Recent Republican primary elections have made one thing clear: The future of Republican foreign policy is based on the world as it is, not as one wishes it to be. This may seem like an obvious concept to many normal Americans, but for decades successive administrations made policy based on what they wished reality would be instead of on reality as it was. Bill Clinton desired to “enlarge” the democratic sphere of influence, and in 2000, political scientist Kenneth Waltz wrote that he expected “the United States [would soon] take measures to enhance democracy around the world” and that the “task, one fears, will be taken up by the American military with some enthusiasm.”

He was correct, as any reader of The American Conservative knows. What followed was a series of wars of ideals, overseen by presidents from both parties. The initial invasion of Afghanistan under George W. Bush was clearly a result of 9/11, but the following 20-year occupation was bent on building a liberal democracy in a place which did not want one. […]

Over the course of the war in Ukraine, it has become clear which way the cookie is crumbling. Members of the establishment, especially the Democrats, have accelerated their previous foreign policy of idealism into one of utter fantasy. Meanwhile, the future of GOP foreign policy appears primed for reality.

Consider the case of President Volodymyr Zelensky’s recent statement that the war in Ukraine “must end with [Crimea’s] liberation.” Such a goal is effectively impossible; for Russia to relinquish Crimea it would have to face total state collapse and forget that its has nuclear weapons. But in the midst of war, it is understandable for a statesman to give his soldiers something aspirational to fight for; he can work toward a palatable agreement during the inevitable negotiations. What is not understandable is the Biden administration’s reaction, or lack thereof, to these pronouncements. Far from quietly trying to reel in Ukraine’s president, this administration has effectively given Ukraine the go-ahead, implying that support for Ukraine will go as long as Ukraine wishes to fight, regardless of whether it aids U.S. interests. Läs artikel

Förra veckan meddelade svenska regeringen att en man i 35-årsåldern på Turkiets utlämningslista ska lämnas ut.

”Det här är ett vanligt rutinärende”, uppgav justitie- och inrikesminister Morgan Johansson då.

I en första officiell kommentar från Turkiets sida framgår det att landet inte ser det som ett tillräckligt steg för att släppa in Sverige i Nato.

– Om de tror att de genom att lämna ut vanliga brottslingar kan få oss att tro att de har uppfyllt sina löften har de fel. Ingen bör testa Turkiet, säger justitieminister Bekir Bozdag till den turkiska nyhetssajten Milliyet, enligt Daily Telegraph. Läs artikel

Enligt uppgifter som Aftonbladet tagit del av skulle en turkisk delegation resa in till Sverige för ett toppmöte mellan Turkiet, Finland och Sverige.

Nu kan SVT bekräfta att ett möte kommer att äga rum, men inte i Sverige:

”I överenskommelsen med Finland och Turkiet ingår att vi ska träffas i en mekanism för dialog mellan våra tre länder. Ett första möte för att diskutera uppförandet av denna mekanism planeras i närtid. Mötet kommer inte äga rum i Sverige”, skriver UD:s presstjänst i en kommentar till SVT.

Toppmötet väntas äga rum den 26 augusti och ska ha initierats av regeringen efter att Magdalena Anderssons statssekreterare och Nato-förhandlare Oscar Stenström under sommaren ska ha skickat en inbjudan både till Turkiet och till Finland. Detta enligt uppgifter från det turkiska utrikesdepartementet som Aftonbladet tidigare tagit del av. Läs artikel

Amerikanskt bombflyg av typen B-52 flög i dag in över svenskt luftrum och genomförde en unik övning.

Planen leddes in av svensk försvarspersonal på marken – och fällde skarpa bomber mot mål på Vidsel skjutfält i Norrbotten.

– I det här läget så blir det vi gör en signal till Ryssland, säger försvarsminister Peter Hultqvist (S). […]

Försvarsminister Peter Hultqvist kopplar övningen till de säkerhetsförsäkringar som USA gett till Sverige under den pågående Nato-processen.

– Vi har två B52:or som har flugit in i norra Sverige vid Vidsel och genomfört övningsverksamhet med svenska luftstridskrafter och med svensk marktrupp. Det här ingår i den typ av säkerhetsförsäkringar som vi har under den här perioden nu då väntar på att få det fullständiga Nato-medlemskapet, säger Peter Hultqvist.

Är det en markering mot Ryssland?

– I det här läget så blir det vi gör en signal till Ryssland, så enkelt är det ju. Det handlar i grunden om att vi har vänner som är beredda att leva upp till sådana här säkerhetsförsäkringar, säger Peter Hultqvist. Läs artikel

Under torsdagen samövade Försvarsmakten på nytt med amerikanska Bomber Task Force. Svenska Jas 39 Gripen eskorterade in ett antal B-52 Stratofortress över svenskt luftrum. Svenska markförband pekade sedan ut mål i terrängen på Vidsel skjutfält som bekämpades med skarpa bomber av B-52:orna.

Det är första gången sedan Försvarsmakten började öva med amerikanska Bomber Task Force som skarp ammunition använts.

– Övningar som den här innehåller flera moment: från samordning, samband och eskort i svenskt luftrum fram till dess att verkanseld kan avges mot fientliga mål i Sverige. Övningen blir ett kvitto på att hela kedjan fungerar, säger flygvapenchefen Carl-Johan Edström.

Under övningen koordinerades insatser mellan det amerikanska flyget och svenska markförband. Tre bomber av typen GBU 31 fälldes från de amerikanska planen och träffade mål som identifierats av det svenska förbandet på marken. Läs pressmeddelande

U.S. Air Force B-52H Stratofortress aircraft, Airmen and support equipment from the 5th Bomb Wing, Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, arrived in the U.S. European Command area of responsibility to train with U.S. Allies and partners on August 18, 2022.

The aircraft will operate out of RAF Fairford, England. The deployment of strategic bombers to the U.K. helps exercise RAF Fairford as United States Air Forces in Europe’s (USAFE) forward operating location for bombers.

“These Bomber Task Force missions across Europe provide a great opportunity to improve our combined readiness, promote interoperability and demonstrate our global power projection alongside our Allies,” said U.S. Air Force Gen. James Hecker, USAFE-AFAFRICA and AIRCOM commander. “Our ultimate strength in the European area of operations is a joint-force lethality – our ability to train and operate with our Allies and partners as one layered, capable and credible combat team.” […]

“Witnessing our nation’s Gripen fighter aircraft flying alongside several of America’s most powerful military aircraft visually depicts the strength and solidarity of NATO,” said Maj. Gen. Carl-Johan Edström, commander of the Swedish Air Force. “These moments truly capture the military power that exists within NATO – as individual nations, but, more importantly, as a unified Alliance.” Läs artikel

More than 10 warships and submarines are at sea, including “Pyotr Velikye”, the Northern Fleet’s large nuclear-powered battle cruiser, the press service in Severomorsk informs.

The naval vessels are supported by the air force and coast air defense units.

Exercise scenario, according to the navy headquarters, is deterring an enemy attack on Russia from the Barents Sea, as well as repelling attacks on the country’s Arctic islands. […]

Russia has over the last decade rearmed its Arctic archipelagos with new runways for heavy military planes and fighter jets and established missile defense systems aimed at ensuring access and control over the Northern Sea Route. Franz Josef Land and Novaya Zemlya are both strategically important for protection of the bastion defense of the Barents Sea region, including the nuclear arsenal and second-strike capabilities. Läs artikel

USA hadde ingen doktriner for opprørsbekjempelse (COIN) da operasjonene i Afghanistan og Irak startet. Mens krigene pågikk ble det, til tross for stor uenighet, innført en slik doktrine i 2007. Krigene førte også til både endringer i organisering og utrustning av amerikanske styrker, og til store endringer av planlagte investeringer av militært ustyr. Begge krigene endte i nederlag, og i tiden etter har USA på ny fokusert på stormaktsrivalisering. Men utgiftene til krigføringen i Afghanistan og Irak, og endringene i investeringsmønster, har svekket USAs evne til å konkurrere militært med Kina og Russland. […]

Det er vanlig å bruke det store amerikanske forsvarsbudsjettet som et bevis på USAs militære styrke.Det vises til at USA brukte mer på forsvaret i 2021 enn de neste ni stormaktene til sammen. Tallene viser størrelsen på budsjettene i nominelle dollar. Kina og Russland betaler soldatenes lønn og materiell de selv produserer i lokal valuta, ikke i dollar. […]

Om man bruker disse forholdstallene på forsvarsutgiftene, som SIPRI oppga til henholdsvis 61 og 250 milliarder dollar i 2019, blir Russlands reelle forsvarsutgifter 162 milliarder og Kinas 483 milliarder dollar. I 2019 var USAs forsvarbudsjett på 649 milliarder dollar, og målt i kjøpekraft brukte Russland og Kina 645 milliarder. Metodikken er grov, men siden både Kina og Russland er militært selvforsynte og betaler for dette i lokal valuta, gir den antakelig et mye riktigere bilde enn de nominelle tallene. I så fall bruker Kina og Russland til sammen omtrent like mange penger på militære formål som USA (Ulriksen, 2021).

Endringene i styrkeforholdet blir mer dramatisk om man ser på hvordan pengene har blitt brukt. Pentagon brukte til sammen rundt 2000 milliarder dollar på krigen i Afghanistan/Pakistan og Irak/Syria. Når andre kostnader tas med, som sosial støtte til soldater som har blitt invalidisert, blir tallene minst tredoblet.

Operasjonene i Afghanistan og Irak endte i nederlag. Det er mulig at begge operasjonene ville fått andre utfall om doktrinen fra 2007 og erkjennelsen fra 2010 hadde vært innbakt i amerikansk tenking da de startet. Men begge deler kom altfor sent. Likevel førte krigene til store endringer i det amerikanske forsvaret, både fordi de krevde bestemte typer styrker og fordi kostnadene delvis ble dekket av store kutt i investeringer i materiell som ikke var relevante i COIN. Läs artikel

[…] The agreement among Washington and European capitals seems to be that Kiev will decide how long to fight and for what objective, that nothing will be decided about Ukraine without Ukraine in the room, and that whatever Kiev believes to be necessary will be provided by the U.S. and Europe.

But Washington’s responsibility is to make policy in the interests of the American people. Washington should not turn those decisions over to another government, but unfortunately, it does so frequently. In the late 1980s, for example, ethnic Albanians successfully lobbied to drag the U.S. into the guerrilla war raging in Kosovo, then part of Serbia. During the 1990s, Americans of Eastern European descent spurred the disastrous policy of expanding NATO up to Russia’s borders, violating numerous assurances made to Moscow. President Joe Biden’s recent trip to the Middle East demonstrated that Democrats as well as Republicans are willing to allow Saudi Arabia and Israel to control U.S. policy in the region. […]

Unsurprisingly, Kiev has embraced virtually every other proposed American involvement, including admitting Ukraine to NATO. The reason Ukraine is not in the alliance now is U.S. officials recognized Kiev’s status was not important to America’s future, and certainly did not qualify as a vital interest warranting potential war with a nuclear-armed power. Against the wishes of virtually the entire NATO membership, the George W. Bush administration initially promised Ukraine membership, demonstrating that its wild recklessness did not end with the invasion of Iraq. Subsequent administrations took a more responsible position. […]

It is difficult to assess the charges and counterclaims made in any conflict. The energy of Ukraine’s propaganda operation, determined to eradicate any questions about Kiev’s behavior, is no surprise. However, U.S. and allied policymakers must resist Ukraine’s attempt to replace unpleasant facts with comfortable fantasies. Washington needs the best information possible to protect the American people. They, not the Zelensky government, should be the Biden administration’s top priority. Läs artikel

Western policymakers appear to have reached a consensus about the war in Ukraine: the conflict will settle into a prolonged stalemate, and eventually a weakened Russia will accept a peace agreement that favors the United States and its NATO allies, as well as Ukraine. Although officials recognize that both Washington and Moscow may escalate to gain an advantage or to prevent defeat, they assume that catastrophic escalation can be avoided. Few imagine that U.S. forces will become directly involved in the fighting or that Russia will dare use nuclear weapons.

Washington and its allies are being much too cavalier. Although disastrous escalation may be avoided, the warring parties’ ability to manage that danger is far from certain. The risk of it is substantially greater than the conventional wisdom holds. And given that the consequences of escalation could include a major war in Europe and possibly even nuclear annihilation, there is good reason for extra concern. Läs artikel