Posted on by Nathan Riley

Can Diplomacy Bring Peace To Ukraine?

The need for creating Freedom Democrats has never been greater. As this blog is being written, Trump continues his effort to negotiate with Russia on a wide range of issues: nuclear weapons, European boundaries, and creating normal relations between Russia and the United States.

While Trump’s plans for Europe and Russia might end the Cold War relic of deep-seeded Russian-U.S. hostility, the Middle East is deeply troubled. Today (Tuesday, March 4, 2025), a conference of Arab nations starts. On Sunday, Israel cut off aid to the Palestinians as part of a plan to crush Hamas.

The agenda of the Cairo conference was the reconstruction of Gaza. It begins by removing the rubble and unexploded ordinances in the first stage. The next stage would be a massive housing and infrastructure construction program. On the one hand, Israel’s shutoff of aid and demand that Hamas collapse put one set of pressures on the Cairo conference. A second piece of bad news was that the leaders of two of the most powerful Gulf nations— Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (Edit: Haaretz reported that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were in fact at the meeting and of course the United States, for the very first time, opened face-to-face discussions with Hamas)—would be no-shows at the Cairo summit. Their absence sowed doubts about unified Arab support for Egypt’s plan. Dark clouds cast an ominous shadow over the Arab conference in Cairo. The ceasefire is in peril.

While Trump preserves the U.S.’s historic ties to Israel, he remains steadfast in his still inchoate plan for peaceful relations with Russia, even if it shatters European unity.

A new group of Republicans are insisting that the proper relationship with Russia is “let’s talk.” Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, used to call Putin “a gangster;” now he supports Trump’s plan. Another Republican who is changing his position is South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham. Senator Mike Lee from Utah is backing this dovish turn, as is Congressmember Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky. Rand Paul, a Kentucky senator, is gleefully supporting this shift in U.S. policy.

This change among U.S. leaders means they are abandoning the good guy (democracy) bad guy (authoritarian) view of international relations.

Under the Joe Biden administration theory, Ukraine is defending its sovereignty and its right to be a democracy. Russia’s 2022 invasion was lawless aggression by a nation eager to control Europe. Support of Ukraine was making Europe safe for democracy. Russia was never provoked; its dictator was hostile to freedom loving Europe. This Hollywood good guy vs. bad guy worldview is suspect.

The subtext—who is the most powerful nation?—is also being revised. The previous administration believed that Russia overestimated its power and could not stop the good guys (us) from spreading liberal democracy. The CIA and its related agency USAID had demonstrated their real power by ousting Viktor Yanukovych in 2014. He wanted cooperation with Russia. In this U.S. view, Russia was too weak to withstand a challenge from the democratic forces united in NATO. Like a Hollywood movie the good guys would win.

Freedom Democrats should encourage Democratic leaders to support this Trump’s shift towards diplomacy with Russia.

A basic cause of the Ukrainian war is Russia’s conviction that Ukraine is an existential threat. They are not crazy. Ukraine is the second-largest country in Europe after Russia. Kyiv’s army is the sixth largest in the world. Its drone fleet is the world’s largest. Anyone looking at a map would see that a hostile Ukraine endangers the city of Moscow. Many Ukrainians hate Russia. One manifestation of this hostility was Ukrainian moves to ban the teaching of Russian. Russia complains that many members of the Ukrainian government are Nazis.

A reminder, there is no entity that enforces international rules. In this situation of near anarchy, this decision that an existential threat exists is decided by one nation in a dispute. Russia believes it is threatened, and it makes the decision.

A bit of history, Russia did more than that. After a friendly Ukrainian government was undermined, Russia invaded in 2014 and captured Crimea and Black Sea ports open all year around. Russia drew a red line, demonstrating it was serious when it said an existential threat existed and proved it by occupying Ukrainian territory.

What happened next is stupidity. A rational response would be okay guys, let us sit down and figure out how we can all get along. The pugnacious response would be to train Ukrainian troops, supply weapons, and provide funds. Even have it join NATO. The good guys would spread democracy and contain the weak Russian dictator and his authoritarian government. This view made war likely.

Eight years later Ukraine got its answer, Russia invaded. An existential threat existed to Russian power and to the Ukrainian government’s survival. The United States and friends imposed sanctions and shutdown diplomatic discussions. The U.S. believed that Russia was isolated and would bend to NATOs power.

Unhappily for the administration and the “friends” of democracy, Russia had allies. North Korea and China supplied funds and weapons. India continued its decades old policy of not taking sides and bought Russian oil that used to go to Europe. Russia was not isolated; it had new allies. Nations that faced Washington’s hostility made common cause with Russia.

Negotiations faltered after the invasion. The Russian generals who failed the test of leading under conditions of real combat were replaced. Russia increased the size of its armed forces, who became battle hardened, perhaps making them the best soldiers in today’s world. Certainly, U.S. troops are not battle tested. Ukraine, the U.S. proxy does the actual fighting. Ukraine lost territory and there is no sign that bombing Russia is intimidating this great power or placing President Putin in a difficult situation.

Far from bringing peace and supporting democracy in Ukraine, the pugnacious response has brought war and made the nation lose territory.

Being a democratic nation does NOT make the U.S. the good guy. It allied with Israel and gave them the means to wage savage war against the Palestinians, stripping Joe Biden and America of its good guy reputation and giving credence to Russian fear of an existential threat from NATO.

Washington’s claim that it was on the side of peace looked hollow with its history of “forever” wars and the combat in West Asia and Ukraine.

Trump’s belief that normal relations with Russia was the best policy looks reasonable and was one of his campaign messages.

Freedom Democrats should find ways to end the proxy war between NATO and Russia. Just because Trump supports it, does not make it a bad idea.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

The News is about Peace

Since this piece was first published, immediately after the ceasefire, several criticisms became obvious. John Measheimer stressed there can be no peace with Israel where the Jews dominate the Palestinians just as the whites dominated blacks in apartheid South Africa. Unless Trump’s special ambassador Steve Witkoff can breathe new life into the Abraham Accords, allowing Arab gulf states to finance Arab peacekeepers, Israel will be the sole country judging if Hamas is complying with the terms of the peace treaty. In this circumstance, it is widely expected that Israel will renew its attack on Hamas. With the release of the hostages, Hamas will have lost its trump card pressuring Israel to act peacefully. Whatever else is true, this ceasefire is at best only a beginning.   

Friday, January 17, 2025

Days before Trump officially becomes President peace has become the news story. If all the provisions of the agreement become effective war between Israel and Palestine might be over.

Antiwar analyst John Mearsheimer concluded that the proposed treaty preserves the close relationship between Hamas and the Palestinians.

Palestinians will be able to return to their homes and Israelis will leave Gaza. Hostages will be released, and some Palestinian prisoners will get out of jail.

Israel might be compelled to live with a Palestinian nation says Mearsheimer, a professor of International Relations at the University of Chicago, who believes the goal of a Greater Israel might be over if this treaty begins a real peace process.

Although negotiated by President Biden’s appointees many Democrats are conceding that Trump’s forceful backing was critical. Trump promised to end the Ukrainian war on day one, but actually he may started peace in the Middle East on day one. A task everyone thought would be much harder. It is a stunning challenge to the Democratic Party.

Presumably a lasting peace will require peacekeepers. Trump is not going to send U.S. troops. One possibility is using Egyptian soldiers financed by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States. In return Israel will establish normal relations with other Muslim nations.

Iran would be on the sidelines. As a Shia nation it doesn’t fit easily with the Sunni Muslims who border Israel. In other words, optimists believe this is a big deal that might give Trump a place in history.

Nothing is certain but in a matter of days peace has become possible and this has worked a revolution in the political dialogue.

Consider the impact on the religious fundamentalist Trump appointed Ambassador to Israel. Mike Huckabee will have the happy task of soothing relations between Israel, the U.S. and Palestine. He won’t be a cheerleader for Israeli aggression that was the widespread anxiety in December. Rather he will speak a common language with Israelis who justify their actions by citing the Bible’s Old Testament.

This is a shocking possibility. The Republican hope that Jews will switch parties. It might happen because the new President is more diplomatic than the Democrats.

Democrats have spent years condemning Trump as lawless and stupid. What happens if it was the Democrats who refused to listen and evaluate?

Posted on by Nathan Riley

A Ceasefire Would Benefit Israel and Iran

Throw a party, that is what Freedom Democrats should be doing. They should be getting stronger and finding new supporters.

Get everybody together, the election is over, the Democracy is safe. Donald Trump’s days of overthrowing the government and falsifying election results seem finished now that he has won. He wants to be boss and leave his mark on history.

Wars in Palestine and Ukraine agitate Freedom Democrats. War is the opposite of freedom. In war the powerful tell the weak what to do, and the soldiers kill to prove they mean it. President Kennedy said that peace does not require some fantasy of harmony. “It requires only” that nations and groups “live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement.”

Freedom Democrats favor peace. Got a complaint take It to a lawyer or a diplomat. Don’t shoot and be a brute.

In Ukraine and Palestine, bullets and bombs are flying;  families are crying. Young men with lives to live are robbed of their future; tens of thousands are dead or their bodies mangled.

Israel is bringing out a blood lust among its own people and leaders in the United States. Trump’s love of Israel is part of a larger movement in the U.S. accepting all-out war. To be a supporter of Israel requires tolerance of brutal warfare.

Trump’s choice for Defense Department Chief, Pete Hegseth, argues there is only one way to fight, that is fight to win. In this view, wars are not a popularity contest where local groups can be persuaded to support our side. The objective is forcing an invaded nation to submit to our policies or face fatal consequences.

When we left Afghanistan, the people we thought were on our side fled and in a matter of days the Talian took control. We thought that supporting women’s rights, schooling, and other services would win popular support. But the Afghanis realized that without U.S. soldiers the Taliban were going to rule and Muslim Sharia law would prevail.

Hegseth’s view is that soldiers must be warriors and should have the full backing of the U.S. government and fight until they win. Afghanistan is 2.5 times larger than France. Pacifying, or perhaps the word is “subjugating,” such a large country would cost billions. The number of soldiers required probably would prevent the U.S. from fighting anywhere else in the world.

Thus, Hegseth’s ideas lead to two potential conclusions: Afghanistan is not that important and shouldn’t be the United States’s number one priority. In this case the argument leads to nonintervention. Or, alternatively, the size of the U.S. military must be drastically increased, and the U.S. budget must pay for all-out war.

People in the United States are not joining the military in large numbers. The U.S. avoids confronting this issue. It adjusts its targets down to coincide with new enlistments; only with this sleight of hand can the D.O.D. claim its targets were reached. Why all-out war in a far-away nation like Afghanistan would increase enlistments is beyond my comprehension.

Hegseth’s nomination is controversial. He is not crazy and Republicans may well unite to back him, and it might be possible to split the Democratic minority in the United States senate, giving Hegseth additional support.

The downside to his view is that American public opinion should accept an extraordinary level of violence. The movement towards an American security state and away from democracy would proceed by making the country accustomed to all-out war. This is a dangerous prospect.

This article is being written before the Israeli cabinet has agreed to a ceasefire in Lebanon. Stopping the killing is a victory for Israel; it means that the Palestinians are abandoned. Iraq accepts Israel’s domination of this people and the increase in Israel’s size to include Gaza and the West Bank.

Presumably, Israel should curb its hostility towards Iran. Iran in turn will likely accept Israel’s right to drill for oil and gas in the Mediterranean off the Lebanon coast. In other words, Iran and Israel will benefit from the ceasefire and the Palestinians get nothing.

Hamas will have left the Palestinians crushed. No other Middle East nation is willing to risk Israel’s wrath by going to war in support of the Palestinian cause. Undoubtedly, this is a lesson that the United States and Israel hope will be accepted by the Palestinians. Rather than think of Hamas as heroes they will be convinced that Hamas’s adventurism has harmed their lives. Surely, this is a lesson that Israel and the United States support.

If there was world government, then Palestine could take its complaints to the United Nations and try to end the apartheid separation between Muslim and Israeli. Unhappily, the ceasefire will demonstrate to Israel and the Middle East that policies deemed genocide by the International Criminal Court prevail.

The Palestinians will be left to suffer without any meaningful international support. World government could produce an opposite result without death and destruction.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

World Government Could Prevent War in the Middle East

During my college years I concluded that in Vietnam the United States was the bad guy. I still believe that.

The October 7th massacres in Israel ironically happened in areas well known as centers of support for those Israelis working to improve relations between Israel and Palestine.

Current standards in international affairs give Israel, the victim, free rein to punish its attackers.

The wisdom of this arrangement is doubtful. If my sister is attacked the law stops me from punishing the attacker. A neutral party, the police, investigates, and their findings are reviewed by lawyers and judges. The victim may be heard but is sidelined.

That didn’t happen in Gaza, Israel, the victim, imposed the punishment. The Israeli Defense Forces were told to meet violence with violence and punish Hamas, designated an Iranian proxy.

Almost simultaneously, it came to light that Israel had sent millions to Hamas. A finding contradicting the notion that Hamas is an Iranian proxy.

There is no world government to investigate this complicated relationship. Israel controlled the facts and determined the punishment without any neutral investigators intervening. Well-organized groups in the United States prevailed on the President and Congress to assist Israel’s war against Hamas, as if Hamas were a sovereign nation, and Israel’s conclusion that war against this group was the best course of action.

A world government would have prevented Israel from striking back and from deciding the facts and imposing the punishment.

“Draconian” does not do justice to Israel’s conclusion. As a secular Jew I keep silencing the voices in my head saying Israel is proposing a final solution, or, as the Israeli Defense Minister promised, “to remove the evil threats against us.” They are using violence to destroy Hamas. This war aim makes peace doubtful; Hamas is in a fight to the death.

In turn, Israel, like the United States in Vietnam, becomes the bad guy. Israel is way more powerful than the Palestinians, just as the U.S. was over Vietnam. Using bullets, however, brings unpredictable results—the U.S. was forced out of Vietnam.

A simple empirical test will help clarify the reason Israel has decided to punish all Palestinians for the acts of Hamas. When the fighting stops, will the Palestinians return to their homes or will Israelis live in what used to be Gaza?