Connect with us

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.

Continue Reading

RSS

Druze Religious Elders From Syria Make Historic Visit to Israel

People gather on the day Israeli Druze leader Sheik Mowafaq Tarif and around 100 Syrian Druze religious elders, in the first Druze delegation from Syria just after 1973 war, visit the Nabi Shuayb Shrine, a holy place for the Druze community, in northern Israel, March 14, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ammar Awad

A delegation of Druze religious elders from Syria crossed into Israel on Friday for the first such visit in more than 50 years, underscoring Israel‘s backing for the community amid growing tensions with the new government in Damascus.

Around 100 Druze sheikhs from villages on the slope of Mount Hermon in Syria, overlooked by the Golan Heights, are due to visit shrines including sites held to be the tomb of prophet Shuayb, west of Tiberias, in the Lower Galilee.

After entering the Golan Heights, cheered by Druze in traditional black clothes and white and red head dress, some waving the white, blue, yellow, red, and green flag of the Druze, they traveled by bus to the town of Julis in Israel to meet Mowafaq Tarif, spiritual leader of the group in Israel.

“Feeling proud and honored to visit here. We are one family and brothers,” said Nazeh Rakab, from Hadar in Syria, as he watched the welcome ceremony in Julis, where hundreds gathered to greet the delegation waving Druze flags, with some firing into the air from the rooftops in celebration.

The Druze, an Arab minority who practice a religion originally derived from Islam, live in an area straddling Lebanon, Syria, Israel, and the Golan Heights, connected across the borders by a web of kinship ties.

In Israel, many serve in the military and police, including during the war in Gaza, and some have reached high rank.

Friday’s visit is intended to be a purely religious occasion, but its political significance was underscored by Israeli airstrikes on what Israel described as command centers of the Iranian-backed Islamic Jihad movement in Damascus a day earlier.

Israeli ministers have expressed deep misgivings about the new government of President Ahmed al-Sharaa, describing his Hayat Tahrir al-Sham movement as a jihadist group. The group was formerly affiliated with Al Qaeda but later renounced the connection.

On Thursday, Israel, which has been urging support for the Druze following the overthrow of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad in December, sent truckloads of aid including oil, flour, salt, and sugar, most to the southern province of Suwayda.

Earlier this week, Defense Minister Israel Katz said Syrian Druze would be allowed to enter and work in the Golan Heights, which Israel captured from Syria in the 1967 war, and Israel has also said it would protect Druze in Syria if needed.

The post Druze Religious Elders From Syria Make Historic Visit to Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Israel Rejects Hamas Offer to Free Israeli-American Hostage as ‘Psychological Warfare’

A Torah and a photograph of Edan Alexander, the American-Israeli and Israel Defense Forces soldier taken hostage during the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas, sit in his home during a family interview with Reuters in Tenafly, New Jersey, US, Dec. 14, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Stephani Spindel

The Palestinian terrorist group Hamas said on Friday it had agreed to free an AmericanIsraeli dual national if Israel begins the next phase of ceasefire talks towards a permanent end to the war, an offer Israel dismissed as “psychological warfare.”

Hamas said it had made the offer to release New Jersey native Edan Alexander, a 21-year-old soldier in the Israeli army, after receiving a proposal from mediators for negotiations on the second phase of a ceasefire deal, which has halted major fighting since Jan. 19 but has been in limbo for two weeks.

The group said its exiled Gaza chief, Khalil Al-Hayya, was due to arrive in Cairo later on Friday for further ceasefire talks with Egyptian mediators.

Since a temporary first phase of the ceasefire expired on March 2, Israel has rejected opening the second phase of talks, which would require it to negotiate over a permanent end to the war, the main demand of Hamas.

Israel says it wants to extend the ceasefire’s temporary first phase, a proposal backed by US envoy Steve Witkoff. Hamas says it will resume freeing hostages only under the second phase.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyhu’s office called the offer to release Alexander “manipulation and psychological warfare.”

“While Israel has accepted the Witkoff proposal, Hamas stands by its refusal and has not budged a millimeter,” his office added. It said he would convene with his cabinet on Saturday night to discuss the hostage situation and decide on the next steps.

Israel has imposed a total blockade of Gaza since the first phase of the ceasefire expired without an agreement to begin the second phase on March 2.

Witkoff told reporters at the White House early in March that gaining the release of Alexander was a “top priority.” US hostage negotiator Adam Boehler met with Hamas leaders in recent days to seek Alexander’s release.

Two Hamas officials told Reuters their agreement to release Alexander and the four bodies was conditional on beginning the talks on the second phase of the ceasefire, opening crossings, and lifting the Israeli blockade.

“We are working with mediators for the agreement to succeed and to compel the occupation to conclude all phases of the agreement,” Abdel-Latif Al-Qanoua, the Hamas spokesperson, told Reuters.

Hamas‘ approval to release Edan Alexander aims to push towards the conclusion of the phases of the agreement,” said Qanoua.

The United States, Qatar, and Egypt have been trying to bridge the differences between the Islamic terrorist group and Israel to restart negotiations in order to release remaining hostages held in Gaza and lift the blockade.

The war began when Hamas carried out a cross-border invasion into southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, killing 1,200 people and capturing 251 hostages.

Israel responded with a military campaign aimed at freeing the hostages and dismantling Hamas’s military and governing capabilities in neighboring Gaza.

The post Israel Rejects Hamas Offer to Free Israeli-American Hostage as ‘Psychological Warfare’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Why Israel Should Annex the West Bank

A boy walks home in the West Bank Jewish settlement of Kida, Aug. 31, 2010. Photo: REUTERS/Nir Elias

To annex or not to annex. That is the question. Should Israel annex Judea and Samaria, also known as the West Bank? Many Israelis would say yes. After all, Judea and Samaria comprise the very core of the Jewish people’s ancestral homeland, plus it is vital for maintaining Israel’s security. Others, however, caution against it. And they have their reasons. The trouble is those reasons don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Those opposed to annexing Judea and Samaria say, for example, that there will be too much backlash from the international community, which will lead to a wide range of consequences for Israel. But of course, a lot of people said all hell would break loose when the US, under the first Trump administration, decided to move the American embassy to Jerusalem. Those people were obviously wrong. Israel suffered no major pushback from the international community. Similarly, the sky will not fall if the Jewish state declares sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.

People opposed to annexing Judea and Samaria also argue that annexing the territory would severely harm Israel’s Jewish character because it would involve absorbing 3 million Palestinians. Admittedly, I naively believed this to be true at one time. But in fact, this argument doesn’t hold water.

For one thing, there aren’t 3 million Palestinians in Judea and Samaria. In fact, this figure is highly suspect because it comes from the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS). The Palestinians have always had an interest in inflating their population numbers to build a case against Israel annexing Judea and Samaria.

Indeed, the PCBS includes in its population count some 500,000 Palestinian residents who are overseas. It also includes hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who are residents of Jerusalem and those married to Israeli Arabs, both of whom are included in Israel’s population figures. The truth is that the Palestinian population in Judea and Samaria is closer to 1.85 million.

Moreover, if Israel was to annex Judea and Samaria, it would be under no obligation to give citizenship to every single one of the territory’s Palestinian inhabitants. But this would be practicing apartheid, right? Wrong. Many countries restrict eligibility for citizenship based on ethnicity, religion, etc. This is especially the case in the Arab world, where Palestinians in particular are excluded from citizenship in all but one country: Jordan, which, it should be noted, specifically bars Jews from becoming citizens.

In fact, in some Arab countries, acquiring citizenship is so restricted that the majority of residents are not citizens at all. The United Arab Emirates, for example, has a population of about 12.5 million, but just 11.5 percent are Emirati citizens. In Qatar, out of a population of just over 3 million, only 10.5 percent are citizens. And in Kuwait, with a population of approximately 4.9 million, expatriates outnumber citizens by 2 to 1. No one accuses these countries of being apartheid states, nor should they accuse Israel of practicing apartheid if it chooses not to bestow citizenship on Palestinians in Judea and Samaria.

Israel can also choose not to annex the whole of Judea and Samaria. In fact, many proponents of annexation have said that Israel should just annex Area C, which is under complete Israeli control per the Oslo Accords. Area C, which contains all the communities that Israel has built in Judea and Samaria, has a Jewish majority. About 500,000 Jews live in Area C, compared to approximately 300,000 Palestinians. Thus, if Israel wanted to, it could bestow citizenship on the Palestinians of Area C with minimal impact on the country’s Jewish majority as a whole.

Another popular argument against annexation is that it would prevent a two-state solution. This argument is moot because the two-state solution is dead. It died on Oct. 7, 2023, when thousands of Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists invaded Israel from Gaza, murdered 1,200 people, and kidnapped 251 hostages — while perpetrating widespread rape and torture in the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.

Besides, the main impediment to the two-state solution has never been the threat of annexation, but rather the refusal of the Palestinians to accept the existence of a Jewish state. This is why the Palestinians have refused every offer of statehood dating all the way back to the 1947 UN partition plan.

Since the two-state solution has finally died, it’s time we bury it — by annexing all or part of Judea and Samaria and bringing it under Jewish sovereignty for the first time in two millennia.

The author is a freelance writer in Toronto, Canada.

The post Why Israel Should Annex the West Bank first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News