of limited government, deregulation, and low taxes.  For Meeks part of the solution to achieving roughly the same  vision is changing the party nomination process such that extremists do not win control.  For her, she wants what I have advocated for more than thirty years—abandon the caucus-convention process to nominate candidates and go directly to  to a primary.  The party is more than the activists, it should be the larger group of voters who ascribe to a limited government free market vision.

But perhaps the real  problem is the message or the underlying public policies that  Ryan and Meeks advocate.   Even if a Reaganite set of public policies were where America and Minnesota  once was  40 years ago, that is no longer the case.  The country currently finds broad majorities at odds with the policies of  what their vision of the Republican Party should be.

Every two years  since the early 1970s the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago  performs the General Social Surveys.   The GSS  is arguably the most comprehensive survey on American public opinion in the country.  The most recent 2021 study is instructive on many scores.

Consider first regulation of the economy and the role of the government in society.  In 2021, 51% of the those surveyed  believe taxes on the rich are too low or much too low.  Nearly 67% believe that those with higher incomes should pay a much larger share of their income in taxes than those with low incomes.

 More than 57% believe the government has a responsibility to meet the needs of those who are sick, unemployed, or elderly.   More than 64% believe or strongly believe business profits are not fair.  More than 70% believe that the government should ensure wages  of low paying individuals increase as the economy grows and a similar 71% believe the income distribution in America is unfair  More than 55% favor more government regulation of the economy. Nearly three-quarters believe workers should  be represented on corporate boards of directors.

Additionally, 66% believe or strongly believe the government spends too little to ensure individuals are healthy.  When it comes to  protecting the environment and  improving education,  62% and 65% have similar views.

When it comes to social issues, nearly 69% believe abortion should be legal, although  with some qualifications.    Almost half at 46% believe  climate change is due to human activity—a response more popular than any other.  Three out of four favor permits  to own guns.  And 61% believe police treat Whites a lot fairer than Blacks.  Finally, 74% oppose opening  up public lands for development.

Across the board it is clear that majority opinion nationally and  probably in Minnesota favors a more activist government  to regulate the economy and business and to ensure that  the basic needs of individuals are met.  This is not laissez-faire Reaganism.  Moreover the stance on social issues such as abortion, guns, and the environment is not about do nothing when it comes to reproductive freedom, crime or safety, and climate change.  The vision articulated by Ryan and Meeks simply is out of touch where the majority of America is.  And they will become less popular over time.

As the Baby Boom and Silents exit the political scene and are replaced by the Millennials and Gen Z, this generational shift makes Reaganism 2.0 even more antiquated.  Surveys of the latter two generations even more strongly support the majoritarian preferences noted in the GSS.  As greater Minnesota depopulates, the base for the Republican Party  will wane.  In 2022 the Republicans did win 74 of the 87 counties in Minnesota, but the big  five—Dakota, Hennepin, Olmsted, Ramsey, and Washington—constituted nearly 48% of the statewide vote and are growing. Over time the more urban and suburban areas of the state will continue to grow. And these areas hold attitudes on issues consistent with the GSS results.

As I argue in my new book Trumpism:  American Politics in the Age of Politainment—the number one rule of politics is having a good narrative that  is forward and not backward looking. The Ryan-Meeks message is retrograde and fails to appeal to an existing and emerging majority.

Demographics are not destiny but they do portend change.  The Democratic Party too faces existential problems but for the Republicans the problem is more pressing in a state where they have not won statewide election since 2006 and have failed to win the presidency in 50 years.  

In 2012 after Mitt Romsey lost the presidency to Barack Obama the national Republican Party soul-searched and concluded it needed to change to reach out to women and people of color.  Trump’s ascendency  forestalled that.  The problem is not a messaging issue for the Republicans, it is a message and policy problem.  As with dinosaurs who failed to adapt and became extinct, the Republicans need to do the same.

PS:  In a subsequent blog I will discuss the problems facing the Democratic Party.