The Russia-Ukraine War and pseudo-pacifist rhetoric from Trumpista Republicans ( Also: More from John Mearsheimer on the state of the war)

I always like to quote Richard Haass. Because having served as Chair of the Council on Foreign Relations for 20 years, it doesn’t get any more respectably “establishment” than that. So it’s a safe bet that whether he’s right or wrong on a particular point, the Very Serious People will assume his point is within the range of Opinions To Be Taken Seriously. (For better or worse!)

Haass in distinctly unimpressed with the effects of the sanctions on Russia in connection with the Russia-Ukraine War:

, 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. [They are “useful as a signal” but don’t really have much effect on policy? Say what?]

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. (1) [my emphasis]

This is another sign that the end of the “unipolar” moment. Throwing its superpower weight around was and is possible. But other countries adjust. It make take years or decades. But they adjust.

John Mearsheimer is still giving lots of interviews and is all over YouTube. His current view is basically that Ukraine’s prospects in the next few years is basically between an Unhappy Ending and an Even-Unhappier Ending. Here are couple of recent ones.

Ukraine Can’t Win: But Can It Avoid Defeat? (2)

"Insanity" – John Mearsheimer on the US role in Gaza and Ukraine (3)

I’m not a particular fan of the kind of commentary Katie Halper and Aaron Maté have been doing lately on their awkwardly name Useful Idiots podcast, i.e., I think they are prone to careless generalization. But Mearsheimer is willing to do interviews with a wide range of outlets. And he’s been at this too long to bother pandering to his hosts. And he knows how to minimize misleading spins on what he says.

I’m not impressed by the rhetoric by the Trumpista right against aid to Ukraine. The Republican Party is in hock to the military-industrial complex. (At least as much as the Democrats also are.) And the antiwar rhetoric they sometimes indulge is largely based on an America First nationalism that is basically hardcore militarism. I don’t like the superficial Russia-Russia-Russia rhetoric of which establishment Democrats and the talking heads on MSNBC are so fond. Because foreign policy should be based on what is constructive, not on dogmatic Cold War rhetoric against Russia.

But most of the superficially pro-peace rhetoric from conservative venues like CPAC (Conservative Political Action Committee) should be evaluated in the context of the militarized nationalism of the “America-First” attitude. David Weigel recently reported on “How Ukraine became a dirty word at CPAC” (4) and puts it into a realistic context:

Here’s the short story of CPAC and the right over the last 10 years. First, Ron Paul’s two presidential bids built a beachhead for anti-interventionism inside the party; Paul frequently won the once-suspenseful presidential straw poll. Then, Trump ran for president and won, promising to “bomb the hell out of ISIS,” and exit the Iran nuclear deal, but otherwise reduce America’s international footprint.

Finally, Trump lost the 2020 election. (Not everyone at CPAC agrees.) Every international disaster since then has been interpreted as proof that the Trump approach worked, and that the Biden approach didn’t. Yes, there’s a faction of the right rooting for Putin to win. Far more popular is the idea that Putin feared Trump — everyone did — and that brought peace. [my emphasis]

Weigel’s analysis is a helpful one on this particular angle of the Trump/”America First” mentality. He describes how they tend to frame their “antiwar” position on Ukraine in hyper-nationalistic, xenophobic terms. Because that’s who they are.

Ben Samuels commented this week on Trump’s deference to Israeli policies:

This helped define Trump's presidency and foreign policy approach to date, even though it traffics in tropes of dual loyalty. To this day, whenever Trump sees American Jews, he remarks "I gave you the Golan Heights" – conflating the entirety of American Jewry with a political approach that has helped the Israeli-Palestinian conflict become even more intractable.

The trend will be on full display at this week's Conservative Political Action Conference, where the Republican Party will further reveal itself to be remolded in Trump's image: blanket cruelty against the Palestinians matched by rhetorical support for Israel – as long as it doesn't interfere with America First.(5)

Just a reminder of how the original American Firsters prior to the Second World War approached things (6): “They say America First/But they mean American next.”



(1) Haass, Richard (2024): Tragic (February 23, 2024). Home & Away (Substack). (Accessed: 2024-24-02).

(2) Daniel Davis/Deep Dive YouTube channel 02/21/2024. (Accessed: 2024-24-02).

(3) Useful Idiots YouTube channel 02/23/2024. (Accessed: 2024-24-02).

(4) Weigel, David (2024): How Ukraine became a dirty word at CPAC. Semafor 02/23/2024. <https://www.semafor.com/article/02/23/2024/how-ukraine-became-a-dirty-word-at-cpac> (Accessed: 2024-24-02).

(5) Samuels, Ben (2024): Trump and Tucker Hold the GOP Hostage. And Israel Is Paying the Price. Haaretz 02/22/2024. (Accessed: 2024-24-02).

(6) Lindbergh-Woody Guthrie. T.A. Sedlak YouTube channel 08/03/2009. (Accessed: 2024-24-02).