RSS
A Loss in Ukraine Would Grievously Harm America
Russian President Vladimir Putin delivers a speech during a session of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. Photo: Reuters/Maxim Shemetov
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has posed a direct challenge to the national sovereignty of an independent country, just as it continues to lead to extensive suffering, especially due to the attacks on civilian infrastructure.
Yet beyond these direct consequences for Ukraine and the Ukrainians, the invasion represents nothing less than an assault on the established international order, an effort to redraw recognized state borders through the use of force. Such a threat is also a challenge to the United States, as the primary guarantor of that order — one of many reasons why Washington has interests in the outcome.
The specifics of Moscow’s goals have remained ambiguous. Some statements by President Putin provide evidence that one maximalist war goal includes the complete obliteration of Ukraine as an independent polity altogether, far more than limited effort to adjust borders or to support the Russian population exclaves in the Donbas. The ultimate outcome may be less — something in between — e.g., seizing the Black Sea coast while leaving a landlocked Ukraine as a pseudo-independent state surrounded by Russia. In any case, the abrogation of international legal norms is profound.
In addition, the violation of Ukrainian national sovereignty — whatever the ultimate outcome — goes against the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, when Ukraine surrendered its Soviet-era nuclear arms in return for security guarantees from Russia, the US, and the UK. Consequently, a further casualty of the war pertains to nuclear non-proliferation. In the future, no state will be inclined to give up its nuclear weapons in return for diplomatic guarantees that can turn out to be worthless, as Ukraine has had to learn.
One grand achievement of the late 20th century was the establishment of a zone of international law guaranteeing the national sovereignty of the states across the larger European space. The lessons of two world wars and the Cold War seemed to have been learned. This is no longer the case.
Russia has shown that international borders are again just as vulnerable as was the Polish border to the German invasion of September 1939. An awareness that Europe must prepare for war, if hopefully to prevent it, has begun to spread across the continent, as evidenced by German Prime Minister Olaf Scholz’s Zeitenwende speech to the Bundestag of February 27, 2022.
If the Federal Republic of Germany can begin, albeit sluggishly, to overcome its historical pacifism, so can others. Poland has emerged as a particularly strong military power. More NATO member nations are moving toward devoting the 2% of GDP to security, to which they obligated themselves in the Wales Pledge of 2014, and Sweden and Finland have joined the alliance.
To be sure, Russia has not been able to achieve victory. The limits of its military power have been exposed, and the domestic stability of the Putin dictatorship is far from guaranteed. Nonetheless, Ukraine has not been able to deliver a decisive counter-blow. Russia might yet win. It is therefore prudent to consider the geostrategic consequences of a conclusion that involves Russian gains.
A Russian capture of the coast from Crimea to Transnistria would turn the Black Sea into a Russian-Turkish condominium, leading to stronger ties between Ankara and Moscow, and therefore loosening Turkey’s ties to NATO.
Russian domination in Ukraine would also strengthen Moscow’s hand in Central Asia, while accelerating its partnerships with Iran and China, the new anti-American axis. Furthermore, if Russia prevails in Ukraine, one should expect Moscow to pursue interests in the already flammable Balkans, at which point the European order will be further undermined.
Would the fall of Kyiv lead to another Sarajevo and the historical conflagration indelibly associated with the name of that city? That is a worst case scenario, but in the era of great power competition, in which Putin himself has engaged in nuclear saber-rattling, there is reason enough to face up to the really-existing dangers.
Leaving aside the values considerations — the human rights violations and war crimes faced by the Ukrainians — and even leaving aside the international law implications of the Russian invasion, it is vital that the United States take very seriously the expansionist ambitions of a revanchist Russia intent on asserting itself throughout parts of the formerly Soviet world and, in particular, into the heart of Europe.
Conquering Ukraine is a steppingstone to undermining NATO and the Atlanticist security structure. It is therefore hardly surprising that the US has decried the invasion and provided Ukraine with considerable aid to counter Russia.
Yet this support has been insufficient. Initially the American public rallied to support Ukraine, and that popular support seems initially to have pushed a cautious Biden administration to lean into aiding Ukraine more vigorously. But the war has dragged on, and some war-weariness has set it in. Biden himself has failed to make effective use of his bully pulpit to make the strong case for supporting Ukraine, with the result that public opinion has begun to flag, with isolationist strands on the left and the right gaining ground
In addition, unspoken limits to military aid have become evident. Ukrainian requests for specific systems have first been turned down as impracticable, only to be granted belatedly. In other words, for all the American verbal willingness to support Ukraine, the arms provided have been sometimes too late, sometimes too little, and sometimes too old.
For a while it seemed that the Biden administration was only providing sufficient support for the Ukrainians to keep them fighting but not enough to achieve victory. This hesitation reflects indecision in the administration concerning the risks in achieving a clear Russian defeat. Does Washington prefer vacillation to victory? There is no evidence of a commitment to win the competition with Russia — in the sense of former President Reagan’s spirited formula “we win, they lose.” It is Ukraine that is paying the price for this timidity toward Moscow.
It is useful, if worrisome, to consider US policy at this point toward the Ukraine War against the backdrop of the conclusion of the Afghanistan War. The differences are obviously enormous; most importantly, Afghanistan involved an international effort led by the US, at enormous cost in blood and treasure. President Trump was therefore focused on bringing that war to an end, and his administration agreed on a process with the Taliban to wind it down . There is an argument that President Biden was not obligated to carry through with that Trump-era agreement because the Taliban had not lived up to the terms it had promised. Nonetheless Biden did choose to withdraw the American troops in a way that the world has come to recognize as an embarrassing defeat.
Losing in Ukraine — like the loss in Afghanistan — would represent an enormous blow to American credibility as a force for security and stability across the world. The implications for Taiwan and other western Pacific nations will be clear. It is this geostrategic map that shows why it is vital for the proxy forces of the West in Ukraine to prevail, just as they must in Gaza.
The US is fortunate to have partners willing to fight for their own defense, but it is crucial for Washington to provide support. Insufficient backing will have grievous implications for American interests.
Russell A. Berman is a Fellow at the Hoover Institution and Professor at Stanford University. He previously served as Senior Advisor on the Policy Planning Staff of the US Department of State under President Trump. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post A Loss in Ukraine Would Grievously Harm America first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Syria’s Sharaa Says Talks With Israel Could Yield Results ‘In Coming Days’
Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa speaks at the opening ceremony of the 62nd Damascus International Fair, the first edition held since the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, in Damascus, Syria, Aug. 27, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Khalil Ashawi
Syria’s President Ahmed al-Sharaa said on Wednesday that ongoing negotiations with Israel to reach a security pact could lead to results “in the coming days.”
He told reporters in Damascus the security pact was a “necessity” and that it would need to respect Syria’s airspace and territorial unity and be monitored by the United Nations.
Syria and Israel are in talks to reach an agreement that Damascus hopes will secure a halt to Israeli airstrikes and the withdrawal of Israeli troops who have pushed into southern Syria.
Reuters reported this week that Washington was pressuring Syria to reach a deal before world leaders gather next week for the UN General Assembly in New York.
But Sharaa, in a briefing with journalists including Reuters ahead of his expected trip to New York to attend the meeting, denied the US was putting any pressure on Syria and said instead that it was playing a mediating role.
He said Israel had carried out more than 1,000 strikes on Syria and conducted more than 400 ground incursions since Dec. 8, when the rebel offensive he led toppled former Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.
Sharaa said Israel’s actions were contradicting the stated American policy of a stable and unified Syria, which he said was “very dangerous.”
He said Damascus was seeking a deal similar to a 1974 disengagement agreement between Israel and Syria that created a demilitarized zone between the two countries.
He said Syria sought the withdrawal of Israeli troops but that Israel wanted to remain at strategic locations it seized after Dec. 8, including Mount Hermon. Israeli ministers have publicly said Israel intends to keep control of the sites.
He said if the security pact succeeds, other agreements could be reached. He did not provide details, but said a peace agreement or normalization deal like the US-mediated Abraham Accords, under which several Muslim-majority countries agreed to normalize diplomatic ties with Israel, was not currently on the table.
He also said it was too early to discuss the fate of the Golan Heights because it was “a big deal.”
Reuters reported this week that Israel had ruled out handing back the zone, which Donald Trump unilaterally recognized as Israeli during his first term as US president.
“It’s a difficult case – you have negotiations between a Damascene and a Jew,” Sharaa told reporters, smiling.
SECURITY PACT DERAILED IN JULY
Sharaa also said Syria and Israel had been just “four to five days” away from reaching the basis of a security pact in July, but that developments in the southern province of Sweida had derailed those discussions.
Syrian troops were deployed to Sweida in July to quell fighting between Druze armed factions and Bedouin fighters. But the violence worsened, with Syrian forces accused of execution-style killings and Israel striking southern Syria, the defense ministry in Damascus and near the presidential palace.
Sharaa on Wednesday described the strikes near the presidential palace as “not a message, but a declaration of war,” and said Syria had still refrained from responding militarily to preserve the negotiations.
RSS
Anti-Israel Activists Gear Up to ‘Flood’ UN General Assembly
US Capitol Police and NYPD officers clash with anti-Israel demonstrators, on the day Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint meeting of Congress, on Capitol Hill, in Washington, DC, July 24, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Umit Bektas
Anti-Israel groups are planning a wave of raucous protests in New York City during the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) over the next several days, prompting concerns that the demonstrations could descend into antisemitic rhetoric and intimidation.
A coalition of anti-Israel activists is organizing the protests in and around UN headquarters to coincide with speeches from Middle Eastern leaders and appearances by US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The demonstrations are expected to draw large crowds and feature prominent pro-Palestinian voices, some of whom have been criticized for trafficking in antisemitic tropes, in addition to calling for the destruction of Israe.
Organizers of the demonstrations have promoted the coordinated events on social media as an opportunity to pressure world leaders to hold Israel accountable for its military campaign against Hamas in Gaza, with some messaging framed in sharply hostile terms.
On Sunday, for example, activists shouted at Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon.
“Zionism is terrorism. All you guys are terrorists committing ethnic cleansing and genocide in Gaza and Palestine. Shame on you, Zionist animals,” they shouted.
BREAKING: PRO-PALESTINE PROTESTORS CONFRONT “ISRAELI” AMBASSADOR DANNY DANON AT THE UNITED NATIONS
1/5 pic.twitter.com/4G1VYEMGzV
— Within Our Lifetime (@WOLPalestine) September 14, 2025
The Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM), warned on its website that the scale and tone of the planned demonstrations risk crossing the line from political protest into hate speech, arguing that anti-Israel activists are attempting to hijack the UN gathering to spread antisemitism and delegitimize the Jewish state’s right to exist.
Outside the UN last week, masked protesters belonging to the activist group INDECLINE kicked a realistic replica of Netanyahu’s decapitated head as though it were a soccer ball.
US activist group plays soccer with Bibi’s mock decapitated HEAD right outside NYC UN HQ
Peep shot at 00:40
Footage posted by INDECLINE collective just as UN General Assembly about to kick off
‘Following the game, ball was donated to Palestinian Genocide Museum’ pic.twitter.com/TQ84sgZhKr
— RT (@RT_com) September 9, 2025
Within Our Lifetime (WOL), a radical anti-Israel activist group, has vowed to “flood” the UNGA on behalf of the pro-Palestine movement.
WOL, one of the most prolific anti-Israel activist groups, came under immense fire after it organized a protest against an exhibition to honor the victims of the Oct. 7 massacre at the Nova Music Festival in southern Israel. During the event, the group chanted “resistance is justified when people are occupied!” and “Israel, go to hell!”
“We will be there to confront them with the truth: Their silence and inaction enable genocide. The world cannot continue as if Gaza does not exist,” WOL said of its planned demonstrations in New York. “This is the time to make our voices impossible to ignore. Come to New York by any means necessary, to stand, to march, to demand the UN act and end the siege.”
Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM), two other anti-Israel organizations that have helped organize widespread demonstrations against the Jewish state during the war in Gaza, also announced they are planning a march from Times Square to the UN headquarters on Friday.
“The time is now for each and every UN member state to uphold their duty under international law: sanction Israel and end the genocide,” the groups said in a statement.
JVP, an organization that purports to fight for “Palestinian liberation,” has positioned itself as a staunch adversary of the Jewish state. The group argued in a 2021 booklet that Jews should not write Hebrew liturgy because hearing the language would be “deeply traumatizing” to Palestinians. JVP has repeatedly defended the Oct. 7 massacre of roughly 1,200 people in southern Israel by Hamas as a justified “resistance.” Chapters of the organization have urged other self-described “progressives” to throw their support behind Hamas and other terrorist groups against Israel
Similarly, PYM, another radical anti-Israel group, has repeatedly defended terrorism and violence against the Jewish state. PYM has organized many anti-Israel protests in the two years following the Oct. 7 attacks in the Jewish state. Recently, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) called for a federal investigation into the organization after Aisha Nizar, one of the group’s leaders, urged supporters to sabotage the US supply chain for the F-35 fighter jet, one of the most advanced US military assets and a critical component of Israel’s defense.
The UN General Assembly has historically been a flashpoint for heated debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Previous gatherings have seen dueling demonstrations outside the Manhattan venue, with pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian groups both seeking to influence the international spotlight.
While warning about the demonstrations, CAM noted it recently launched a new mobile app, Report It, that allows users worldwide to quickly and securely report antisemitic incidents in real time.
RSS
Nina Davidson Presses Universities to Back Words With Action as Jewish Students Return to Campus Amid Antisemitism Crisis
Nina Davidson on The Algemeiner’s ‘J100’ podcast. Photo: Screenshot
Philanthropist Nina Davidson, who served on the board of Barnard College, has called on universities to pair tough rhetoric on combatting antisemitism with enforcement as Jewish students returned to campuses for the new academic year.
“Years ago, The Algemeiner had published a list ranking the most antisemitic colleges in the country. And number one was Columbia,” Davidson recalled on a recent episode of The Algemeiner‘s “J100” podcast. “As a board member and as someone who was representing the institution, it really upset me … At the board meeting, I brought it up and I said, ‘What are we going to do about this?’”
Host David Cohen, chief executive officer of The Algemeiner, explained he had revisited Davidson’s remarks while she was being honored for her work at The Algemeiner‘s 8th annual J100 gala, held in October 2021, noting their continued relevance.
“It could have been the same speech in 2025,” he said, underscoring how longstanding concerns about campus antisemitism, while having intensified in the aftermath of Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, are not new.
Davidson argued that universities already possess the tools to protect students – codes of conduct, time-place-manner rules, and consequences for threats or targeted harassment – but too often fail to apply them evenly. “Statements are not enough,” she said, arguing that institutions need to enforce their rules and set a precedent that there will be consequences for individuals who refuse to follow them.
She also said that stakeholders – alumni, parents, and donors – are reassessing their relationships with schools that, in their view, have not safeguarded Jewish students. While supportive of open debate, Davidson distinguished between protest and intimidation, calling for leadership that protects expression while ensuring campus safety.
The episode surveyed specific pressure points that administrators will face this fall: repeat anti-Israel encampments, disruptions of Jewish programming, and the challenge of distinguishing political speech from conduct that violates university rules. “Unless schools draw those lines now,” Davidson warned, “they’ll be scrambling once the next crisis hits.”
Cohen closed by framing the discussion as a test of institutional credibility, asking whether universities will “turn policy into protection” in real time. Davidson agreed, pointing to students who “need to know the rules aren’t just on paper.”
The full conversation is available on The Algemeiner’s “J100” podcast.