Resolutions: The Promise of New Opportunities

The general consensus among NATO intelligence, international media, and now even the Russian Foreign Ministry, is that a military invasion of Ukraine is very much on the table. There is a further consensus that the tipping point has yet to be reached - however an inflection will almost certainly occur if Moscow’s “red lines” are not taken to heart (namely, no provision of advanced long range weapons and a formal promise not to accede Ukraine into NATO). Thus far, the conversation among the Western powers has been far more concerned with trying to develop effective economic countermeasures to deter Putin from escalating the simmering 7 year conflict on Ukraine’s eastern border to an all out war, rather than de-escalation through diplomacy. This is dangerously narrow-minded given that the Kremlin has undoubtedly taken these factors into consideration while setting in place the means necessary to launch a full scale operation, which are projected to be achieved by early January. More importantly, the United States and the NATO Alliance seem to be blind to the sheer magnitude of the threat that their westward enlargement poses in the mind of Russian leaders and military planners. For such bellicose and costly options to seem viable for Moscow, which has yet to recover from the last round of sanctions, the dangers of Ukraine entering the Western sphere of influence and military apparatus must be understood as inherently existential.

Putin has framed inaction on his part as “criminal” and stated that “Russia has a right to defend itself” in the face of “[NATO] building up its military potential at our borders.” One needs only look at the American response to the Cuban missile crisis 60 years ago to understand what Putin might be willing to do to prevent U.S. missiles, artillery, and other advanced weaponry capable of offensive operations from being positioned within 300 miles of Moscow (a distance that makes missile launch-to-strike times a mere 3-5 minutes depending if they are hypersonic).

Russia has always been leery of encirclement by its adversaries and exposure on its western flank, where everything from Napoleonic to Nazi armies have marched unimpeded across the Eurasian steppes straight to the doors of Moscow. For Ukraine, which is viewed within Russia as being historically, culturally, and linguistically intertwined with them, to become the tip of the enemy spear in any hypothetical conflict with the West is wholly untenable. And a number of very explicit measures have been taken to relay that conviction to European and American leaders.

In this vein, I believe that the highly destructive test on Nov. 15th of a Direct Ascent-ASAT missile, known as the A-235 PL-19 Nudol was one such measure of determination. tThe test raises a number of questions in light of the fact that they have already demonstrated the existence and capabilities of these systems without destroying any existing satellites multiple times - first in November 2015, and a subsequent 5 times before last month’s test (including the testing of wing-mounted ASATs equipped on a MIG-31). The primary questions are: what posturing is achieved in the lead up to a troop surge near Ukraine, and why take the condemnation for debris fallout if Washington was already acutely aware of the system’s ability to neutralize a target?

As we try to answer these questions, let's go over what we know. Last month, on November 15th Russia became the 4th country in the last 15 years to blow up one of its own defunct satellites, fuelling a space arms race that has heated up since 2007 when China conducted the first such destructive test, followed by the U.S. in 2008 and India in 2019. By hitting Cosmos-1408 with a kinetic direct ascent ASAT, Russia added over 1,500 new trackable pieces of debris to the existing 21,000 pieces of debris, which clog the ever more congested orbital environment, and an untold amount of smaller ones. Only debris larger than 4 inches in diameter can be tracked discreetly, yet anything larger than a half inch could punch a hole straight through the International Space Station. This is because when travelling at orbital velocities (which exceed 17,000mph), a 1 centimeter paint fleck is capable of inflicting the same damage as a 550 pound object traveling 60 miles per hour on earth. Any debris smaller than 4 inches are estimated statistically, and number in the millions, all of which contribute to a possible irreversible cascade effect of piecemeal obliteration known as Kessler Syndrome.

In part, the test was meant to serve notice that just as American leaders are willing to take economic actions that were off the table back in 2014, Russia is willing to take military action beyond the scope of their 2014 incursions. The current brinkmanship taking place has been portrayed as a test of Western solidarity and commitment to Eastern European security, but let’s not underestimate the extent to which this test is also meant to gauge NATO’s intentions in the east.

Putin has established redlines regarding Ukraine’s accession to NATO and their acquisition of advanced weapons that could be used offensively against Russia. This is because Putin fundamentally sees NATO as an aggressive anti-Russian military alliance that is ultimately bent on curbing Russian ambitions in its sphere of influence. Unfortunately, the recalcitrance of Washington to more formally acknowledge or empathize with the concerns of Moscow is only going to reinforce these perceptions. To illustrate, the National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan claimed that in last Tuesday’s call between Biden and Putin, the U.S. president “clearly and directly . . . made no such commitments or concessions” regarding excluding Ukraine from NATO despite the fact that other reporting indicates that the administration considers Ukrainian accession to be off the table for at least a decade.

Yes, The U.S. has entrenched itself in the liberal ideal that Ukraine has the sovereign right to “freely determine who they associate with”. But must we unflinchingly espouse these values if their very proclamation will lead Ukraine closer to having its sovereignty stripped away by a Russian invasion? Should we do so even when we openly retract the possibility of American military intervention by U.S. personnel in the same breath? That’s bluffing with a bleeding hand, when you have satellite imagery showing your opponent has a full house……

To be fair to the Biden administration, some such measures that reduce our strategic ambiguity have been taken to prevent the likelihood of strategic miscalculations should a conflict truly break out. This gets back to the heart of the recent ASAT test, which probably played a role in the administration's decision to formally remove American forces from any strategic calculations being done by Russian military planners. Perhaps this indicates that there is an understanding of the extent to which Russia feels backed into a corner, and the rash decisions that such an adversary is more likely to make.

One such decision might be to target military intelligence satellites in low earth and geosynchronous orbit on which modern U.S. net-centric warfare relies for the intelligence, communications, targeting, and guidance capabilities of our armed forces. For which reason they would be some of the first targets in any open military confrontation between the U.S. and Russia.

It should be noted that deployment of intermediate range nuclear missiles (which were banned by the INF Treaty prior to 2019), as the deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov has threatened to do if U.S. missiles arrive in Europe, would not be a new phenomenon. Nuclear capable Iskander-M medium range missiles were deployed to Kaliningrad in 2013 - in contravention of the INF Treaty - during the months preceding the annexation of Crimea. As dire as the threat sounds, it should be seen as a final bid by Moscow to have its security concerns and red lines taken seriously, rather than an indication that any conflict would involve these systems. Foremost because their use would activate the U.S. security assurances provided to Ukraine in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum which formed the basis of Ukrainian nuclear disarmament after the collapse of the Soviet Union .

Ultimately, neither side wants this conflict, but Putin will be compelled to act if he does not feel that their concerns are taken seriously. The best illustration of this is the slow but steady ratcheting of pressure that Russia has embarked on, and the use of openly hostile rhetoric, when the Kremlin typically prefers ambiguity and plausible deniability. However, if no compromise can be made, Moscow will make new facts on the ground. One of the best indications that Putin has decided to march will be whether or not costly Russian reservists remain in active service two weeks from now.

This is not the moment of "maximum leverage" as some analysts have claimed. No justifiable amount of preemptive pressure will dissuade Putin. In fact, it is only likely to harden his resolve and reinforce his perception that the West is untrustworthy and diplomacy a lost cause. As we careen towards the largest European conflict since world war two, the West must be honest with themselves that this is the last gasp for a diplomatic solution.

In this vein, the U.S. must push Ukraine to make progress on its portions of the ceasefire and renormalization agreement known as Minsk II, which despite being repeatedly violated by both sides and highly unpopular among ultranationalists within Ukraine, represents the last best hope for detente. Additionally, the Biden administration should be more vocal about their internal position that Ukraine's accession is at least a decade away, and perhaps put that notion into writing, as Putin so fervently wants. Although concessions that may be viewed as appeasement may seem like a bad precedent and be unpopular domestically, the prospect of losing Ukraine to Russian aggression within 6 months of the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan is far worse, and leaves no room for any future negotiations. Moreover, they may be one of the only means left to avert an open conflict, because Ukraine represents the last significant buffer between NATO and Moscow, and preventing its conversion into a Western base of operations is something that Putin is willing to do at all costs - even those of economic catastrophe and a bloody invasion. However, if the tanks do roll on Kyiv, the U.S. has only taken intervention by boots on the ground off the table, and Washington must be willing to use the other vast tools in its military and economic arsenal to support Ukrainian forces in defense of their sovereignty. Otherwise, where do we draw the line against reemergent authoritarian expansionism?

The November 2021 election in the Commonwealth of Virginia, a state that went for Joe Biden by 10 percentage points over Trump in 2020, resulted in a full Republican sweep of the state’s executive posts and the legislature of the House of Delegates. Glenn Youngkin’s 1.9 percentage point edge over his Democratic rival Terry McAuliffe, who was running for a second (and nonconsecutive) term, in the vote tally makes him the first Republican to win the governorship of Virginia since 2009. Youngkin’s victory was the result of all counties in the state swinging to the right and in particular a rightward shift in the suburban vote. A key issue that resonated with many who voted for Youngkin, who ran on banning Critical Race Theory (CRT) from public education, was antipathy toward CRT and its place in the state’s education system. Indeed, a survey of Virginia voters found that 72 percent of all voters found this issue of importance, with 25 percent of voters seeing this issue as the most important in determining who they would vote for.

CRT is an academic theory and practice, which first came out of legal studies, that posits that race is a social construct, that whites are bearers of systemic racism out of a need to subordinate non-whites, and that minorities have a unique competence in their ability to talk about race. The way that racism by CRT is defined is by no means clear. Ibram Kendi, an advocate of critical race theory, defines racism as actively or inactively supporting racist policies that produce racial inequalities. In effect what this circular definition breaks down to is that if a policy has unequal effects on a category of the general population, then it must be racist. This stands in contrast to a more traditional definition of racism which is a person who sees race as the fundamental determinate of humanity with an emphasis on the inherent superiority of one race over another.

The general charge that Republicans and other critics of CRT have against this theory is that its practitioners seek to instill and inflame a worldview of race-based consciousness that divides the populace into tribal camps rather than a colorblind and meritocratic worldview which is more unifying and just. These critics also argue that people infused with this worldview of systemic racism fail to educate people for the real world and that this problematic worldview, which is even taught in public schools to kids from K-12th grade, should be banned in public schools. For instance, California’s Department of Education proposed to eliminate opportunities in the name of equity for gifted students to place them in math classes that fit their knowledge given that such programs reinforces racial inequality [for the exact document detailing this, see Chapter 1: Introduction] . Additionally, CRT is an unpopular agenda with the American public that does not hold majority support even among the demographics it purports to aid. Richard Baris, a noted pollster, found a majority among all demographic groups (Asian, Hispanic, White, and Black) opposed the CRT worldview of systemic racism and opposed it being taught to children. Rasmussen, a polling firm, found that 78 percent of voters wanted schools to focus on teaching traditional Western values, which are values that CRT is at odds with.

Faced with this backlash over Critical Race Theory in Virginia, Terry McAuliffe decided to deny that it was being taught in the state and accused those raising the issue as engaging in a racist dog whistle. Indeed, some media outlets outright denied that CRT was taught in a K-12 setting. Some went further and just declared that it was just a legal theory that was not taught in a K-12 setting but that it should be. Such refrains by the Democratic nominee for governor and others continued even as it emerged that it was under his administration in 2015 that CRT was introduced to Virginia’s public schools. Other stories have come out since about how CRT is being taught in K-12 schools. As for it just being a legal theory restricted to a law school setting, even Richard Delgado, the co-founder of Critical Race Theory, noted that the theory had taken root in other disciplines and in general education.

This crusade for public education being rid of CRT has paid its dividends for the Republican party. That this issue reconnected the Grand Old Party with suburban voters in the Virginia election shows the political salience of culture war issues and makes a strong case for this tactic being used in other elections as well. The reaction by some in the press to the suburban voter, who once praised suburban voters as being the saviors of democracy against Trump and for standing up against his alleged racism, being swayed by Youngkin’s appeals was to label them as dupes for white supremacy. The fact that these same voters elected Winsome Sears, a black Republican, to the post of Lieutenant Governor or their election of Jason Miyares, a Hispanic Republican, to be the next attorney general and that the Republicans have continued to make inroads among non-white voters seems to have escaped such critics. The reaction to the election in Virginia (and the closer than expected gubernatorial election in New Jersey) by some Democratic consultants like James Carville is to acknowledge that wokeness (of which CRT is a part of) causes a great disconnect between voters and the Democratic party. It appears, however, that there are plans for Democrats to double down on defending Critical Race Theory in future elections. Such a position is likely to lead to disaster for the Democrats given the aforementioned unpopularity of the theory. At any rate, the Republicans have found a powerful issue to take to local, state, and national elections that motivates their base and garners support from outside their traditional venues of support.

Following the elections in September, the power dynamics in the Bundestag (the German parliament) shifted, creating for the first time a three-party coalition (if you don´t count CDU / CSU [the Christian Democratic Union party and its sister Bavarian party the Christian Social Union] as two parties) led by the head of the Social Democrats Olaf Schultz, who became the first German chancellor since Angela Merkel at the beginning of December.

The new government of SPD (the Social Democrat Party), Green party and FDP (the Free Democratic Party - a economically liberal party) has, in an unusual twist for Germany, boldly branded itself with strong slogans meant to distinguish itself from the previous government. The SPD has tried to distance itself from the former government in public statements, as if the SPD was not involved in the previous government. The former administration is called a “lame duck”, the new one a “progressive start” even though the SPD was the coalition partner of Merkel’s last administration and achieved much of their stated platform during that time. However, after examining the details of the coalition agreement it seems questionable, how much of it can really be reached.

In the new coalition contract, many controversial topics are vaguely formulated or left out completely. For example, the exit of coal usage for energy production until 2030 was a main election promise of the Green party. Now, in the coalition contract, the word “ideally” has been added, which means it is not a strict target anymore. Other climate-related demands, like a ban of domestic flights, did not make it into the coalition agreement. Also, the general speed limit on highways, demanded by SPD and Greens, was given up as a concession towards FDP. Only some tax raises for fuel and gas were agreed upon. Especially for the Green party, whose core topics are environmental and climate related policies, such concessions have caused frustration with its supporters. Many climate NGOs and activists already had demonstrations at the SPD and Green party headquarters, to show their strong disappointment about the lack of -in their opinion- necessary climate-protecting bans and policies.

The new government’s stated policy toward immigration is to ease barriers to migrants. A new law would be created to enable legal immigration to Germany. For people who already have entered Germany illegally, the possibilities of getting a residency permit and obtaining citizenship is slated to be simplified.

One of the most politically salient topics in Germany are the policies regarding the coronavirus. In autumn, already before the new coalition officially started, when the parliament had already been in place with the new seat allocation, the three parties which formed the coalition later ended most corona-related restrictions (which had been an election promise of FDP). Only a few weeks later, when the infections increased, many of the same restrictions were again restored with some being more stringent and some new measures introduced. For instance, a new measure was introduced where the private gatherings are limited to ten people when all are vaccinated. Another example of a new restriction was one created for non-vaccinated people where private gatherings are limited to two people. Furthermore, the government plans to put a general vaccine mandate for everyone, something that the former government (as well as all parties before election day, including those now forming the government) had ruled out. This led to demonstrations of people opposing the vaccination mandate, to which the police were instructed to react robustly.

Finally, there are two policies the new coalition agreed on quickly, but in the public they are still being widely and actively debated. The first is that the consumption of recreational marijuana will be decriminalized. The second is the relaxation of abortion laws that permits the advertisement of these services and provides them for free.

On the issue of foreign policy, the new foreign minister announced a “values-based” approach. Despite the new wording, the new government intends to continue the approach of the previous government of maintaining general neutrality in foreign affairs while securing the benefits of a military alliance with the United States.

On the opposition’s side, the CDU needs to find its role after 16 years of leading the government. In a party vote open to all CDU members, the often described right-winger Friedrich Merz was elected as the new leader of the party. In summary, Germany's new government has raised a few new areas that it intends to act on but it is generally expected to continue the approach that the former government paved in most fields.

At the beginning of December, the US announced a diplomatic boycott of the Beijing 2022 Olympic Games. Although no government officers or diplomats will be allowed to attend in an official capacity, athletes will still be able to participate under the US flag. White House spokesperson Jen Psaki said, “the athletes on Team USA have our full support” but said US officials would not be “contributing to the fanfare of the games” explaining that to do so would be treating these games as “business as usual in the face of [China’s] egregious human rights abuses and atrocities in Xinjiang.” China’s Washington embassy responded by seeking to downplay the American move saying, “no-one would care whether these people come or not” and that the move would have “no impact” on the success of the games. The US is not the only country that is not sending diplomatic representation. 10 other countries including Canada, Australia, Japan, and the UK] have delegations staying home, although some are choosing to do so because of health concerns and others have not officially listed this move as a “boycott” (such as Japan).

The human rights issue of the Uyghur population in Chinas Xingjian province has been going on since around 2014-2015. The Uyghur population is around 12 million people that are mostly Muslim and ethnically Turkic. Reports have surfaced of frequent cases of rape and torture directed against the Uyghur population and that over a million Uyghur’s have been detained and sent to camps for slave labor, in areas that China calls “re-education camps” that are necessary for combatting Islamic fundamentalism.

Despite the fact that the Olympics started as a purely amateur competition that was supposed to remain free from politics, over the years various Olympic Games have been impacted by political issues that were shaping international politics and featured a number of boycotts. The US boycott of the 1980 Moscow games and the USSR boycott of the 1984 Los Angeles games was a symptom of the tremendous tensions between the 2 superpowers during the Cold War. The 1956 Melbourne Olympics saw Lebanon, Iraq and Egypt boycott to protest the 1956 war between Egypt, the UK, Israel and France. The 1976 games in Montreal saw 22 African nations boycott the games because the IOC refused to ban New Zealand from participating (because they toured apartheid South Africa). So boycotts can be used as a political tool and symbol to apply political pressure by delegitimizing a host nation's Olympic Games.

Even though the IOC (International Olympic Committee) has not managed to keep politics out of the Olympic Games, countries should not give up on this value lightly. Although activists and nations may seek to use the games as a means of bringing attention to a political injustice, the political tool of boycotting may lose some of its dramatic power if used too often and will likely undermine the spirit of the games which can function as a mechanism for bringing nations of different political ideologies together and hopefully increasing understanding between them. The opportunity for athletes to come together and compete against each other against the very best competitions in their sport is also diluted when boycotts are enacted.

However, unlike previous Olympic boycotts, the US boycott of the Beijing Games is diplomatic and is a less dramatic measure of previous boycotts. It seems the US has attempted to find a middle ground between attending without any punitive measure and a full boycott, which would include athletes as well and would be far stronger adverse effect on the games given the traditional dominance of American athlete games. Perhaps the fact that the 2028 games are set to be held in Los Angeles, deterred American officials from agreeing to a full boycott (including athletes), knowing that it would probably be reciprocated. Regardless, a diplomatic boycott should be understood as American officials looking to send Beijing a warning that Washington will no longer look the other way with China’s human right abuses as it did during the Trump administration. The diplomatic boycott is meant to show that the issue of China’s human rights record is back on the list of criteria that the US will use to define Sino-American relations. However, an American boycott that stops short of one that includes holding back its athletes may end up demonstrating to the PRC (People’s Republic of China) weak American resolve, instead of the intended message, that the Biden Administration has different priorities then the Trump White House for its relationship with Beijing and that America will be ready for an increase in confrontation if its red lines are crossed. Do not be surprised if China may see the US move as spineless and hesitant and decide to give President Biden another chance to prove that America is ready to hold China accountable for human rights even if it may get messy.