Suchergebnisse

Joe Biden's presidency will end at noon on Monday and so will, by many accounts, his disastrous foreign policy. Or was it? Much ink has been spilled about how President Biden handled the wars in Ukraine and Gaza and while we know how many of his decisions played out almost in real time, in some respects, the true outcomes of other choices he made in those conflicts won't be known for some time. Biden's foreign policy wasn't all bad though. And a lot happened in the world during the last 4 years beyond the aforementioned conflicts. So we asked nearly two dozen experts a question: "Outside of Gaza and Ukraine, name one consequential U.S. foreign policy decision, good or bad, that Joe Biden made as president." See their answers below.***Brandan Buck; Dan DePetris; Ben Friedman; Julia Gledhill; Dan Grazier; Jennifer Kavanagh; Charles Kupchan; Lora Lumpe; Sumantra Maitra; Eldar Mamedov; A.J. Manuzzi; Rajan Menon; Arta Moeini; Negar Mortazavi; Chris Preble; Ian Proud; Sam Ratner; Mark Reading-Smith; Annelle Sheline; Sarang Shidore; Sina Toossi; Michael Swaine; Jake Werner; Sarah Leah Whitson***Brandan Buck, Research Fellow, Cato Institute: The most consequential and best foreign policy decision President Joe Biden made during his presidency was to maintain his predecessor's determination to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan. While there was clearly a failure to foresee and, therefore, prepare for the implosion of the Kabul government, Biden's decision to follow through on withdrawal was a needed, if inglorious, and tragic ending to a 20-year war. Had Biden wanted to reverse course, he would have enjoyed some institutional support. Instead, he stuck with the bipartisan and popular position and endured opprobrium when it all went sideways. That took courage and is commendable.Dan DePetris, Fellow at Defense Priorities and columnist at the Chicago Tribune: One of President Biden's most confusing (and useless) diplomatic initiatives was the Summit for Democracy. While this grand project was designed to be an outgrowth of the administration's wider "democracy vs autocracy" foreign policy framework, it failed to produce anything of substance and turned out to be a counterproductive demonstration of just how hypocritical Washington is on these matters overall. The summits never really had clear goals and quickly descended into talk-a-thons that were preaching to the converted.On a practical level, it was hard to see why the project was needed in the first place; the U.S., after all, retains fairly strong diplomatic and security relationships with some highly repressive countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Rwanda to name a few), so if Biden hoped to sing the wonders of political pluralism, the words likely went in one year and out the other. The fact that the same South Korean president who eagerly hosted the 2024 summit is now arrested and charged with insurrection is a fitting end to a meaningless act of diplomatic showmanship.Ben Friedman, Policy Director at Defense Priorities: President Biden insisted that the United States was leading a global struggle of democracies against autocracies. Layered with standard presidential talk about a liberal international order and human rights, this piffle became especially hypocritical when the administration began enthusiastically funding Israel's war in Gaza. But the trouble was worse than hypocrisy. The administration seemed to believe its own hyperbole. By juicing military competition with China, serially expanding support for Ukraine, and leaving relations with Iran in a post-Iran Deal straits, it seemed to be trying to maximize antagonists and to unify them against the United States.Julia Gledhill, Research Associate, Stimson Center: President Biden failed miserably to advance a so-called foreign policy for the middle class. Much like the liberal hawks before him, Biden instead wasted precious national resources on the war industry. Indeed, his requests for national security spending increased by 19% during his four years in office. The Biden administration also proudly introduced the first ever "National Defense Industrial Strategy" designed to invest generations of Americans in weapon production only to further enrich an industry in which executive compensation exceeds $20 million annually.Yet in his farewell address, Biden cautioned against the "dangerous consequences" of an oligarchy "taking shape in America." His warning rings empty after four years of unfettered military spending, which has strengthened oligarchs' death grip on U.S. foreign policy. As a result, Biden has exacerbated security dilemmas, increasing the risk of great power conflict and threatening prospects of peace. The world will suffer the consequences long after Biden departs from the White House.Dan Grazier, Senior Fellow, Stimson Center: Joe Biden's presidency will be remembered as a tumultuous era characterized by a chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan and wars in Ukraine and the Middle East. One spot on the globe remained largely quiet, however. For years, the American people have heard almost daily warnings of the existential military threat posed by China. The specter of an invasion of Taiwan has become the main justification for the largest peacetime defense budgets in American history. Record spending has been squandered on a slew of failing weapons programs like the Littoral Combat Ship, the F-35, the Sentinel Program, and several others.The Biden administration did little to calm the rhetoric despite a growing body of evidence that China is no longer the growing colossus official Washington claims it is. According to the World Bank, China's economy has slowed significantly from its peak and the country's population is in decline. Those factors combined with a brewing debt crisis will further disincentivize China's leaders from launching a costly military adventure. The Biden administration should have adjusted its China strategy in light of these developments, but it persisted as only a bloated national security establishment can.Jennifer Kavanagh, Senior Fellow and Director of Military Analysis at Defense Priorities: As president, Joe Biden eroded the "strategic ambiguity" that the United States has traditionally maintained toward Taiwan by declaring four times that he would send troops to defend the island if China were to attack. This repeated commitment pushed Taiwan to the center of U.S. military strategy in Asia and raised tensions with China, which ratcheted up its military activity nearby.Worse, Biden's assurances over-valued the island's strategic and economic importance to the United States while under-estimating the devastating costs such a conflict would bring — even if the United States emerged as the winner, an outcome that is far from guaranteed. He leaves with the risk of war in the Taiwan Strait higher and U.S. position in the region more tenuous than when he arrived.Charles Kupchan, Professor of International Affairs, Georgetown University: Biden came into office well aware that strength abroad requires strength at home; good policy requires good politics. He pursued a "foreign policy for the middle class" that entailed a combination of strategic retrenchment and domestic investment aimed at getting working Americans back up on their feet and fueling economic competitiveness. Rebuilding the nation's political center is the starting point for anchoring a steady and purposeful statecraft. Regrettably, Biden fell short of finishing the job, one of the reasons that Trump is returning to office.Lora Lumpe, CEO, Quincy Institute: President Biden's decision in April 2021 to end the U.S. war in Afghanistan was the pinnacle of his administration's foreign policy. It took a good deal of bravery to buck the conventional wisdom in Washington that the war could and should continue at its current levels.He understood that if his administration didn't take the off ramp the Trump administration had negotiated, however imperfectly, the Taliban would start shooting at U.S. soldiers and contractors again after May 1, and once one of of the 2,000 soldiers or thousands of contractors was killed, the U.S. would be boxed into sending more troops, and we'd be mired in an unwinnable war for possibly another 10 or 20 years.In announcing his decision, he said: "I'm now the fourth United States president to preside over American troop presence in Afghanistan: two Republicans, two Democrats. I will not pass this responsibility on to a fifth." He seemed at that moment to understand that it was much easier to start a war than to end one.Sumantra Maitra, the American Conservative: President Biden's singularly good foreign policy decision was to follow through with the withdrawal deal in Afghanistan. He deserves credit for that. Politicians will do politics, but the responsibility for the disaster of the withdrawal falls neither on Trump's negotiation team, nor Biden himself, as it was the responsibility of the military brass, who had ample notice of over three years, but slow-rolled the process with the hope that the decision would be eventually reversed.Biden also had the basic cold-war equilibrium instinct intact about avoiding a direct conflict with a nuclear peer power (Russia), unfortunately, he had no control over his hawkish cabinet and his military leadership. It could have been much worse under a President Clinton or Harris. His faults, however, are too numerous to elaborate, including devastation in Gaza and giving in to European free-riding on Ukraine at the cost of domestic politics.Eldar Mamedov, Brussels-based foreign policy expert: Withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan was one consequential foreign policy decision that the Biden administration got right. While the implementation of the decision was far from flawless, the decision itself was strategically sound. Twenty years of American military presence and $2.3 trillion spent in operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan since 2001 failed to fundamentally transform the society along the liberal, pro-Western lines. The Taliban, however deplorable their practices, proved to have staying power, while the pro-Western government in Kabul was often incompetent and corrupt. In that context, continued U.S. commitment became a strategic liability. The main U.S. interest in Afghanistan is to prevent its relapse to a terrorist base threatening the U.S. However, today the main terrorist threat stemming from Afghanistan is not the Taliban, but the Islamic State, which the Taliban is committed to fighting.A.J. Manuzzi, Program Assistant, John Quincy Adams Society: President Biden removing Cuba from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list to facilitate release of 553 political prisoners is a positive development, albeit too little, too late. Six decades of economic war failed to bring democracy to Cuba while making life for everyday Cubans harder and shorter. While the administration's determination that Havana does not sponsor international terrorism is correct, it should face criticism for delaying that review for several years. With the incoming administration set on re-listing and the broader embargo intact, banks are unlikely to change their Cuba sanctions guidance, rendering the decision moot and on death row.Rajan Menon, Spitzer Professor Emeritus, City College of New York/CUNY: Leave aside President Biden's unqualified support for Israel Gaza War, a grossly disproportionate response to Hamas' October 7, 2023, attack. He has also stood by while Israel has been evicting thousands of West Bank Palestinians from their lands, effectively killing the two-state solution that has already been on life support, thus supporting Israel's dead-end strategy of "mowing the lawn," a futile effort to side step the fundamental source of conflict between Israel and the Palestinians: the occupation.Arta Moeini, Managing Director, Institute for Peace and Diplomacy: The Biden administration's failure to grasp the evolving security dynamics in West Asia and anticipate the new balance of power in that region represents a critical strategic error. The rise of an emboldened, neo-Ottoman Turkey, coupled with Washington's inability to leverage the emerging Iran-Saudi éntente, has left key opportunities for a stable Middle Eastern security architecture unexploited. While a potential cold war between Israel and Turkey looms, Ankara's assertiveness and backing for Muslim Brotherhood-type Islamist groups has also alarmed Tehran and Riyadh, yet Washington has not capitalized on this shared concern to forge a stabilizing framework that could bring together the region's key players. Such a short-sighted decision not only puts U.S. forces in harm's way, but it also promises to leave Washington enmeshed in new Middle Eastern quagmires peripheral to America's interests.In light of this, Biden's confounding decision to keep U.S. troops in Syria and Iraq over his tenure leaves them vulnerable in a region that is certain to experience more violence and instability at least over the near to medium term. Such a short-sighted decision not only puts U.S. forces in harm's way, but it also promises to leave Washington enmeshed in new Middle Eastern quagmires peripheral to America's interests.Negar Mortazavi, Senior Fellow, Center for International Policy: Despite the major failure of his wider Middle East policy, there was one catastrophe that Joe Biden prevented and that was a full-scale war with Iran. In the course of the expanding war in the region, Israel and Iran had two direct confrontations, first in April 2024 and then in October 2024, which were the first instances in which the two states directly attacked each other in dangerous gambles that brought them to the brink of an all-out war. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his war cabinet tried to pull the United States into Israel's direct conflict with Iran to expand the war to a new front.But the Biden administration was able to draw a red line on war with Iran and avoid getting pulled into what would be another dangerous and endless war in the Middle East. U.S. officials made it clear, behind the scenes and in public, that they would support Israel in defense but not in offense against Iran. That was the one successful strategy the administration implemented despite its many other bad policies toward the Middle East.Chris Preble, Senior Fellow, Stimson Center: Ending the U.S. war in Afghanistan. For all of the focus on the aftermath of President Biden's decision, including the swift collapse of the Ghani government and the Taliban's return to power, no one has made a convincing case that an open-ended mission served U.S. interests. Withdrawing troops was an essential first step to testing the claims that the United States had put in place a government in Kabul that could stand on its own. Those claims have been proven false; those who made them have yet to be held accountable. But now they can and should be.Ian Proud, former British diplomat: ''A foreign policy for the middle class," summarises why, in my opinion, Biden failed so spectacularly on the world stage. Supercilious, beltway-focused and disinterested in the — as we now know, potentially devastating — impact of foreign policy choices on ordinary people either in the U.S. or overseas. The initial Carnegie report said, "there is no evidence America's middle class will rally behind efforts aimed at restoring U.S. primacy in a unipolar world, escalating a new Cold War with China, or waging a cosmic struggle between the world's democracies and authoritarian governments." And yet, Biden had a go at all three.Sam Ratner, Policy Director, Win Without War: An aspect of Biden's policy that didn't get the coverage it deserved, but that will reverberate negatively for years to come, is the president's terrible record on nuclear arms control. Arms control advocates were optimistic in 2020, expecting that Biden would live up to his pledges to take common-sense steps like re-entering the Iran Nuclear Deal and killing off the SLCM-N program, a pointless and escalatory submarine-launched nuclear cruise missile. They also hoped that he would take seriously the vital challenge of building a nuclear arms control relationship between the U.S. and China. Instead, Biden completely flipped on the Iran Deal and SLCM-N, among other programs, failing to resurrect the deal and ultimately endorsing yet more SLCM-N spending. On China, his administration began outreach to the Chinese government on arms control and then, at the first sign that achieving a deal would be a challenge, pivoted to threatening an expansion of the U.S. nuclear arsenal if the Chinese government continues its nuclear buildup. Nuclear arms racing with China is both dangerous and self-defeating, but Biden leaves office without his team having proposed any serious alternative.Mark Reading-Smith, Executive Director, ReThinkMedia: While the core negotiations that defined the terms for the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan were made before President Biden's arrival, the exit in August 2021 was bungled from start to finish. The decision to be out before the 20th anniversary of 9/11 carried the conviction of a president who clearly understood that it was imperative to initiate the long-overdue removal of U.S. troops from a lost "forever war." However, the dire and deadly scenes from Kabul in the final days made it easy for opponents to call his administration's competence into question.The chaotic exit also left many of Afghanistan's most vulnerable without any path to safety, and when the final wheels went up, the Biden administration left religious minorities in the hands of the Taliban, knowing the potential genocidal consequences. While promises were made by President Biden to help, those promises were largely unkept and forgotten. Those who have found a way to leave have done so through private evacuation efforts and other nations providing refuge, although many of these religious minorities remain in direct harm's way or permanent limbo. This outcome was a sad early reminder of the lack of importance human rights ultimately were to the Biden administration agenda.Annelle Sheline, Senior Fellow, Quincy Institute: Biden lifting Trump's eleventh hour designation of the Houthis as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) was significant in helping to prevent an even worse humanitarian crisis in Yemen. Unfortunately, the Biden administration maintained the Obama and Trump-era policies of supporting Saudi Arabia's brutal campaign of bombing and starving the Houthi-controlled portion of Yemeni territory, where 80 percent of the population live. It was only after the Houthis demonstrated their missiles could threaten MBS' economic ambitions in early 2022 that the Crown Prince finally agreed to a truce, which has largely held for almost three years.Ironically, after the Houthis initiated their blockade of Israel's port of Eilat, the U.S. suddenly found their actions intolerable, much to the schadenfreude of the Saudis and Emiratis, who declined to join the U.S.-led Operation Prosperity Guardian. Biden named the Houthis as a "specially designated global terrorist group" in January 2024. Ahead of Trump's inauguration, 15 Republican Senators introduced legislation to reapply the FTO designation, which humanitarian groups fear would do little to deter the group but would impair humanitarian assistance to Yemen.Sarang Shidore, Director of Quincy Institute's Global South program: Through the U.S. deepening military ties with the Philippines and expanding American military sites in the archipelagic nation (partly provoked by Chinese intrusive activities in the South China Sea), Biden played a part in expanding the great power competition to the vital and dynamic region of Southeast Asia.Sina Toossi, Senior Non-Resident Fellow, Center for International Policy: One of President Biden's most significant foreign policy failures has been his approach to Iran. Despite campaigning on returning to the Iran nuclear deal, his administration sent the wrong signals upon taking office. Instead of a straightforward "compliance for compliance" approach, Biden's team pushed for additional Iranian concessions, eroding trust and stalling progress. This miscalculation was compounded by the administration's failure to deter Israeli sabotage of Iran's nuclear facilities in 2021, which further derailed diplomacy. As a result, negotiations got nowhere by the time moderate Iranian President Hassan Rouhani left office, ushering in hardliner Ebrahim Raisi.Over the next three years, Biden continued Trump's "maximum pressure" sanctions, failing to de-escalate tensions. Iran's nuclear program expanded dramatically, with its breakout time to a bomb dropping to just one week. Meanwhile, Tehran doubled down on support for regional allies like Hamas and Hezbollah, deepening instability.By neglecting diplomacy and enabling Israeli impunity, his administration leaves the region and U.S. interests vulnerable, draining U.S. resources from urgent priorities at home and elsewhere abroad.Michael Swaine, Senior Fellow, Quincy Institute East Asia program: The Biden administration has certainly eroded the One China policy and sent mixed messages regarding the U.S. stance towards the defense of Taiwan. Biden has stated on several occasions that the United States would militarily intervene to defend Taiwan if it were attacked by China, a stance that is not part of U.S. policy. In addition, the Biden administration has allowed a senior U.S. Defense Department official to state more than once that Taiwan is a critical strategic location for the U.S. defense posture in Asia, again a position that is not congruent with long-standing U.S. policy. Beyond this, U.S. officials have stopped making statements regarding U.S. support for any outcome in the China-Taiwan standoff as long as it is arrived at peacefully and without coercion and with the consent of the people of Taiwan. That stance, again a long-standing position, clearly implied that Washington would no longer support peaceful unification.Jake Werner, Director of the Quincy Institute's East Asia program: On Sep 16, 2022, national security adviser Jake Sullivan proclaimed that U.S. control over "computing-related technologies, biotech, and clean tech...is a national security imperative." The U.S. would not just aim for a relative advantage in those fields, but would actively undermine the efforts of "competitors" (i.e., China) to advance in them. Less than a month later, the Biden administration announced a fateful transformation in the practice of U.S. economic coercion, establishing a blockade against all Chinese companies on advanced semiconductors and the equipment and know-how required to produce them — effective immediately without notice or comment.At a stroke, the new approach declared open season on technologies foundational to any advanced economy whose applications are overwhelmingly commercial rather than military, and it specifically targeted China. The administration thereby defined China's entire development strategy and its aim of improving the lives of the Chinese people as a national security threat and began building the state capacity necessary to suppress that threat.Sarah Leah Whitson, Executive Director, DAWN: Biden missed an important opportunity to reform long-failed U.S. policies in the Middle East that have entangled us in endless wars and human rights abuses in the region, to the detriment of the peoples of the Middle East and the U.S. alike. Had he stayed true to his promise to end support for abusive regimes and withdraw U.S. forces from the region instead of capitulating to the likes of Saudi's murderous Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman and Egypt's dictator Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, he could have heralded a true shift in U.S. policies, normalizing America's abnormal role in the region and prioritizing economic and cultural development for the benefit of all.

The past year has seen events that historians will likely conclude were pivotal in the trajectory of our world's politics. From the ongoing wars in the Middle East and Ukraine to the domestic politics that shape U.S. foreign policy, Quincy Institute staff and associates describe briefly below a handful of books published in 2024 that can help guide your understanding of these events, put them into historical context, and explain their significance. ***Daniel Bessner, Associate Professor in American Foreign Policy, University of Washington and non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute: "Did It Happen Here? Perspectives on Fascism and America," edited by Daniel Steinmetz-Jenkins.Since 2015, historians and pundits alike have debated whether or not Donald J. Trump and his administration were fascist. This edited collection compiles a number of essays on the topic, ultimately concluding that the "fascist debate" around Trump should probably be laid to rest. Anyone looking to understand this oftentimes vexing and frustrating debate should check this book out (and the fact that I had a piece in it doesn't hurt, either).***Connor Echols, Managing Editor, Nonzero Foundation. "The Damascus Events," by Eugene Rogan.The story began with a rumor. As a brutal sectarian war played out in Lebanon in 1860, lurid reports spread that Christians had massacred Muslims at Friday prayers in Jerusalem. Much of the Muslim community of Damascus became convinced that their Christian neighbors — who made up roughly 15% of the city's population — were preparing to repeat the alleged deed. The ensuing violence left 5,000 Syrian Christians dead.In "The Damascus Events," historian Eugene Rogan offers a riveting account of this turning point in Syrian history. Rogan highlights how technological advances, political modernization and growing foreign influence disrupted the delicate sectarian balance in Syria and led to an outbreak of intercommunal violence not seen again until the 2011 civil war. The book tells the story through the diplomatic dispatches of Mikhail Mishaqa, a Syrian Christian polymath who served as the vice-consul of the United States in Damascus.Rogan's story is as much about the massacres as it is about the slow, difficult process of putting society together again after heart-rending violence. This month's ousting of the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria — led by Islamist rebels with questionable commitments to religious pluralism — makes this book essential reading. "History does not provide a roadmap for solving contemporary problems, but it does demonstrate what's possible," Rogan writes.***Alex Jordan, deputy communications director at the Quincy Institute: "Toward the Abyss," by Volodymyr Ishchenko."Toward the Abyss" is critical reading for anyone hoping to gain a better understanding of the structural realities, class interests and malefactors which conspired to make Ukraine's post-Soviet story one marked by deprivation, competing dominations, and ultimately, war. Ishchenko, a left-social scientist, offers a series of essays on critical points in the last decade of Ukrainian geopolitics from the 2014 Maidan revolution to Russia's 2022 full-scale invasion. The book's holistic approach proves a successful strategy for unpacking the dizzyingly complex web that is Ukraine's political economy — from questions of identity to regional divides to the power struggle between political and transnational capitalists — and its contemporary history, which remains highly-contested terrain. Ishchenko's book will be refreshing for any reader who is accustomed to over-simplified narratives about the crises facing Ukrainians. But his work is not made valuable by being a distinct "voice" from Ukraine — Ishchenko heartily rejects the standpoint epistemology framework which allows elites abroad to instrumentalize discrete perspectives on the ground for their own ends; this book is a must-read because it offers a thoughtful and fearless exploration of the "protests, revolutions, far rights and radical lefts, civil societies, nationalisms and imperialisms" which have brought Ukrainians to a bitter present. ***Blaise Malley, journalist: "Homeland: The War on Terror in American Life," by Richard Beck."Homeland" is a sweeping exploration of how 9/11 reshaped the United States — not just its foreign policy, but its society, politics, and culture — with lasting consequences still felt today. Beck traces the long shadows cast by the attacks, examining how the U.S. response has defined the country's trajectory over the past two decades. In the book's final section, Beck addresses the culture of impunity that surrounded the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The decision-makers behind these failures were never held accountable. Many still hold positions of power today. As Beck explains, the militarism that drove U.S. foreign policy in the early 2000s continues today in American policy in Gaza, Ukraine, and China — even as American hegemony comes to an end. "For fifteen years, the war on terror defined the terms in which American politicians allowed themselves to think," Beck concludes. "Their apparent inability to start thinking in different teams now that the war has ended bodes poorly for the rest of the 21st century."***Chris Preble, Senior Fellow and Director, Reimagining US Grand Strategy Program, Stimson Center: "Dying by the Sword: The Militarization of US Foreign Policy," by Monica Duffy Toft and Sidita Kushi.In addition to combating the absurd militarization of U.S. foreign policy, writ large, something that the Quincy Institute's founders understood very well, Monica and Sidita help us understand some of the ongoing crises and conflicts around the world, including in Syria, Afghanistan, and Sudan. Drawing on evidence from their proprietary Military Intervention Project, the authors show just how reliant the United States has become on the use of force — and also reveal how badly this has worked out for Americans and the people in the countries subjected to U.S. intervention.***Karthik Sankaran, senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft: "A World Safe for Commerce," by Dale C. Copeland. Copeland's "A World Safe For Commerce" is stimulating, ambitious, and timely. It sets out a theory of the behavior of states in the international system and tests it against the author's reading of 250 years of U.S. foreign policy. His construct is that a state's behavior is driven by its "need to expand its economic power sphere as a foundation for future geopolitical power" and "to protect it against all comers." An important insight is that international trade provides not just goods and raw materials, but also sheer market size that delivers economies of scale. As rivals have similar motivations, he notes that the most dangerous moments are when a state fears its trade opportunities in the future will shrink. He then applies this schema to conflicts from the American Revolution to the present day, seeking to capture in detail the motivations of decision-makers at moments like the start of the Mexican- and Spanish-American Wars. He sees both motivated by an American drive first towards, and then, deeper into the Pacific to secure the Asia trade. To a puttering ex-historian, the quest for a theory that explains everything on the basis of a unitary conception of the state might seem a bridge too far, especially if it pushes domestic interest groups into irrelevance. Still, the book makes short work of shibboleths like "Democratic Peace Theory" citing the examples of the Spanish-American War and persistent Anglo-American rivalry. Even where one disagrees with the author, he provides useful tools to think. And he uses them in a counsel of relative restraint, urging at the end of the book that Washington assure "CCP leaders that the U.S. is not seeking to destroy China's economy." ***Kelley Vlahos, editorial director of Responsible Statecraft: "Provoked: How Washington Started the New Cold War with Russia and the Catastrophe in Ukraine" by Scott Horton.If you are looking for a simple way to explain how and why Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022 and Washington's relentless support of Kyiv's defenses "to the last Ukrainian" and to the tune of $175 billion U.S. tax dollars, this tour de force by Horton is not it. Horton himself is a relentless researcher whose persistence for the truth and skepticism of U.S. foreign policy makes him one of the rare journalists of our age. As a result, his books are not breezy, digestible overviews of our wars, but doorstoppers packed with valuable, largely unearthed information and data that lead right to the door of real time. "Provoked" is no exception: a 700-page historical record of U.S. policy on Russia, beginning with the H.W. Bush administration, with tons of rarely explored names and deeds through the Color Revolutions, and three more American presidents, right up to today. This is no small feat. This book is and should be assigned to any student, of scholarship or otherwise, who wants to understand the mechanics of provocation and how the United States is, hands down, the best at it. ***Adam Weinstein, deputy director of the Middle East program at the Quincy Institute: "Illusions of Control: Dilemmas in Managing U.S. Proxy Forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria," Dr. Erica Gaston."Illusions of Control" examines how the United States engages with its partners — or, in some cases, proxies — in the Middle East and the factors that influence Washington's ability to control or even monitor them.Since the launch of the U.S. "War on Terror," the United States has supported various militias and rebel groups across the Middle East and Central Asia. These proxy partnerships have allowed the U.S. to limit its own troop deployments while leveraging the local knowledge of indigenous armed groups. However, these relationships come with significant risks — diplomatic, human rights-related, reputational, and tactical. Through case studies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, Gaston explores how U.S. policymakers navigate these challenges. Her extensive field research, combined with the real-world relevance of the subject, makes the book both accessible and engaging for readers while maintaining academic rigor.

The surprise attack on Bashar Assad's Syrian strongholds in December led to an almost immediate collapse of his family's dynasty and his dictatorship. This, after the Middle East had already been rocked by Israeli wars against Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. As of December, over 45,000 Palestinians in Gaza and over 4,000 people in Lebanon, mostly civilians, have been killed and millions displaced.HTS (Hayaat Tahrir Al Sham) is the new caretaker government in Syria. Backed by Turkey they claim to want an inclusive government in Syria, for Syrians.Assad's fall in December was heralded by Sunni Syrians, many of whom had been victims of Assad's brutality and displaced in the country's Civil War, which began in 2011 after Arab Spring related uprisings.External forces are at work all over this conflict. Turkey, Israel, the United States — news reports after Assad's fall suggested that even Ukraine had a hand in sending HTS drones for the battlefield.The fate of the Kurdish independence movement, which has been backed by the U.S., is at the end of the year unknown. The Turks want to extinguish it, while the Kurdish Syrian Defense Forces have held on to valuable, oil rich territory in the northeast of Syria and are not likely to go easily. There are also 2,000 U.S. troops in the region and the U.S. has been engaging in airstrikes inside the country, reportedly against ISIS.The world watches as HTS claims power and wants the U.S. terror designation and sanctions lifted in order to begin rebuilding the country after more than a decade of war. Despite the calls by new leader Ahmad al-Sharaa, who leads HTS, for moderation and amnesty, reports in the waning days of 2024 tell of revenge crimes and raids by militias against Assadists in villages and towns. Meanwhile, al-Sharaa has said it may take up to four years for new elections in Syria.

The U.S.-Israel relationship has been largely marked by Washington's consistent commitment to Israel's security, beginning with the formal recognition of the Jewish state in 1948 by President Harry S. Truman.While the United States did not become Israel's dominant arms supplier until after the 1967 war, it has been clear to all in the region since at least the Kennedy era that Washington was in Israel's corner — despite strong Arab opposition, Israel's wars on and with its neighbors, and its ongoing and often brutal struggle to deny the national aspirations of the Palestinian people in the name of ensuring its own security.No matter the circumstances, from Tel Aviv's secret nuclear weapons program in the early 1960s to the building of illegal settlements on the Golan Heights, in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, Washington has responded with more weapons, and more money for Israel — well over $300 billion in all, the most U.S. aid provided to a single foreign country by far. It has ensured Israel a Qualitative Military Edge, requiring Washington to maintain Tel Aviv's ability "to defeat any credible conventional military threat from any individual state or possible coalition of states or from non-state actors."Despite this largesse, Israeli leaders have often defied U.S. presidents and policy, raising questions about the balance in the relationship, or, as President Bill Clinton once indelicately put it after meeting with Israel's longest-serving and current prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, "Who's the f……. Superpower here?" More recently, Netanyahu's government has repeatedly rejected President Biden's appeals to agree to ceasefire terms in Gaza. Netanyahu himself has boasted of his ability to resist or manipulate Washington in ways that further his aims, once asserting, "I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won't get in our way."After a full year of war, Israel has used a steady flow of American weapons to wreak revenge for the Oct. 7 massacre by Hamas in which 1,138 Israelis were killed and about 200 more taken hostage. To date, more than 41,000 Gazans, mostly civilians, have been killed, while at least 90 percent of Gaza's 2.2 million population has been displaced, and the vast majority of its buildings and infrastructure destroyed. With Israel now invading southern Lebanon and Washington's nightmare scenario of a regional war breaking out with Iran looming, it would seem U.S.-Israeli relations have reached a critical juncture.We asked this group of scholars, journalists, and former diplomats if, for the first time in many decades, a real shift might be occurring. In other words, Has the last year of war permanently changed the U.S.-Israel relationship? If so, how? If not, why?***Geoff Aronson, Andrew Bacevich, Daniel Bessner, Dan DePetris, Robert Hunter, Shireen Hunter, Daniel Levy, Rajan Menon, Paul Pillar, Annelle Sheline, Steve Simon, Barbara Slavin, Hadar Susskind, Stephen Walt, Sarah Leah Whitson, James Zogby***Geoff Aronson, Middle East Institute: The relationship between the U.S. and Israel remains grounded in seminal U.S.-Israeli understandings reached in the aftermath of the June 1967 war, according to which the U.S. pledged to maintain Israel's conventional military superiority over any combination of regional enemies. In return, Israel committed to maintain ambiguity about its nuclear weapons arsenal — undeclared and undeployed.During this last year in particular, the Biden administration has remained true to this commitment to maintain Israel's Qualitative Military Edge (QME) — a commitment enshrined in U.S. law — notwithstanding unprecedented concerns about Israel's (mis)use of U.S.-supplied weapons. The U.S. insists that its support for Israel remains "ironclad." "Make no mistake," insists the president, "the United States is fully, fully supportive of Israel." However, the unprecedented deployment of U.S. forces to defend against Iranian missile attacks against Israel undermines Israel's long-held contention at the heart of U.S.-Israel strategic cooperation — that the conventional arsenal supplied by the U.S. to Israel, or QME, enables it to "defend itself by itself." The consequences of this critical Israeli dependence upon Washington's direct military engagement remain to be seen. Andy Bacevich, co-founder of the Quincy Institute, Boston University: No real change will occur in the U.S.-Israeli relationship as long as President Biden remains in the White House. What has changed over the past year are popular American attitudes toward Israel. Israel's "right to defend itself" cannot offer an adequate moral justification for the brutal punishment inflicted on the Palestinian people. Many Americans had grown accustomed to seeing the Arab-Israeli conflict as a contest between an innocent party and a guilty one. Events in Gaza and Lebanon have demolished that formulation once and for all.Daniel Bessner, University of Washington: It's far too early to tell whether Israel's assault on Gaza has changed the U.S.-Israel relationship. On one hand, there's been unprecedented youth criticism of Israel and the "uncommitted" campaign indicates that in several important swing states unquestioning U.S. support for Israel might become a significant liability. On the other hand, the United States is a gerontocracy whose most important leaders were politicized in an era when Israel was viewed as, in effect, a post-Holocaust gift to international Jewry, and to criticize it was to in some real sense align with anti-semites. That is to say, nothing will really change until the current generation of leaders gives way to younger politicians who came of age in a different moment, something that isn't exactly in the offing.Dan DePetris, Defense Priorities: It's quite clear that the last year of war hasn't changed much of anything in the U.S.-Israel relationship. U.S. officials may be more vocal about their disagreements with Israeli policies and more willing to confront their Israeli counterparts rhetorically. But the actual policy doesn't match the rhetoric. The U.S. is still effectively enabling Israel to escalate even as it calls for regional de-escalation. It continues to sell large munitions and offensive weapons to Israel unconditionally while at the same time begging Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to sign a ceasefire deal in Gaza and make peace in Lebanon. It remains virtually nonchalant, even as Israel, the junior partner in the relationship, pursues highly risky strategies that could eventually blowback on U.S. forces in the Middle East. The U.S. isn't incapable of reforming the relationship — it's unwilling. Robert Hunter, former U.S. Ambassador to NATO: America will continue rock-solid support for Israel's security: It's deep in U.S. culture. Further, Israel's perspective on the Middle East continues dominating the narrative in U.S. society, politics, most think-tanks, and main- stream media. Thus without serious blow-back in Washington, Israel managed to kill the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, while thwarting U.S. efforts to reduce tensions with Tehran; and President Biden is able to give Israel near-total support, in practice though not words, for its military actions in Gaza and Lebanon.But the human toll of today's multi-faceted conflict has raised questions about the terms of U.S. support for Israel's actions. There is erosion of initial sympathy for Israel's response to Hamas' horrendous slaughter last October 7. Some incalculable portion of younger Americans is less committed to virtual carte blanche for Israel's leaders. Yet however U.S. domestic politics develop, they — more than U.S. interests — will shape America's regional policies.Shireen Hunter, former diplomat, Georgetown University: Following Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, the war in Gaza has caused serious tensions in Israel's relations with the United States. Israel's indiscriminate bombing of Palestinians, the large number of dead (41,000-plus), massive destruction, and Washington's inability to end the war have been the main causes of these tensions.With Israeli attacks in recent days, minor clashes between Israel and Hezbollah expanded to major conflict and the killing of the Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, thus increasing the risk of Iran's direct military involvement. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that the fundamentals of U.S.-Israel relations will change, at least not soon. This is because no state, notably any key Arab state, has risked antagonizing the U.S. by helping the Palestinians. In short, in terms of its relations with Arab and other states, the United States has not paid any political or other price for its unstinting support of Israel.Daniel Levy, U.S./Middle East Project: The U.S. support for Israel this past year (irrespective of its illegal actions in Gaza and elsewhere) represents more continuity than change. That manifests itself in the indispensable and constant conveyor belt of weapons supplies, the political-diplomatic cover and the alignment with, and repetition of, Israeli narratives — no matter how implausible, incredulous or extreme those are. But as the world around the U.S./Israel bubble reconfigures, the spillover looks different. The Trump innovation — unquestioningly embraced by Biden — of attempting to advance an Israel/allied Arab state regional hegemony, premised on the marginalization of Palestinian rights and embrace of Israel's apartheid and displacement project, lies in tatters. It cannot be sustained even by willing regimes as Israel insists on alienating and enraging ever-broader swathes of Arab opinion. Nevertheless, expect the D.C. blob to double down on pushing this pitiful paradigm. More intriguing perhaps is the realization of the deepening and staggering level of Israeli dependence on the U.S. — precisely at a time when the relationship is contributing more than ever to the geopolitical weakening of America. As the Biden administration frantically runs cover for Israeli criminal actions, the cost to the U.S. in political, reputational, legal and other arenas increases exponentially.Rajan Menon, City College of New York, Columbia University: Has the U.S.-Israeli relationship changed "permanently" following the atrocities Hamas perpetrated last October? No. True, the Biden administration provided unalloyed support — diplomatic, economic, and military — to Israel's massive overreaction. But it's long been an axiom in American politics that Israel must be backed unreservedly — not only during crises and wars, but even when its government continues, as it has with particular vigor during the past few years, to expand settlements in the West Bank and allow "outposts" to proliferate there, to evict Palestinians from their land and allow settlers to attack them with impunity and even steal their livestock. To all this the current administration has turned a blind eye, but so did its predecessors. Nothing has changed and nothing will, no matter who is president. Even in our currently poisonous politics, bipartisan agreement prevails in the corridors of power on one point of policy: Israel must be supported unequivocally — always.Paul Pillar, former CIA, Georgetown University: The principal sources of the extraordinary U.S.-Israel relationship are embedded in domestic American politics and culture, and that is where to look for any signs the relationship may be changing. The influence of those sources — including a formidable lobby — remain strong. That influence has counteracted decades of Israeli conduct that has run counter to U.S. strategic interests, and it will counteract much of the outrage over Israeli conduct during the past year.The domestic politics of relations with Israel are evolving, however. In an increasing partisan split, automatic Republican Party support for Israel has accompanied Israel's own lurch to the extreme right. Increasingly vocal opposition to Israel within the Democratic Party could lead a President Harris to adjust U.S. policy once she is no longer the understudy to a self-proclaimed Zionist. A second Trump presidency would, like the first, give the Israeli government almost anything it wants.Annelle Sheline, Quincy Institute: The most senior members of President Biden's foreign policy team appear to be as tenaciously committed to maintaining full U.S. support to the Israeli government as they were on October 7. This is the case, despite Israel repeatedly humiliating Biden and the U.S. by disregarding every red line the president tried to establish. Biden's response was to send more weapons and support. It seems that there is nothing Israel could do that would cause this administration to impose consequences or restrict the vast flow of American resources into Israel's war machine, even as it threatens to drag the United States into war and potentially to destroy the Democrats' chance of retaining control of the White House.Yet the broader relationship has changed significantly. U.S. support for Israel is no longer a bipartisan issue. The Israel lobby had to spend millions of dollars on two House primary races to defeat Black members who criticized Israel's actions in Gaza, and were unable to primary Reps. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich). This caused many Americans to question the role of the Israel lobby in our politics, and whether such influence is in America's interest. The next generation of American voters has demonstrated they will not support the U.S. sending billions of our tax dollars to a country that murders and starves entire populations. Steve Simon, Quincy Institute, Dartmouth College: The past year might accelerate a trend already underway, namely the narrowing of Israel's base of support here. Israel will retain strong Republican support while support among Democrats will contract. But it will not disappear, especially when Israel is under attack. Bipartisan support for U.S.-Israel relations has been jettisoned by the Likud and Republican parties. For Likud's purposes, the Republican Party is the horse to ride. And Republicans can weaponize support for Israel for political gain and outbid Democrats whenever an issue arises regarding U.S. financial and military assistance. This is risky for Israel, but the Right appears relaxed and eager to boost Trump's prospects despite his affinity for antisemites. Perhaps the Israeli right is willing to trade off the security of American Jews to get its way on the West Bank. Netanyahu thinks that liberal American Jews will soon disappear so he might assess the opportunity cost as acceptable.Barbara Slavin, Stimson Center, George Washington University: I wish I could say that the past year has altered the U.S.-Israel relationship but I'm afraid that the U.S. is now even more embroiled in defending Israel against its many enemies. Without U.S. arms shipments and intelligence, Israel would not have been able to pursue its retaliatory war against Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and Iran with such impunity, killing tens of thousands of civilians and turning Gaza into a moonscape of rubble. There have been moments when Washington was able to pause regional escalation — as after the Iran-Israel exchanges in April. But that ability appears to have waned as we sit at the brink of a wider conflagration drawing in U.S. forces along with Israelis, Palestinians, Lebanese, Iraqis, Yemenis and Iranians, with no prospect of a cease-fire or return of Israeli hostages in sight.Hadar Susskind, Americans for Peace Now: The "special relationship" between the United States and Israel is not gone, but let's just say, it's not running for reelection either. The way Congress discusses and debates Israel and Palestine has changed more in the past year than in the 25 previous years. For the first time multiple members of Congress have, from the House and Senate floors, called for conditional cutting, or all together ending aid to Israel. When Netanyahu spoke to Congress, fully half of the Democratic caucus refused to be used as a prop in his campaign and skipped the speech. And while President Biden has largely maintained his historical views on Israel, the next generations of leaders did not, as Biden so often mentions, know Golda Meir. They do know Benjamin Netanyahu, and they don't like him. If Israel wants to maintain a special relationship with the U.S., it needs to do so on the merits, and that remains to be seen.Stephen Walt, Harvard University: At first glance, the "special relationship" between the United States and Israel seems stronger than ever. The Biden administration has given Israel a blank check, while Israel has ignored Washington's ineffectual calls for restraint. Netanyahu got repeated ovations as he told a pack of lies to Congress, and universities have bowed to pressure from politicians and wealthy donors by cracking down on pro-Palestinian protests.Yet October 7 and after still constitute a watershed in U.S.-Israeli relations. Israel's brutal attempts to destroy not just Hamas but thousands of innocent Palestinians have cost it the sympathy it received a year ago, and its violent campaigns on the West Bank, in Lebanon, and elsewhere have exposed its true character. The Israel lobby has been forced into the open, defending a genocide that has done lasting damage to America's own image and interests. It won't end overnight, but "special relationship" will never be the same.Sarah Leah Whitson, Democracy in the Arab World Now: Israel's year of atrocities in Gaza has permanently transformed the American public's perceptions, not only of Israel as an abusive, apartheid state that the International Court of Justice said could be committing genocide in Gaza, but of Palestinians as a victimized, subjugated population, such that a majority of Americans now oppose military aid to Israel. However, the U.S. government's own backing for the Israeli government remains unconditional, despite the tremendous costs to America's global standing. Our government has provided Israel with unprecedented military and political support for the war in Gaza, which has now dangerously expanded to military support for Israel's fighting in Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Iran. This has brought into stark relief the gross misalignment of U.S. policies towards Israel with public sentiments, and the outsized, malign role of pro-Israel organizations, including their influence on government officials to promote dangerous policies.James Zogby, Arab American Institute: Israel's year-long assault on Gaza hasn't yet "permanently changed the U.S.-Israel relationship." It has, however, altered the political landscape shifting opinions, with key demographics — younger and non-white voters — moving in a pro-Palestinian direction. As a result, pro-Israel groups and their congressional supporters have attempted to silence debate and arrest the growth of pro-Palestinian sentiment. State laws have been enacted penalizing individuals or groups that endorse sanctions on Israel and they've expanded the definition of antisemitism to include legitimate criticism of Israel. There's been pressure from Republicans and donors to impose severe speech restrictions on university campuses and "dark money" groups are spending over $100 million to target the campaigns of members of Congress sympathetic towards Palestinians. Given the reactions to Israel's deplorable conduct and the repressive new "McCarthyite" measures against pro-Palestinian sentiment, the already deeply polarized debate over the U.S.-Israel relationship is likely to become more intense in the future.

Beginning Aug. 6, the Ukrainian military launched a surprise, cross-border offensive against Russia in the eastern Kursk region, seemingly flipping the script on the war's current trajectory. Kyiv claims its units have pushed more than 20 miles into Russian territory, taking over 74 settlements and towns encompassing some 400 square miles, as well as over 100 Russian prisoners of war.For its part, Moscow has acknowledged the incursion but as of Wednesday said its military has stabilized the border and is actively fighting to wrest control over those contested areas. Meanwhile, the fog of war has settled in and there is no official confirmation on the number of casualties or actual territorial gains by Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin has denounced the incursion as a "large-scale provocation." For its part the Ukraine Foreign Ministry is saying this isn't about holding territory but stopping long-range missile strikes by Russia into Ukraine from the Kursk region by creating a "buffer zone" there. So many questions remain about the Ukrainian strategy, the Russian response and what long term impact this may have — or not — on the overall war, including the potential for future negotiations, the effect on morale on both sides, and whether this emboldens Ukraine's supporters, including the U.S., to help re-energize what was looking like a foundering war effort on the Ukrainian side.So we put the following question to a well-rounded group of foreign policy experts: "What is the likely impact of current Ukrainian military incursions into the Russian Kursk region on the broader Ukraine War?"Jasen J. Castillo, Monica Duffy Toft, Ivan Eland, Mark Episkopos, Lyle Goldstein, John Mearsheimer, Sumantra Maitra, Rajan Menon, Peter Rutland, Stephen WaltJasen J. Castillo, Co-Director, Albritton Center for Grand Strategy, George H.W. Bush School of Government, Texas A&M UniversityOnce again, Ukraine's armed forces have demonstrated their tremendous will to fight, something Russia discounted when they invaded in 2022. Nevertheless, the military objective of this offensive remains unclear. In the short term, this is a public relations boost for Ukraine and a morale blow to Russia. The Kursk gamble might also reduce pressure on Ukraine's defenses as Russia moves forces to stop the incursion. My worry is that in the longer term, Ukraine, which is facing dangerous shortfalls in manpower and equipment, will deplete elite units that would have been needed elsewhere. In a war of attrition, manpower and equipment are essential. Ukraine's attack reminds me of Germany's audacious Western offensive in 1944 that surprised the Allies, made gains, and ended with a defeat at the Battle of the Bulge, which then wasted manpower and equipment it needed months later on the Eastern Front.Monica Duffy Toft, Professor of International Politics and Director of the Center for Strategic Studies at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.The likely impact of Ukraine's military incursion into Russia is going to affect two axes of interest; one material, and one psychological.On the material axis, Ukraine may be able to temporarily degrade Russia's ability to launch missile attacks against Ukrainian targets, the most sensitive of which involve the deliberate and systematic harm of Ukraine's noncombatants. But in material terms, not much can be expected in terms of lasting impact. Ukraine will be forced to retreat from Russia, and its surviving troops and equipment will be redistributed, after rest and refit, to other critical areas of Ukraine's front with Russia.It is on the psychological axis we can expect the most impact. Already, Russian President Vladimir Putin's legitimacy as a "great leader" was damaged in the opening weeks of the war. This latest incursion is worse, because no Russian leader can afford to preside over the loss of Russian territory, even temporarily, and survive with reputation intact.That said, Putin has unprecedented control over what Russians learn about the war. The psychological impact will be most felt by Ukraine and its allies. It will alleviate attention fatigue in the global sphere. It also reminds Western donors that Ukraine can fight and win, so the ongoing sacrifice of sending weapons and ammunition will not be wasted.Ivan Eland, Director of the Independent Institute's Center on Peace & Liberty.Although Ukraine has insisted that its intent is not to hold captured land in Russia, one might then ask what purpose the incursion serves. It may have been designed to shock Russian leader Vladimir Putin about Russia's vulnerability, but prior raids or attacks on Russia and Crimea have already so demonstrated.Conducting offensive operations is usually much more costly in personnel and equipment than being on defense, so is it worth it for Ukraine to divert forces from already thin defense lines to go on a risky offensive with only nebulous benefits? Russia's offensive is already making headway, and because Russia outnumbers and outguns Ukraine, it may not need to denude its attack forces in Ukraine to defend Russian territory. Ukraine indeed may desire to occupy Russian territory to eventually trade Ukrainian-occupied Russian territory for Russian-occupied Ukrainian land in any truce negotiations, but Ukraine risks being surrounded by superior forces.Mark Episkopos, Eurasia Research Fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and Adjunct Professor of History at Marymount UniversityThe Kursk incursion seems to have been premised on the assumption that Ukraine can exploit Russia's thinly manned border defenses to seize large swathes of land — including the Kursk nuclear power plant — in the first 48-72 hours, presenting Moscow with a fait accompli that can be used as a bargaining chip to quickly force a ceasefire and potentially even set the stage for peace talks on Ukraine's terms. But Russia appears to have thwarted the AFU's attempts to significantly expand its initial beachhead, and Ukraine lacks the long-term capacity to hold even the modest territory that it is currently contesting.Efforts to keep open the Kursk pocket are unlikely to yield any strategic benefits for Ukraine and will demand a massive sustained investment of troops and equipment that may weaken Ukrainian defenses, inadvertently creating opportunities for Russian forces along the lines of contact in Ukraine's Donbas region.Lyle Goldstein, Director of Asia Development, Defense Priorities, and visiting Professor at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown UniversityKyiv's brazen offensive into Russia's Kursk region illustrates that Ukraine still has significant combat capability, as well as some measure of fighting pluck. No doubt the operation has served its primary end to embarrass the Kremlin and so dramatically alter the conventional narrative on the war. Still, legitimate questions can be asked regarding the wisdom of the new offensive. Casualties for the attacking side are inevitably high, especially in circumstances when Russia retains a substantial firepower advantage. This may, in turn, create grave weaknesses on other part of the battle line that Russian forces could exploit. Most informed American strategists had been counseling Ukraine in 2024 to stay on the defensive to preserve its forces and thus adopt a "long war" strategy. Nor is it clear that such a symbolic gambit will make a peace easier to negotiate. Finally, this is yet another step in the inadvisable direction of general escalation.John Mearsheimer, R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago, and non-resident fellow at the Quincy InstituteUkraine's invasion (of Kursk) was a major strategic blunder, which will accelerate its defeat. The key determinant of success in a war of attrition is the casualty-exchange ratio, not capturing territory, which Western commentators obsess over. The casualty-exchange ratio in the Kursk offensive decisively favors Russia for two reasons. First, it has caused relatively few Russian casualties because Ukraine's army effectively overran undefended territory. Second, once alerted to the attack, Moscow quickly brought massive airpower to bear against the advancing Ukrainian troops, who were in the open and easy to strike. Unsurprisingly, the attacking forces lost many soldiers and a huge proportion of their equipment. To make matters worse, Kyiv removed top-notch combat units from the front lines in eastern Ukraine — where they are desperately needed — and made them part of the Kursk strike force. This move is tilting the already lopsided casualty-exchange ratio on that critically important front further in Russia's favor. It is no wonder — given what a foolish idea the Kursk incursion is — that the Russians were caught by surprise.Sumantra Maitra, Director of research and outreach, the American Ideas Institute, author of "Sources of Russian Aggression"If Ukraine taking the war to Russia was to bring Russia to negotiate from a position of weakness, it will fail, simply because Ukrainians don't have the manpower to sustain this push and subsequent occupation. It is a good PR victory for Ukrainian backers in the West, and it shows how catastrophically backward, incompetent, and Soviet, Russian strategic thinking still is, but the Russian advantage in numbers will remain.What it also might do is harden the Russian position, embolden the hardliners in the Russian government, and dissuade Putin from pushing for any negotiations for peace, especially after a new administration is elected in the U.S. Which, maybe, was the actual aim of the Ukrainian government, or whoever is advising them. In scuttling that particular process, Ukraine has been successful.Rajan Menon, non-resident senior fellow at Defense Priorities and the Anne and Bernard Spitzer Chair Emeritus in International Relations at the Powell School, City College of New York/City University of New York.Ukraine's Kursk gambit has been widely praised — appropriately. But its enduring success remains uncertain. Whether Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi seeks to retain Russian territory to trade in future negotiations; to divert Russian forces from the Donetsk battlefields, where they have been advancing; or to make Russians feel some of the pain Ukrainians have since 2022, his ability to achieve one or more of these goals remains uncertain.Once Russia mounts a persistent counterattack, will Ukraine muster the logistical capabilities, troop numbers, firepower, and air defenses required to sustain its soldiers in Kursk? Will Russia be forced to redeploy forces from Donetsk (so far it has used reserves and troops from the Kharkiv and Kupiansk fronts)? Or will Russia foil Ukraine's Kursk offensive, transforming the current euphoria into a blame-game in which Ukraine's leaders are attacked for dispatching to Kursk troops that were badly needed elsewhere? It's too early to tell.Peter Rutland, professor of government and the Colin and Nancy Campbell Chair for Global Issues and Democratic Thought at Wesleyan UniversityThe Ukrainian incursion is the most significant challenge to face Putin since the Wagner mutiny of June 2023. It highlights one of the central claims of Evgeny Prigozhin — the corruption and incompetence of the Russian army's commanders, who did not foresee the attack, and who have been slow to expel the Ukrainian invaders. It refutes some of the central themes in Kremlin propaganda — that Russia is winning the war, that Putin is protecting Russians from a hostile world. It has also called the bluff on Putin's threats to use nuclear weapons in the event of escalation of the fighting onto Russian territory. Irrespective of the military costs and benefits of the raid, there is no doubt that it has been a political coup for Kyiv.Stephen Walt, Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs, Yale UniversityThe Ukrainian incursion into Russia is a sideshow intended to bolster Ukrainian morale and give the West confidence to keep backing Kyiv, but it will not affect the outcome of the war. Ukrainian forces have reportedly seized about 1000 square kilometers of poorly defended Russian territory. Russia's total land mass is more than 17 million square kilometers, which means that Ukraine now "controls" 0.00588% of Russia. By comparison, Russian forces currently occupy roughly 20 percent of Ukraine and the failed Ukrainian offensive last summer shows how difficult it will be for Ukraine to retake these areas. The incursion may be a minor embarrassment for Putin (as well as additional evidence that Russia is far too weak to invade the rest of Europe), but Ukraine's fate will be determined by what happens in Ukraine, and not by this operation.

Two years ago on Feb. 24, 2022, the world watched as Russian tanks rolled into the outskirts of Kyiv and missiles struck the capital city. Contrary to initial predictions, Kyiv never fell, but the country today remains embroiled in conflict. The front line holds in the southeastern region of the country, with contested areas largely focused on the Russian-speaking Donbas and port cities around the Black Sea.Russian President Vladimir Putin, having recognized the Russian-occupied territories of Donetsk and Luhansk as independent days before the invasion, has from the beginning declared the war a "special military operation" to "demilitarize and denazify" Ukraine. His goals have alternated, however, between existential — bringing all of Ukraine into the influence of Russia — and strategic — laying claim to only those Russian-speaking areas in the east and south of the country.It is in the latter that Russia has been much more successful. Yet after two winters of brutal fighting and hundreds of thousands of casualties on both sides, as of the end of 2023 Russia only laid claim to 18% of Ukraine's territory, as compared to 7% on the eve of the war and 27% in the weeks after the invasion. Meanwhile, the West's coffers have been opened — and, as some say, drained — to help Ukraine's government, led by President Volodymyr Zelensky, defend itself against Moscow. Regardless, Ukraine's military forces have been wholly depleted as they compete with a much more resourced and populous Russia. While Ukraine's military campaign was able to take advantage of Russian tactical mistakes in the first year, its much-heralded counteroffensive in 2023 failed to provide the boost needed not only to rid the country of the Russian occupation, but also to put Kyiv in the best position to call for terms.If anything, as Quincy Institute experts Anatol Lieven and George Beebe point out in their new brief, "there is now little realistic prospect of further Ukrainian territorial gains on the battlefield, and there is a significant risk that Ukraine might exhaust its manpower and munitions and lay itself open to a devastating Russian counterattack."The only and best solution, they say, is to drive all sides to the negotiating table before Ukraine is destroyed.The narrative of the war — how it began, where it is today — is well documented. On the second anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion, RS thought it might be instructive to look at the numbers — weapons, aid, polling, population, and more — that illustrate the cost and the contours of the conflict over 24 months, and counting.Money spentThe U.S. Congress has allocated a total of $113 billion in funding related to the war. The vast majority of this money went directly to defending Ukraine ($45.2 billion in military aid) and keeping its government and society functioning ($46 billion in economic and humanitarian aid). Other funds went to rearming allies ($4.7 billion) and expanding U.S. military operations in Europe ($15.2 billion).After two years of war, that funding has dried up. The Biden administration, which once shipped two or three new weapons packages each month, has not sent Ukraine a major arms shipment since Dec. 27, 2023. As Congress struggles to pass an additional $60 billion in Ukraine-related funding, observers increasingly believe that aid package may have been the last.WeaponsThe Pentagon has sent at least 3,097,000 rounds of artillery to Ukraine since Russia's invasion. Most of those (2,000,000) have been 155 mm shells, the standard size used by the U.S. and its NATO allies. For perspective, that's about 95,000 tons of 155 mm ammunition alone.Despite ramping up military manufacturing, the U.S. still only produces about 340,000 155 mm shells per year, meaning that Ukraine has been firing rounds at three times the rate of American production.Washington has also given Kyiv 76 tanks, including 31 Abrams tanks and 45 Soviet-era T-72Bs. Ukraine has received 3,631 American armored vehicles of various types, from infantry fighting vehicles to personnel carriers and medical trucks.Meanwhile, Ukraine has made use of 39 American-made HIMARS, a mobile rocket launcher that has become famous for its utility in the war. As for smaller arms, the U.S. has sent at least 400,000,000 grenades and bullets in the past 24 months.CasualtiesThe war has killed at least 10,378 civilians and injured an additional 19,632, according to the UN. More than three in four non-combatant casualties occurred in areas held by the Ukrainian government, indicating that Moscow is responsible for the lion's share of civilian harm.When it comes to military casualties, good data still remains hard to come by and estimates are sometimes wildly different. Neither Russia nor Ukraine have offered detailed, public indications of the war's impact on their soldiers.The U.S. estimated in August that 70,000 Ukrainian soldiers had died and an additional 100,000 to 120,000 had been injured, putting the number of total casualties at over 170,000. Russia, for its part, claimed in November that 383,000 Ukrainian soldiers had been killed or wounded.On the other side, the United Kingdom estimates that Russia has suffered at least 320,000 casualties, with 50,000 deaths among Russian soldiers and 20,000 deaths among Wagner Group mercenaries. Washington said in December that Moscow had suffered 315,000 casualties, though American officials did not provide a breakdown of deaths and injuries.Ukraine populationThe United Nations estimates that the Ukrainian population (the entire country within internationally recognized borders), which totaled 43.5 million people in 2021, dropped to 39.7 million in 2022 as war swept through the country's east. This trend continued into 2023, as the population dropped to 36.7 million — the lowest level since Ukraine became independent in 1990.As of January, 6.3 million Ukrainians have become refugees abroad, with another 3.7 million displaced internally. As the frontlines have settled, Ukraine's population has slowly started to grow again, reaching 37.9 million in early 2024. Meanwhile, demographer Elena Libanova estimates that only 28 million of those people live within areas currently under Ukrainian government control (outside of Crimea and the Donbas).U.S. pollingTwo new polls that came out within the last week illustrate the complexities of Americans' feelings toward the war in Ukraine and the U.S. role in it.First, a Pew poll published February 16 found that a large majority of Americans (74%) see the war between Russia and Ukraine as somewhat (30%) or very important (43%) to U.S. interests. And another survey, from the Harris Poll and the Quincy Institute, which publishes Responsible Statecraft, found that Americans broadly support a U.S.-led negotiated end to the conflict. But the past few months in Washington have been largely focused on U.S. aid to Ukraine, specifically whether Congress will pass President Biden's request for roughly $60 billion for Kyiv's fight against Russia. According to Pew, in March 2022, 74% of Americans said U.S. aid to Ukraine was "just right" or "not enough." In December 2023, that same survey found that just 47% said the same. The biggest change came from Republicans: 49% said in March, 2022 that U.S. aid was "not enough," while just 13% said the same in December.Meanwhile, Gallup found in August 2022 that 74% of Americans said U.S. aid to Ukraine was "about right" (36%) or "not enough" (38%). Those numbers came down slightly in Gallup's latest track on this question in October, 2023, with 58% saying U.S. aid was about right (33%) or not enough (25%).Peace summitsThere have been several attempts to bring nations together to outline talks to end the war. Russia and Ukraine engaged in five rounds of talks in Belarus and Turkey shortly after the invasion, but the talks collapsed amid allegations of Russian war crimes and Western pressure on Kyiv to keep fighting.Since then, the belligerents have spoken directly about secondary issues, like Black Sea shipping and prisoner swaps. Ukraine, meanwhile, laid out a "10-point peace plan" that has formed the basis for five international summits, none of which included Russia. These took place in Copenhagen, Denmark, in June 2023; in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, in August 2023; in Malta in October, 2023; in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in December 2023; and Davos, Switzerland, in January of this year.CongressSince the start of the war, Congress has passed four aid packages for Ukraine, totaling $113 billion. While none of the four packages were identical and aid for Ukraine was sometimes bundled with other spending, the trends for support for Kyiv in Congress are similar to those we see in polling, particularly among congressional Republicans.The 2022 supplemental, which became law in May 2022 and provided Ukraine with $39.34 billion in aid passed the House 368-57 and the Senate by a vote of 86-11. By September 2023, when the House voted on the Ukraine Security Assistance and Oversight Supplemental Appropriations Act, which provided Kyiv with $300 million in security assistance, it passed by a vote of 311-117, with a majority of Republican members opposing the legislation.On February 12 of this year, the Senate voted 70-29 to pass a national security supplemental, which would provide approximately $60 billion in aid for Kyiv alongside money for Israel and partners in the Indo-Pacific. The bill has not yet been voted on in the House.Ben Armbruster, Blaise Malley, Connor Echols and Kelley Vlahos contributed reporting. Graphics by Khody Akhavi.

It speaks volumes that the death of Henry Kissinger, announced on Wednesday, drew major news obituaries that rivaled those of late American presidents' in length and depth. The news was met with equal parts of vitriol and paeans across social media, the former reflected in words like "war criminal" and "monster," the latter, "genius" and "master."His intellectually-driven, hard-nosed statecraft and strategy has long been embraced by realists who appreciate Kissinger's rejection of ideological doctrine in favor of interest-driven realpolitik. They credit him with détente and managing the Soviet threat in the Cold War. His critics say his approach was responsible for government-led massacres in developing nations and Washington's scorched earth policies in Indochina. Humanity suffered while the "great game" was played, no matter how well, from the Nixon White House and in later presidencies (12 total) for which Kissinger advised.But was his impact on U.S. foreign policy ultimately positive or negative? We asked a wide range of historians, former diplomats, journalists and scholars to pick one and defend it.Andrew Bacevich, George Beebe, Tom Blanton, Michael Desch, Anton Fedyashin, Chas Freeman, John Allen Gay, David Hendrickson, Robert Hunter, Anatol Lieven, Stephen Miles, Tim Shorrock, Monica Duffy Toft, Stephen WaltAndrew Bacevich, historian and co-founder of the Quincy InstituteI met Kissinger just once, at a small gathering in New York back in the 1990s. When the event adjourned, he walked over to where I was sitting and spoke to me. "Did you serve in the military?" "Yes," I said. "In Vietnam?" "Yes." His tone filled with sadness, he said: "We really wanted to win that one."I did not reply but as he walked away, I thought: What an accomplished liar.George Beebe, Director of Grand Strategy, Quincy InstituteHenry Kissinger's impact on American foreign policy, although controversial, was on balance overwhelmingly positive. As he entered office in 1968, America was overextended abroad and beset by domestic political conflict. An increasingly powerful Soviet Union threatened to achieve superiority over America's nuclear and conventional arsenals. The United States needed to extract itself from Vietnam and focus on domestic healing, yet any retreat into isolationism would allow Moscow a free hand to intimidate Western Europe and spread communism through the post-colonial world. Kissinger's answer to this problem, conceived in partnership with President Nixon, was a masterwork of diplomatic realism. Seeing an opportunity to exploit tensions between Moscow and Beijing, he orchestrated a surprise opening to Maoist China that reshaped the international order, counterbalancing Soviet power and complicating the Kremlin's strategic challenge. In parallel, the United States pursued détente with Moscow, producing a landmark set of trade, arms control, human rights, and confidence-building arrangements that helped to constrain the arms race and make the Cold War more manageable and predictable.By comparison to 1968, the scale of the problems we face today seems more daunting. The Cold War architecture of arms control and security arrangements is in tatters. Our middle class is more distrustful and disaffected, our international reputation more damaged, and our ability to manage the challenges of a peer Chinese rival more limited. A statesman with Kissinger's strategic acumen and diplomatic skill is very much needed. Tom Blanton, Director, National Security Archive, George Washington UniversityThe declassified legacy of Henry Kissinger undermines the triumphant narrative he labored so hard to build, even for his successes. The opening to China, for example, turns out to be Mao's idea with Nixon's receptiveness, initially dissed by Kissinger. His shuttle diplomacy in the Middle East did reduce violence but it took Anwar Sadat and then Jimmy Carter to make the peace that Kissinger failed to accomplish. The 1973 Vietnam settlement was actually available in 1969, but Kissinger mistakenly believed he could do better by going through Moscow or Beijing. Meanwhile, Kissinger's callousness about the human cost runs through all the documents. Millions of Bangladeshis murdered by Pakistan's genocide while Kissinger stifled dissent in the State Department. A million Vietnamese and 20,000 Americans who died for Kissinger's "decent interval." Some 30,000 Argentines disappeared by the junta with Kissinger's green light. Thousands of Chileans killed by Pinochet while Kissinger joked about human rights. Untold numbers of Cambodians dead under Kissinger's secret bombing.Adding insult to all these injuries, Kissinger cashed in over the past 45 years through sustained influence peddling and self-promotion, paying no price for repeated bad judgments like opposing the Reagan-Gorbachev arms cuts, and supporting the 2003 Iraq invasion. A dark legacy indeed.Michael Desch, Professor of International Relations at the University of Notre Dame Almost all of the obituaries for Henry Kissinger characterize him as the quintessential realist, harkening back to a bygone era of European great power politics in which statesmen played the 19th century version of the board game Risk otherwise known as the balance of power. Kissinger seemed straight out of central casting for this role with his deep, sonorous voice and perpetual Mittel-Europa accent. All that was missing was a monocle and a Pickelhaube. But in reality, Kissinger was at best an occasional realist. His best scholarly book — "A World Restored: Metternich, Castlereagh and the Problems of Peace 1812-22" — came out in 1957 and was more of a work of history than an articulation of a larger realpolitik theory of global politics in which power is used, and more importantly not used, to advance a country's national interest.And while his (and Richard Nixon's) opening to the People's Republic of China in 1972 remains a masterstroke of balance of power politics in action, at the drop of an egg-roll dividing the heretofore seemingly monolithic Communist Bloc, he was more often an inconstant realist.At times Kissinger embraced a crude might-makes-right approach (think of the Athenians bullying of the Melians in Book V of Thucydides) epitomized by the escalation to deescalate the war in Vietnam by invading Cambodia and the meddling in the fractious politics of Third World countries like Chile, seemingly to no other end than that's what great powers do. More recently, he's worked to remain the indispensable statesman through an embarrassingly obsequious pattern of making himself indispensable to nearly every subsequent president, whether or not they were really interested in sitting at the knee of the master realpolitiker. His hedged endorsement of George W. Bush's disastrous Iraq war is exhibit A on this score.Kissinger kept himself in the limelight for much of his career but not as a consistent voice of realism in foreign policy.Anton Fedyashin, associate professor of history, American UniversityIn his long and distinguished career, Henry Kissinger made many decisions that history may judge harshly, but oversimplifying and exaggerating complex geopolitical issues was not one of them. With their instinctive aversion to the trap of conceptual binarism, Kissinger and Nixon applied their flexible realism to China and the USSR in 1972. Abandoning the assumption that all communists were evil forced Beijing and Moscow to outbid each other for U.S. favors. Treating the USSR as a post-revolutionary state that put national interests above ideology, Nixon and Kissinger decided to bring the Soviets into the American-managed world order while letting them keep their hegemony in Eastern Europe.In Kissinger's realist version of containment, statesmanship was judged by the management of ambiguities, not absolutes. As Kissinger put it in an interview with The Economist earlier this year, "The genius of the Westphalian system and the reason it spread across the world was that its provisions were procedural, not substantive." Kissinger's realist wisdom would serve American leaders well as they navigate the rough waters of transitioning to a multipolar world order. The era of great power balancing is back, and non-binarist realism can help Washington manage hegemonic decline rather than catalyzing it.Ambassador Chas Freeman, visiting scholar at Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public AffairsKissinger embodied a global and strategic view and because it was global, it often offended specialists in regional affairs. Because it was strategic, he often made tactical sacrifices for strategic gain. And the tactical sacrifices that he made were often rather ugly at the regional or local level. The classic example of that is the refusal to intervene in the war in Bangladesh. Obviously, he had nothing but contempt for ideological foreign policy. This has led ideologues, of which we have an abundance, to see him as an enemy, and you're seeing this now with some of the coverage after his passing.Kissinger's achievement of detente at a crucial point in the Cold War will be remembered for its brilliance, as will his significant scholarship. His statecraft and scholarship were inseparable. He was a very good negotiator and probably had more experience negotiating great power relations than any secretary of state since early in the Republic. He was moderately successful in the short term. He was not successful in the long term because his interlocutors correctly perceived that he was manipulative. If one wishes to keep relationships open to future transactions, one must not cheat on current transactions. But this problem is not uncommon. It's very typical in American politics. For example, Jim Baker was famously uninterested in nurturing relationships. He was interested in immediate results in his dealings with foreign governments. He left a lot of anger and dissatisfaction in his wake. Kissinger less so, but the same for different reasons, reflecting his personality, his character, and the character of the president he served.John Allen Gay, Executive Director, John Quincy Adams SocietyKissinger's legacy in the Third World commands the most attention and criticism. He has been made the face of the tremendous toll the Cold War took on the wretched of the earth. Yet his work on great power relations deserves more regard. The opening to China he engineered with President Richard Nixon was a masterstroke to exploit division in the Communist world. Granted, the Sino-Soviet split had happened long before, and the opening was more a Nixon idea, but Kissinger set the table. And Kissinger was also a central figure in détente with the Soviet Union.Both policies were deeply unpopular with the forerunners to the neoconservative movement, but reflected the Continental realist mindset that Kissinger, along with thinkers like Hans J. Morgenthau, brought into the American foreign policy discourse. The opening to China and détente were, in fact, linked. As Kissinger pointed out, the opening to China challenged the Soviet Union to prevent the opening from growing; contrary to the advice of Sovietologists, this did not prompt new Soviet aggression, but made the Soviets more pliable. As Kissinger wrote in his 1994 book "Diplomacy" — "To the extent both China and the Soviet Union calculated that they either needed American goodwill or feared an American move toward its adversary, both had an incentive to improve their relations with Washington. […] America's bargaining position would be strongest when America was closer to bot communist giants than either was to the other." And so it was. Today's practitioners of great-power politics would do well to borrow more from this happier part of Kissinger's legacy. They have instead helped drive China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea together, and have no answer to this emerging alignment beyond lectures and sanctions. The19th century European statesmen Kissinger admired would have seen the failure of such a policy. David Hendrickson, author, "Republic in Peril: American Empire and the Liberal Tradition"The great oddity of Nixon and Kissinger's record in foreign policy is that they gave up as unprofitable and dangerous the pursuit of ideological antagonism with the Great Powers (the Soviet Union and China), but then pursued the Cold War crusade with a vengeance against small powers. Kissinger's diplomatic career reminds me of the charge that Hauterive (a favorite of Napoleon's) brought against the confusions of the ancien regime, that it applied "the terms sound policy, system of equilibrium, maintenance or restoration of the balance of power . . . to what, in fact was only an abuse of power, or the exercise of arbitrary will."Parts of Kissinger's record, like the bombing of Cambodia, are indefensible, but there are good parts too: had Henry the K been in charge of our Russia policy over the last decade, we could have avoided the conflagration in Ukraine. He was sounder on China and Taiwan than 90 percent of the howling commentariat. He was, in addition, a serious scholar who wrote some good books about the construction of world order (A World Restored, Diplomacy). Young people should take his thought seriously, not consign him to the ninth circle.Robert Hunter, former U.S. Ambassador to NATOLike all outstanding teachers, Henry Kissinger was also a showman — and he could be fun. He used his accent and self-deprecating humor as weapons for his policies and getting them taken seriously. Journalists might at times scorn what he was doing and how he did it, but they were still charmed and tended so often to give him the benefit of the doubt — as well as the credit, even when not deserved. Everyone recalls his roles in promoting détente with the Soviet Union and, even more, the opening to China, with Richard Nixon following in his wake. In fact, both policies sprang from Nixon's mind. But when the dust settled, Kissinger was the Last Man Standing."Henry," we could call him who never worked for him (!), made intelligent and literate speeches on foreign policy that everyone could understand, bringing it into the limelight. A man of great ego, he still recruited and inspired talented acolytes at the State Department and White House — matched only by Brent Scowcroft and Zbig Brzezinski. He had other policy positives in the Middle East ("shuttle diplomacy") but major negatives in Chile, in prolonging the Vietnam War, and bombing Cambodia.Take him altogether, a true Man of History.Anatol Lieven, Director of the Eurasia Program at the Quincy InstituteThe problem about any just assessment of Henry Kissinger is that the good and bad parts of his record are organically linked. His Realism led him to an awareness of the vital interests of other countries, a willingness to compromise, and a prudence in the exercise of U.S. power that all too many American policymakers have altogether lacked and that the United States today desperately needs. This Realist acceptance of the world as it is however also contributed to a cynical disregard for basic moral norms — notably in Cambodia and Bangladesh — that have forever tarnished his and America's name.When in office, reconciliation with China and the pursuit of Middle East peace took real moral courage on Kissinger's part, given the forces arrayed against these policies in the United States. But in his last decades, though he initially criticized NATO expansion and called for the preservation of relations with Russia and China, he never did so with the intellectual and moral force of a George Kennan.Perhaps in the end the best comment on Kissinger comes from an epithet by his fellow German Jewish thinker on international affairs Hans Morgenthau: "It is a dangerous thing to be a Machiavelli. It is a disastrous thing to be a Machiavelli without Virtu" — an Italian term embracing courage, moral steadfastness and basic principle.Stephen Miles, President, Win Without WarNearly as many words have been spilled marking the end of Henry Kissinger's life as the lives he's responsible for ending, but let me add a few more. It would be easy to simply say that the devastating impact of Kissinger on U.S. foreign policy was clearly and wholly negative. As Spencer Ackerman noted in his essential obituary, few Americans, if any, have ever been as responsible for the death of so many of their fellow human beings. But Kissinger's true impact was not just in being a war criminal but in setting a new standard for doing so with impunity. Earlier this year, he was feted with a party for his 100th birthday attended not just by crusty old Cold Warriors remembering 'the good ole days,' but also by a veritable who's who of today's elite from billionaire CEOs and cabinet members to fashion megastars and NFL team owners. Sure, he may have been responsible for a coup here or a genocide there, but shouldn't we all just look past that and recognize his influence, power, and intellect? Does it really matter what he used those talents for?And in the end, that's the benefit of Kissinger's horrific life and decidedly not-untimely death. By never making amends for the harm he did and never being held accountable for the horrors he caused, he made clear just how truly broken and flawed U.S. foreign policy is. Perhaps now that he has finally left the stage, we can begin to change that. Tim Shorrock, Washington-based journalistKissinger nearly destroyed three Asian countries by causing the deaths of thousands in U.S. bombing raids, covertly intervened to subvert democracy in Chile, and encouraged an Indonesian dictator to invade newly independent East Timor and inflict a genocide upon its people. These were criminal acts that should have made him a pariah. Instead, he is lauded as a visionary by our ruling elite. And it was mostly accomplished through lies and deceit, in the name of corporate profit.I'll never forget in 1972 watching Kissinger declare "peace is at hand" in Vietnam. After years of protesting this immoral war, I truly thought that Vietnam's suffering, and my own countrymen's, was finally over; they had won and we had lost. But my hope was shattered that Christmas, when Kissinger and Nixon ordered B-52s to carpet-bomb Hanoi in an arrogant act of defiance and malice. Afterwards, a shaky peace agreement was signed that could have sparked an honorable U.S. withdrawal. But it took 3 more years of bloodshed before the United States was forced out.Kissinger broke my trust in America as a just nation and overseas sparked a deep hatred of U.S. foreign policy. Few statesmen have caused such harm.Monica Duffy Toft, Professor of International Politics and Director, Center for Strategic Studies, Fletcher School, Tufts UniversityI have a pair of midcentury teak chairs once belonging to the late eminent scholar Samuel P. Huntington in my office. Sam was a colleague and friend of Henry Kissinger's, and a mentor to me. Sam and I sat in these chairs discussing world politics and the everyday challenges of running a scholarly institute. When a new set of chairs arrived, Sam insisted I take the old ones, but not before emphasizing their significance — reminders of the hours he and Kissinger spent in deep debate and casual banter. These chairs have history.Henry Kissinger was, and shall remain, a controversial figure. His gifts were two. First, across decades of U.S. foreign policy challenges, he remained consistent in his conception of power, and how U.S. power should be used to enhance the security of the United States. Second, he was gifted at assembling, mentoring, and deploying cross-cutting networks of influential people. Like many of my colleagues who study international politics, there are policies — his support of Salvador Allende's ouster in Chile, for example — I find odious. I am also uncomfortable with Kissinger's elitism: his preferred policies favored those with wealth and political power at the expense of those without.But what I admire about Kissinger's U.S. foreign policy legacy and, by extension, international politics, was his profound grasp of the importance of historical context: a thing as important to sound U.S foreign policy today as it is rare; and of which I am pleasantly reminded every time I sit in one of Sam's chairs.Stephen Walt, Quincy Institute board member, professor of international affairs at the Harvard Kennedy SchoolHenry Kissinger was the most prominent U.S. statesman of his era, and that era lasted a very long time. His main achievements were not trivial: a long-overdue opening to China, some high-wire "shuttle diplomacy" after the 1973 October War, and several useful arms control treaties during the period of détente. But he was also guilty of some monumental misjudgments, including prolonging the Vietnam War to no good purpose and expanding it into Cambodia at a frightful human cost. His diplomatic acrobatics in the Middle East were impressive, but they were only necessary because he had missed the signs that Egypt was readying for war in 1973 in order to break a diplomatic deadlock that he had helped orchestrate. His indifference to human rights and civilian suffering sacrificed thousands of lives and made a mockery of U.S. pretensions to moral superiority.Kissinger owed his enduring influence not to a superior track record as a pundit or sage but to his own energy, unquenchable ambition, unparalleled networking skills, and the elite's reluctance to hold its members accountable. After all, this is a man who downplayed the risks of China's rise (while earning fat consulting fees there), backed the disastrous invasion of Iraq in 2003, opposed the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, and dismissed warnings that open-ended NATO enlargement would make Europe less rather than more secure. Kissinger also perfected the art of transmuting government service into a lucrative consulting career, setting a troubling precedent for others. Debates about his legacy will no doubt continue, but one suspects that the reverence that his acolytes exhibit today will gradually fade now that he is no longer here to sustain it.Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn't cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraft so that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2024. Happy Holidays!

With a whirlwind of dramatic events gripping the world's attention, it can be easy to forget that we are now less than one year away from the 2024 presidential election.Despite their expected focus on domestic issues, candidates will have a lot to answer for this cycle when it comes to foreign policy as the war in Ukraine drags on and U.S.-China relations continue to deteriorate.The Democratic Party has chosen not to hold debates despite growing concerns about President Joe Biden's chances next year. With only a couple of months to go before the primaries start, the Quincy Institute decided that it would be useful to survey Biden's challengers from the left on how they would handle a range of foreign policy issues if elected.The candidates' responses show interesting differences on a range of questions, from a potential Israeli-Saudi normalization deal to the possibility of using military force to fight the cartels in Mexico. The questionnaire went out before the October 7 Hamas attacks against Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza, but we pulled together candidates' reactions to the events where possible.We received responses from Democratic candidate Marianne Williamson as well as independent candidates Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Cornel West. Biden's campaign declined to participate, so we have aggregated relevant quotes and information about the president's stances where possible. We did the same for Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), who entered the race in late October and has not responded to our requests. We will update this page if we receive further responses.Biggest challenges to U.S. security; how to avoid war with China; potential negotiations to end the war in Ukraine; U.S. role in Saudi-Israeli normalization; withdrawing troops from Middle East; military force and the Mexican cartels; Israel-Hamas warWhat, in your view, are the three most pressing challenges to U.S. national security?Joe Biden (D)While President Biden has not directly addressed this question, his national security adviser said the following about the White House's 2022 National Security Strategy: "Our strategy proceeds from the premise that the two strategic challenges — geopolitical competition and shared transnational threats — are intertwined. We cannot build the broad coalitions we need to out-compete our rivals, if we sideline the issues that most directly impact the lives of billions of people." He further argued that "this is a decisive decade for shaping the terms of competition, especially with the PRC [China]. This is a decisive decade for getting ahead of the great global challenges — from climate to disease to emerging technology."Marianne Williamson (D)"The three most pressing challenges to U.S. national security are the nuclear threat, climate change, and our inability to go beyond the adversarial positioning in which countries view each other. We are closer to nuclear war than we've been in a long time. We must move towards a nuclear-free world, and we must begin by adopting a no first use policy. Once we adopt this policy, it will be much easier for us to get other nuclear-armed countries to do the same. There is no threat I am more concerned about than climate change. We are living through the last few years where we have a chance to save humanity. We must immediately undergo a just transition from a dirty fossil fueled economy to a clean renewable economy, and create millions of good jobs in the process. The time for incrementalism on climate is over. If we only view other countries through an adversarial lens, in terms of how they can harm or serve our interests, then we cannot deal with these crucial issues that challenge the security of all of us. We must work together with the international community for the common interest so that we can begin to deal with climate change, nuclear weapons, pandemics, and other threats."Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (I)"The most pressing challenges are the ones we have created ourselves. First is the risk of nuclear war, which belligerent and provocative U.S. policy has elevated to levels not seen since the Cold War.The second is the bankrupting of America's wealth, the result of decades of elevated military spending. The trillions spent on armaments could have gone toward building modern infrastructure, feeding and housing people, tackling chronic disease, and nourishing a thriving domestic economy.A third threat to national security is the epidemic of violence in our streets and in our homes. When we wage endless wars abroad, their mirror image afflicts us at home. Realistically, our nation is not threatened by an armed invasion by a foreign power. We have to broaden what we mean by 'national security' to include the things that actually make Americans feel insecure."Cornel West (I)"Climate Change: Climate change is not an endpoint that awaits us in the distant future, it is among us right now and impacting lives across the country and the entire world, especially the most vulnerable and most disadvantaged populations here in the U.S. — Black, Brown, Indigenous, and the poor. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), climate change-related damages cost the United States an estimated $165 Billion in 2022, Hurricane Ida, a Category 4 storm that massacred communities in Florida, including the loss of 150 lives, cost taxpayers approximately $112.9 Billion alone. Moreover, NOAA estimates that in the last 40 years, 341 storms exacerbated by climate change have cost the nation more than $2.5 Trillion. To put that into perspective, that's $80 Billion more than the national deficit of approximately $1.7 Trillion, thus far, for Fiscal Year 2023, and 1.5 percent of the national debt that stands at $161.7 trillion and counting. A nation already in massive debt, coupled with the astronomical costs of a growing climate crisis is the direct antithesis of national security. It's undeniable that more calamities associated with the climate crisis, including more powerful weather incidents that induce extreme flooding, extreme heat, and other environmental stressors, are inevitable. These events will have profound impacts on myriad systems and institutions that are necessary to maintain a livable society including, but not limited to, the production of food, access to clean water sources, the quality and availability of housing, transportation, education, and healthcare. The collapse of these systems could reasonably engender massive social unrest that would result in the massive displacement and forced migration of people as we are already witnessing with the United Houma Nation, Pointe-au Chien Indian Tribe, and Biloxi-Chitimacha-Choctaw of present-day Louisiana, who are the first federally recognized climate migrants, whose land is literally sinking due to oil and gas extraction in the Gulf of Mexico, which has rendered their land susceptible to the impacts of climate change. In fact, the United Nations Office of the High Commissions for Refugees has predicted that more than 200 million people, globally, will be forced to relocate due to climate change, including 40% of United Statesians who currently reside in coastal areas. From the atrocities of Hurricane Katrina to the current situation at the United States border with Mexico, we have already witnessed the consequences of climate-related breakdowns of social, economic, and other systems necessary to maintain quality of life and life itself breakdown all coupled with mass migration of innocent people seeking refuge.Increased Militarism: The United States is the single biggest military spender in the world with an annual budget roughly the size of the next seven largest military budgets combined. According to records kept by the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), in any given year, military spending accounts for over half of the federal government's annual discretionary budget. The U.S. military's bloated budget is utilized to build weapons and warcraft, which are in turn utilized to threaten other nations and demand their cooperation with the perceived U.S. military hegemony or offered to cooperative nations as part of military alliances. In FY 2023 alone, out of a $1.8 trillion federal discretionary budget, $1.1 trillion – or 62 percent – was for militarized programs. On top of war and weapons for the Pentagon, these expenditures include domestic militarism for police departments across the country and mass incarceration, as well as increased detentions and deportation, which represent direct threats to the security of Black, Brown, Indigenous and poor people in the United States. As we are witnessing right now, the current administration is complicit in thousands of civilian deaths by giving Israel military aid at $3.8 billion this year, half of which goes to Israel's missile system. They are now requesting a combined supplemental aid package at $106 billion for Israel along with Ukraine, Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific region, and US immigration enforcement at the US-Mexico southern border. To put this in perspective, combined with the estimated $113 billion in military aid the US has already sent to Ukraine, should the Congress grant President Biden's additional $105 billion package to Ukraine and Israel, this would represent almost 60% of the initially estimated $379 billion in climate change expenditures over 10 years included as part of the so-called Inflation Reduction Act. Further, the $105 billion military aid package to Israel and Ukraine is one hundred times the paltry $1 billion that the US pledged to the Green Climate Fund earlier this year, to fund climate mitigation and adaptation in the formerly colonized countries of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Pacific. Our friends at IPS also indicate that the U.S. could safely redirect at least $350 billion from the Pentagon's current spending per year and achieve true security by ending wars, reducing our aggressive posture overseas, and reining in military contracts that drain public coffers for private gain - all measures that would actually increase national security, while making resources available for critical domestic needs including, but not limited to, increased access to healthcare, improving the nation's broken education system - including an iniquitous student loan debt crisis, and real action to address the climate crisis. With the largest military in the world, the US is the single largest greenhouse gas emitting institution and consumer of fossil fuels on the entire planet, with a carbon footprint bigger than 140 other countries. The environmental and climate impacts of global militarism and war are staggering. Militarization continues to increase greenhouse gas emissions and pollute and poison land, water and air through weapons production, storage, and use, which is ironic Defense Secretary, Lloyd Austin, himself recently declared, 'There is little about what the Defense Department does to defend the American people that is not affected by climate change. It is a national security issue, and we must treat it as such.'Rising White Supremacy and Nationalism: We have already observed how the interlinked crises of the calamities associated with climate change, which push those disproportionately impacted further to the margins and thereby increasing the militarization of the southern border, urban areas, and throughout the world to address associated entropy of social systems and infrastructure tends to increase sentiments that beguile far too many U.S. residents to embrace elements of white supremacy ideology, thereby increasing instances of violence and acceptance of authoritarian and fascist paradigms that represent clear and present dangers to national security – no one knows this better than the U.S. Department of Justice. In 2001, Attorney General, Merrick Garland admonished the Senate Appropriations Committee stating, in part, "Domestic violent extremists pose an elevated threat in 2021 and in the FBI's view, the top domestic violent extremist threat we face comes from racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, specifically those who advocate for the superiority of the white race." This salient issue has the potential to literally tear our nation asunder. A nation this divided is itself a national security risk that can be taken advantage of by nations hostile to the U.S. due to imperialist and interventionist past and present foreign policies of our country and their lasting impacts to [a] marked number of nations across the globe. Dismantling growing white supremacy and nationalism will require a multifaceted and intersectional approach that seeks to deracinate the root causes of this epidemic that prevents the U.S. from living up to its best self while also remaining a seemingly indelible threat. This will require tying requisite economic relief from an oligarchic approach to wealth accumulation and redistribution that exacerbates the white supremacy ideology ensconced in the fabric of this nation in such a way that has been negatively radicalizing poor white folk who may not even realize how the capitalist domination system upheld by the political duopoly extract from them as much as non-white people they are bamboozled to hate and stigmatize. I am confident that my Economic Justice prescriptions that include establishing a federal Universal Basic Income commission, wealth tax on all billionaire holdings and transaction, ending all tax loopholes for the oligarchy, and establishing a national $27 minimum wage, with special considerations for specific geographies where $27/hour would not be a family-sustaining wage, will be key steps in eviscerating the rise of white supremacy and nationalism in our nation that hurts the people perpetrated against as much as the people doing the perpetrating."As president, what would you do to avoid a direct military confrontation with China?Joe Biden (D)Biden has not directly addressed this question since becoming president, but a White House readout from his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping last year gives a good summary of his administration's stated approach to relations with China. "President Biden explained that the United States will continue to compete vigorously with the PRC, including by investing in sources of strength at home and aligning efforts with allies and partners around the world. He reiterated that this competition should not veer into conflict and underscored that the United States and China must manage the competition responsibly and maintain open lines of communication. The two leaders discussed the importance of developing principles that would advance these goals and tasked their teams to discuss them further. President Biden underscored that the United States and China must work together to address transnational challenges – such as climate change, global macroeconomic stability including debt relief, health security, and global food security – because that is what the international community expects."Marianne Williamson (D)"We absolutely cannot have a direct military confrontation with China, which would be one step away from World War III and nuclear Armageddon. The U.S. must accept that we are in a multipolar world. While I am deeply concerned about China's authoritarianism and serious violations of human rights, I do not think that China is interested in invading the U.S. or in starting a war with us. While we should do what we can through peaceful diplomacy to lessen Chinese human rights violations, we cannot start World War III between two nuclear-armed countries. Our military must stop trying to encircle China in the South China Sea. Instead, we must talk to China and seek peaceful coexistence."Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (I)"We believe that China has no desire for military confrontation. We will therefore ratchet down the tensions and cease the provocations in the South China Sea and elsewhere. We will adopt a posture that does not see China as an 'adversary,' and begin to negotiate arms control treaties in good faith so that both countries can reduce military spending to better the lives of their citizens."Cornel West (I)"We all know where a direct military confrontation with the People's Republic of China (PRC) will lead — irreparable nuclear holocaust that will lead to the loss and alteration of hundreds of millions of innocent lives over a conflict engendered by two so-called superpowers. We need to be honest with the people of the world, the U.S. and PRC are currently in a cold war that must be thawed to save lives and a global economy both hanging in the balance. The first step in thawing the current cold war will require a cessation to the myriad proxy wars that use nations like Ukraine, Taiwan, and numerous global south nations from Africa to Southeast Asia, to Latin America as pawns in an arms and resource extraction race. As president I will cease the saber rattling and chest beating that are doing nothing but instigating the PRC with military war games in waterways of Southeast Asia such as the Sea of Japan, Yellow Sea, East China Sea and others. I am confident this will open pathways for diplomacy that leads to cooperation in lieu of competition with the PRC. I agree with the Quincy Institute's assessment that the current administration's rhetoric of competition with the PRC is a feckless attempt to marginalize and exclude the nation from the global community, which in turn pushes them to form alliances with nations the U.S. also finds itself in a contemporary cold war with including, but not limited to, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Russia. One area where I believe we should especially be cooperating rather than competing with the PRC is the climate crisis. While it's true that the PRC is the largest emitter in the world, the U.S. remains the largest historic emitter despite only representing five percent of the world's population. Planetary survival literally requires less finger pointing at who is most responsible for the climate crisis and more finger pointing towards mutual and cooperative solutions. And rather than compete with the PRC for requisite critical resources to develop the infrastructure for renewable energy and regenerative economies, we must cooperate with them such that we don't render the need to address the climate crisis into a rationalization for casus belli over possession critical resources that will also drag global south nations into proxy wars they want no part of. The PRC, the U.S., and the entire world has a collective interest in protecting lives and the planet from the impacts of climate change. As president, my first step in avoiding a military confrontation with the PRC would be to invite and work with them to be a leading partner in addressing the climate crisis by exchanging ideas, resources, and technologies that can rapidly emancipate both nations from reliance on fossil fuels, which will improve relations, cooperation, and the habitability of the planet at once, while also preventing a military confrontation that will take more lives than the climate crisis."Is it in the U.S. national interest for the president to convene negotiations in an effort to end the war in Ukraine?Joe Biden (D)Biden generally emphasizes that Ukraine should be the driving force behind any peace negotiations and has argued that Russian President Vladimir Putin has not shown signs that he is ready to negotiate. He has, however, helped to convene several international conferences to discuss a diplomatic path forward, one of which reportedly included discussions about concessions that Ukraine may make in exchange for peace. (The administration denied these reports.)Marianne Williamson (D)"Firstly, this question is framed in terms of the 'U.S. national interest,' but I think it's time we start concerning ourselves more with the interests of humanity as a whole than the interests of the American government or American corporations, which is usually what is meant by 'U.S. national interest.'Yes, I think the U.S. should convene negotiations with Russia and Ukraine. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a despicable crime, and we should support Ukraine and their autonomy. However, we need to do what we can to bring about a just but realistic peace. It seems extremely unlikely that either side in this conflict will have a complete victory over the other anytime soon, so if we don't want to let this draw out for two decades like our war in Afghanistan, then we should press for negotiations. I think that the withdrawn letter by progressive Congress members from last year that urged negotiations was a good and reasonable letter, and they should not have buckled to pressure and withdrawn it."Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (I)"Yes. Current U.S. strategic thinking is that the war serves the national interest by weakening Russia. That thinking is faulty on two counts. First, it is not weakening Russia. Second, a weak and unstable Russia would make us much less secure, not more secure. The United States and the world will be best served when Russia knows that we are not out to destroy her."Cornel West (I)"The conflict between Ukraine and Russia is not going to be ameliorated by military means. With $113 billion of taxpayer dollars already sent to Ukraine leading to no more than an endless war of attrition, as well as poll numbers indicating dithering support for a series of blank checks to continue it, it's clear the people of the United States have had enough. It's not just in the national interest for a diplomatic solution to this conflict, it's the duty of the President of the United States to lead this process with our global partners in Europe, Asia, and Africa. As president, I will give Ukraine no other choice but to enter a diplomatic process as part of my commitment to cease all war funding and weapons to Ukraine and instead invest in peacemaking."If Saudi Arabia agreed to normalize relations with Israel but requested a guarantee from the United States to defend the Kingdom militarily in exchange, would you seek to ratify a treaty making that commitment?Joe Biden (D)President Biden has not directly commented on this proposal, but his administration has led the initiative to negotiate a defense commitment in exchange for normalization.Rep. Dean Phillips (D)Phillips has endorsed the Biden administration's approach. "Never did we imagine it possible in our lifetimes to see the possible normalization of relations between the Saudis and Israelis. It's an extraordinary and historic opportunity not just for these two countries, but for the entire world," he told NPR. "The United States plays a significant role relative to a defense pact with the Saudis equipment and materiel relative to their military and potentially a civilian nuclear program as well. If those things can be met and also meeting some of the needs of the Palestinians, this could be an extraordinary legacy at a time the world surely needs it." Marianne Williamson (D)"No. The U.S. cannot get involved in another war in the Middle East – especially not in order to defend Saudi Arabia, arguably the worst human rights violator in the region. It is time the U.S. stops aiding Saudi Arabia and Israel in their egregious human rights violations."Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (I)"We think the premise of this question to be unlikely. Saudi Arabia is armed to the teeth and has no need of such a guarantee. As it has good relations with most other nations, its [only] plausible national security threat is Iran. However, much of the Sunni-Shiite conflict in the past arose from U.S. geopolitical maneuvering that elevated tensions throughout the region."Cornel West (I)"I wouldn't even qualify this request as a treaty as it would be more of a death sentence for innocent civilians in the region and more service members, too many who have already been lost due to U.S. empire building in the Middle East, mainly to protect oil profits of fossil fuel cartels both domestically and globally. We need less iron domes and a more iron-clad diplomatic process that leads to lasting peace and mutual dignity for all people in the Middle East. To this end, as president I would insist that any normalization of relations between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the State of Israel include immediate steps to liberate Palestinian people from occupation and a wanton cycle of violence that's killing precious Palestinian and Israeli lives alike."As Commander-in-Chief, would you bring home the U.S. troops currently stationed in Iraq and Syria?Joe Biden (D)While Biden has not directly addressed this question, a senior Pentagon official recently said the U.S. "has no intent to withdraw in the near future" from Syria.Marianne Williamson (D)"Yes I would, but in Syria, I would first negotiate an agreement that ensures the Kurds will not be harmed before withdrawing the troops that are protecting them."Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (I)"Yes. Those nations do not want our troops there. I will instigate bold peace initiatives in places where there are still military tensions, in some cases replacing troops with international peacekeepers."Cornel West (I)"As indicated in my Policy Pillars Rooted in a Movement of Truth, Justice, and Love, as president I would immediately embark on a responsible and expeditious closure of global U.S. military bases as part of a larger initiative to cease and desist U.S. empire building and maintenance and slash the bloated military budget, including the disbanding of NATO, such that we can reinvest those funds in myriad social and economic justice programs domestically. As tensions in the Middle East associated with the crisis in Palestine/Israel grow, the U.S. presence is only exacerbating an already incendiary situation while putting brave service people in harm's way for no other reason than to maintain U.S. empire and a military hegemony in a region that needs less bullets and rockets and more diplomacy. To this end, as president, I would bring those troops home immediately, honor them for their service and ensure a Just Transition so that they can use the skills they gained in the military and put them to use for beneficial services to the people of the U.S."If elected, would you request an authorization from Congress to use military force against drug cartels in Mexico?Joe Biden (D)Biden has not commented directly on calls to authorize military force against the cartels, but a National Security Council spokesperson said in April that the administration "is not considering military action in Mexico.""Designating these cartels as foreign terrorist organizations would not grant us any additional authorities that we don't already have," the spokesperson added.Marianne Williamson (D)"No. The U.S. has invaded and militarily intervened in Latin America time after time, and it has only brought violence and misery and fueled the immigration that we now complain about. It is time we reject the imperialist Monroe Doctrine, which declared Latin America our backyard. It is time we respect our neighbors to the south and stop invading their countries."Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (I)"Absolutely not. The Mexicans have the power to overcome the drug cartels themselves. We can aid them by sharing intelligence, by shutting down the illegal weapons trade, by cracking down on money laundering activities of US banks, and by prosecuting the cartels' collaborators in this country."Cornel West (I)"Absolutely not. To be clear, asking the Congress for authorization to use military force in Mexico would essentially be asking Congress to approve a military invasion through a declaration of war against Mexico. The so-called war against drugs in the United States has been and continues to be an abject failure. This 50-year war has been used as a rationalization for crimes against humanity, especially those most marginalized by failed drug policies - Black, Brown, Indigenous and poor people, who have been subjected to a racialized and classist mass incarceration pogrom that has needlessly locked up over 400,000 people for non-violent drug-related crimes between 1980 and 1997 alone. A failed domestic drug war should not be an impetus to start a foreign drug war in the sovereign territory of one of our North American partners. It should instead be an impetus to enact efficacious policies that treat addiction as a national threat to public health. Instead of increasing militarism and launching a foreign war, we should declare war against the lack of access to healthcare and the lack of economic opportunities that contribute to drug use. Reducing and decriminalizing drug use in the United States will directly reduce the amount of drugs that are smuggled across the border, thereby reducing revenues for drug cartels in Mexico. This is less an issue of militarism and more an issue of addiction driven by supply and demand."Reactions to Israel-Hamas warJoe Biden (D)In a speech on Oct. 20, Biden said: "In Israel, we must make sure that they have what they need to protect their people today and always.The security package I'm sending to Congress and asking Congress to do is an unprecedented commitment to Israel's security that will sharpen Israel's qualitative military edge, which we've committed to — the qualitative military edge.We're going to make sure Iron Dome continues to guard the skies over Israel. We're going to make sure other hostile actors in the region know that Israel is stronger than ever and prevent this conflict from spreading.Look, at the same time, [Prime Minister] Netanyahu and I discussed again yesterday the critical need for Israel to operate by the laws of war. That means protecting civilians in combat as best as they can. The people of Gaza urgently need food, water, and medicine."Rep. Dean Phillips (D)In a long tweet, Phillips said, "The destruction of Hamas is necessary, but the military campaign must follow international law and conventions of civilized nations. [...]I support a pause in hostilities and the immediate safe passage of civilians from Gaza into temporary shelters in Egypt and/or Jordan and the largest humanitarian relief effort in world history.I am pro-Israeli and anti the Netanyahu government — and [its] enabling of settlements on Palestinian land. [...]Israel has a right to exist, defend itself, and ensure the terror and butchering of Oct 7 never happens again.Palestinians have a right to a nation of their own, and that begins with a free and fair election for the first time since 2006 in which a choice can be made; peace or war.Israelis must also be afforded the same right to choose peace or war."Marianne Williamson (D)Williamson tweeted: "For Israel to prosecute an all out war on Gaza is already a catastrophe for the people of Gaza. It can easily become a catastrophe for the people of Israel as well. There's no end game there, for them or for the rest of the world, that doesn't multiply the horror. The United States should join an international consortium — Egypt, Jordan and others — in efforts to secure release of the hostages and cessation of the bombing."Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (I)On Oct. 7, Kennedy said the following in a statement: "This ignominious, unprovoked, and barbaric attack on Israel must be met with world condemnation and unequivocal support for the Jewish state's right to self-defense. We must provide Israel with whatever it needs to defend itself — now. As President, I'll make sure that our policy is unambiguous so that the enemies of Israel will think long and hard before attempting aggression of any kind.I applaud the strong statements of support from the Biden White House for Israel in her hour of need. However, the scale of these attacks means it is likely that Israel will need to wage a sustained military campaign to protect its citizens. Statements of support are fine, but we must follow through with unwavering, resolute, and practical action. America must stand by our ally throughout this operation and beyond as it exercises its sovereign right to self-defense."Kennedy later warned against using the attacks and subsequent war as a justification for war with Iran. "It didn't take long for the neocons in Washington to spin the Hamas terror attacks to advance their agenda of war against Iran," he tweeted on Oct. 27. "If President Biden doesn't resist them, they might get their wish."Cornel West (I)














In a recent statement, West said, "US taxpayers want no part in funding the Israeli war machine that is committing genocidal war crimes in Gaza. We need stronger, clearer headed representation like this within our highest levels of government." He has also said, "We want a ceasefire. We want an end of the siege. We want an end of occupation. We want equal rights, equal dignity, and equal access for Palestinians and Jews."