Americans need another George Kennan… Dr Muhammad Ali Ehsan

George Kennan, the famous American diplomat, the Father of Containment and the author of the long telegram, brought about a conceptual change in the approach of American foreign policy. For good or for bad, the consequent American grand strategy of containment continued during the Cold War period ensuring that no direct conflict took place between the two superpowers of the time. What today America needs again is another George Kennan this time not theorising how essential it is to contain the Soviet Union and the spread of communist ideology but how important it is to contain America itself from pushing the world towards anarchy by fighting unnecessary wars one after another. A George Kennan who can tell the Americans that it is time they had peace promoting rather than war-fighting presidents presidents who understand the value of diplomacy more than they understand the value of war.

Why I am reminded of George Kennan is because of what President Biden and President Putin ended up doing this week. What they said and did clearly spells out the priorities of both the presidents in the coming years and helps the global audience to understand and draw pertinent conclusions about the direction that the world politics may take in the coming years.

President Putin made two speeches on consecutive days this week. On Tuesday, 21 February, he spoke to the Russian nation during his State of the Union address. Not backing off from his stand on Ukraine he said that step by step carefully we will achieve our aim. In a speech that lasted almost two hours, he announced the suspension of START the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between the US and Russia that caps the nuclear warheads that both nations hold. He blamed the Western elite as those responsible for letting this genie out of the bottle and for fueling the Ukraine conflict.

The American response can be seen in what American President did during the same week. President Biden a day prior to President Putins State of the Union address landed up on a surprise visit to Ukraine. He announced half a billion dollars aid to Ukraine which he specified would include more military than civil aid and in a tone of arrogance that over the years one has come to associate with the American presidents announced that one year later, Kyiv stands and Ukraine stands and democracy stands. What the American President failed to mention was: at what cost? Ukraine is getting ruined and the entire economy of the world has gone into a tailspin. All this because the American Military Industrial Complex (MIC) must continue to marshal global political support for continued and increased military spending to fight this war.

MIC was a term first used not by anyone else but an American President Dwight D Eisenhower who in his farewell address on January 17, 1961 said that the United States must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influenceby the military industrial complex. What constitutes military industrial complex is the military contractors such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, the members of the congress especially from the districts that are dependent on the military industry and politicians and the American military services themselves. What Eisenhower believed 62 years ago is still believed by many people in the world. That MIC promotes policies that are not in the best American interests and its growing influence would undermine American democracy.

I would like to quote two statements by American Secretary of State Anthony J Blinken to further highlight American approach to the Ukrainian War. According to Blinken, Russia is strategically at a dead end and the American goal is to kick the Russians out of Ukraine and punish them for everything. As a student of international relations when I see the American Secretary of States approach to the Ukrainian war, I find flaws in how Carl Von Clausewitz defined war and how Americans are interpreting it. If war is an act of politics then Americans must utilise diplomacy first to find a political solution rather than creating alliances and support to militarise the region and thus use military to create favourable conditions on ground before using diplomacy as an instrument of policy. If the idea is to create a dead end for Russia, then going by the trends, I am afraid, no such end is visible on the horizon. If war as defined by Clausewitz is an extension of policy then the American policy should not be the one that favours the MIC but the people of Ukraine, the region and the entire globe. And such a policy demands the use of diplomacy rather than military as the favoured instrument of policy. If war as defined by Clausewitz is an extended duel then I am afraid that President Putins position on Ukraine war is more contextual and appealing. If context in the case of Ukraine relates to the formulation of circumstances or setting up of the conditions of this war then it is the Americans who are equally to be blamed for creation of the peculiar circumstances and setting up the conditions of this war.

The second speech that President Putin made was on the subsequent day and it was a short five-minute speech at Moscows Luzhniki Stadium where thousands of Russians got together to celebrate the Defenders of the Fatherland Day. President Putin thanked the Russian soldiers who are fighting for the fatherland and fighting for the historic lands. In an 81000-capacity stadium, the President was welcomed by loud cheers of the crowd. Glorifying and paying tribute to the Russian soldiers seemed to be the whole concept of celebrating this day.

Americans are afraid that the Russians are preparing for a spring offensive in Ukraine. When I read this, I am reminded of many spring offensives that the Americans prepared for against the Taliban while they occupied another sovereign state. Its a great tragedy of history that we dont learn from history.

Security is the most fundamental value of the international system. Both Ukraine and Russia have their insecurities and both need a world that is willing to understand those insecurities and find a way of addressing them through dialogue and not through fighting war. The more American and Nato weapons arrive in Ukraine the more this war will escalate.

Courtesy The Express Tribune