Tag Archives: russia

August 20, 2025 · 7:44 pm

The Limits of Western Security Guarantees for Ukraine

There are certain fundamental contradictions plaguing proposals for Western security guarantees to Ukraine as part of a peace agreement, or even a cease fire in the absence of a formal agreement (on the model of Korea).

The reality is that Western countries have not been willing to provide troops on the ground (or planes in the air) in defense of Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression, whether in 2014 or 2022. Part of the reason for this is the fear of direct military confrontation between nuclear-armed states – Russia on the one side and the U.S., Britain, and France on the other.

Moreover, the credibility of any U.S. commitment – even if limited to a promise of air support – is highly doubtful given the inconstancy of Donald Trump and the overall partisan divisions in American politics over U.S. commitments abroad. So even in the case of apparently strong Western guarantees, including Western forces stationed in Ukraine as a trip-wire, it is unclear whether this would serve as an effective deterrent against renewed Russian aggression at some future point. Certainly, Putin has shown a willingness to bet upon a divided West, though with mixed results.

The situation is worse if the West offers only weak and vague guarantees, which would guarantee renewed Russian aggression without certainty of effective support.

If deterrence did fail and Russia again resorted to war, and the West directly engaged with Russian forces, that would not only ensure a highly destructive war that might expand beyond Ukraine’s borders, but would also raise the risk of escalation to nuclear war. On the other hand, if the West failed to honor its commitments, then not only would Ukraine pay a price, but the credibility of the Article 5 commitment of mutual defense among NATO members would fall by the wayside. Unappealing choices indeed.

The reality is that external security guarantees – whether weak or strong – are inadequate given the fickleness of popular and elite support in Western countries for Ukraine combined with the unyielding determination of Vladimir Putin to bring all of Ukraine to heel, at any cost.

As in the past and today, Ukraine must rely upon its own people to secure its future. Rather than depend upon uncertain Western promises of rescue that may fail and would pose tremendous risks even if kept, Ukraine should use whatever reprieve a halt to the current fighting offers to strengthen its military capacity, societal resilience, and political unity. The West should provide the weapons, economic assistance, and intelligence support that will allow Ukraine to defend itself. A Ukraine that is strong enough to defeat any threat is the strongest deterrent against its belligerent neighbor.

America’s Strength Has Always Been Its Civil Society. Is It Still?

I spent the 2010-11 academic year in Hong Kong on a Fulbright Scholarship. While there, the U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou, China invited me to participate in a panel discussion to celebrate the anniversary of the United Nations Convention on Human Rights. Of course, a public event dealing with human rights could not be labeled such in mainland China, so the Consulate publicized the topic of the panel as “Fighting Discrimination.”

The panel included one other American Fulbright Scholar and two Chinese nationals. A woman discussed women’s rights in China while the other Chinese panelist described his work on labor rights. His talk was especially interesting. He left a lucrative legal position to start up a non-profit focused on defending the rights of migrant workers, a major issue in China. At one point, he was jailed after the authorities took offense at his work.

Thanks for reading Politics at Home and Abroad! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

When my turn came around, I began thusly: “The topic of today’s panel brings to mind the case of a towering defender of democracy and Nobel Prize winner who faced persecution and jail over his tireless work on behalf of freedom and justice.” At this point, the audience of around 30 Chinese individuals began nervously looking at one another, no doubt thinking “Is he really going to go there?” For a Chinese listener, my intro would be understood to refer to Liu Xiaobo, an imprisoned pro-democracy dissident who had recently been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I later learned that the audience included four signers of Liu Xiaobo’s manifesto, Charter ‘08.

But puzzled expressions turned to smiles as I went on: “I refer, of course, to Martin Luther King Jr.” The audience appreciated my tacit acknowledgement that my own country, which so often preaches to others, has a dark history of its own. I touched on slavery and the treatment of native Americans as examples. But, I argued, the United States had been capable of overcoming unjust institutions and practices again and again by virtue of the strength of its civil society, combined with a Constitution that enshrined basic rights. I mentioned the abolitionist movement, the suffragettes, the labor movement, and the civil rights movement. In each case, the powerful resisted change but were forced to cede to the pressures exerted from below by ordinary people willing to take risks and make sacrifices in the pursuit of justice.

Many of those in attendance that day looked up to the United States, even as they understood its many faults. No doubt sentiment in China has shifted over the intervening years as relations between the U.S. and China have turned increasingly confrontational. But those in China who continue to admire the ideals they once associated with the United States – and there are many – have also become disillusioned by the authoritarian turn in our politics. Dark days are back again.

But we have been here before. Can we today summon the courage to defend the gains that prior generations fought to obtain? Will the civic traditions that underpin democracy once again triumph over the dark currents of American society? The answer matter not only to us and our children, but also to those abroad – in China and elsewhere – who have at times taken inspiration from what is best in America.

Mike Johnson’s Historic Choice

Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson faces a critical decision that could align his legacy with that of Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, who, in 1920, spearheaded the Senate Republicans’ rejection of the Treaty of Versailles, thus declining United States membership in the new League of Nations.

This was a stunning defeat for President Woodrow Wilson, who had championed the League as an alternative to the imperialism and power politics he considered responsible for World War I. The League sought to ensure peace by committing members to come to the defense of any other members who faced aggression. The prospect of a collective response would give pause to any aggressor otherwise tempted to attack a weaker neighbor.

But without the leadership of the United States, already the greatest power of the era, the League’s collective security mechanism lost all credibility. When Japan invaded China in 1931, the League sent a fact-finding team, but otherwise failed to act. Following Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia in 1935, the League imposed some ineffective sanctions, but was otherwise helpless to reverse Italy’s aggression. The League likewise stood by while Nazi Germany took the Sudetenland in 1938.

Through all these events, as the world stumbled toward a second world war within a generation, the United States sought safety in isolation. A meek giant, lulled into complacency by its geographic remoteness, the United States sat on the sidelines as aggressors threatened the peace in both Europe and Asia. Massive rallies organized under the slogan “America First,” sought to avoid the kinds of sacrifices that had been made along the trench lines in Europe a generation earlier.

Alas, peace and security could not be bought so cheaply. American security was bound up with the security of others. The American economy could not thrive if hostile rivals used violence to gain exclusive control over vast concentrations of industrial power and raw materials. Our democracy would be imperiled in a world dominated by autocracies. The isolationist illusion was finally punctured by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Following World War II, a new generation of leaders accepted the responsibilities of global leadership and built a set of American-centered alliances to keep the peace in Europe and East Asia. These alliances have secured the basis for spheres of remarkable peace, prosperity, and democracy in both regions, even in the face of great power threats both past and present.

The continued stability and peace in Europe and Asia depend upon the strength and credibility of the American commitments to the security of our partners. And this is where Mike Johnson faces a choice potentially as momentous as that of Senator Henry Cabot Lodge. Johnson holds the fate of Ukraine in his hands, and so too the standing of America’s international leadership.

Although Ukraine is not a treaty ally, the United States, both individually and through NATO, has made public commitments to assist Ukraine in defending itself from Russian aggression. The very fact that the current arms aid package for Ukraine has been held up in Congress for months has already harmed the credibility of America’s word.

Should the standoff result in a failure to resume arms shipments – especially if followed by major Russian battlefield advances – America’s friends and rivals alike will be forced to reconsider their strategic position in a world of renewed American isolationism. Already, Donald Trump’s reckless threats to pull out of NATO have damaged the alliance regardless of whether he wins the presidency or carries through on the threat. Our allies now understand that America’s commitment to their security is in question. And so do our rivals.

Speaker Johnson should calm such fears by bringing an aid package for Ukraine to a vote in the House, where it would likely pass. If he fails to do so, then this moment may well be remembered as a turning point akin to the failure of the League of Nations vote in the Senate, and the first step into a new era of isolationism and insecurity.

Tag Archives: russia

The Limits of Western Security Guarantees for Ukraine

America’s Strength Has Always Been Its Civil Society. Is It Still?

Mike Johnson’s Historic Choice

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Meta

Subscribe to Blog via Email