Ukraine/Russia
If Rothko and Mondrian painted the situation we find ourselves in today
Articles:
The Postol Proposition: An MIT physics professor’s little-known finding that could help a new US Administration refresh relations with Russia.
Clues from history for today’s decision-makers. It’s noted: “The Korean Armistice, which concluded despite opposition from Secretary of State Dulles, South Korean President Syngman Rhee, and also within Eisenhower’s party.” And by Stephen E. Ambrose, Eisenhower’s biographer, that bringing about the armistice was “the greatest achievement of the administration”. How was the agreement reached with the North? How strong was Eisenhower’s personal conviction, and how was internal resistance overcome?
Did the West betray Ukraine? The story of 1994, Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons, and the diplomatic doublethink of security “assurances” from the Budapest Memorandum.
Did Ukraine “own” its nuclear weapons? In the early 1990s, Ukraine had the world’s third largest nuclear stockpile. But its nuclear inheritance is contested. Can you “own” something you can’t use? Professor Stephen Kotkin weighs in…
Diplomacy in March/April 2022 – a full chronology (video)
What did Bill Burns (now CIA Director) say about NATO expansion in his 2019 book?
For the last Administration:
Strategic Options Memo. Our aim: for this to be the most comprehensive – and interesting – ten-page memo one can read on Ukraine. Written in a format for busy decision-makers, not as a magazine features piece, April 2024.
Two-page Recommendation for the US President, British Prime Minister, and French President, April 2024.
We would like to commission:
If you would like to write one of the below articles for us, please get in touch. We are seeking balanced writers (or writing duos – capable of harnessing civil disagreement), who can argue both sides. As Harold Ross (founder of The New Yorker) wrote to F. Scott Fitzgerald in 1929: “I wish to God you would write other things for us. You wouldn’t get rich doing it, but it ought to give you satisfaction.” We wish to commission very able writers on the following topics:
I) Comprehensive terms for a negotiated outcome. Pitch us a three-page plan that hits all tactical points that will ultimately be in question: future security guarantees, territory, intermediate-range missile agreements (revive the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty? Nuclear weapons in Belarus...), trade and possible EU accession, prisoner releases, de-mining, rebuilding infrastructure, access to the Black Sea, frozen Russian assets and sanctions… What should be done on each – that might actually be palatable to all sides in peace talks? We will publish any A* submissions. (Believe it or not, such a document did not exist inside the State Department during WWI, despite Woodrow Wilson having expressed wanting to broker peace talks after the 1916 election.)
II) A new foreign policy for Europe. President Trump returns to office, January 20, 2025. What does a sensible security architecture for Europe look like? Should there be a greater defense dimension to the EU? Though is this in itself provocative to Russia? What should Europe’s goals be, and how can they be achieved? What should Europe’s general stance with Russia be? With China? With America? What are the high-level contours for a new European foreign policy?
III) Untangling Ukraine’s EU accession. It’s said the biggest obstacle to Ukraine joining the EU is Polish agriculture (and risk of their domestic market being decimated). Is there a viable solution? The way Poland joined itself was staggered with some restrictions. Could this be emulated? What would have to happen to enable a smooth and good-neighborly entry?
IV) Decommissioning weapons post-conflict. Examples and learnings – good and ill. Explore decommissioning of IRA weapons following the Good Friday Agreement. 13d being revoked in 1957 after the Korean Armistice, and any other such example.
V) A brief history of the INF treaty and why it fell apart. Secretary of State Pompeo declared in 2019: “Russia is solely responsible for the treaty’s demise.” But did the US unwittingly violate it under President Obama, as has been claimed? What do neutral countries think? Is there any sense in it being revived? Arguments for and against.