For the past several months, I have done a lot of reading, examining, thinking, then rethinking multiple aspects of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, its global effect, and particularly its impact on the United States. This article is not comprehensive, nor is it meant to be the final or absolute solution to America’s reaction to Russian aggression. It is a roadmap for me to follow as I evaluate events that have occurred and try to anticipate those yet to come, whether those events are political or military, imagined or real. Some of you will share these views. Others may have insights into things I don’t see. The idea behind my approach, to paraphrase Einstein, is to make things simple, not simpler. I also tried to adhere to the refrain that nothing can be distilled to an either/or analysis. There is always an “and” to it all.
So, let’s examine a couple of things, from the emotional to the realpolitik.
- What are national interests, and are there levels of importance that compel different responses?
- What are the national interests of the United States, and what should be appropriate U.S. responses when those interests are threatened?
Without a clear understanding of national interests, either those of the United States and the interests of other state actors, we are vulnerable to those who use emotion or stove-piped and self-serving narratives to influence popular opinion. Compelling and repeated narratives by news pundits, talk show hosts, celebrities, political opponents, and political allies create political pressures on policymakers. To avoid diplomatic, military, or economic mistakes, national interests should be clear, concise, and ideally have the support of a nation’s citizenry. Those criteria are critical when leaders commit a population to a kinetic conflict.
“The most fundamental task in devising a grand strategy is determining a nation’s national interests. Once identified, they drive a nation’s foreign policy and military strategy; they determine the basic direction it takes, the types and amounts of resources it needs, and how the state must employ them to succeed. Because of the critical role of national interests, they must be carefully justified, not merely assumed.” Robert J. Art International political scholar
Academic literature emphasized by the National War College, U.S. Army War College, the Naval War College, and the Air War College stresses four levels of national interests, each demanding a different response when threatened. For the United States, each Administration’s view of what is vital to the U.S. is published or endorsed in our National Security Strategy of the United States (NSS). This document is readily available, but I suspect most Americans don’t know it exists, let alone have read it. Subordinate to the Constitution, it is our guiding policy document. By being unaware of what our political leaders have declared to be necessary, we make ourselves vulnerable to the bombarding of conflicting narratives through the media, social media, and uninformed opinions of others. Americans are generous and emotional people. Stories of inhumanity inflicted on children and the elderly in far-off lands pull on our hearts. There is no doubt that these are important to us. But reliance on these softer and emotional reactions hides or diverts us from seeing what is directly impacting the existence of the United States. Unchallenged emphasis on the former could eventually lead to the expenditure of our national blood and treasure unnecessarily and wastefully. The best rationale I have heard for framing events in terms of national interests comes from Henry Kissinger.
“When you’re asking Americans to die, you have to be able to explain it in terms of the national interest.”
So, what are the U.S. national interests, and what has the Biden Administration published.
Survival interests are those that, if eliminated or threatened, are the nucleus of our survival and the very existence of the United States. An imminent attack against the U.S. or our people is a survival interest. The survival of the U.S. cannot be conceded, and if the threat is realized and successful, it will probably be impossible to reverse. Whatever can be done should be done to ensure survival. Every response is on the table.
If lost or threatened, Vital interests would severely hamper or imperil the U.S. ability to safeguard Americans and our country. Threats to these interests require the U.S. to employ all elements of its power, military, economic, and diplomatic. Edwin Feulner, the founder of the Heritage Foundation, suggested in 1996 that there are five vital national interests for the United States.
- Safeguard U.S. national security, including the protection of our borders.
- Prevent a major power threat to Europe, East Asia, or the Persian Gulf.
- Maintain access to foreign trade. (Author’s note: I would amend this to include “ensure the free flow of goods and maintain open sea lanes.”)
- Protect Americans against threats to their lives and well-being.
- Maintain access to resources. Our ability to access resources has become more important as our security and safety depend increasingly on rare earths, metals, and precious ores.
When threats rise to the level of vital and survival interests, we should use all elements of national power, including the overwhelming use of military might.
There are two other levels of national interests that require responses. Threats or attacks on Important interests would be significant but not crucial to American welfare and safety. These could include fear for our overseas interests like threats to the physical harm of Americans living and working abroad, unfair economic practices, intellectual property theft, and computer hacking. Resolution of threats to this level of American interests is fertile ground for negotiation and diplomacy.
Peripheral interests comprise the final category. Attacks or compromises on interests at this level do not pose a serious or immediate threat to the U.S., nor do they threaten the welfare of our citizens directly. While, as a country, we may want to protect interests at this level, they will have minimal impact on our way of life. Interestingly, scholars have advocated that “preserving the territorial integrity or political constitution of others” for its own sake will fall into the peripheral realm.
So, what level of national interest does a government ask its people to die? At what level is sovereignty threatened sufficiently to justify a non-compromising position? Indeed, nothing below the vital level should cause a sovereign state to go to a kinetic war. Much to the dismay of my conservative friends, I have to conclude that initially, the Biden Administration has selected a course of action that was just about right. That is not to say that the timing of the Administration’s efforts was optimal, but the assessed level of threats to our national interest was right. There was no threat to any U.S. interest above that which could be called important.
To reach that conclusion, I compared the definitions above to what the Biden Administration said they would do in the current Interim National Security Strategy of the United States (NSS). On page 9 of that document, the Administration outlines the following as our vital national interests. Keep in mind that my focus was a narrow limiting of the Administration’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Other policy decisions like actions taken on the southern border, energy independence, and rising inflation are other threats that can’t be ignored in the bigger picture. But to make things simple, these are kept outside the scope of this analysis.
- To protect the security of the American people. The Russian invasion does not directly nor immediately threaten our citizenry. Admittedly, there might be second or third-order effects that will have to be evaluated continuously. But right now, neither the U.S. nor our citizenry is threatened.
- Expanding economic prosperity and opportunity. From this paper’s narrow perspective, the Russian invasion has not threatened prosperity and opportunity. If anything, it has opened new doors for expanding trade and economic growth vis-à-vis Europe in energy and agriculture. While the $40B in U.S. aid to Ukraine is probably ill-timed when we are staring down inflation, it will provide defense and humanitarian manufacturing industries opportunities through the Security Assistance, Foreign Military Funding, and Presidential Drawdown Authorities.
- Realizing and defending the democratic values at the heart of the American way of life. That means more than simply sustaining the status quo – it means reinvigorating our democracy, living up to our ideals and values for all Americans, and standing up for our values abroad, including by uniting the world’s democracies to combat threats to free societies. Identifying this as a vital interest seems to have an internal threat focus as it is written. It was probably aimed at Trump and whoever the Administration could stuff into a MAGA column. But politicians and celebrities will likely use threats to this particular interest to justify an ever-increasing and escalating involvement in Ukraine. That would be a false narrative.
- Reinvigorate and modernize our alliances and partnerships around the world.
Underlining these priorities, the Administration highlights a promise that “we will make smart and disciplined choices regarding our national defense and the responsible use of our military while elevating diplomacy as our tool of first resort.”
Interestingly, rhetoric has increased, shifting us ever closer to justifying escalated action in Ukraine away from peripheral or important interests and closer to vital. Away from the harsh reality of our national interest and closer to federal decisions that play on the emotions and generosity of Americans. In 1848 the British statesman Lord Palmerston, twice Prime Minister of Great Briton, addressed Parliament and said, “We have no eternal allies and no perpetual enemies. [Only] our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.” Interestingly, he had a lifetime mistrust of Russia and played a significant political role in… the Crimean War.