Weekly Overview
Important note: if you have not yet, please upgrade your subscription to continue receiving these semiweekly posts from March 1.
Thank you all who have upgraded to paid subscriptions so far! Your support ensures the success of this newsletter - and that the realpolitik ideas are shared with a group of intellectuals who prefer a clear eyed view of foreign affairs over that of short termism and narrower ideology.
P.S. A few of you have joined as founding members - in fact more than expected! Thank you! I will read all your emails and consider all your questions. When possible, I will respond (even if I don’t publish the answers/don’t cover the topics). Please keep questions as broad as possible. Or at least consider (given the type of issues we discuss/regions covered) if other members would like to read answers to your questions.
For this edition, I have selected two questions - addressed at the end of the cables. I will aim to answer 1-3 questions per post - depending on the week/volume/type of questions.
P.P.S. Students keep sending your emails! Few of you have been extra transparent and inquired whether graduate courses (law school/business school/public policy/fletcher school etc) count. Yes they do.
——————————————————————————————————————
Estimated Reading Time: 4 mins, 57 sec.
Inadequate Nord Stream 2 sanctions cause even more harm than simple inaction
Biden admin announced sanctions on a Russian pipe laying vessel (and the owner company).
Clearly inadequate.
Sanctioning only Russian companies will not work.
If only Russian companies are sanctioned, Putin will do everything possible to ensure the success of the project - thereafter basking in the glory of declaring to the whole world how US sanctions are so impotent.
That would not only damage US prestige (and credibility of future sanctions) but also add prestige points to Putin.
At the time when US/EU are united in imposing sanctions re Navalny, and millions of Russians witnessed mass protests and damaging corruption revelations, Putin will now have an opportunity to impress his inner circle/ elite.
Getting NS2 completed in this context, will demonstrate to anyone who doubted him that Putin is still resolute and in control.
Given these two major harms from engaging in sanctions only halfheartedly, it would have been less damaging to remain passive and avoid sanctions altogether.
At least then, success of NS2 could have been attributed to America’s disinterest in the issue rather than an inability to get things done with sanctions.
So, given that the path of sanctions (rightly so) is chosen, US must now do everything to ensure their success.
If Germany (after final warning) still insists on completing Nord Stream 2, their companies must also be sanctioned.
The whole project must become so commercially unviable that Germans would simply have no other reasonable recourse but to terminate it - with added benefit of tying this to commercial realities rather than geopolitics (that is, if they so desperately wish to avoid more open conflict with Russia - this will be more relevant if the project drags on and Armin Laschet becomes German Chancellor in September).
Russia pauses boisterous posturing and signals openness to backroom deals
On the same day that Biden admin announced new NS2 sanctions, Kremlin spokesperson Dimitry Peskov commented on efficacy of EU/US sanctions:
“We still hope that our interlocutors’ common sense approach to the situation will prevail and we will not go further down the path of sanctions pressure, which has already repeatedly demonstrated its inefficiency,”
Translation: further sanctions will definitely hurt us, but we need to save face and so will resist them.
Instead let’s talk.
‘’Common sense’’ approach to situation means let’s make a deal.
Let’s take a pragmatic approach - we can concede somewhere else if you concede here.
Incidentally, ‘‘common sense’’ and ‘‘pragmatic approach’’ are two common phrases that in Russia immediately precede suggestions/implicit requests for bribery.
Side note: I actually got a validation of this insight from a personal experience. When visiting a post Maidan revolution Kiev in 2015, (Poroshenko rule - ultimately failed attempts at reforms) I met a former Russian prosecutor (under exceptionally unique circumstances) - in fact a former chief prosecutor for a medium sized city in southern Russia. When in power he was corrupt himself, and described how officials would navigate large bribery offers by using a very specific language.
Terms like ‘‘common sense approach’’ used by Peskov in the aforementioned statement.
(the prosecutor was forced into exile after crossing the wrong Chechen mafia leader with connections to Kremlin)
Should US entertain it? No. Russia won’t give away anything strategic or big. That will look like giving into coercion.
Instead, they would successfully delay sanctions and ease the pressure - and in the meantime demoralize protesters who were hoping for Western support.
That is they key here.
Demoralize Navalny supporters..
+ show the inner circle elite that US is not that confident about efficacy of sanctions against resolute Putin - in fact so unsure that it is willing to discuss alternatives!
That would be a win for Putin and a loss to the US.
Certain mutually beneficial areas (like New START treaty) will continue to be negotiated and handled in any case..
But going for extra deal making at this time would be a huge mistake.
US agreeing to Iran talks - rewarding non-compliance and uncooperative behavior.
On Thursday February 18, Blinken spoke with his counterparts from the E3 — France, Germany and the U.K. — in a video conference.
In it he expressed America’s preparedness to engage in discussions with Iran in an attempt to reach an agreement on returning to full compliance of the 2015 nuclear deal.
So this is it then? Iran will get what it wanted from the very outset? Original deal? All of this theatre worked out well for them?
I always said that Iran’s recent posturing and rowdy behavior was designed to create a new normal.
So that the return to the original JCPOA would look like a concession from their end.
All of these moves: increased enrichments, uranium metal productions, refusing short-notice IAEA inspections, loud proclamations from Khamenei, ultimatums, Intel chief’s threats of nuclear weapon development - were designed to create a new anchor point.
Their plans were quite transparent.
A cursory glance at the general context would have easily revealed their weak hand in these high stake negotiations.
Going into June elections with exceptionally high social discontent and dire financial circumstances, (thanks to the maximum pressure campaign + oil price crashes) Iran desperately needs this deal to alleviate future mass protests.
Iranian regime simply needs a relief from sanctions.
So just a week after Biden’s (in a CBS interview) statement that Iran would need to make a first move, Blinken decides that the right time for engagement with Iran is precisely now.
Don’t forget the added context of Blinken’s offer taking place only a few days after February 15 terrorist attack in Iraq - where a US contractor was killed.
A shiite militia linked to Iran , ‘‘Guardians of the Blood Brigade’’ took responsibility for that attack.
Great message to send to the whole world - non-compliance, attacks against the US will be tolerated and uncooperative behavior rewarded with offers of diplomacy.
Naturally, this weak behavior inspired only further arrogance from Iran.
Instead of counting their blessings, Iranians pressed their advantage.
Apparently a conciliatory tone, and offers to hold meetings were not enough.
Iranian FM Javad Zarif responded with insistence that the US should make the first move and lift all sanctions first.
‘‘The U.S. will not be able to rejoin the nuclear pact before it lifts sanctions ... Once everybody implements their side of obligations, there will be talks”.
The arrogance to hold that frame! The audacity of that tone.
But can we really complain? What Blinken did was anything but diplomacy.
This is what you get when you appease adversaries - doubly pathetic given that the leverage lies overwhelmingly with the US.
Founding member question 1: ‘‘I work for an NGO and have personally administered aid/strategy when dealing with Uyghur refugees. They are branded as ‘‘muslim’’ refugees - but many are not religious at all. So why label them as such? What’s the foreign policy angle here? Since as far as I can see, muslims are pretty unpopular these days. Surely categorizing them as ethnic minorities would lead to a greater goodwill towards them? At least in the states for sure’’.
Making this a muslim genocide issue had a two pronged strategy to it:
1) rally Muslim states against China. Especially large ones in Asia - like Malaysia and Indonesia.
2) clean Trump admin’s reputation after the infamous muslim ban campaign - look we did that out of national security concerns. We actually defend all human rights. Including that of Muslims.
These objectives failed to attain anything of significance. + added two major impediments.
1. Making this a Muslim issue reduced western public opinion support for a large campaign against China.
I agree with you - it’s simply a fact that Muslims are not viewed that favorably by the general public in US/Europe.
It would undoubtedly garner more support if it was framed as an ethnic cleansing campaign by a ‘‘racist Chinese regime’’.
2. Not emphasizing the ethnic Turkic heritage of Uyghurs lead to an indifference in the Turkish public.
Turkey being a major NATO ally and an important player in middle east…
Their activism in this campaign against China would have been a big foreign policy win for the west.
Turkish activity on the issue would have had reverberations across all of Central Asia - an ethnically Turkic region that is heavily courted by Chinese Belt and Road initiative / investments.
Still not late to rally Turkish public on this point.
Key is to start top down and push Erdogan for public statements on the issue.
Founding Member question 2:‘‘ You mentioned how NSC should discourage billionaire gaffes. But since they are so powerful and as you mentioned their social media reach is so wide, why not use billionaires more proactively? As a tool of diplomacy?’’
That would be lovely in theory, but I am afraid easier said than done.
For starters, many US billionaires have interests that don’t align with the US foreign policy goals from the very outset.
Continuing with the example of Musk, how likely is he to support adversarial policies towards China given his gigafactory for Tesla in Shanghai.
If anything, he actively promotes China, saying things like ‘‘I love China’’ and ‘‘ China is great’’.
Again, just avoiding statements of this type is a big win in itself.
But in lower stakes situations, they can indeed come in handy.
For example, Bezos vs MBS of Saudi Arabia.
That confrontation harmed MBS significantly.