America needs to establish goals beyond idealism in Ukraine. Courtesy | Pixabay
There is no end in sight for the Russo-Ukrainian War. Recently leaked U.S. military intel suggests that the conflict over the Donbas region is expected to continue into next year, necessitating more resources and lives from all parties involved. This latest report provides only more impetus on the U.S. to find a swift and peaceable solution to the Russo-Ukrainian conflict before violence spills into the rest of Europe.
Policy makers have failed to find a solution so far, in part because the U.S. has not yet established a principled objective to pursue in Ukraine. In his latest State of the Union Address, President Joe Biden addressed the Ukrainian ambassador: “America is united in support of your country. We will stand with you as long as it takes.”
As long as it takes to accomplish what?
To answer this question, American policy makers should commit themselves to addressing foreign policy problems from a standpoint of realpolitik. In his masterwork, “Diplomacy”, Henry Kissinger defines realpolitik as “foreign policy based on calculations of power and the national interest.” The former secretary of state defines a balance of power as an international arrangement that prohibits any particular nation or group of nations from dominating another. Before a stable arrangement can be found, America must commit itself to finding some equilibrium for the sake of the national interest. It must pursue a realpolitik style of foreign policy.
Historically, this has been very difficult for America to accomplish. The isolation granted by America’s geography often has impressed itself on the policy of its politicians. In his farewell address, Washington famously warned against “permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” John Quincy Adams said that America would forever support nations fighting for their independence but warned that it “goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.” Today, however, America is the single strongest military force on the planet. With that responsibility comes the lead role in determining the international balance of power and the most to lose should we fail.
What has motivated American intervention, Kissinger argued, is American idealism and the country’s desire to share freedom with the rest of the world. “No other nation,” Kissinger wrote, “has ever rested its claim to international leadership on its altruism. All other nations have sought to be judged by the compatibility of their national interests with those of other societies. Yet, from Woodrow Wilson through George Bush, American presidents have invoked their country’s unselfishness as the crucial attribute of its leadership.”
The American tendency toward altruism and selflessness on the international stage is commendable but America’s moral righteousness often inhibits diplomatic flexibility. To many Americans, for example, the idea of taking the responsibility for partitioning someone else’s homeland predicated on callous calculations of power and maximizing your own nation’s interest seems unforgivably cruel.
In a recent interview with The Daily Wire, Piers Morgan voiced this exact concern over conservatives recently suggesting that the U.S. should compel Ukraine to the negotiation table with Russia even if that requires Ukraine surrendering some of its territory —namely Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea. Morgan chided this idea, saying “Why should the Ukrainians give an inch? What would all the American ‘peacemakers’ say if Vladimir Putin invaded Montana? If you asked any American what they would do, they wouldn’t give an inch. In other words, there’s a moral inconsistency to this position.” Morgan is right but the moral inconsistency isn’t the bug of realpolitik — it’s the feature. Realpolitik allows for diplomatic flexibility which puts consistency aside for the sake of avoiding a far worse conflict.
America’s struggle to establish peace in Ukraine stems largely from its historic reluctance to pursue foreign policies strictly informed by realpolitik. Without committing to this strategy, American goals are limited only by America’s idealistic imagination. Walter Lippmann, a journalist who made similar observations about the Vietnam War, noted that when American “aims are limitless, we are sure to be defeated.” Instead of aiming to bring freedom to a country that is not our own, the U.S. should pursue whatever arrangement discourages further Russian aggression and reduces the likelihood of using NATO forces in Europe.
