Charles Kupchan, a senior advisor to Obama, is of the opinion that bargaining discussions will inevitably take place. The European Union is the primary concern at this time.
 |
| Charles Kupchan |
The Russian invasion of Ukraine prompted the German chancellor to declare a tipping moment in Germany's foreign policy. In your opinion, what do you think the turning point means?
---According to my understanding of the phrase, a turning point is exactly what it sounds like: a turning point. I believe that this is an appropriate summary of the effect that the Russian invasion on Ukraine has had on Europe, particularly Germany, as well as the Atlantic Alliance. At this point in time, it is of the utmost importance for Germany to educate itself on the more conventional concerns of geopolitics. As a result of the legacy of World War II and the conclusion of the Cold War, Germany evolved into a nation that places a significant emphasis on overcoming geopolitics, leaving history, and advancing into a world where the future would be peaceful. This is an understandable development. In addition, I believe that the conflict in Ukraine is, in a sense, a wake-up call that has stunned Europeans. This is partly due to the fact that Europeans did not anticipate that Russia would go to such extremes. Germany is now a portion of Europe that is located in close proximity to a conflict zone, which is likely the largest war that we have seen since World War II. A Germany that is prepared to take on greater geopolitical influence is, in my opinion, a very beneficial development, particularly when seen from the viewpoint of the United States. This is due to the fact that the overall risk level in the globe is always rising. The struggle between the world's great powers is heating up, and it's not only with Russia but also with China. In addition, the United States need allies that share its values and are able to display their military might as well as the readiness to do so when it is required. Following the end of the Second World War, we have experienced. A Germany that is prepared to take on greater geopolitical influence is, in my opinion, a very beneficial development, particularly when seen from the viewpoint of the United States. This is due to the fact that the overall risk level in the globe is always rising. The struggle between the world's great powers is heating up, and it's not only with Russia but also with China. In addition, the United States need allies that share its values and are able to display their military might as well as the readiness to do so when it is required. Following the end of the Second World War, we have experienced. A Germany that is prepared to take on greater geopolitical influence is, in my opinion, a very beneficial development, particularly when seen from the viewpoint of the United States. This is due to the fact that the overall risk level in the globe is always rising. The struggle between the world's great powers is heating up, and it's not only with Russia but also with China. In addition, the United States need allies that share its values and are able to display their military might as well as the readiness to do so when it is required. The struggle between the world's great powers is heating up, and it's not only with Russia but also with China. In addition, the United States need allies that share its values and are able to display their military might as well as the readiness to do so when it is required. The struggle between the world's great powers is heating up, and it's not only with Russia; it's also with China. In addition, the United States need allies that share its values and are able to display their military might as well as the readiness to do so when it is required.
Her perspective on geopolitics is informed by the classical realist school of thought. Is there a change occurring in how geopolitics are understood? Is it really possible to have a progressive geopolitical perspective?
---The concept of "geography," "military affairs," and "hard security" are sometimes grouped together under the umbrella term "geopolitics," which has historically been used in this sense. In today's world, I feel that the definition of the phrase requires some expansion. There are a rising variety of concerns impacting the geopolitical environment that are not directly tied to the use of military action, such as climate change, global pandemics, the cybersphere, and the digital world. These issues are making geopolitics more intricate and diversified. Because of this, we need to approach the concepts of geopolitics and geopolitical stability with an open mind and some degree of flexibility about the definitions of these words. On the other hand, I think there is a rising awareness in Germany of the fact that conventional geopolitics is an essential component of both Germany's national security and its national interests. It is not sufficient to just concentrate on climate change or on the EU's neighboring policy. All of these things continue to be vital, but they need to be developed in tandem with a conventional capability to employ military force when it is necessary.
Since Obama took office, the United States government has focused its attention to the Asia-Pacific area. Does this conflict put an end to the strategy of pivoting to Asia?
---Beginning with Obama, continuing with Trump, and continuing with Biden, the United States government has engaged in what I would describe as a strategic retreat. The Middle East was where much of this action took occurred. The conflicts that followed the attacks of September 11th did not fare particularly well, which is the basis for this withdrawal. Due to the fact that they never wanted to end and did not provide the outcomes that were expected, many now refer to them as "the perpetual wars." One of the reasons the United States is pulling out of Afghanistan and reducing its exposure to Syria and Iraq is that it wants to concentrate its attention on the more traditional geopolitical region of Eurasia, which has historically been at the center of American strategy. This region consists of Europe and East Asia. The goal of the administration of Vice President Joe Biden was, and I believe it was correct of them to do so, to place more emphasis on the Asia-Pacific region. This was done for the obvious reason that China poses a greater threat to the existing order of the world in this century simply due to its size and wealth. Additionally, money is a breeding ground for military might as well as ambition throughout time.
Does the conflict in Ukraine influence how we should approach this calculation? Yes. This indicates that the European theater is now getting a great deal more attention than was anticipated in Washington, on a variety of levels. For instance, in terms of military capabilities, such as the deployment of soldiers, aircraft, ships, and weapons, attention is focused on Europe rather than the Asia-Pacific area. But also in terms of the amount of time and money invested in politics. At the moment, Washington is devoting a significant portion of its resources to the conflict in Ukraine. Because of this, it will be impossible to make progress on any of the other issues.
Does this conflict make it impossible to concentrate on Asia? In contrast, I would suggest that it slows things down and makes them more complicated. However, the United States continues to maintain the view that China represents a more significant threat to its geopolitical and geo-economic interests than Russia does. The fact that Russia has started a war of aggression in Ukraine makes it the country that presents the greatest imminent threat. But if we go forward a few decades, we can see that the emergence of China will have the most significant effect on the existing order in the world.
What kinds of changes might we anticipate to see in Washington's demands and expectations of EU states?
---I believe that the United States' collaboration with the member states of the European Union as well as with the United Kingdom is extremely remarkable. After the United States started disclosing information regarding a probable invasion of Ukraine in late 2021, the administration of Vice President Joe Biden started holding highly in-depth consultations with its European allies to prepare for a possible reaction. As a result of the preparatory work that had been done in advance, the Atlantic allies were able to move very quickly on three separate fronts once the invasion had begun. These included arming Ukraine, strengthening NATO's eastern flank, and imposing significant sanctions on Russia; all three of these measures are still in effect to this day.
In my view, the strongest ace in Europe's hand is the continent's ability to work together as one. Since was the case in 2014, the West's most effective weapon against Putin is unity, as Putin is under the impression that he can fracture the EU. He believes that he is capable of dividing Europe and the United States. In spite of this, the Unified States of America, the United Kingdom, and the European Union are united in their opposition to Russia. It is essential for Europeans to demonstrate a readiness to increase their military spending. It will enhance the connection between Europe and the United States because the more capabilities Europe can bring to the table, the more the United States will perceive Europe as an important and competent partner. This will strengthen the relationship between Europe and the United States.
Will there be continued unity?
---It is a wonderful and encouraging indicator that Europeans are prepared to take unpleasant actions, particularly when it comes to separating Europe from Russian energy. This demonstrates the commitment of Europeans to fight Russian activity. Have I given any thought to the possibility that this Western alliance would become weaker? Indeed, I do own them. And I believe that at some point there will be a need to focus not just on the supply of arms but also on diplomacy and combining those arms with a strategy that can end the war and then create a platform for negotiations about the cession of territory. I believe that this time will come at some point in the future.
In this regard, I get the impression that Europe is a little bit ahead of the United States. I get the idea that France, Germany, Italy, and other EU nations are interested in some sort of diplomatic push; but, the administration of Vice President Joe Biden does not seem to be ready to open that door just yet.
An further concern, especially in the United States, is the longer-term political repercussions that inflation may have on the politics of the domestic landscape. Is Putin the Only One Responsible for the Rising Cost of Gasoline? no These issues are the direct outcome of pandemic concerns and issues with the supply chain. However, the conflict is most obviously an element that should not be overlooked. In addition to this, it causes a lack of food and fertilizer. It is necessary for us to consider how this will have an effect on politics. My greatest concern is that the Republicans in the United States will become more sympathetic to the America First platform. And it is just another reason why I think it is in everyone's best interest for this conflict to be over as quickly as possible. The concern also emerges in regard to Europe: What will occur when there is no more gas available and the temperature drops? Is there going to be pushback on the issue of the refugees from Ukraine? How long will the welcoming atmosphere be maintained? These are not easy things to answer from a political standpoint, but we have no choice but to do so.
Despite the fact that the process with the Western Balkans has been stuck, the EU has made the decision to offer candidate status to Ukraine and Moldova. What repercussions will this have on the EU?
---I believe that we should follow the example set by other nations and provide candidate status to Ukraine as well. Ukraine needs our emotional and mental support. Positive psychological and political effects are likely to result from the possibility of joining the European Union. This is also profitable in the traditional sense, but only in the distant future. In the end, there is still a great deal of laborious work that has to be done to properly qualify. On the other hand, I think that this will provide fresh opportunities for Ukraine to pursue economic and political changes. And she needs those external motivators. Let's be honest: Ukraine is still a nation plagued by significant levels of corruption, and its oligarchs continue to wield far too much political influence. When it comes to exerting political pressure on the Ukrainian administration to adopt reforms, the country's aspirational membership in the EU provides a useful tool. That addresses the issue who I would term "Europe's gray area," which is, in a sense, "EU expansion." What are we supposed to do with the nations that are stuck between NATO and Russia?
I have never been very enthusiastic about the expansion of NATO because I have always held the belief that it will re-divide Europe and incite competition with Russia. I am a realist, and I think that if you push a military alliance to the limitations of a great power, that great power will not like it. If you push a military alliance to its limits, it will not like it. The decision that was made in 2008 to clear the path for Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO was something that made me feel extremely uneasy.
Now, let's look at what an alternate approach may be like. A strategy may be taking shape here in which the expansion of NATO to include countries such as Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine is either shelved or at the very least postponed as the EU becomes the institution through which these countries can become a part of the liberal democratic community. This may be the case as the EU becomes the institution through which these countries can become a part of the liberal democratic community. Putin recently said that he has nothing against the possibility of Ukraine becoming a member of the European Union. Restricting the growth of NATO while turning to the EU for assistance in penetrating the gray area might, in the long run, serve to calm tensions between Russia and the West.
The interview was taken by Alexander Isele, journalist and editor of IPG.
Source: IPG